Wall Street Journal BRET STEPHENS AND JOSEPH RAGO Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Ever since it became clear that three of the four jihadis who bombed London on July 7 were born and bred in England, the British have been taking a hard look at their Muslim neighbors: Do they share the same values? How do they fare economically? Whom do they cheer when England plays Pakistan at cricket? And how many more would-be bombers are among them?
As it happens, Her Majesty’s government was well clued on these questions before the bombers struck: A 2004 Home Office study showed, for example, that British Muslims are three times likelier to be unemployed than the wider population, that their rates of civic participation are low, and that as many as 26% do not feel loyal to Britain. By contrast, the U.S. Census Bureau is forbidden by law from keeping figures on religious identification (although it collects voluminous information on race and ethnicity), so there are no authoritative data on the size and nature of America’s Muslim population. Yet if the U.S. is ever attacked by American jihadis, we will no doubt ask the same questions about our Muslim community that Britons are now asking about theirs.
Here is what we know.
First, let’s dispose of the common misconception that Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans are one and the same. In fact, most Arab-Americans aren’t Muslim, and most Muslim Americans aren’t Arab. According to the 2000 census, there are 1.2 million Americans of Arab descent, of whom only 24% (according to a survey by the Arab American Institute) are Muslim. As for the rest, they are mainly Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant. They are also highly successful, with an above-average median household income of $52,000 and an astonishing intermarriage rate of over 75%, suggesting they are well on their way toward blending into the great American melting pot.
Interesting statistics! I thought we had debated whether to impose stricter controls on immigration from Arab countries due to the high percentage of Muslims (and the potential risk of them initiating anti-American plots). So now that it’s been acknowledged by a relatively conservative periodical that most Arabs aren’t Muslims, we’re saying …. what are we saying?
Note 2: Muslim immigration, not Arab immigration.
The issue discussed was Muslim immigration. If you would read Bat Ye’or you would understand that the relentless oppression of Christian communities in the Middle East did not end in the Middle Ages. Lebanon was a primarily Christian and Arab country for many centuries. Bethlehem used to be considered a Christian city, now it is located inside the Palestinian Authority and life for Christians has been made so difficult that many have left. Many Christian Arabs left for America, see Danny Thomas, whom you probably know as the father of Marlo Thomas.
I think that the article sugar-coats the situation in America. While it is true that American Muslims are better off than then Muslims in Europe, they still present a problem for America. There have been reliable reports that the majority of American mosques are funded by Saudi Arabia and that they are in the hands of Islamists. There have been investigations into schools in Herndon, Virginia which produced evidence that the private Muslims schools were teaching hatred of Jews and jihad against the world. The recent arrests in Lodi California are based, in part, on the jihadi literature found in the local Muslim school. Prison officials in the United States have found jihadi hate literature paid for by our ally Saudi Arabia circulated by Muslim prison chaplains. Christians have been driven out of entire neighborhoods in the Detroit area, since few non-Muslims want to hear loud broadcasts of the Arabic call to prayer, five times a day, seven days a week. CAIR has got the money and influence to force the firing of public commentators that criticizen Islam.
May I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the following syllogism:
The defining characteristic of anyone who calls himself Muslim is that he or she believes that the Koran is the direct, unadulterated and unedited word of God.
The duty of every Muslim is to spread Islam. Islam is a political/religious ideology that is embodied in sharia law. It is correct to say that Islam IS Sharia law and that Sharia Law is Islam.
If a person calls himself a Muslim but does not accept any part of Sharia law they are NOT ORTHODOX Muslims, they are revisionists or “reformers” but they are not ORTHODOX. It is perfectly legitimate to use the term “orthodox Islam” because Islam was essentially codified in the 11th century at the request of the reigning Caliph who wanted to avoid dilution of the creed.
Sharia law has among its more prominent features:
The prohibition of “free mixing” of the sexes, enforced primarily by severe limitations on the personal
freedom of women.
The prohibition of alcohol.
The prohibition of the creation of images of people or any living animal.
The prohibition of many forms of music
The prohibition of the consumption of pork and imposition of a system of priestly blessing of food
A detailed personal grooming code for both women and men (actually how and when to cut your hair)
The penalty of death for apostasy, for blasphemy or for insulting Islam or the prophet.
The limitation of the “golden rule” to other Muslims
The limitation of the duty to tell the truth to other male Muslims, Mohammed taught it was lawful to lie to
a woman for the sake of maintaining peace on the household. It is also permissible to lie to non-Muslims
if the lie advances Islam.
The prohibition of the ownership of dogs
The prohibition of insurance as a form of gambling which is also prohibited
The prohibition of naming a woman as the head of state.
