Pipes to Trump: You Should Ban Islamists, Not Muslims

Parliamentary Petition to Close U.K. Borders and Halt Immigration Already at 450,000

By Ted Belman.

Daniel Pipes wrote an article published by Washington Times titled Trump should have banned Islamists not Muslims. . With all due respect, that is what Trump did. Trump called for a total ban on Muslim immigrants “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad.” What Trump is saying that we should ban Muslims until we can identify who among them supports Jihad. How else can you ban Islamists?

Pipes criticized “Trump’s crude blast is unconstitutional, unacceptable, unworkable, and unstrategic.”

Unconstitutional: Every Western basic law is secular, disallowing a religious test for immigration, rendering Trump’s statement less an exercise in practical policy making than a gadfly provocation. [Trump is not proposing a religious test. He is proposing an ideological test.]

Unacceptable: Beyond legalities, secularism represents a Western core value, up there with freedom of speech, a value hardly anyone accepts gutting for reasons of momentary expediency. [Ditto]

Unworkable: Islam is not a permanent identity like skin color. Nothing prevents Muslims from renouncing Islam or converting to another religion. Unless Trump extends his “total and complete shutdown” to former Muslims – which is even more unconstitutional – he just encourages the already-existing phenomenon of Muslim conversions of convenience (as symbolized by a church in Berlin). [Ridiculous and ignorant. Islam prevents Muslims from renouncing Islam.]

Unstrategic: Trump’s presidential campaign once again is counterproductive; he simultaneously makes conservatives look like idiots and brings adoring attention to those who oppose his views, in this case radical Muslim groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (widely known as CAIR), which has enjoyed an unprecedented cornucopia of media coverage to spread its deceitful message. [ On the contrary, he makes believers in PC look like idiots. Conservatives who recognize this danger are smart.]

 

Fortunately, Pipes redeems himself:

Muslim hostility toward non-Muslims takes many other forms, such as teaching Islamic supremacism in mosques, spewing antisemitism in the streets, and threatening anyone who dares publicly to criticize Islam. Issues concerning women include female genital mutilation, honor killings, polygyny, and forced marriages. Islamic mores lead to strong antipathies against seeing-eye dogs, mixed swimming pool usage, and homosexuals.

Polls show widespread – and legitimate – concern about these issues as well as growing impatience with governmental dismissal of those concerns. When Germany’s Angela Merkel welcomes an unlimited number of illegal immigrants or Barack Obama ridicules concerns about Syrian immigrants, populist voices like that of Donald Trump inevitably find followers.

Indeed, he is just the latest anti-immigrant figure to find a message that increasingly resonates. Geert Wilders’ PVV in the Netherlands wins 39 out of 150 seats in parliament in a recent survey, up from his current 15 and almost twice that of any other party. In the French regional elections a week ago, Marine le Pen’s National Front led in 6 out of 13 districts. This upward trend will continue until one of these ostracized insurgent parties gains over 50 percent of the vote and enters office. In this sense, Trump stands at the cutting edge.

How to deal with Muslim immigration in a responsible and uncontroversial manner? I offer two suggestions. First, replace the “Muslims entering the United States” in Trump’s formulation with “Islamists entering the United States.” Islamists are those Muslims who seek to apply Islamic law, oppress women and non-Muslims, and establish a worldwide caliphate. They make up about 10-15 percent of the Muslim population; they, not Muslims in general, are the barbarians who “believe only in Jihad.”

Second, engage in serious research into all would-be visitors and immigrants, not the pro-forma review that prevails these days. Doing so requires money and time, as well as creative inquiries to smoke out ideological proclivities, but each person entering the country must be checked to make sure no Islamists are allowed in, ever, at all, even for brief visits, thereby increasing our common security.

December 12, 2015 | 9 Comments »

Leave a Reply

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. Ditto to all the above.

    Now, for the rest of you. Focus your thoughts on getting Trump into the US presidency. He’s the only one who has the courage to say what he thinks; is tough-minded enough to turn talk into action; doesn’t give a shit about political correctness; will never be anyone’s tool, including liberal journalists and the assemblers of big-money used to buy candidates in both of the USA main political parties. Other than Trump, I really don’t trust anyone else.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker

  2. UK cop: “There are areas we have to ask Muslim leaders’ permission to patrol”
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/uk-cop-there-are-areas-we-have-to-ask-muslim-leaders-permission-to-patrol

    …………

    IDF officer detained in Britain on war crime allegations from Gaza war.

