Thursday, January 21, 2016


Fact ... latest figures have it that there are an estimated 3.3m Muslims in the US including 15,000 serving in the armed forces.

The first documented Muslim in America was Antony Janszoon van Salee, a landowner of mixed Dutch-Moor descent, who settled in New Netherlands (modern New York) early in the 17th century.  Records from the American Revolutionary War show that Muslims Yusuf bin Ali and Bampett Muhamed fought on the 'rebels' side and indeed, the first country to recognise the United States as an independent nation was the Sultanate of Morocco under its ruler Mohommed  bin Abdullah in 1777.

The first Anglo-American to convert to Islam was the Mohammed Alexander Russell Webb (1846-1916).   Webb was a writer, publisher and, for a time, the American Consul in the Phillipines, appointed to the post by President Cleveland.

So much for the history lesson.   My point ... Muslims have a long and honorable tradition in America.

Chump is on really dangerous ground playing dog-whistle politics to the red-neck vote in demonizing Islam.    IS is to Islam what the Spanish Inquisition was to Christianity.   The 'Mad Mullahs' of Islam and Ferdinand 11 of Aragon and Isabella 1 of Castile have much in common.   Anyone who chooses/chose to question their interpretation of the faith is/was fair game.   Both stand condemned as perverting the essential tenets of their religion to suit their own narrow interests.

The reality is that in Chump being Chump with his pledge to ban all Muslims from entering America and he is sending a message to the US Muslim community that their religion is a second rate religion and that they, as Muslims, are not to be trusted.   That there is no such thing as a 'good' Muslim and there is no place for Muslims in US society. In doing so he is encouraging the radicalization of the disaffected and playing into the hands of IS.   Put simply, Chump is their most active recruiter and sadly, he's too far up himself to figure that out.

I guess if I were an American I would self-identify myself as a Republican leaning Independent.    The Democrats (except those of the Blue Dog variety) leave me cold. Hillary Clinton will be a disaster for America if she is elected. Donald Trump, even more so, cheered on by IS.    I could not vote for him.

p.s.   in the 2000 Presidential election nearly 80% of Muslim Americans supported George Bush over Al Gore.   By 2008 Barack Obama got between 67% and 90% of the Muslim vote depending on region.    One suspects that if Trump is the candidate that figure will reduce further.

p.p.s  opinion will be divided as to whether Sara Palin's endorsement of Trump represents a plus or minus to his campaign.    Fascinated to know John McCain's reaction is to the news.


Anonymous said...

'IS is to Islam what the Spanish Inquisition was to Christianity.'

Rubbish, absolute bollocks and non-sense. I wish atheists would stop waffling on about things they know nothing about. That a few or even some Muslims are nominal and will fit in proves nothing. They will be theologically illiterate and belong because their parents did. For them its a cultural club where they play by the rules they may think stupid. My Muslim cousin in law (or something like that) drinks beer which is against the rules and never prays or goes near a mosque. Muslim my arse - although he does treat my niece like she's second class. There are supposedly Christian atheists as well - what the hell is that?, and they, like nominal anything, are a pointless irrelevancy.

Islam is returning to its roots and core values - conquest, conversion and Sharia law. What you are seeing is a reformation but no enlightenment will come of it.


JC said...

There may be similarities to the Spanish Inquisition but a comparison is ludicrous..

The SI might have executed somewhere between less than 1000 to a top estimate of 5000 over *200* years.

"According to actual records the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are records of people committing blasphemy in secular courts so they could have their case fall under the Inquisition’s jurisdiction. Further, the Inquisition was the first to pronounce Europe’s witch hunt a delusion and prohibited anyone from being tried or burnt for witchcraft.[2] A symposium commissioned in 1998 to study the Inquisition based on the actual newly released records released its findings: the total number of accused heretics put to death during the Spanish Inquisition comprised 0.1 percent of the more than 40,000 who were tried. In some cases the Inquisition saved heretics from secular authorities.[2]"

As for Trump's ban the actual words are ..

“total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

The reasons, apart from the obvious terrorism are as follows:

"As backing, Trump cited a controversial six-month-old survey from the right-wing Center for Security Policy finding that one-quarter of U.S. Muslim respondents believed that violence against Americans was justified as part of global jihad and that a slim majority “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.”