The prohibition of allowing a Muslim to report to, or to be subordinate to a non-Muslim.
The denial of equal testimonial weight for women’s testimony
The male privilege of having more than one wife and of sexual license with a slave
The male privilege of unilater divorce without legal oversight and without grounds
The right of a man to beat his wife and female relatives if they are disobedient
The female duty to protect the male from sexual temptation at the cost of the freedom of any female
past puberty.
The definition of the entire female body (not just reproductive organs) as carrying sexual shame which
requires concealment.
The rejection of the individual freedom to change one’s religion
Dress codes which make women’s public participation in sports virtually impossible and limit it severely for men.
Various rules of conduct and dress which would make most forms of dance impossible.
The issue is whether someone who is an Orthodox MUSLIM regardless of the nation of origin, can be expected to pledge true allegiance to our Constitution. The answer is no, frankly, not if they are Orthodox, standard Muslims of the type which populate the Middle East, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia.
Clear?
Note 3 Well-to-Do Microsoft Muslims engineer arrested for terrorist activity
About a year ago, a very well educated Muslim engineer was arrested for terrorist activity. This man had advanced degrees in engineering and computer science. He worked for Microsoft and made a very nice living. He was married and actually coached for Little League. His co-workers were shocked at his arrest, however, his harddrive showed that he was providing technical support for internet jihadi activity. He was the jihadis source of technical information about the internet. Just recently DOD analysts have warned about a possible cyber attack against the websites of major government agencies. This guy probably would have help with that.
I wish WSJ would stop trying to be tolerate and enlightened, it gets Americans killed. Remember, to be a Muslim is to desire the imposition of sharia law across the world. If you call yourself Muslim and you do not wish to see sharia law spread across the globe you are a bad Muslims, a cafeteria Muslim, an apostate and a heretic. You are in danger, even in the United States, of physical attack from orthodox Muslims.
Note 2: Missourian, I’m aware of the problems of Islam. I was merely attempting to question whether it’s not more practical to limit immigration by national origin instead of faith. We can easily discern who is of Arab origin, but I’m doubtful we can tell who’s Muslim if they wish to conceal that fact.
NOte 4 JamesK, imperfect policy better than NO policy.
GENERAL RESPONSE APPLYING TO ALL POLICIES AND LAWS:
JamesK, a policy or a law need not be perfect in all respects before it is adopted. It is not a valid criticism to point out a shortcoming in a particular law. What IS relevant is the balance of cost vs. benefit. If the cost far exceeds the benefit then the public should take note and reject the policy. Many good laws have their weak points, many good laws can be evaded by a sufficiently determined crook. The laws against murder (see Genesis) have not stopped murder, however, a law against murder is still a good thing and is still worth doing our best to enforce. Given that, let’s look at the immigration issue, again.
EXCLUDING MUSLIMS
JamesK, there is no power on earth which compels us to admit a single, solitary, non-American to our country, whether as a tourist for a short time, as a permanent resident OR as a citizen. There is none. Given that, we can do a great deal to control who enters. First, fire the officials at the State Department who completely refused to lift a finger to screen anyone before they entered America. Second, hire new officials that actually believe in protecting America. Third, shut down legal immigration from Muslim countries to a trickle. Subject that trickle to very high standards of NEED by America and PROOF from them of safety to America. This radical policy is called “being willing to lift a finger to protect our fellow citizens from death.” Fourth, if our country needs immigrants (which are a terrific source of motivated individuals) then look to Latin America or Asia. There are no shortages of people willing to come and work hard. Welcome them in in a rational, orderly and legal manner.
Will there be a FEW secretive Muslims who sneak in anyway? Sure, we will be able to arrest some and deport them, some will sneak through, however, America has done very little to resist the influx of rabid anti-Americans into our country. We have stopped only a small handful. We need to reject family-chain immigration. Family-chain immigration results in America getting illiterate and non-working age immigrants when we have plenty of literate and working-age immigrants waiting in line to get in. We import poverty and iliteracy and then the socialists condemn America because poverty and iliteracy exist within our borders.
Does this make some sense?
Note 3: That laundry list of Sharia laws is chilling. Lots of similarities to Christian Reconstructionism, and with both systems I find I can hardly take in the reality of the beliefs; it all sounds too much like something out of The Handmaid’s Tale or some paranoid fantasy about fundamentalists run amok.
Note Julie
As to Islam I can document all assertions. These laws and customs are in force, today in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh, Aden, Somalia, to a somewhat lesser extent in Indonesia and Malaysia. Sharia law is growing in influence and power in Niger, Nigeria and Kenya, where our Christian brethern suffer as in a manner that we have never encountered.