    The British authorities subsequently apologized to the officer.
    The Foreign Ministry…….stressed that the officer was released only due to its intervention.

    http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-officer-apprehended-in-Britain-on-war-crimes-allegations-from-Gaza-war-437152

    If they apologized then it was a mistake or muslim immigration officers sabotaging UK law. Why should it need FM intervention if it was an error or abuse of law?

    I guess that BB has no plan for this just like he had no plan for the labeling, just like he had no plan for Iran or the recents stabbings he incited… lots of talk for years so a plan should have been devised. He made lots of recent announcements but did he actually implement even one of them(deportations, etc?)

  4. The first American city has fallen to Sharia Law.

    “Hamtramck is 1st American city to elect majority Muslim council,” …
    4 of 6 Hamtramck City Council members are Muslim –
    …
    At last week’s city council meeting, several residents of the Hamtramck Senior Plaza apartments on Holbrook complained about the volume level of the call to prayer coming from the Ideal Islamic Center, located across from the apartment complex.

    Jeanette Powell said she’s not complaining as a way to “bash anyone’s religion.”

    She said the call or prayer was broadcast at 6 a.m. and found the volume “overbearing.”

    “Just turn it down a little bit.”

    Carol Marsh said not only was the call to prayer too loud, she insisted that the organizers of the center never said it would serve as a mosque.

    “We were lied to,” she said. “We were told it would never be turned into a mosque.”

    But Sakrul Islam of the center said no one ever said it would not be a mosque, saying an Islamic center “covers everything.”

    He warned Marsh that if she continued claiming she was lied to he would file a defamation lawsuit.

    So this is the union of Islam and State and ne religion suppresses all others.
    Sharia it’s in, ISIA (Islamic State In America) without complaint from the lying hypocrite Obama – where are the Feds? they should be there with the troops arresting the Muslims for sedition.

  5. The incidence of rape in Sweden has risen 800% coinciding with the immigration of Muslims. The rest of Europe has experienced similar results. The problem is not “Islamists”. The problem is Muslims, and the solution is no Muslims.

    Feebs like Pipes are not helpful when they partially embrace political correctness. It is merely another strata of cowardice. The No-Go zones of Paris are populated by Muslims, whether or not you diplomatically dance around the issue by using euphemisms.

    So are the little Pali bastards who stab and stone Jewish grandmothers “Muslims” or “Islamists”? Who cares? To paraphrase General Sheridan, “The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim non-practicing Muslim.”

  6. @ bernard ross:
    You correctly pointed out Pipes’weakness in attempting to divide Muslims into bad guys and good guys whereas the good guys simply don’t have the stomach or aptitude to follow out Mohammad’s dictates while the bad guys do.

  7. Sorry Pipes, until we can figure out what is going on with Muslims which causes them to honor kill, head chop, schoolgirl enslave and to be directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of the worlds, terror, violence, hatred and intolerance……. it is very sensible and prudent to ban them all….. intelligent people of common sense realize that the safety of americans is more important than offending muslims. The gov has proven beyond a doubt that President Bush and President Hussein lied when they told americans that Islam is the religion of peace when it is only “peaceful” with other muslims… and not all of them either. Americans dont want the euro experience in america…. its time to be rid of all the leadership and media that seeks to keep leading us into this rats maze. Pipes whole narrative is tied up in his distinction between “islamism” and Islam… the distinction is non existent, but more importantly it is irrelevant and dangerous as it has led the public into an ostrich condition where the gov has ceased to profile muslims when it is indeed muslims and their relation with islam and islamic terror which needs observation and profiling. Therefore, Pipes with his distinctions is part of the problem. That is why Trump grows in popularity becuase he removes the fig leaf cover up of leadership lies and dangerous propaganda PC.

  8. I wouldn’t bother to read Pipes denunciation of Trump. He has been half right in his writings about Islam, Sharia, etc. so this attack on Trump is no different. Except that he is dead wrong on Unconstitutional and the other Un’s he cites.