-
“Regarding the issue of the burgeoning rate of Muslim immigrants to Canada, Weinstein declares that, ‘some kind of form must be signed that prohibits entry into Canada of people that believe in the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. This would make it possible to conduct denaturalization and deportation proceedings.'” — from this article
What should be called for, reasonably, sensibly, is not only strict controls on admission of those who “believe in the Muslim Brotherhood ideology,” but even more, strict controls — that is, a prohibition — on allowing into Canada those who agree with the ideology of Islam, with all its supremacist aspirations. See, if you can stand it, the history of Islamic antisemitism in Andrew Bostom’s sourcebook The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. No doubt he, or someone else, will provide the two companion volumes that need to be written, one on the history of Islamic anti-Christian textual writings, and another on Islam and the treatment, under Islam, of the adherents, and the religious monuments, and the artifacts, of Hindus and Buddhists and others who never formally qualified, as Christians and Jews did, to be considered “People of the Book.”
Western governments should deal with those who consider themselves to be Muslims as if they know, and of course believe, in the texts and teachings of Islam. And those texts and teachings require from those who believe in them a literal belief in Qur’an, as glossed by the Sunna. It is not enough for some Muslims to insist that we Infidels should simply accept their assurances that their version of Islam is just swell, nothing to worry about. In the first place, there are the formal doctrines that justify, even mandate, lying about the nature of Islam, and about the particular Believer’s own beliefs, or version of that faith.
Though taqiyya (religiously-sanctioned dissimulation about these matters) originates in Shi’a Islam, as a way to protect Shi’a from persecution or murder by Sunnis, the same doctrine has Qur’anic justification (see Qur’an 3:28, and the relevant Muslim commentaries on that verse). And it has for a long time been practiced by Sunnis as well, though some — such as Tariq Ramadan — will when caught out indignantly insist otherwise. And of course “mental reservation” or kitman (that is, not saying everything you think, deliberately holding some things back) is a practice analogous to, and overlapping with, the taqiyya that the Sunnis practice and that did not originate with the Shi’a.
We also have the evidence, too much evidence, of Muslims who may, when they are suffering from entirely non-political problems or setbacks — of the kind universally acknowledged — or from depression or other states of temporary mental disarray, find their way back to Islam. That is, they find their way back to the full Islam. And that can only spell trouble, always and everywhere, for the innocent Infidels into whose lands those Muslims have been permitted to enter and to settle.
Is it the position of the government of Canada, or of other governments, that the survival of the nation is to be based upon a mere theory? That theory, so pious and so treacly and so sentimental and so much in keeping with the Spirit of the Age, the Age of False Tolerance, the Age of Diseased Sympathy, is that we must believe that Islam is just a “religion” (and not a Total Belief-System with a coherent politics and geopolitics). We must further believe that All Religions Mean The Same Thing. These theories must be held, must be defended at all costs, must be clung to, despite their being clearly contradicted by the evidence, the textual evidence of Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and of the main Muslim writers on Islam over the past 1350 years, and by the main Western students of Islam during the heyday of free and untrammeled scholarship, before the Great Inhibition set in, several decades ago.
Is it on the basis, then, of an Article or Articles of Faith, that Jews — and then Christians, and Hindus, and others — are to have their lives made more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous, because Western elites, political and media, cannot take the time, cannot be intrepid enough, to get beyond these hobbling and now dangerous pieties and see the meaning, and the menace, of Islam steadily and whole?
5th -6th -7th-8th-9th as well!!! If my memory server me correctly!
Reality check?
Moving back to Israel:
Good terrorists need not live
By Obadiah Shoher
Recently, an Israeli teacher killed a student. Precisely, Rabbi Bar-On shot a Palestinian student of Bir Zeit University who brandished a knife at him. What really bothered me was a universally gleeful response of Israeli media. The rabbi killed an attacker, good, but it cannot be a matter of joy. There are tremendous issues boiling behind the incident.
