Muslims in America

The vast majority of Muslims in America support the social ideals of jihad (i.e. war) and sharia (i.e. slavery), and the vast majority of Muslims in America engage in the practical act of donating money to jihadi and sharia groups (i.e. funding mass-murder and universal enslavement). So why aren't the vast majority of Muslims in America arrested, jailed, executed, or deported?

We are a nation of laws.  Sadly, not all of our laws are objective, and only a few arise from individual rights even though all of them should - those are big problems.  But an immediate problem is that enemies of liberty, particularly progressivism, use the idea and structure of a nation of laws against us.  They tie us up by stopping actions against criminals and stop actions against Islamists by twisting concepts of civil liberties.  And the battle becomes about what minimalist amount of defensive policy, to be put in place after an attack, is permitted (like taking our shoes off at the airport or putting concrete bollards in front of public places). This is far from the needed offensive actions that are required when under an attack.  In the case of Islamism, it is an ideology that is the enemy - like Nazism was in WWII - like communism was during the cold war.

We must remain a nation of laws.  But we have to

   1.) Tune our laws to be consistent with individual laws and to be objective.

   2.) Write law that is the equivalent of a congressional declaration of war, but applies to Islamists.  

About item #2 above:  Before WWII we had no reason to seek out and imprison someone who supported Nazism.  We needed the declaration of war against Germany so that we could stay a nation of laws, using government to defend individual rights, and using retaliatory force against an enemy attacking us. 

How do we frame laws that permit going after supporters of jihad and forced sharia?  If we don't make such laws, then we can only defend ourselves by become tyrants and destroying the concept of a nation of laws.  If we don't defend ourselves against those attacking us, we are implictly endorsing pacifism as a functional philosophy.

We are a "mixed economy" - part freedom (particuarly at the base and in our history), but with a large overlay of taxes, regulations and laws that restrict economic freedom - taxes, laws and regulations that are more recent - from the last half of our history -  that represent much of the current thinking and current trend, and not our founding ideals.

Just as we are a mixed economy, we are a mixed culture due to the mixed ideologies floating about.  Progressivism is an ideology influencing the culture, economics and politics - at its base is a hatred for the free part of America and works energetically to transform us away from the older, freer, more individualistic America.  Islamists are also haters of freedom, individualism, reason, and anyone not an islamist.

Those of us who value reason, individualism and liberty have to band together and strengthen our side of the mixture, and to start the trend moving the other way.  The best lever, and the weakest point of the main enemy - progressivism - is the degree to which it is based upon lies.  Liars, once fully discredited, lose their power.  That and uprooting political correctness are the best ways I see to fight progressivism.

(p.s., without progressivism and its political correctness, common sense measures would succeed in dealing effectively with Islamists, domestic criminals, and enemy nations.)

I am more interested in knowing how many Muslims oppose these historical practices.

Where might we hear their voices?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 11/03, 9:33am)

Steve writes in post #2:

"...it is an ideology that is the enemy - like Nazism was in WWII - like communism was during the cold war."

Exactly. The ideology of Islam itself needs to be attacked, condemned, and refuted. Islam is the root of the problem. And showing Muslims and non-Muslims that this philosophy is immensely false and evil is the only way to truly and lastingly defeat it.

But in the interim, America needs to reverse our current immigration policy of Barbarian Enemy Invasion. Lest we go the way of Rome. No more anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, anti-white, criminal, Third World savages as immigrants. Especially no more Muslims. Or at least a radical diminution of them. As even President Trump notes, we need an immigration policy which is merit-based.

I say: Let the good people come in. Keep and kick the bad people out.

I did a little research on jihad and sharia.  Apparently both concepts are more complicated than many people realize and most Muslims hold them in a form that excludes physical aggression.  In particular, although "jihad" is often translated as "holy war", a better translation would be "struggle".  Kyrel, did you ask those Muslims what they take "jihad" and "sharia" to mean, and how they apply them?

Steve,

How many Muslims in the United States want to force infidels to convert or die?

There are Muslim countries where Muslims have murdered other Muslims for reasons at least partly related to religious disagreements.  How much of that do you see in the United States?

Does believing that sharia takes precedence over the constitution mean something that would involve undermining or altering our system of government, or does it refer to how Muslims make choices in their personal lives?  I consider reason and Objectivist principles to be more important that the constitution and the law in making my own choices.  (I also think that undermining our system of government is very dangerous on a broad scale, and that overtly defying government is dangerous to the person doing it.)

We had to fight a war against the Japanese Empire, and were right to do so, regardless of how many Japanese supported or opposed their government's policies.  That is not the same thing as saying Japanese culture or the Japanese people were the enemy.  Our government was very wrong to round up and imprison Americans of Japanese origin or ancestry.  We must fight any person or organization that wants to aggress against us in the name of Islam.  That is not the same thing as saying that Islam is the enemy.

(1). An article in the current issue of The Colonial Newsletter (which is supported by the American Numismatic Society) details the finding of an Islamic coin from 1693 in Rhode Island. From there, the researcher, James Bailey, went to shipping records, wills, and other documents, as well as reports of other finds of Islamic coins, to show that trade with pirates infused the colonies with Arab gold and silver.  In an article that I wrote for an overseas journal, I cited a Coin World article on the same topic of Islamic/Arab coins circulating in the British colonies.  