As a side note. Many people like to compare Christianity with Islam, may I suggest the following guidelines for a fair comparison of the two cultures.
A)COMPARE SIMILAR HISTORICAL PERIODS. Compare Medieval Christianity with Medieval Islam. Compare modern Christianity with modern Islam. Today in Iran, the government authorizes and superives the stoning of persons accused of adultery and the hanging of persons accused of homosexual conduct. Saudi Arabia endorses the hanging of homosexuals, as does Pakistan. There are no modern Christian leaders of any major branch of Christianity that advocate these punishments.
B)COMPARE THEOLOGIES. In Christianity, Christ is the exemplar, therefore we can counter the so-called Christian reconstructionist by comparing them to Christ’s example. In Islam, Mohammed is the exemplar. The oldest biography of Mohammed was written by someone by the name of Iqbal, it is considered authoritative and authentic by Islamic scholars. Iqbal confirms that Mohammed was a war lord who engaged in war, pillage, mass murder (slaughter of the Quarish tribe), rape and assassination of political enemies. Islam teaches that Mohammed was the human being that pleased Allah the most of all human beings.
If you would like an excellent explanation of this concept look at:
Prospect Magazine
This is an article written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch MP
C)RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE NO CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES IN THE SENSE THAT THERE ARE MUSLIMS SOCIETIES. There are twenty-two countries that belong to the Organization of Islamic States. Islamic law is considered to be the basis of the constitutions and legal systems of these countries. It is fair and accurate to treat the conditions of those societies as the product of Islamic law and thought. Except for vestigal traces of an established church in England ( a “church” in which many clergy don’t believe in Christ) there is no true theocratic Christian society. What happens in America does not necessarily reflect Christian teaching.
GOAL OF CHRISTIANITY VS. GOAL OF ISLAM. The goal of Christianity is to “preach the Gospel to all the world.” Our Lord stated that His Kingdom was “not of this world.” By contrast, Mohammed taught that Allah had designated Muslims as “the best people” and they were directed to conquer the world for Allah. Mohammed’s kingdom was and is very much of this world.
Note 6 Julie
One of the difference between Christian Reconstructionism (CR) and Islam is that CR has only a few thousand followers and its teachings are actively rejected and refuted by major Christian denominations such as the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and most Prostestant churches.
Islam and Sharia law, as I have described it, is the express philosophy of 1.2 billion Muslims spread across at least 22 countries. There are at least 15 countries that expressly adopt sharia law as the basis of their legal system. These countries have large populations, armies and frequently are sanctuaries for terrorism. The Taliban was a client of the Pakistani secret police, for instance.
While I don’t excuse of condone CR, it is unlikely, at the present time, to have the impact of the world that Islam does right now.
Please remember that the law of the state of Jordan provides for a reduced penalty for murder, if the defendant can show that the victim was a female relative who dishonored the family through unchaste conduct, the penalty is reduced to 3 to 6 months in jail. There are Jordanians who have tried to change this law, but, to date it remains in force. Think on this long and hard before you equate Christianity with Islam.
Note 6 Julie Taslima Nasrin
You should familiarize yourself with Taslima Nasrin. She is a physician who was born in Bangladesh and later educated as a physician. She is in exile and in hiding in the West. She published a memoir of her upbringing as a girl in Bangladesh which included some criticism of the treatment of women in Islam. She had to flee for her life.
This is a clear demonstration of the totalitarian nature of Islam, thoughts must be controlled and criticism may be aired, printed or published,or the writer dies.
Here are some references:
http://taslimanasrin.com/tn_articles_about.html
Julie, Mohammed the Exemplar vs. Christ the Examplar
From Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s article:
The terrorists, and the Shari’a-based societies to which they aspire, have an entirely different philosophy. Humans are born to serve Allah through a series of obligations that are prescribed in an ancient body of writings. These edicts vary from rituals of birth and funeral rites to the most intimate details of human life; they descend to the point of absurdity in matters such as how to blow your nose, and with what foot to step into a toilet. Muslims, according to this philosophy, must kill those among them who leave the faith, and are required to be hostile to people of other religions and ways of life. This hostility requires them to murder innocent people and makes no distinction between civilians and the military. In Shari’a societies, women are made subordinate to men. They must be confined to their houses, beaten if found disobedient, forced into marriage and hidden behind the veil. The hands of thieves are cut off and capital punishment is performed in crowded public squares in front of cheering crowds. The terrorists seek to impose this way of life not only on Islamic countries, but, as Blair said, on western societies too.
