In Defense of Islam

i.am.dan.edge's picture
Submitted by i.am.dan.edge on Fri, 2013-05-24 10:07

I write in defense of Islam.

Islamic Totalitarians have become the greatest threat to freedom in the modern world. Murderous, Theocratic nations openly express their intent to conquer and cow us. Every day, there is news of a new attack. Militant Islam is clearly a threat. How to respond?

I agree with the direct approach advocated by the late, great John David Lewis: conquer rogue terror states and forcefully impose separation of state and religion. But leave freedom of religion alone -- in fact, enforce it under threat of annihilation. Freedom of individual thought, freedom of belief, and (therefore) freedom of religion must be upheld in a free society. Without exception.

The free world ought to abide by the same moral rule: there can be no such thing as Thought Crime. Privately practiced religion should be a non-issue for law-abiding citizens of a free nation. This principle should be codified into Constitutions and righteously enforced, everywhere.

There are many Muslims living in America, UK, Europe, etc., who are much like their Christian (or Deist or whatever) neighbors: working hard to make the best of things for themselves and for their own. I sympathize, and assert that all law-abiding individuals ought to be considered equally under the law, regardless of their personal beliefs. In these trying times, I stress that this principle most emphatically includes Muslims.

A "War on Islam" is as misguided as a "War or Terror." War is (or ought to be) a conflict with another Nation-State, for a specifically designed purpose, legally authorized by the Legislative and Executive Branches, and fully supported by the populous. Anything else is a Police Action, harming free people foreign and domestic.

Given that our governments have failed in this duty, I feel I must support the efforts that our military is allowed to make against the worldwide virus of Totalitarian Islam. But I will never support the use of that might to wage War against domestic Muslim Citizens. Muslims qua believers should be treated no different from any other Citizen.

Muslims should not be targeted for deportation, and suggestions to the contrary are shameful. This is a tragic, emotionalistic inversion of rational principle. Again, freedom of ideology (above all) should be protected under Law. This means that government should not take one's personal beliefs into account when enforcing Law. Immigration and deportation are absolutely not excluded from this principle.

When I'm 64, I don't want to begin the story to my grandkid with, "When they came for the Muslims..."

--Dan Edge


( categories: )

Review

i.am.dan.edge's picture

On review, I don't like this article as written. It has arguments against an opposing view, but offers little rational alternative. Not every article needs this, but I think this one does. Also, there is too much emotionalistic language designed on purpose to rile people of the opposing view. I tried to make up for these weaknesses with followup comments, but there's no telling who read them or how seriously. Will work on this.

--Dan Edge

Kyrel

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Thanks for the welcome, and for the very interesting post! I am following your comments in the other thread Doug just posted with interest.

Sincerely,

--Dan Edge

Kyrel

Jules Troy's picture

You are hereby appointed head of immigration and deportation!  Great post!

Home

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Home safe from downtown! Thanks for followup comments; y'all have a good Memorial Day (in US).

--Dan Edge

Good Lord

Grant Jones's picture

Dan wrote: War is (or ought to be) a conflict with another Nation-State...  This statement shows an profound ignorance on both history in general and the history of warfare specifically (Not an insult, just a statement of fact). Prior to the 16th century nation-states did not exist, but war sure did. The ummah has never, ever reconciled themselves to the nation-state. One can type all one wants about what war ought to be. But guess what, the enemy gets a vote on that too.

Doug, Megadittos

Grant Jones's picture

Nearly every movie made that features Muslims is sympathetic to them and hostile to any anti-Islam or anti-Muslim sentiment. And not just movies but also televison and cable shows as well. Look how 24 totally sold-out. And, of course, academia loves them some Moslems. That alone should be a clue for the clueless Official Objectivists.

 

Arm Chair Generals

Grant Jones's picture

Absolutely, Doug. The current ARI and TOS strategy against jihad is as anachronistic as William Westmoreland planning to refight the Battle of the Bulge in Vietnam's central highlands.

Official Objectivists, "The ummah, the OIC? Who dat?"

Dan wrote: "My arguments were

Grant Jones's picture

Dan wrote: "My arguments were informed..." No, they're not. Your comments demonstrate ignorance on the nature and history of Islam and jihad. That's not an "insult." It's a statement of fact.

Hmmph

Jules Troy's picture

I attacked you?  News to me, I only stated my own point if view.  If when you write an article and people see flaws in it and then point those flaws out I do not see that as an attack on you personally.

Terry for example is simply asking you direct questions.  He is not attacking you but is making enquiries simply to see where you stand in relation to his questions.