Who wouldn't want to consider a ban to figure out what was going on in light of those percentages?

Perhaps more to the point the elite throughout the West are peddling junk about "the Religion of Peace", hiding the gruesome rape figures, the criminality and ignoring the voice of millions questioning the whole migration dump.

Trump is simply giving a voice to the millions sick of the official dishonesty.


The Veteran said...

nothing in the two posts above focus on the core proposition of my argument ... that Trump's demonizing of the Muslim religion (as opposed to the terrorists who are perverting the religion to suit their own purposes) is serving to alienate the US Muslim community and, as such, is providing fertile ground for the radicalization of the alienated and disaffected (and the not so alienated and disaffected).

Trump might think that is smart politics and it maybe that in the context of the primaries where there is a substantial red-neck/evangelical/fundamentalist constituency to be courted he is going for short-term gain and bugger the long term pain likely to be inflicted by a deliberately marginalized US Muslim community.

Anonymous said...

demonizing of the Muslim religion (as opposed to the terrorists who are perverting the religion to suit their own purposes) ...

This is where you come unstuck because the Muslim religion is inherently violent with no historical credibility at all before the revelations to a twit in cave. 200 converts in the first 13 peaceful years, millions since the narrative switched from nice to nasty after those initial 13 years. Looking back over history and claiming lineage through the Jews and Christ was just marketing that didn't fool the supposedly primitive locals at the time but seems acceptable to the clever and so enlightened people of today. The claims Islam makes for itself via the Old Testament are interesting because they pick all the dross that God rejects. The revelations are in a cave whereas the Jewish approach was always to go to mountain tops, the lineage was from Abraham's bastard son and so on. Islam is a reverse mirror of Jewish and later Christian theology and is inherently violent. What amazes me is that anyone could be fooled by it but then there's the climate change crowd so I guess idiots are always about.

You of all people should know that if you are going to have a poke at the enemy or defend a position you do a recce to see what's what.


JC said...

First point.. IS is far closer to the tenets of Islam than so called "moderates" who by the standards of Islam, currently reinforced by Al Azhar university renowned as "Sunni Islam’s most prestigious university" in Cairo. Moderates are apostates by the current definitions of Islam and as is obvious they can be killed by true believers without penalty.

Second point.. perhaps reflecting that awful dichotomy its common for polls in the West to show Muslims believe 15-50% its OK to have a jihad with killing against the host countries and to believe Sharia should be the law of the land.

You already have a marginalised Muslim population in the West which shows up in isolation, failure to assimilate and criminal convictions.

You also have large numbers of non Muslims seeking to excuse Muslims for their perfidies because of fear of retaliation. If there's one thing the West knows about Muslims its their threats of mayhem and murder if they become displeased with their hosts.. witness Charlie Hebdo etc.

As for Trump's comments.. well.. the US House voted 289/137 in November to pause refugees from Iraq and Syria for six months. There's clearly a lot of cross party concern about Muslim migration.. Trump's comments are just one step removed from that action and reflect a fair degree of shock that the US is accepting 250,000 Muslims each year.

"To put these numbers into perspective, this means that every year the U.S. admits a number of Muslim migrants larger in size than the entire population of Des Moines, Iowa; Lincoln, Nebraska; or Dayton, Ohio."


The Veteran said...

So folks ... accepting your analysis and it suggests the ONLY option is war; war against nations (some of whom are nuclear) and war within nations of the IRA (Catholics) vs Loyalists (Prods) variety. Help me because I need to understand ... is that what you are advocating?

For myself and I am more attuned to WHAM (and not Lyndon Johnson style ... grap them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow). In fact I think that is the ONLY long term solution given that your one can only result in the onset of a new dark age made worse by nuclear holocaust.

But then perhaps I am only a simple (ex) soldier.

JC said...

Er.. are you saying Muslim nations will go to war against any country that restricts or regulates Muslim out migration for six months?

I'd say they would be more pissed off with the West taking wealth, skills, bodies of fighting age and a future tax base *out* of the country.

As for internal religious scraps.. the Islamists have been fighting a war for 20 years in a number of Western countries. So far these countries are not fighting back.. only blocking the ball rather than scoring runs but that will change if the Islamists escalate their war and/or the refugee problem isn't sorted.