At the core of this fundamental challenge to the west lies a pre-medieval figure to whom the London terrorists?along with all faithful Muslims in our modern world?look for guidance: Muhammad. All faithful Muslims believe that they must emulate this man, in principle and practical matters, under all circumstances. When trying to understand Islamic terrorism, most politicians and other commentators have avoided the core issue, which is Muhammad?s example. The west, before embarking on a battle of ideas, must attempt to understand this figure, and his presence in the daily lives and homes of faithful Muslims today.
It is apparent on reading the Koran and the traditional writings that Muhammad?s life not only provides rules for the daily lives of Muslims; it also demonstrates the means by which his values can be imposed. Muhammad himself constructed the House of Islam using military tactics that included mass killing, torture, targeted assassination, lying and the indiscriminate destruction of productive goods. This may be embarrassing to moderate Muslims, but the propaganda produced by modern terrorists constantly quotes Muhammad?s deeds and edicts to justify their actions and to call on other Muslims to support their cause.
Quote:
Think on this long and hard before you equate Christianity with Islam.
Hi, Missourian. I didn’t mean to equate Christianity with anything, because frankly I don’t consider CR Christianity. I’m usually quite willing to recognize other Christians as such, across our denominational and ideological divides, but CR is a complete perversion of the Gospel. I don’t know nearly enough about Islam to know how mainstream (esp historically) its fundamentalism is.
Juli (no “e”)
Note 5: If I am to adhere to my own standards of judging on a case-by-case basis, then yes, we can’t simply put up a sign that says “No Arabs Allowed”, given that there are, as the article stated, many many people of Arab descent who are law-abiding and wish no harm on the U.S.
I think the best approach is to consider all applicants as potential threats until it can be sufficiently proven that they have no ties to terrorist organizations. This means background checks, police records, etc. etc. (I honestly don’t know what they do now.)
Note 12 All applicants are not jihadi threats, pretending otherwise is willful blindness
JamesK while we agree that applicants for admission to the United States bear the burden of proof, it is willfull blindness to suggest that all applicant groups represent the same level of potential threat. Let’s make a list of countries that have been plagued by Muslim violence: U.S., U.K., Spain, Holland, Iraq, Sudan, Isreal, Egypt, Nigeria, Niger, Kenya, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand (a predominantly Buddhist country which never interfered in ME politics), Bali (and Australia by extension). Yes, there are other terrorists, the Basque, the naroc-terrorists in Columbia, the IRA and some crazies in the United States. However, the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts have been performed by people who CLEARLY STATE THAT THEY WERE INSPIRED BY ISLAM. To suggest that all groups of potential immigrants deserve the heightented scrutiny of Muslims is willful blindness and a waste of resources. Again, we do not owe persons asking for admission to this country anyting.
If a police officer hears a report on the radio that a bank was just robbed by a white male with red hair, he has every right to stop white males with red hair.
Note 14, Our task should determine our means
JamesK, our methods should suit our task. Our task is to protect America, given that we owe AMERICANS protection from strangers to our shores that would do us harm. Also, given that we owe it to AMERICANS to use our protective law enforcement resources in the best manner possible.
Why do I feel that your concern for people who have no intrinsic right to come to America outweighs your concerns for your fellow Americans, many of whom are subject to murder by virture of their nationality and nothing more.
Missorian, sadly many Americans no longer think that the United States or her citizens are worth protecting, including many in the Christian “peace” movement.
NOte 11 Juli, Islamic fundamentalism
Islam is not as mysterious as people make it out to be. There are over 20 countriers which describe themselves as Islamic. Leaders of these countries and their fundamental legal documents state that the countries legal code is based on Islamic law. Islamic law is another named for Sharia Law. So, you can find out what Islam IS in practice by looking at these societies as they exist today. You will find that each of these societies adopts and supports the list of policies that I itemized for you. There are variations in degrees of strictness, for example in Saudi Arabia, women cannot even drive while in Jordan they can. However, in both Saudi Arabia and Jordan women’s freedom is restricted by sexual apartheid. Their legal rights are restricted as compared to men in many areas.
Another place to look to see what Islam is today is a publication called “The Reliance of the Traveler” put out by Al-Hazar University in Cairo. Al-Hazar is the leading Islamic University in the Sunni world. The book called “Reliance of the Traveler” is a compendium of Islamic law. This book has been translated into English. Open that book and you will see the long list of policies, rules and laws that I listed for you today.
MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISM: WILLING TO MURDER?
