If We Cannot Ban Islam, Perhaps We Can Ban Sharia

Talking about Trump, screeching in outrage at Trump’s Trumpiness is paying the man precisely the tribute he desires. If you fools don’t stop, you will deserve him trolling his way into the White House, and I will laugh incredibly hard.


But Trump is calling attention to the problem of problems, which is finding a way to keep the country safe from radical Islam. What we’ve currently been doing, in terms of vetting and in terms of fighting it abroad, has not worked as of this moment. And if we dislike Trump’s idea for dealing with the problem (although we may not dislike it as much as we pretend to), then we have to start asking ourselves some serious questions.

The link above goes to Scott Adams’ blog, which has perhaps the best discussion of why Trump does what he does that I have yet read. The gist: he’s crazy like a fox. The point: If we’re not going to do what Trump says to do, what are we going to do, and how much risk are we prepared to accept?

Well, Roger Simon has a proposal that I think deserves discussion.

Most of all, we must outlaw Sharia. Sharia law, with its institutionalized doctrinal misogyny and homophobia as well as its primacy of mosque over state (not to mention cruel and unusual punishments for adultery, etc.), is completely inconsistent with our Constitution and the values of our country and Western civilization. Further, adherence to Sharia encourages the lack of assimilation, the self-ghettoization, endemic to much of our Muslim population. This resistance to assimilation creates insular communities that form the equivalent of petri dishes for jihadist terror. This must be ended if Muslims are to stay here as participating members of our society.

We outlawed the Communist Party during the Cold War, as they were regarded as the agents of a foreign power with hostile intent to the USA. Sharia Law can be understood as similar. Mosques which preach sharia and jihad can be shut down in a similar manner.

This may not work. But it will make clear that we, at last, understand the problem.

Blood, Madness, and Charlie Hedbo

Back in 2011, Charlie Hedbo’s offices got firebombed by Islamists. I remember because I posted the offending cover to my old blog. I was “Je Suis Charlie” before it was hashtagged.

This attack was worse in terms of body count, but I haven’t been as attached to the issue. All the usual suspects have said all the usual things. There has been the moment of Twitter solidarity, and the massive pro free-speech rallies worldwide. And the French police have arranged for all of the suspects but one to become dead. Which is all fine. It means there’s life in the old girl yet.

But in my gloom I wonder if our elite, so painstaking in not fanning the flames of anti-muslim rage, are rather going to end up bringing it about. There’s only so many times people can be told “Yes, but understand them,” before losing all desire to understand anything but threats and the removal of same.

This is a religious war. We don’t want it to be, but it is. We don’t want it to be because we lost our taste for religious war in the West some 300 years ago, and have as yet not regained it. But if we had our wants, we wouldn’t be fighting this war at all. Most of us would be entirely content to let the Middle East and Islam buzz off and do as it liked provided it left us out of it. It’s not like we actually care about what’s going on in Yemen.

And because of that, our elites would much rather pretend that this is some failure of cultural understanding, with some regrettable law-enforcement and precision-bombing involved. They don’t want to use the weapons at their disposal, because they are far more interested in making their culture reflect their specific prejudices than in defending it as it is.

And what are these weapons? In a cultural war, attacking the premises of the offending culture, mocking its claims of sacrality, forcing it by moral suasion to accept change.  And it means answering violence with violence.

We aren’t prepared to do that yet. Not fully, not without shame, not without assuring ourselves that we really don’t want to. This is a pride of ours, that we consider very little in this world worth killing for. And it’s better than the alternative. But it will not give our enemies pause.

When we reach the end of the road, and we find ourselves faced with our enemies’ demand “Submit or die,” we may yet find the determination to find the third choice. This will be ugly. It will be messy. It will not assure us of our evolved natures. But it will decide things quite clearly.

Despite what we say, we are not all Charlie. Yet.

Please Forgive Us, We Are Not Monsters.

‘You’re a bad man’ says British boy to Nairobi gunman.

“No we aren’t, here’s a Mars bar. Now run off and convert to Islam. Can you forgive us?”

The above is not parody. The above is what happened at the mall shooting in Kenya over the weekend.

The mind boggles.

On the one hand, it’s good to see that some spark, however small and cold, of moral awareness remains in a jihadi. We should never wish our enemies to be totally depraved.

But “Forgive us?” Forgiveness presupposes contrition, and contrition presupposes sin. If the jihadi believes that he is doing God’s work in gunning down unarmed civilizans, then the only consistent response to being told “You are a bad man,” would be a bullet.