BTW enjoy your night out dancing!  I am unfortunate in that I have to work.  Upside to that is it is all overtime as it is the weekend!

Dan

tvr's picture

You wrote:

"I've been back on SOLO for one day and have already been attacked as a "disappointing,..."

My "disappointing" reference was not an attack. It was a joke. Read what I wrote again. The next sentence is what disappointed me about your response, i.e. that you turned out not to be a Muslim - you cheated me out of a Muslim response to my list of questions.

In hindsight, putting in some additional punctuation may have avoided the misunderstanding.

So we are even now as to making presumptions about each other.

My last set of questions to you as an Objectivist were earnest ones, albeit semi-rhetorical, so I remain hopeful you will engage and oblige me with your answers.

Terry

Thanks and Dancing

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Thanks to Terry, Gregster, Marcus, and Tyrel for engaging my points and replying in a respectful, intelligent manner. Doug lacks respectfulness, but at least offers debatable arguments.

That said, I am unimpressed by the thinking here, and the manners even less so. I've been back on SOLO for one day and have already been attacked as a "disappointing," "ignorant" "rationalist." I'm not angry, just bored. My arguments were informed, thoughtful, and well-edited. If Ad Homs are all SOLO has to offer in response, then I have nothing to gain here.

I'm going out dancing, y'all have a great Memorial Day weekend!

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

The Ummah is our enemy not Iran - ARI take note

Doug Bandler's picture

We are at war with the ummah.

Yes. This is how the war should be classified and framed. Organized Objectivism (OO) is still stuck in WW2 mode. They are only thinking of war against nation states where you line up your infantry against their infantry, defeat them in open combat then get the defeated nation to sign surrender papers. Yes, that was fine for Scipio Afficanus and George Washington. But that is not the way this war is being fought. OO is WAY behind the times with this one. They don't understand Islam and the Muslim world. I can't see how this can be anything other than rationalism. Its floating abstract theories of war and ethics not grounded to the actual empirical realities of the enemy at hand. Sadly the entire Western world has made this error but Objectivism is supposed to be potent epistemology; "the philosophy for living on earth". OO has approached Objectivism as a suicide pact (both on Islam and immigration).

But, Dan has acknowledge the necessity of "restricting" immigration from nations we are at war with. Which rationally, means ending (not limiting) all immigration from the ummah/OIC.

Another great point. Immigration restrictions follow naturally once you define the enemy correctly. And that enemy is not "radical Islam" or "fundamentalist Islam" or "totalitarian Islam" (Yaron Brook take note!!) or "Islamism" (the most cowardly word ever created in the history of the universe). The ideological enemy is Islam itself and the physical enemy are the 57 nations that comprise the Muslim world; ie the Ummah. But you can't fight a conventional war against an enemy of that size. So how do you fight that enemy? As I've mentioned before, Larry Auster's quarantine and contain strategy combined with a "Lilly Pad" military strategy of periodic tactical bombings is a start in the right direction. Grant's suggestion (also advocated by Auster) of ending Muslim immigration completely to stop the bleeding and then incremental and gradual deportation through attrition is another component (incidentally this is Geert Wilder's plan too). There is more to it of course. But that gets you on the right path. And oh yeah, Hollywood actually portraying Muslims as terrorists and Islam as evil would be important as well.* (But of course we know what to expect from those treacherous Hollywood fuckwads.)

This should be the general thrust of OO's approach to this subject. But it is anything but.

-----------

* Hollywood has of course been seditious in this regard. Nearly every movie made that features Muslims is sympathetic to them and hostile to any anti-Islam or anti-Muslim sentiment. I could list a dozen movies off the top of my head that do this. Pro-Islam propaganda is all Hollywood will produce. In a sane world they would be shot for treason.

Excellent Point

Doug Bandler's picture

And terrifying.

The Muslim population in the world has increased from ~200 million to ~1.5 billion or so in 100 years, meaning that there are more Muslims now than Catholics, and more Muslims than there were people under Communism at the height of the Cold War. Almost one in four people on the planet self-identify as Muslim. What does this fact indicate to you, if anything?

This point alone should give any sane person pause when they consider Islam and Muslims. But organized Objectivism is still fighting sanity.

And this is good too:

Why do you think Ayn Rand made Galt's Gulch entry by invitation only?

The implications of this have alot to say about immigration. Someone tell that to Harry Binswanger. He's officially lost his mind with his latest open borders insanity.

The Personal Right and Moral Duty of Self-Defense

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Dan Edge -- Welcome back! Sorry if I have to largely disagree with the posted article.