The Arab kid was not a professional terrorist, even though a Fatah-Al Aqsa offshoot claimed him a member. The kid went for essentially a suicide mission: he did not try to knife down Jews in Tel Aviv where he would be merely arrested, but at a junction near Shilo, in the dreaded “territories” where many Jewish males are armed and someone would certainly kill the Arab. Yet, he mustered only two knives. He was unfamiliar with this weapon and frightened, shaking. The Arab student was willing to sacrifice his life for a minimum damage to Jews.
He was not a stereotypical terrorist. We are dealing here with the example of popular war. Palestinian society breeds hatred to “Zionist occupiers,” and Palestinian universities provide ample grounds for nationalist propaganda. It is not incitation, but realistic and truthful nationalist education.
Palestinian Arabs, on the contrary, believe in their rights. If Jews abandoned to them Hebron and Schem, the ancient Jewish cities, how much more do the Zionists owe them Haifa and Jaffa, the towns with originally Arab majority? Jews act like the classic People of the Sea, foreign marauders who settled the shores of Canaan time and again without venturing deep into the hilly country. If Judea is not Jewish, then what rights do the Jews possibly have to any other place in Palestine?
In the real life, situations where both conflicting parties are right, arise often. When the contended issues are critical to the opponents, no mild solution is possible. Olmert-Barak-Peres-Netanyahu can give away Judea and Samaria to Arabs, but should a decent Jewish leader arise he will drive the Arabs out.
Fatah-Hamas-PIJ can accept Israel, but should a more militant Palestinian leader arise, they will restart terrorism against Jews. And millions of Arabs living in Israel will help them.
The mentality of the average Muslim does not differ much in How they regard their host countries. They will take what is given to them and seek either actively ( a minority) or passively to support those who are active. One thing is for certain they will almost never criticize those who are considered terrorist by those host nations. In the end, the nature of each conflict must be fought by ea. country based on the perceived threat and that threat is not equal. The West believes they can buy the Muslims and Arabs with modern standards of living and lots of money. They do not understand the nature of their enemy. Most Israelis who live in close proximity don’t understand them either.
Not truly understanding your enemy is a sure guarantee that you will lose but even if in the end you manage to win it could be a Pyrrhic victory. In short to defeat them we must begin to emulate them.
Hell hath no fury like a scornful woman in the 4th month.
We will survive This one as well!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki6ZmNWdcL4&feature=related
What all three of us have acknowledged is essentially the reality of the problem , the solution is debatable, and where Shy , myself and others have offered or suggested a remedy Narvery gives reasons why they wont happen. Fine I agree with Narvey that they probably won’t happen so that then leaves only the consequences of non action as some of us have suggested. half measurs are like a half pregnant woman and as real.
I’m referring to banning Islam. There are hundreds of other belief systems out there and peoples throughout the world that are not exluded from such a ban. This is not the end of all things multi-cultural.
Western Democracies are note worthy for applying the concept of legislation by disaster. First you need to have the disaster ten the corrective legislation to follow. How many dangerous urban intersections were without traffic control devices untile X amt. of people killed or injured? How many Bridges fall because proper inspection and maintenance were not applied? Extrapolate upwards on this concept and one can see the systemic weakness of the whole system. These same systemic flaws in most Western societal systems creates and is the very weakness that will always allow a determined foe to eventually succeed.
YOU CANNOT DEFEAT AN ENEMY YOUR ARE AFRAID TO OFFEND!!!!
Western societies, including Israel will have to either change the play books they are operating under or succumb.. There is no middle road here. The enemy can choose the time the method and the place as well as the pace. He will force us to spend trillions wile he spends millions at most. Not a good trade off is it?
Shy Guy, half measures that may be realistically achievable are better then no measures at all. Half measures if successful may well provide motivation to augment those half measures to become 3/4 measures.
It is of course prudent to heed the words of the poet that one’s reach should exceed their grasp.