(2). On my blog, in two articles, I reviewed Making Big Money in 1600 by Nellie Hanna (1998, Cairo: American University Press). It is the story of Ismail abu Taqiyya, a merchant in Cairo. When he and his partner wanted to expand their homes to take the city block, unlike a modern American firm, they never dreamed that the town council had the right to condemn their neighbors' homes. They bought one property at a time in individual sales.  To explain Cairo 1600, Hanna cites court records in which a Bosnian slave woman sued three men who tried to cut her out of a deal she brokered for her master.  When abu Taqiyya passed away, his widow inherited her share and managed her own estate as well as those of her brothers and sons.  Hanna points out that no women in London or Paris of 1600 had such rights or responsibilities or privileges as either of those women in Cairo 1600.

My point here is that a culture of trade mitigates a lot of social problems. People who otherwise would not get along, do, at least tolerate each other's existence. Look at New York City, Singapore, or any other cosmopolis.

When Mitt Romney ran for the Presidency as a Republican, no one here demanded that he denounce radical Mormons.  When John Kennedy ran for President as a Democrat, radical Protestants in the Republican party warned that he was going to put us under the domination of the Roman Catholic Church. We all sort of let that ranting go by for what it was worth. Today, here and now, millions of Americans who accept the tenets of Fundamentalist Christianity believe that Earth is only about 10,000 years old and that people and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously. That ignorance is the basis for laws here and now today that violate individual rights.

In the wake of Charlottesville and Charleston, where were the demands here that the conservatives and Republicans openly denounce white nationalism?

What I see in the original post is a special pleading that a small group be marginalized and specially chosen for pre-emptive punishment. I suggest that advocates of reason have different values from that and therefore other interests.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/06, 3:10am)

Michael Marotta is exactly right that "a culture of trade mitigates a lot of social problems." Hence, capitalism miraculously solves a myriad of social problems practically without addressing them at all!

That said, Islam is an important, real, almost-childishly-simple, world philosophy that needs to be comprehended if we're going to defeat it and its adherents.

In 1920, while discusing Islam and Communism, Bertrand Russell noted:

"Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam… Those who accept Bolshevism become impervious to scientific evidence, and commit intellectual suicide. Even if all the doctrines of Bolshevism were true, this would still be the case, since no unbiased examination of them is tolerated…Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism [Islam] rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.”

--Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, 1920 

In a very real sense, here's all you need to know about Islam: Convert or die! 

Marotta wrote:

My point here is that a culture of trade mitigates a lot of social problems. People who otherwise would not get along, do, at least tolerate each other's existence. Look at New York City, Singapore, or any other cosmopolis.

If, by "culture of trade" he meant the political freedom to trade, he would be right.  But that is just saying respect for individual rights makes possible trade and makes for a society that tolerates differences.  It is important to understand this effect is the result of enforcing respect for individual rights, otherwise you can, and will get tyranny - and the size or location of the cosmopolis won't matter.  Creating the environment where individual rights are the basis of law is the cause and a culture of trade is the effect.  Putting the cart before the horse won't get the goods to market.
--------------------------

Marotta writes a little story about some Muslims from 1600 who didn't believe in killing infidels and respected women.  What can that possibly have to do with the fact that Islamists today believe in killing non-believers and believe in things like honor killings?  His fuzzy notion seems to be that "a culture of trade" creates a society of toleration... and that some kind of anarchy/pacifism regarding Islamism would be the proper answer... well, that is dangerously flawed 'thinking'.
--------------------------

When Mitt Romney ran for the Presidency as a Republican, no one here demanded that he denounce radical Mormons.

And radical Mormons are killing tens of thousands of people?   Is this like some kind of conspiracy theory from the progressives?  Are radical Mormons showing significant signs of working to take over our nation?  (Sarcasm)
-----------------------------

Today, here and now, millions of Americans who accept the tenets of Fundamentalist Christianity believe that Earth is only about 10,000 years old and that people and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously. That ignorance is the basis for laws here and now today that violate individual rights.

That is partly true.  The religious Right pushes for laws that arise from their religious beliefs and when passed, those laws violate individual rights.  But they also strongly oppose political correctness, the main engine of progressivism, which passes far, far more laws that violate individual rights.  Why join the side of the argument that progressives favor?  Political correctness is being implemented as a wide-ranging political, cultural and psychological form of control over thought and behavior.  
--------------------

In the wake of Charlottesville and Charleston, where were the demands here that the conservatives and Republicans openly denounce white nationalism?

That is a purely progressive talking point designed to do a Saul Alinsky kind of demonizing of all conservatives and Republicans as if they supported racism.  

---------------------------

What I see in the original post is a special pleading that a small group be marginalized and specially chosen for pre-emptive punishment. I suggest that advocates of reason have different values from that and therefore other interests.

The very ideas of liberty, individualism and reason are under an open, outright, violent attack by Islamists.  Not just one or two attackers, but tens of thousands.  Not just in the Middle East, but around the world and here in America.  They are killing people.  They do so on the basis of an agreement with Islamist ideas.  These are simple statements of fact.  Why would writing them out constitute a special pleading for "pre-emptive punishment" or be something that advocates of reason wouldn't be interested in?

Marotta appears to believe, as most progressives do, that objection to Islamist acts of terror or to the dangers of those ideas here in America means that one is a racist.  Absorbing certain illogical tenents and holding them too strongly and for too long will result in a mental/emotional disorder.  This is the case with Islamism, Marxism and with progressivism.