In my view, if a given person's ideology involves a massive commitment to war (jihad) against, and enslavement (sharia) of, the innocent, then that makes him a tyrant, criminal, and lunatic, even if he hasn't yet acted on his convictions. Such are Muslims. We semi-civilized folk needn't wait for the inevitable atrocities to take place in order to rightfully protect ourselves. This act of self-defense doesn't attack thought crime -- it attacks crime crime. It doesn't deny freedom of ideology to Muslims -- it denies freedom of crime.

Moreover, to deny immigration to, or deport Muslims, is not to deny their civil or individual rights -- merely their political ones. They aren't really harmed one iota. They're merely being told that they have to return to the Muslim hellhole whence they came, and that from now on it's going to be a bit more difficult for them to do their Muslim thing and harm us since now they have to do it from outside the country.

Dedicated communists, Nazis, and medieval Christians should also be denied immigration privileges, or deported, in my humble opinion. These people are all wild animals. It isn't safe to live amongst them.

Questions for Dan, the Objectivist(-ish) Man

tvr's picture

Hi Dan,

Of all the possible responses, yours turned out more disappointing than any I could have envisaged. I don't get my questions answered (or even evaded) by a Muslim!

I do feel rather stupid for not checking my assumptions with my last comment. I had assumed that you were Muslim because I briefly scrolled through comments on the "Death to Islam" thread the other day and remembered seeing a comment by a pro-Muslim commenter there, himself a Muslim, and Lindsay's response to possibly blue-sticky a post if he submitted it, but I did not take note at the time that the interaction was 3 years ago or the name of poster ('Adonis'), assuming it was just recent. So when you posted this piece, while it did read rather strange for a Muslim, it read almost as strange for an Objectivist, so I thought you and the other poster must have been one and the same. Apologies. I should have checked first before drafting my reply.

Now that that is cleared up, a few questions for you as an Objectivist:

1) If I were to sum up the three main religions with a single maxim for each to encapsulate the moral command given by their respective Holy Books as to how to treat one's enemies, would you agree with me if I said: Old Testament: Eye for an Eye; New Testament: Turn the other Cheek; Qur'an: Whenever practical, dominate (make submit to Islam) or kill? If you do not agree with this, how would you phrase each of the three? If you agree, do you think it makes all three religions equally tolerable under the law?
2) The Muslim population in the world has increased from ~200 million to ~1.5 billion or so in 100 years, meaning that there are more Muslims now than Catholics, and more Muslims than there were people under Communism at the height of the Cold War. Almost one in four people on the planet self-identify as Muslim. What does this fact indicate to you, if anything?
3) Only 6 countries in the world have between 50 and 75% of their populations Muslim, while 51 countries have a greater than 75% of it's population Muslim. What does this fact indicate to you, if anything? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...)
4) The UN reports that Islam in North America since 1989 has increased 25%, in Europe 142.35%, and in Australia and Oceania / Pacific 257.01%. What does this fact indicate to you, if anything?
5) What difference/s can you identify in the aspirations and methods of "Creeping Sharia" and Fabian Socialism? Which of the two do you consider to be more threatening to individual liberty long term and why? Do you think that one is helping to usher in the other?
6) Do you think the domestic spread of theocratic submission and freedom are two compatible concepts, or, do you claim that Islam is not as much a political ideology as it is a religious one?
7)What lengths are you prepared to go to to prevent Sharia Law being implemented in your country for your grandchildren? What lengths are you not prepared to go to?
8 ) Why do you think Ayn Rand made Galt's Gulch entry by invitation only? Do you agree with her reasoning for making it so? If not, why not? If you do, what then is different about applying that same reasoning, at least to some degree, to our current society?

Your answers will help I (and others) to better understand the true nature of what it means to be an Islam-defending Objectivist.

Terry

Sigh

Grant Jones's picture

The level of ignorance in this "context" post is breath taking. We are not at war with any nation state(Drunk. We are at war with the ummah. The OIC has already made clear its agenda to end free speech in the West (what's left of it). That is obviously just the first step in their plan of civilization jihad. The OIC is made up of 57 Mohammedan nations. The OIC is the representative of the only Islam there is in all its brutality and evil. So, maybe we should just declare war on all of them, and then invade all of them, and then civilize them just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Yeah, that's a good plan. But, Dan has acknowledge the necessity of "restricting" immigration from nations we are at war with. Which rationally, means ending (not limiting) all immigration from the ummah/OIC.

"In defense of Islam." What next an "In Defense of Life Hating Evil" blog post?