By the same token, that brass ring one reaches for, ie. full measures, given the current realities. must be be there to reach for and not just some mirage in the clouds.
Shy Guy wishing does not make it so. One has to try to make their wishes come true. My little effort in that regard has been to write to my government which I have done on this and other issues.
So tell me Shy Guy, beyond writing cogent letters to your government which likely go unread or are filed in the garbage, just what can you personally do or what do you propose must be done to get western societies, including Israel fully wakened to the threats they face and motivated to react appropriately to those threats?
I expect you will say reacting appropriately to those threats means abandoning deference to appeasement, multiculturalism and political correctness as a basis for policies vis a vis the threats faced.
The question for you is however, how do you get Western nations to abandon deference to those factors?
I look forward to your thoughts in this regard.
I do not agree that these half measures will resolve the problem. They will limit it and Muslims will simply wisen up to pass the various tests they’ll be made to undergo. Sort of like the Maginot Line, when you think about it.
Probably or we would split up, with spared countries thinking they’re safe. Chruchill’s famous quote: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
Shy Guy and Yamit, do I take it you agree with my posts #’d 2,3 & 8?
As to your question Shy Guy, about untraceable dirty nukes, in my view if one were to be exploded in Israel or any Western nation that could very well amount to the impetus, not just for military response, but for both reform of Western immigration laws along the lines I suggested, at least a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and a tightening and reinforcing of security measures within Western states to identify, apprehend, prosecute expeditiously and jail or deport Muslim radicals.
If such tragic attack did take place, Western states probably would be able to promulgate such changes because societies’ fear would stifle the voices of the civil libertarians and the barriers of multiculturalism and politically correctness would thus be lowered.
The exigencies of the moment, especially threatening exigencies that move close to the home of ordinary citizens, often operates as the necessary condition for the seeds of change, planted in wishful thinking to grow.
Narvey: In addition to Shy Guys, response I would add that it is improbable that we will see spectacular 9/11 type attacks. They (9/11 attacks) were to get attention and recruits, nothing works as good as success. Islam is not based on Western thought and Time: They have patience the West can’t remember what was yesterdays headlines. Multiculturalism and free open democratic societies are a sufficient Western weakness, that if exploited properly and given enough time, will enable them to attain their objectives or at least enough without having to confront directly the superior military forces of the west.
Bill, we all know what the reality is. We also know what the reality will be unless our wishful thinking is not implemented versus some better-than-nothing half measures. Does this nuance sound familiar.
It took the attack on Pearl Harbor to get the US to declare war on Japan but they didn’t do the same against Hitler until Hitler very generously declared war on the US first. Had the US thrown the leftist and communist “America First” movement under the bus years earlier and have Britain and France employed force against Germany early on when Germany began violating the Versailles Treaty, tens of millions of lives would have been spared, included those of not-so-innocent Germans themselves.
And so the world turns.
BTW, are untraceable dirty nukes conventional?
Yamit, Michael and Ed, You appear not able to distinguish between your wishful thinking and reality.
Canada, the U.S., Britain other EU nations are multicultural nations drowning in political correctness. That is the reality.
In this reality, it is not realistic to expect these nations will ban all Muslim immigration. The best that can now be hoped for is that they reform their immigration laws along the lines I suggested in coments #’d 2 and 3.
Add to that, there should be further reform that enables these nations to better ensure the truth of the information provided by the applicant and demand corroborating proofs for whatever statement of fact is asserted.
As noted, if an immigrant and one who has already been granted citizenship is found to have gained entry at the outset to a nation based on lies and fraud, the state should have the power to deal with the matter quickly and deport the person if found guilty.
I can think of only two instances where Western nations might be moved to ban all Muslim immigration.
1. If the West comes to see that the war of civilizations between Islam and the West, oft spoken of but which the West denies we are there already, stops its denial, sees it is at war with Islam and also sees any and all Muslims as a potential terrorist trying to get into their nation.