Anonymous said...

I think you need to accept that some basics of civilisation in the west simply exclude practicing Muslims. The Japanese make it very difficult for them and Islam has no visible presence there because the Japanese will not allow a foothold. Perhaps the Japanese value their culture, flawed though it may be, more than alternatives like Islam. I am advised that being a Muslim in Japan sees you unemployable, unable to rent a house - assuming you got a visa to get in in the first place. The Arab states are still full of Toyotas.

So, close the door to them, shut mosques (including the one in Taihape for goodness sake), no Emirates and let them self destruct in their homelands. Border patrols on the front lines in Africa, Europe and Asis shoot to kill and take no prisoners, returning warriors or supporters. The alternative will eventually be the terrible thing you fear and awful though the idea is I'd rather I do that there than here. Its a war Jim but not as we know it.


The Veteran said...

JC ... I'm saying that YOU appear to be advocating war against Muslims rather than war against IS (read Muslim terrorists).

As for 3.16 ... you've made your position quite clear. In the US you abrogate the First Amendment to the Constitution and make the 3.3m Muslims there second class citizens (not sure though how that pans out for the 15,000 in the military). The same for NZL and our 46,000 Muslims (including Tim Groser and Sonny Bill Williams). Perhaps you have supped long and hard from the cup of Adolf H and believe all the shit about the Jews too. As for 'shoot to kill and take no prisoners' can I suggest you have never pulled on a uniform because if you did you would know it's not that easy ... even Himmler found that out with his Einsatzgruppen.

Anonymous said...

Any one who uses and quotes Wikipedia when it comes to powerful people, organisations and Governments is guilty of lazy research. We all know that Wiki can be changed in a instance. The number Inquisition deaths by religion is unknown and in the context of his discussion unimportant. The record keeping was immaculate but so many have been lost, using the accounts for cost and the amount of rope purchased and the ration allowance for gaols like Cordoba the estimation is between 10,000 and 30,000 burnt at the stake and 100 to 125,000 died in gaol from the results of malnutrition and torture.

What is not appreciated is that the Inquisition went to the Americas where the atrocities went unreported and used as subjugation tactics for the perceived enemies of Spain.

There is great concern in Europe about the radicalisation of young (and older) people by the internet through hate sites, romanticising the armed struggle against perceived injustices, and the use of spurious "facts" to install a climate of fear. If you want to see who has been radicilised just look in the mirror JC and all of the anons. An American, whose name escapes me, said that as far as long term damage goes the internet is as dangerous as a ten year old with a loaded revolver.

All this without leaving two tiny island in the Pacific. I urge you to visit Cordoba Mosque/cathedral and then the cells of the inquisition and still come out with some of the secondhand nonsense that the haters espouse. Wiki is correct on the Cordoba Mosque. Now, just a bit of horrible history. The first great massacre happened when Richard the lionheart, king of England who could not speak English and hated the place, paraded 2300 bound prisoners of Saladin's army between the opposing forces, then proceed to kill them mainly by decapitation. I did not use the term Muslim because in Saladin's army there were Jews and Mercenaries of no fixed faith.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

I think Veteran and Nobacon are pissing in the wind here. It has become obvious for some time that most of the people shouting about the great Muslim threat have only a tenuous grasp of history and are totally devoid of world experience, a bit like the American mid west really.

JC said...

"JC ... I'm saying that YOU appear to be advocating war against Muslims rather than war against IS (read Muslim terrorists). "

Yes, there's an element of truth to that in that the Quran and Hadith, unchanged since the time of Muhammad, instruct followers to kill the Jews and Infidel "wherever you find them" or of course enslave them in certain cases. These verses are considered by Muslim law and custom to be inerrant, open ended and not constrained to specific examples that might give some wriggle room.

Moderate, well educated with good incomes Muslims simply ignore those edicts in their faith.. not so some of their sons and daughters who access the Quran and Hadith online, read many of the Imams preaching strict adherence and get bolstered by the many jihad type sites and become radicalised.

Thus, within all Muslim communities, what we call terrorism is simply a requirement of Islam and *we* can't stop it by just killing off pious young people following the Book and their Imams.. only Muslims themselves can stop it by reformation.