Yet that did not happen. The truth shall set you free, even out of the mouths of babes.

“Islam is Alone in having a War Strategy”

So sayeth American Infidels. It’s all about deception, and it’s called taqiyya.

While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi’ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi’ites, “it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Qur’an 3:28.” The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.

Also, there is Muhammad’s statement, “war is deceit.” He also allowed for lying in battle and between a husband and wife. And when he gave permission to one of his followers, Muhammad bin Maslama, to murder one of his critics, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, he also gave Muhammad bin Maslama permission to lie to Ka’b in order to lure him close enough to be killed.

And Muhammad is the “excellent example of conduct” for Muslims (Qur’an 33:21).

We do not understand our terrorist enemies half as well as we should. Fortunately, if we adopt the long war/containment strategy that we seem to be moving towards, we will have the opportunity to learn.

Darkness on the Edge of Town: Unions and Islamists Lock Arms for the Horst Wessel Song

Public order and civilization cannot survive when a community feels it is entitled to commit violence when it is thwarted.

The Religion of Peace.

Instapundit links the story of an Egyptian ex-diplomat who was kidnapped and beaten by the Muslim Brotherhood amid the continuing chaos of Egypt.

“They captured me, they dragged me and beat me all the way,” Yehia Negm, 42, said on Tuesday as Egyptians protested for a 19th day against President Mohamed Morsy, the Islamic-based Brotherhood and a rushed referendum on a proposed constitution.

Eight people died, and more than 700 were injured outside the palace a week ago before army troops and tanks restored order.

The Brotherhood blamed the violence on thugs paid by backers of deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak.

Of course they did. Not because they expect anyone to believe that. Not because they have any wish to disown violence. Because painting ourselves in the most favorable light is the top priority.

For a vision of what the Muslim Brotherhood plans for Egypt, look at Northern Mali.

On Oct. 9, Mariam Conate, 15, was walking to her uncle’s house in Timbuktu. She had forgotten to fully cover her face. Two Islamist police officers confronted her, and “one held me, the other beat me with the barrel of his gun,” Conate recalled. “They took me to their headquarters and threw me into a room. They locked the door and left.”

Outside, her jailors discussed her future. One wanted to cut off her ears as punishment. The other wanted to send her to a prison where six of her friends had been raped, she said. She was also worried that she would be forced to marry a militant, a fate her cousin had recently suffered.

“As I listened, I was trembling and crying,” Conate said.

U.N. and Malian officials said they have learned of many cases of rape and forced weddings by Islamist gunmen in the north. Two weeks ago, U.N. Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson told U.N. members that sexual violence is prevalent in the region.

No doubt these men consider their brutality heroic, precisely because it is so extreme. No doubt they think their willingness to go the extra mile to ensure that no woman goes around with her dirty sinful face uncovered redounds to their credit as men. Why, any slug can simply bow to the corrupt culture which permits fornication and other travesties, but to do something about it, to make your mark, even if that mark should only be in the wicked flesh of a woman’s ear, why, that is courage itself. So slice, slice the ears of Decadence, Ad Majora Dei Gloriam!

Fortunately we do not have such barbarians here in America.

As we speak, the usual suspects are pretending that this either didn’t happen, or that it contain’s exculpatory “heavy editing”. I suppose it’s possible that Crowder shouted “All Union Men enjoy union with men, if you know what I mean!” right before the guy started hitting him. But judged on the volume that Epic Beard Fattie achieves beforehand, I don’t think such was necessary. These guys believe themselves entitled to do with “freeloaders” as they please, and a hearty invitation at self-fornication to you if you happen to disagree. Dese guys, Dey is da woikin’ man, and da woikin’ man is always right, see?

Am I making too much of this? No. The difference of knocking over a tent and punching a guy does not equate to the kind of systematic terrorism that is rising in Egypt and Mali. Union goons are more akin to gangsters than revolutionaries; so long as they continue to wet their beak, nobody needs to get hurt. But both believe in a fundamental right to destroy opposition by any means necessary.

This kind of self-righteousness transcends ideology, so the fact that one can find the very same attitude in the lyrics of the official Nazi Party Rally, the Horse Wessel song, doesn’t really mean anything:

Flag high, ranks closed,
The S.A. marches with silent solid steps.
Comrades shot by the red front and reaction
march in spirit with us in our ranks.

You can find the actual song on YouTube, but it was posted by an actual Nazi, and I am not giving that a link.