It does not look like the West is about to take that view any time soon.
2. The war of civilizations takes on a more conventional form with Islamists from both within the West and outside the West mount attacks on Western nations, leaving the West in no doubt that it is in a war and because it cannot distinguish between Muslim friend from Muslim foe, the West will thus be forced to ban all Muslim immigration.
Since the Islamists have had considerable success without engaging in conventional warfare against the West, I doubt they would be so foolish as to press their war in a conventional direction.
My concept for getting visas for entering the US and Canada—-If they have a Muslim name, deny entry.
Send Muslim immigrants back to the country they came from. Just that simple. And never hire someone who is Arabic to monitor security!
Narvey:
You state this as a given but it’s not and there is no good reason to block all known Muslims and check on older immigrants to see if they did not lie on all sworn affidavits singed to gain Canadian Citizenship. I doubt whether Canada really checked her immigrants for truthfulness. Get rid of them or they will get rid of you.
Now, Hussen stood before the Governments official Judge asking, “Will you ban the righteous along with the wicked? Perhaps there are fifty righteous in the country. To Ban the righteous along with the wicked such that the righteous should be like the wicked–to do such a thing, I know would be a profanation to You,Sir. Shall the Judge of all the immigrants not do justice?”
And the Judge said, “If there be fifty righteous, I will not ban them or from all in the cities because of them.”
How about if there were only forty-five righteous? Or forty? Or thirty? Or twenty? Or ten?”
And the Judge responded to each. “I shall not ban the whole lot of them if there are forty, or thirty, or twenty or even ten righteous Muslims
Re #2, one further condition of issuing a visa or landed immigrant status is that if the immigrant secured entry into Canada or the States by lying, false pretences or fraud, that too would be grounds to apprehend, prove the breach and summarily deport the visitor or immigrant.
It seems as well that any applicant for a visa or landed immigrant status must obtain and maintain a financial bond to cover or defray the cost to the government to take action against the person should they breach the terms of their visa or grant of landed immigrant status.
It is galling that people, be they Muslims or others who come to Canada by lying their way in or once here engage in criminal or subversive conduct, can have access to free legal aid services to defend against the government’s efforts to apprehend, try and deport them.
Canadian taxpayers should not have to bear the brunt of that cost.
Fitzgerald’s article references the action taken by JDL Canada wherein JDL picketed the offices of the Canadian Arab Federation because of their silence in the wake of the charge and conviction of a Muslim male in Calgary, Alberta over his attack of a 16 year old Jewish female which attack was motivated by that Muslim’s own words stated as he attacked the teen that he was a Muslim and he hated Jews.
The August 4th, 2008 article by Fern Sidman, Sparks Fly Between Jews and Muslims in Toronto can be accessed at the following link:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/08/04/sparks-fly-between-jews-and-muslims-in-toronto/
It appears however that this Muslim was not an immigrant, but rather a Canadian citizen.
The issue regarding setting up restrictions on Muslim immigration in Canada is better illustrated by the following July 16th, 2008 article:
Ordered deported in ’88, terrorist still in Brantford (Ontario) found at:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/461592
See also Daniel Pipe’s article: Canada’s Immigration Chaos, Mahmoud Mohammad, and Me
Mon, 13 Sep 2004, updated Mon, 26 May 2008 at the following link:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/09/canadas-immigration-chaos-mahmoud-mohammad.html
It is no more realistic to expect Canada then the U.S. to cut off any Muslim immigration.
What is realistic, if there can be enough grass root pressure in Canada and the States to have the governments, impose certain restrictions on Muslim immigration, including making any visa or landed immigrant status granted, subject to conditions about obeying all laws, integrating into the community and forbidding engagement or supporting of any antisemitic or other racist and subsversive activities, the breach of which would see the immigrant apprehended and on proof of such breach being established, summarily deported.
There really is no other alternative but to ban the totalitarian religion of Islam in its entirety. Do or die.