I might add that all Muslim nations that are part of the United Nations are signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Rights which most definitely is at odds with Sharia and a strict interpretation of Quran and Hadith. Its Muslims who have to change, not us.


The Veteran said...

JC ... congrats ... a glimmer of hope ... 'only Muslims can stop it by reformation'. And that's precisely what I'm on about ... WHAM ... the need to win their hearts and minds through education. And you don't achieve that by demonizing an entire religion. Going after Muslim terrorists (and that includes those who incite) by any means whatever is right and proper and has my unreserved support.

But hand in glove with that is the need to help Muslims to understand that centuries old edicts (which may have have some legitimacy then) are no more valid today then say Leviticus 20:10 in the Old Testament Bible which mandates death for both the adulterer and the adulteress.

Anonymous said...

the need to win their hearts and minds through education ...

This requires they effectively abandon Islam as the theology cannot be altered without the whole mess collapsing because it calls Allah's revelation into question (which suits me but not most of them). It says what it says. If you look at the Israeli experience there are plenty of smart, well educated and wealthy Muslims that will do stupid stuff.

Leviticus 20:10 in the Old Testament Bible ...

This is not a valid comparison because the OT develops into new covenant where the rules get changed by the rule maker. In Islam you have the enlightenment at the start and it then gets worse and very dark.

I'm not saying go out and kill them all but the armed insurgents and gangs outside an Islamist country - such as those roaming Europe, need to be dealt to ruthlessly, isolated in Islamic countries and told the secular west has no respect for Islam and will not acknowledge it or allow it because of the stated goals. Its a very unpleasant business but that's the reality of it.

As for you Veteran, would you like to be poncing about in Iraq with a Muslim covering your arse? Some may be OK but I'd be nervous enough without exposing them to such a conflict of interest.

I despair that some will excuse awful behaviour in 2016 because 1000 years ago some white European twit did bad stuff as well.


The Veteran said...

3:16 ... clearly then, according to your view of the world, there can be no real resolution of this short of war and accepting the curtailment of the basic human rights we enjoy here in NZL including the forced closure of Mosques ... your words (how the f**k does that help except to drive Muslims underground and right into the hands of those who would advocate jihad).

Sorry, your theology confuses. If the Bible is to be accepted as the word of God then only God can change it and not someone else. The reality is that the Bible has and is being reinterpreted to reflect contemporary mores. ... like not killing adulterers. The same with Islam ... through education it has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21 century. Look, just as there are 'Christian' sects (and even supposed mainstream Christians) that hold steadfast to a literal interpretation of the Bible so there are Muslims who choose to do likewise ... they are the issue and the focus has to be on isolating them and showing them up for what they are ... extremists/terrorists whose perverted views have no place in the 21st century.

You despair, I despair more.

JC said...

"JC ... congrats ... a glimmer of hope ... 'only Muslims can stop it by reformation'. And that's precisely what I'm on about ... WHAM ... the need to win their hearts and minds through education."

I've been saying it for years Vet. But what I'm on now is *we* need another reformation to disabuse ourselves of crap like all cultures are equally good. Appeasement is in the end useless without the right and ability to demand certain standards within our own countries and in support of the UN Human Rights Declaration as appropriate.

Trump is popular right now not because of rednecks but because he seems to be the only one listening to the electorate. Apparently 20% of his support could be democrats in a match up with Hilary.


The Veteran said...

JC ... I think that all cultures are equally different ... good, bad, whatever. I guess you could cherry-pick bits out of each in an attempt to make a so called perfect culture but your perfect culture may not be my perfect culture. Drill down and it's people and every person is different, influenced by their own culture but not necessarily bound by it.

You are right that appeasement doesn't work and neither does dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. Establish the lines in the sand if you will, above the line and it's fair game to argue the toss but cross the line and you're fair game.

As for Trump ... my position is clear. Trump doesn't have an ideological base to fall back on. He is the ultimate populist and, what happens when the polls turn against him as they do with any politician? Put simply I doubt his judgement to deal with complex matters of State requiring more than sound bite solutions.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, your theology confuses.

