Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Two Sides Fighting Terror
For years many of us have been saying that the Muslim leaders in the US must actively speak out against terrorism. We have also heard of Muslim leaders who profess to oppose terrorism and insist that they do not harbor recruits or recruiters of terrorism.
Imagine my disappointment as I learn that mosques may not be screening for jihadis. According to Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, who has been tracking mosques who report to the authorities, “…mosques are not putting jihadis out, or making it clear that they are unwelcome, or, for the most part, reporting them to authorities when they learn of what they’re doing.”
In contrast, a counterterrorism program in Dearborn led by its Police Chief Ron Haddad, has shown success in identifying potential terrorists:
In a city where nearly a third of the approximately 95,000 residents are Arab-American or of Arab descent, Haddad’s department has a deep network of contacts in the community and makes regular visits to Dearborn’s 38 schools and its many mosques. He sponsors a program called “Stepping Up,” which includes an annual awards ceremony (the next is April 12) for residents reporting crime. At least twice in the past several years, fearing influence from ISIL or online propaganda on their children, Haddad says, Muslim fathers have turned in their own sons. In another case, it was students at a largely Muslim high school calling about a troubled peer.
The FBI also began rolling out a secret informant program in key cities to see how well the program will work. Unfortunately groups, Muslim and non-Muslim, have emerged that challenge the FBI’s efforts to identify potential terrorists.
Most recently the WSJ reported on Dr. Dale Broome in San Bernardino who, after the terror attack, wrote up a pledge that could be signed by Muslim leaders, that “among other things, committed Muslim leaders to ‘implement a program to monitor members of my mosque who may be planning, recruiting or participating in such criminal activity.’ They would also be asked to report any suspicious individuals to authorities and encourage their congregations to do the same.”
Dr. Broome asked a local Muslim, Dr. Mohammad Hossain, who had lived in the U.S. for 40 years, if he would sign the pledge. Dr. Hossain asked that Dr. Broome submit the pledge to the interfaith council to which both men belonged. Dr. Hossain refused to sign the pledge, as did everyone on the council, except Dr. Broome. Dr. Hossain said, according to WSJ, that terrorism was a political not religious act that was carried out by a tiny minority on the fringes of Islam. It wasn’t his responsibility to combat the fear of Islam by signing pledges or reporting suspects.
So we have those who are actively fighting the recruitment of Islamist terrorists, such as communities like Dearborn along with the FBI, and those, including Muslims and their communities’ supporters, who feel that Muslims and mosques should not be singled out by those within their community, or those outside.
These circumstances raise a number of questions: is the larger Muslim community prepared to fight Islamist terrorism or not? How do we support the FBI in its efforts to identify potential terrorists without their limiting the civil rights of others? Can we trust that the Muslim communities who say they wish to help are doing so?
Published in General
It is possible it begins to dawn on us that the ‘small minority’ are not that small. This is a choice between beliefs in Nation and belief in religion. It is never an easy path for any of us to walk.
I do know if people refuse to proactively save the lives of other citizens, despite the history showing it is not a theoretical threat, that I get concerned with the tenets of the religion itself.
I pray my concerns are unfounded, I fear they are not.
I have tried so hard to maintain a balanced perspective, TKC, but it’s getting harder and harder.
Great eye-opening post, Susan. It appears that the Muslim community may be in some sort of denial about the political aspect of Islam. It is not and never has been a religion as the West understands it, but rather a religious-based community ethic that controls most aspects of their lives. We don’t fear that the leadership of a Catholic Archdiocese may be harboring or protecting terrorists.
Having learned the hard way that Islam is not isolated from civic action in the same manner makes us fearful. If the leaders of Muslims in our communities don’t want to help keep us safe from the Jihadi monsters, then we get FBI infiltration and extreme immigrant vetting. Can’t have it both ways.
I think you’re right, TW. They can’t have it both ways.
Excellent questions. We all deserve answers. And TY for including the info on Dearborn and the FBI. Our Muslim communities are growing in large cities and more people from war torn countries like Somalia and the middle east who don’t seem interested or capable of assimilation are entering our country. Pew research has some startling figures for 2016 (2002-2016).
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/
They’re certainly denying things to the outside world. How much they’re denying to themselves is uncertain.
I’ve have felt since 9/11 that the biggest threat to religion based terrorism, and Muslims in particular (at this time), is ourselves. Our failure to give this religion our full respect. Read the Koran. They are as serious about jihad as another faith is about its sacraments. I don’t think most non-Muslims realize jihad is not considered wrong by Muslims. I cannot provide a link but I have read more than once that within their faith it would be wrong to interfere with a jihadist activities and or refuse to support a jihadist’s activities. I do not think, as a generality, Muslims will voluntarily violate their faith by reporting and or cooperating with law enforcement. Just look at the terrorist actions in Orlando or San Bernadino — lots of Muslims knew of preparations/plots, etc. and DID NOTHING. Their faith comes before Country, before even Family.