Context

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Last thing, and then bed:

I want to be clear: my objection to domestic restriction of rights should be taken into context with my own view of the solution to the Islamic Problem.

While vehemently opposing any War on American Citizens, I fully support the Free World waging a brutal, bloody war to permanently end Islamic Totalitarianism worldwide. I have no problem with restricting War-time immigration from hostile (and other) nations. I also strongly endorse the use of mass destruction, military targeting of religious institutions, forceful deportations, mercenaries, media control, concentration camps, privacy invasion, and the re-writing of Constitutions -- but in Enemy States, not here. At least give it a try in *their* countries first, see how that goes, before dragging such horrors on our own heads.

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

Further evidence with which to hang them

gregster's picture

However Imam Omar Bakri Muhammad, who influenced Mujaheed Adebowale, the London beheader, disagrees saying, “Under Islam this can be justified”, “I saw the film and we could see that he [the suspect] was being very courageous” and “To people around here [in the Middle East] he is a hero for what he has done.”

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/d...

Obliged to you Dan

Lindsay Perigo's picture

And I rest my case. Smiling

And...

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Sad to see that some things seem not to have changed. (Not pointing at Perigo).

--Dan Edge

OK

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Here is the Abandon Ship post, in which I made clear that my reason for leaving SOLO was not disagreement with Perigo or others regarding election/fatwa issues, but instead my objection to what I believed was unwarranted verbal abuse.  I really didn't want to revisit all this.

--Dan Edge

Give it time Dan

gregster's picture

America needs to keep mosques etc under surveillance, but it wasn't sensible to allow them a foothold.

The Woolwich killer learned his stuff from a devout Muslim who is finally banned from Britain.

Would you allow that mosque to exist?

"for several years attended meetings of the group Al-Muhajiroun, founded by terrorist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed."

'Islam allows me to take the benefit the system offers. I'm fully eligible. It is very difficult for me to get a job. Anyway, most of the leadership of the Islamic movement is on [state] benefit.'

On several occasions, Bakri has expressed his hatred of Jews. He had "Kill the Jews" posters printed, and claimed that these were not his words but the words of the "scriptures."

Just to begin with, how about reforming the insane immigration and deportation policies that have made London a sanctuary for some of the most contemptible preachers of Islamic terror on the planet? How about cutting out all the smooth lies, the slick euphemisms, the talk of “Asians” when the subject is really Muslims? How about somebody in a position of authority screwing up a little courage and facing a few facts – and thereby maybe, just maybe, causing Churchill to stop spinning in his grave?

Good Grief

Grant Jones's picture

Dan, Islam's not a religion. It's a totalitarian ideology. P.S. as a sovereign nation the United States has every right to close its borders to any class of people it wants to. No justification is required under international law. A simple act of Congress is all that's required. Deal. With. It.

Oh come on Dan

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Over the next few weeks, I often got caught in the crossfire when meaningful debate on SOLO descended into an insult parade. While trying my best to grasp the issue, I was branded a Dishonest Lock-Step Randroid Hsiehkovian (and much worse). But I never took sides because I had never made up my mind.

Would you care to provide a link to a post you did headed "Abandon Ship"? Using SOLO to tell people to abandon SOLO because I had dared to question the fatwa?

Before, during and after that conflict I adopted the principle of supporting people when they were right and disagreeing with them when I thought they were wrong. I have not wavered from that, unlike most "Objectivists" who staked out a position based on expediency and/or Randroid/Brandroid loyalties. Just follow your own link and you'll see a bunch of people who followed Peikoff right or wrong. Right now I'm in a pitched battle re DIM with Fred Seddon, supporting Peikoff notwithstanding my vehement disagreement with his dopey fatwa. That's the way all Objectivists should be—using their own independent judgment. Certainly not following Ditzy Diana wherever she goes.

Just Stunning

Grant Jones's picture

The author of this drivel has thoroughly demonstrated his complete ignorance of Islam and its doctrine of endless jihad to impose sharia law. It's late and I'm frankly weary of rationalists without a clue. The commenters have already answered this nonsense. The ending of Moslem immigration would be easy to effect. It's a much better solution than Homeland Insecurity and endless wars to civilize the savages. Deporting the Moslems already here would be a matter of attrition and effected over a reasonable timeframe. We are stuck with Moslems born here, but without outside support (including financial support) it can be handled.

Gregster

i.am.dan.edge's picture

There is no legal precedent for identifying "unlawful combatants" as adherents to a particular belief system. By contrast, protection of religious freedom has near-universal legal application.