It will confuse you because you don't know how to read it. That lots of Christians also have no idea makes them in error about a lot of the bible narrative. That's what you get when men run things. Christianity has marched on because its designed to. The Ten Commandments are bloody simple and still apply even if the secular leave out the ones about how we relate to God. Maybe some of the OT stuff is hard because it had to be but the Bible doesn't require we hold to those because it shifted gear with the new testament.

Islam is marching the wrong way from our perspective because it has to. Its like light and dark, hot and cold and so on. That most of us are in the middle because we are lukewarm about everything doesn't change the anchor points. Christianity, by design can live with other faiths and is apolitical but Islam, by design, cannot and is not. Having it about may be OK in small doses but its on the charge at present and at some point will need to be challenged. We are increasingly prevented from doing so because that's hate speech, Islamophobia and so on. Its going to be sorted and the longer we leave it the worse it will be. I think the UK and Europe are going to lose unless they get ugly because they have embraced a system that states it will overthrow them.


The Veteran said...

3:16 ... interesting. Your certainty even more so. But I for one refuse to demonize a religion per se. Perhaps the Crusades have much to answer for. Clearly I'm no theologian but from my cursory understanding of the Koran (Qur'an) Christians (and Jews) are referred to as 'People of the Book' and are to be respected. Clearly at some point this essential truth was lost. In a certain sense that is not to far removed from the Roman Catholic tradition where Prods et al are seen as 'Separated Brethren'.

Back to the 'certainty' bit. I had a family member who converted to become a JW. Such was their certainty that it was impossible to have any sort of intelligent conversation with them.

Anonymous said...

At last you are starting to see through the fog. The Crusades do have much to answer for and no Christian would defend the excesses - much of the behaviour was clearly outside what could be justified theologically.

The Quran does talk about people of the book but that was a ploy to appeal to the locals at the time. It also was an attempt to claim a Biblical history for Islam but as I pointed out earlier they had to take the leftovers because the Jews had a special relationship with God (which they gradually lost because of their arrogance although even in the old days there was already a picture of something bigger than Judaism) until the new covenant with Christ when the relationship becomes what we know as Christianity. When unsuccessful that changed to convert, tax or kill them all. Muslims are killing about 100,000 Christians a year at present so that's ticking along nicely. The essential truth wasn't lost; Allah, not man, replaced it so you can't argue against it.

Its true the RC's and Protestants have been at each others throats at times but its clear when you look at the RC doctrines there is much that denies Christian teaching. Indulgences, the whole idea the Pope is God's bloke on earth, electing who is a saint and so on are obvious RC positions to argue against but there are many, many others. This is not to say we all get it right but clear errors need to be called out.

The JW's still appear at my door. I can trick them into making a fool of themselves using their own literature but have given up. A very beautiful and intelligent refugee African lady (ex Zimbabwe) with a young son was the JW apprentice recently and I felt sorry for her being tied up with a cult. She was delightful to talk to about all sorts of things but you can't get them alone to help them see because the chief sorcerer won't dare let you.


Anonymous said...

Lot of confusion here. A religion, particularly Islam, is not a culture. Various cultures use and view Islam in different ways. The behavior of North African immigrants is not Muslim, it is Arabic.

An old friend of mine Mohamed who used to run a takeaway wouldn't have clue about the finer points of the Koran that some posters here seem to great delight in quoting. He followed the basic tenants of his religion providing it did interfere with his family or his business, just like those who are Sunday Christians (except me).

Anon 3.16 Killing a 100,000 Christians a year? Where on earth did that figure come from? I know that large numbers of the Muslim faith are killed by others, maybe even 100,000 a year.

That's the trouble with the interweb machine...too much book learning and not enough hands on experience and as I lived in a Muslim community I think I am qualified to say that.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

An interesting concept for JC to ponder on A gay and gender friendly Mosque.

Angry Tory said...

Well at least Trumpf is a Natural Born Citizen, unlike Cuba-Canadian Ted Cruz

The Veteran said...

AT ... show me where the US Constitution defines 'Natural Born Citizen' ... you won't because you can't because it doesn't. And that is what the argument (if there is an argument) is all about.

Anonymous said...

I see, being born in a certain geographical location imbues you with certain powers and insight that other less fortunate people lack. Christ on a pogo stick I've heard it all now.

As Steve Jobs is the son of a Syrian refugee we ought to be looking at the current crisis through different eyes.

Lord Egbut