If you define “Islamic fundamentalists” as people who are willing to kill others for Islam OR those who are willing to support those who kill others for Islam, most experts estimate that percentage to be somewhere around 15% of the entire Islamic population of 1.2 billion. The difficulty with this is that inaction in face of knowledge of future jihadi violence is just as damaging as the jihadi violence. These people are not included in the 15% and there is no good way to know who they are. A recent poll conducted by the Telegraph in the U.K. shows that a large percentage of British born Muslims feel no allegiance to Britain. A shockingly large percentage, 27% stated that they would not turn a fellow Muslim into authorities EVEN IF they believed that Muslim would about to use violence against random members of the public.
Please note that the British subway bombers were either welcomed to Britain as refugees from Somalia and given welfare benefits OR they were second and third generation British citizens which middle-class incomes and educations. British multi-culturalism clearly failed to cause these people to have any gratitude towards the society which allowed them to live better than the vast majority of the world’s citizens.
MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISM: SHARIA LAW
Our President and many elites have told us that there exists a “mainstream” Islam and an “extremist” Islam.
What I am trying to convey to you is that SHARIA LAW is ORTHODOX ISLAM, it is mainstream Islam as demonstrated by the actual enactment of the policies that I listed in Islamic countries today. To a Muslim it is ridiculous to suggest that sharia law is something embraced by a minority, Sharia Law is Islam. This is something that Taslima Nasrin is trying to convey to the West and which so many people just don’t want to hear because it is so disturbing to contemplate.
SUGGESTED BOOK: May I suggest Islam and Human Rights, Tradition and Politics by Ann Elizabeth Mayer. Ms. Mayer did a very meticulous and scholarly job of outlining the differences between Western human rights ideas and Sharia Law. Ms. Mayer is associate professor of legal studies at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Note 14: Missourian asks: “Why do I feel that your concern for people who have no intrinsic right to come to America outweighs your concerns for your fellow Americans, many of whom are subject to murder by virture of their nationality and nothing more.”
Because you always hear things that I’m not saying. Do you really think I want myself or others to be blown to kingdom come? I did not say that all people should receive the same level of scrutiny but that we need to at least verify their backgrounds to some degree.
For some, the only identification they have with Islam is the fact that they like funny hats. Beyond that, they have no desire to ally themselves with the militant aspects of the faith. If we’re going to trust them to tell us their religion, we can probably trust them to tell also tell us the brand of Islam they adhere to, don’t you think? Otherwise, there really is no practical solution but to block out entrance to Arabs altogether, no? I say this with a degree of regret but I suppose it is a matter of life and death.
The fact that there are Christian Arabs may be irrelevant. (?)
Not 18: Brand of Islam? Jihad is central to all Islam
Jihad warfare against non-believers is central to all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence: the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi’i. These schools formulated laws centuries ago regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it was to be practiced; howver, that doesn’t mean that these laws are ancient history and have been superseded by more recent rulings. It is a commonly accepted principle in the Islamic world that the “gates of ijtihad” or free inquiry in the Koran and Islamic tradition in order to discover Allah’s ruling, have been closed for centuries. In other words Islamic teaching on principle matters has long been settled and is not to be called into question.(To be sure, there are reform-minded Muslims today who have called for a reopening of the “gates of ijtihad” so that Islam can be reinterpreted, but so far these calls have gone unheeded by the most important and influential authorities in the Islamic world. These reformers have reason to fear for their lives.)
What is JIHAD? Ib Abi Zaya Al-Qayrawani (d. 996) a Maliki jurist declared:
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its preformance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not be begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah excpet where the enemy attacks first. They ahve the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizyz) short of which war will be delared upon them.
What is JIHAD Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) a Hanbali jurist:
Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and god’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, thsoe whos stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped adn their like, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare.)
Would you like me to continue? There is an abundance of openly published material out there. Perhaps we in the West should read what Muslims say about themselves.
Juli, British Muslims state that Sharia Law is not Extreme
From the Guardian Unlimited. August 16th, 2005. The following is an excerpt of a statement made by a consortium of many Muslim groups which are active in public affairs in Britain. You can check the original here:
The Guardian
The term “extremism,” frequently used in the public discourse about religion and terrorism, has no tangible legal meaning or definition and is this unhelpful and emotive. To equate “extremism” with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands, as seemed to be misrepresented by the prime minister, in inaccurate and disingenuous. It indicates ignorance of what the Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimise the Muslim community unnecessarily.
**********************************
What this man is saying is that Westerners are not permitted to label Sharia law or the return of the Caliphate as “extreme” and therefore subject to policies which discourage it. The West needs to listen to what Muslims say about Islam and take what they say seriously. They are serious about Sharia Law, Juli, deadly serious. Neither you or I could live under sharia law.