Again, how do you propose Americans get around this? The only answer is: to Amend or bypass and greatly broaden the powers of government to enforce domestic behavior. The other commenter nailed it, in a weird way. A nightmare world of concentration camps, state-controlled media, and universal privacy infringement are the necessary, permanent results of this proposal.

--Dan Edge

Well

Jules Troy's picture

You could just politely ask them to leave, I am sure that will work.

P.S The country is already in the abyss and your president is a commie who has already pissed all over the constitution.  Homeland security already IS trampling the bill of rights, you are already there Dan.

Steve

gregster's picture

That sounds enticing and much easier to pipe in the music they really hate. Beer

"Actually all prisons should be segregated for muslim only prisons."

WHOA!

i.am.dan.edge's picture

"Hire [foreign mercenaries?] Mossad and the IDF..."
"...track every single person the people attending Mosques talk to."
"[U]se the media."
"Detain them in separate prisons."

Doing any of these things would require setting the Constitution and Bill of Rights on fire. Do you think government would ever give up such wide ranging powers? Forget slippery slope -- this stuff is over the goddamned waterfall, into the abyss.

--Dan Edge

Easy Peasy

Jules Troy's picture

You hire the Mosad and the IDF as experts in the field.  They are the best of the best.

The US government ALREADY collects and monitors all phone calls of everyone.  It would not be very hard to track every single person that people attending mosques talk to. 

One could also use the media and start playing good ole insults to Mohammed movies/ draw politically satirical cartoons in major newspapers.  Profile all the insulted   protestors. Detain them in separate prisons.  Actually all prisons should be segregated for muslim only prisons.  Why? Because Islam targets the best of our worst for conversion of the incarcerated.  They give these thugs a veneer of respectability for being the violent savages that they are.  Sooner or later they are let out of prison and swept into the first mosque they come to for "further religious study".  Yup instant Islamic soldier.

There is NO EASY WAY to do this.  But it needs to be done.  You think it is going to be difficult to do now?  Just wait 15-20 years and see how difficult it will be then.

WTF is wrong with people.  We had a revolution that was sparked by a stupid 1% tax on tea. (Boston tea party).  Here we have a foreign military religious organization that is dead set against everything the west stands for.  We are infiltrated and they are growing stronger.  They are in all levels of government and are slowly changing things for the worse.  They have declared war upon the west or did you NOT think the twin towers was a big enough fucking declaration of war.  

For fuck sakes a man is beheaded and hacked to death by Islamic foot soldiers shouting Allah Akbar And our media identifies the perps as black youths.  Too damn afraid to call them crazy fucking muslims for fear of inciting muslim anger.

Well god dammit fucking well insult them and when they riot fucking kill them all, every last one of them, rinse and fucking repeat until you no longer have a muslim problem.

 Or sit back and do nothing until they come for you.  Because they ARE coming for you..

 

Welcome to the Muslim future

gregster's picture

Europeans asked for it and will get it.

“We have groups of young men who think that they can and should change society with violence,”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/mul...

As for dealing with Muslim supremacists posing an objective threat. Article2 section 3.

"The Supreme Court further defined unlawful combatants as those individuals who “secretly and without uniform [pass] the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property.”30 Indeed, the Supreme Court has used the term “enemy combatant” many times in its history.31 The government has relied on this lengthy precedent to support its detentions of Yaser Hamdi and José Padilla as enemy combatants, despite their claims of American citizenship."

Memories

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Perigo,

This is totally unrelated to anything else in this thread, but here we go.  One more time.  Your memory has failed you again. I don't think you mean offense, but please note that this will be the third time I have publicly corrected you on this exact issue. I will provide better documentation this time, and hopefully bring the matter to a close.

You said (again) that you "remember [I was] a fervent supporter of Leonard's dopey fatwa." 

In 2006, Leonard Peikoff posted a statement on his website that "In [his] judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world." This is the fatwa to which you refer.

Shortly thereafter, Diana Hsieh posted a lengthy article on SOLO defending Peikoff's position. Six hours later, I commented on that thread, complaining that I was "insulted" by Peikoff's "rude" statements, and that "it discourage[d] me from reading transcripts of his interviews if I must expect to be lectured at like a child and chastised..."  I then published an article on SOLO criticizing Peikoff for the boneheaded-ness of his remarks, and waving a finger at Diana Hsieh for whitewashing.  I continued to debate with Diana and others in public and through personal correspondence.

Over the next few weeks, I often got caught in the crossfire when meaningful debate on SOLO descended into an insult parade.  While trying my best to grasp the issue, I was branded a Dishonest Lock-Step Randroid Hsiehkovian (and much worse).  But I never took sides because I had never made up my mind.  I still strongly distrust Conservatives (for good reason), but I pretty much hate the Liberals equally.  7 years later, I'm still mulling it over.  It's fucking complicated.  

I often became very upset at the (in my view) entirely unwarrented criticisms I was subjected to on SOLO during that time.  I decided to stop participating in SOLO because I could no longer tolerate the level of verbal abuse.

I offer no apologies for my comments here over the years, and I ask none from you or others.  But please, PLEASE remeber it right this time.  Also: I thought my "Practical" Constitutional Questions were pretty darn compelling; I noticed you didn't engage any of it :P 

Sincerely,

--Dan Edge

Edge

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I don't know where Terry got the idea from that you're a Muslim, or where you got the idea from that you're an Objectivist. Eye I can see where folk might get the idea from that you're a fifth columnist for Islamofilth.

"People" who advocate the violation of rights and act on their belief forfeit their own. "People" who have declared war on innocent others have no rights. Jihad means that in the case of adherents to Islamogoblinism, the presumption of innocence is reversed—at their instigation. I don't know which part of this you might find difficult, Dan, but I remember you were a fervent supporter of Leonard's dopey fatwa—vote Dem-Scum across the board—hardly objective or rational. I say this lovingly, which lovingness is against my better judgment. Eye

Perigo

Questions for Grounding

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Howdy,

I enjoyed Terry's use of semi-rhetorical questions to advance the discussion, and I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just copy his approach (to start).

Some have argued that Muslim Citizens in the US, UK, Europe, etc., should be deported. (In this context, I define "Muslim" as a self-professed believer in the religion of Islam, and "Citizen" as any individual granted domestic Citizenship status under Law.) Given that many Muslim Citizens currently live in the Western World, and that they should be deported:

How should the government determine if a given Citizen is a Muslim? Terry's Questionnaire? We can safely assume that bad men will lie to get the right answers, so that's not enough. In order for deportation of Muslims to be rigidly enforced, musn't individual Citizens be investigated to determine their religious affiliation?

To this end, how do you suggest that potential Muslims be rooted out? State seizure of phone, email, Mosque membership records, wiretapping, etc.? Should this research be conducted by local police, Federal Agents, or the military? Considering that many Muslim Citizens will not leave quietly, what Rules of Engagement, if any, should be applied to those who resist? What restrictions, if any, would you place on allowable weapons or the potential for collateral damage in this Domestic Police Action?

The U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by Judicial precedent over the past few hundred years, currently disallows the targeting of Citizens for deportation or other punishment based on personal religious beliefs. Such acts are considered illegal. How do you propose to get around/through this? Should the Constitution be Amended to grant these wider powers to the government? If so, how would you Amend it -- specifically the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments, which are interpreted to disallow your proposal?

For example, the 2nd Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Do you believe that Muslims should be allowed to own guns? If not, how would you Amend the 2nd to legally sanction the disarmament of the domestic Muslim population? Given that whatever Amendments you suggest might not pass Congress, would you support Executive bypass of the Judicial and Legislative Branches to enforce deportation? Or should such bypass be permanently codified into Law? How would you set it up?

You can get where I'm going with these. Rationalist I may be, but even I can see that the implementation of a Muslim Deportation Campaign would be a nightmare in practice. A truly tyrannical U.S. government, granted wide powers to pursue and punish individuals for personal beliefs, is in the long run a far greater danger than these backwards, Islamofacist nut jobs.

Thanks for reading,

--Dan Edge

Pleased to Meet You, Terry!

i.am.dan.edge's picture

Terry,

That was a very thought-provoking group of questions, which I enjoyed reading. But we need to clear up a misunderstanding:

I am not a Muslim. I am a life-long Objectivist. I've participated in SOLO and other Objectivism-related forums for a long time, though not so much in recent years. Many SOLOists still remember me. The comments of previous posters should make a lot more sense given that info. Online Objectivism can be like a strange, dysfunctional family. We often reserve our "spitting" for siblings. Which is why I no longer take offense to such comments. They're just saying "Hello, " maybe with a little "Welcome Back" in there somewhere.

My short article was a purposefully essentialized statement which I believe reflects the proper rational application of moral principles in this instance. I posted it in a place where I knew I would find dissent from predominantly like-minded people. Just saying "Howdy." I'll probably follow up with some questions of my own, some chewing, and some practical examples to provide background to this large and complex integration of ideas.

--Dan Edge

Terry

Jules Troy's picture

I think these questions should be on every immigration entry questionnaire!  Really well thought out!

Questions for Dan, the Muslim Man

tvr's picture

Dan,

Given that you are a Muslim and seemingly willing to speak openly in defense of Islam, in order to help us here at SOLO to better understand the difference between you, a moderate Muslim, and an Islamic radical, please answer the following list of questions with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth:

(Note - I ask for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth only to confirm that you yourself are not Islamophobia-phobic)

1) Islam means "submission". As a Muslim, what have you submitted to exactly? Please give as comprehensive of an answer as you can, and not only an equivocation like "Allah". I.e. Does your submission require that you submit to all of what is written in the Qur'an, and if not everything, what have you excluded and why?
2) Do you consider all sincere Muslims as your equals under Islam in terms of their "submission"? If not, why not?
3) Would you ever fight against a Muslim "brother" or "sister" to defend a non-Islamic cause if they were earnestly trying to further the cause of Islam themselves? If you would fight them, why would you, and, how would you justify it in a way that is consistent with the Qur'an's instructions to spread (submission to) Islam?
4) If a Muslim joins together with non-Muslims to fight against a group of Jihadi Muslims who have the aim of spreading Islam by whatever means, where in the Qur'an is that condoned? Please provide a passage from the Qur'an. If you can provide one, which passage/s or what reasoning do you use to override the passages that call for the Jihad to be supported by you?
5) How do you personally interpret the numerous abrogation clauses in the Qur'an that (seemingly) instruct believers to replace earlier (more peaceful) passages with later (more violent) ones whenever a contradiction exists?
6) Do you or would you personally practice the Islamic principles of deception called Taqqiya and Kitman against non-Muslims? If you do not and would not, why don't/wouldn't you?
7) When your prophet Mohammed writes that he has been "ordered by Allah to fight men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger", do you feel compelled, as a Muslim, to emulate him? If you do not, why not? If you do, how how do you reconcile that compulsion with living a peaceful libertarian existence? ( see http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/re...)
8 ) Are there any circumstances under which you would consider giving up your belief in Islam permanently? Can you give an example? How can you reconcile that conditionality with your unconditional submission as a Muslim?
9) You are clearly advocating for Islamic immigration. How would you identify peaceful anti-jihadist Muslims on an individual basis when the Sharia Law as practiced in the likes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Somalia demands that citizens perform female genital mutilation, anonymously partake in the public stonings, etc? If the standard for criminality is inverted in those countries, what good can vetting immigrants from those countries accomplish? What does one "vet" for exactly?
10) What is your understanding of and support for "Jizya", or protection/shame tax, ordered to be enforced by the Qur'an and defined in the Arabic dictionary Lisan al-Arab as "What is taken from the Dhimmis [i.e. Jews and Christians], which is the amount of money agreed upon in the contract that gives the non-Muslim the Dhimmai status; and it's derived from the act of the verb "reward"; as if it (Jizya) is a requital for not being killed." (see http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/re... and http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/re...)
11) What is your definition of a "right"? How do you arrive at your definition (i.e. what is your process of reasoning)?
12) Please confirm that you have answered all of the above with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as if your hand were on the Qur'an and you were speaking to your prophet Mohammed.

Thank you in advance for answering these questions to help me (and others) to better understand the true nature of what it means to be a peaceful Muslim.

Terry

Something else I noticed

Doug Bandler's picture

Given the speeches of Obama and the London mayor its hit me that the more atrocities Muslims commit the more Islam will be excused. Auster made this point about modern liberalism. He said that the more a minority group behaves violently, the more the Left will excuse their vicious behavior. Even further, the more the Left will blame their behavior on the failures of the West and America and the white male. This is evident in the way the Left treats black crime and Muslim atrocities.

I expect this from the Left. But when Objectivists have their own version of this I could spit.

Dan

gregster's picture

Better to hear from you than not at all.

Yay

i.am.dan.edge's picture

I knew I found the right place to post this. Smiling

--Dan Edge

Marcus

gregster's picture

Thank you for that one.

I travelled through Luton daily to work, to Dunstable, and I've seen what it was becoming.

Staggering vid from EDL leader...

Marcus's picture

Untitled -

gregster's picture

I write in defense of Islam.

Oops. You can’t mean that literally. Islam is a backward supremacist quasi-religion. What you meant to say was “I write in defense of an individual’s freedom to believe in anything.” [Or – do you really write in defense of Islam!?]

Islamic Totalitarians have become the greatest threat to freedom in the modern world. Murderous, Theocratic nations openly express their intent to conquer and cow us. Every day, there is news of a new attack. Militant Islam is clearly a threat.

Phew. The first paragraph was a momentary blip.

How to respond?

I agree with the direct approach advocated by the late, great John David Lewis: conquer rogue terror states and forcefully impose separation of state and religion. But leave freedom of religion alone -- in fact, enforce it under threat of annihilation.

The forcefully imposed separation of state and religion entails futile foreign occupation and domestic terrorism.

Freedom of individual thought, freedom of belief, and (therefore) freedom of religion must be upheld in a free society. Without exception.

Privately practiced religion should be a non-issue for law-abiding citizens of a free nation. This principle should be codified into Constitutions and righteously enforced, everywhere.

I’m going to impose my cowardly system all over the known universe and those unwilling to submit to Allah will feel his wrath through my sword, given the chance. I will kill. They don’t know when. It’s my business, codified by the dhimmis Constitution.

There are many Muslims living in America, UK, Europe, etc.,

Helpful reminder Dan.

..who are much like their Christian (or Deist or whatever) neighbors: working hard to make the best of things for themselves and for their own. I sympathize, and assert that all law-abiding individuals ought to be considered equally under the law, regardless of their personal beliefs.

I will advise you, don’t leave your revolver at home when you visit your “friends.” And you have it there – “law abiding.” Those who attend and practise jihad are not law-abiding. Will you know who they are?

In these trying times, I stress that this principle most emphatically includes Muslims.

More trying than it ought to be thanks to appeasers’ ideas.

A "War on Islam" is as misguided as a "War or Terror." War is (or ought to be) a conflict with another Nation-State, for a specifically designed purpose, legally authorized by the Legislative and Executive Branches, and fully supported by the populous. Anything else is a Police Action, harming free people foreign and domestic.

You ridiculously forget that Islam begat this war. A legitimate response is to limit the reach of the Islam virus.

Given that our governments have failed in this duty, I feel I must support the efforts that our military is allowed to make against the worldwide virus of Totalitarian Islam.

Is Gemini your astrological sign? A twin split personality.

But I will never support the use of that might to wage War against domestic Muslim Citizens.

But you’ve agreed with Lewis that rogue states should be conquered. As much as you wish to placate domestic Muslims – they will be far from happy Dan.

Muslims qua believers should be treated no different from any other Citizen.

An errant appraisal suggesting a benign Islam.

Muslims should not be targeted for deportation, and suggestions to the contrary are shameful.

They must be kept under surveillance. A compromise of not destroying their Mosques would ease that task.

This is a tragic, emotionalistic inversion of rational principle. Again, freedom of ideology (above all) should be protected under Law.

The out-of-context out of this world libertarian failure; “freedom of ideology (above all). This means that government should not take one's personal beliefs into account when enforcing Law.

Pure, unadulterated intrinsicism; or in other words, a failure to join the dots. You are saying that the content of a belief is irrelevant. Much like allowing a criminal to state his intent in imposing on others' rights, but waiting for the pre-announced action and the opportunity to then apprehend him.

When I'm 64, I don't want to begin the story to my grandkid with, "When they came for the Muslims..."
Sad
Lennon unfortunately didn’t make 64, and your hippie thinking will ensure many others don’t either.

Same Crap Different Day

Doug Bandler's picture

This is rationalist drivel that has been dealt with countless times on this site. Its embarrassing to read crap like this at this late date. Yet here it is along with misplaced moral outrage and unearned self-righteousness.

Islam is a war movement. Its hostile. It is not a peaceful ideology to be tolerated under the concept of freedom of speech and association. Muslims are a 5th column presence by the very fact that they are Muslims. It does not matter that they may be peaceful. Further, Islamic literalists, ie true believers, view Muslim immigration as settlement and colonization. They themselves view their presence here as a prelude to conquest.

These and countless other reasons demonstrate that Islam is not some personal private belief system that should be granted pro-liberty considerations. That Objectivists actually believe that nonsense just shows that for most Objectivists all the philosophy is is another version of libertarianism.

Its depressing to read this shit.

Dan

Jules Troy's picture

And what do you think will happen if you were to go to war with a rogue Islamic state When you happen to have 2 or 3 million muslims from that country on your home soil?  You think they will remain law abiding citizens?  Or do you think just MAYBE when they hear of their cousin/brother/mother etc has just been blown to shit in a "legal" war they just might flip out a wee bit?

 

Btw there would have been no excuse whatsoever for the creation of "homeland security" If we did not have muslims within the USA... Just saying 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.