If we had been honest with ourselves about this particular religion from the get go, we would not be where we are today. I know, I know, it is near impossible for anyone in America to believe that any religion would promote, support, encourage violent, murderous acts against non-Muslims for the simple reason of being non-Muslim, but this one does; I think history has shown it always has. When we have allowed it to do so.
Read the Koran. Have some respect for this religion. Take them seriously. Then you will know your fears are justified.
If Dr. Hossain isn’t even going to look, how does he know how tiny the “tiny minority” is?
Evidence beats anecdote, and anecdote beats wishful thinking.
It’s interesting that I find myself thinking “Susan is brave for posting this.” I fear that instinctive response answers your queries as to the bottom line:
Is there anyway of guaranteeing our safety and all our freedoms in fighting radical Islam?
This video illustrates the dilemma in getting the cooperation of the mosques. Either they are not communicating with their members or they just don’t care. Frustrating.
I’ve pursued a lot of study on Islam, too, TT. Jihad does mean violence against kafirs, and it also means the war one fights within, to be fair. And I just have to add that there is a group of reputable Muslims who are fighting the jihadists at every opportunity. M. Zuhdi Jasser has proven his love of America, having served as an officer in the US Navy. It’s worth checking him out here.
As I see it, the problem lies in the fact that Islam is a social system, rather than a religion, some of whose tenets (such as Shariah law) are incompatible with Western democratic principles.
This means that immigrant Moslems MUST be flexible with their religious convictions and undertake to observe to conventions of the host country (which indeed Ms Quinn would be compelled to do were she to emigrate to Saudi Arabia).
The US should absolutely demand this of immigrants of any nationality and religion.
Which conventions are you referring to? I’m not disagreeing with you, just wondering. (BTW–will respond to any comment after the Sabbath. Thanks for weighing in!
To an American, the idea of doing this is appalling. Yet it would be infinitely more so to learn that your son had murdered innocent men, women, and children. Strange that people fleeing the horrors of religious war in their own countries want to recreate those horrors here.
Trink, tritely, perfection is the enemy of the good. And, we all know what the only two things are that are guaranteed.
We can probably prevent 95% of internal terror activity without infringing on our citizens’ rights. The trick is to remember that what is foremost is our citizens’ rights, not some lame process involving hopeful or illegal immigrants. We either get serious or become Europe. That said, of course it is best to be mindful of our personal rights.
Then, we go back and read TempTime’s comment #7. The time for temporizing and wringing our hands about Islamists’ civil rights is over.
Maybe to simplify or clarify, the conventions fidelio102 mentions are merely the sum of those actions necessary to actually assimilate into our society. The melting pot must melt. English only, US law, swearing allegiance to our country, and defending it with your life, if necessary. No more ballots in 16 languages and elementary schools like the ones in my city that teach in Spanish, for examples.
For some very influential streams in Islam the first is forbidden if sincere and the second is just forbidden. This has the same problem that anticommunist loyalty oaths did: Dedicated Communists being doctrinally atheist had no problem swearing falsely in the name of any deity and if it were a matter of a non-deistic oath, had no problem with that either since their true allegiance was elsewhere.
DUH!!!! I’m happy to see it dawning on people that–surprise! Most American Muslims would probably be happy to see Sharia established here. Daniel Pipes in his book “Radical ISlam Reaches America” quotes Islamist authors who brag about the fact that they will easily be ale to use our principles of religious freedom against us. And they HAVE, since the Sept eleven attacks.
Whether or not they’d be happy to see the black flag of ISIS flying from the White House probably depends on whether they belong to the same sect as ISIS. Cuz while Americans aren’t persecuting them, you can bet their co religionist sectarian enemies would, if they came to power.
America, honey, you AWAKE yet?
I have two thoughts on this topic.
First, it calls to mind the two-page pledge Mr. C’s ancestors had to sign for admittance to the U.S. (from Prussia) wherein they promised in umpteen different ways not to practice polygamy. This must have coincided with the efforts to stop the practice among Mormons, because the anti-polygamy pledge took up two-thirds of the document. So it seems coercion (strong-arming, persecution, whatever you prefer to call it) concerning religious practices is not without precedent.
The problem is, the Left has so demonized normative Christianity (see Chip and Joanna Gaines), that we can’t trust government to tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore. In fact, looking at what the Obama administration has done to the Little Sisters, I’m certain government isn’t to be trusted to target the threats. This is what happens when we let the Left occupy the commanding heights of the culture. Decent distinctions are no longer possible.
Second, if practitioners of my (Catholic) faith were mowing down people with vehicles, hacking them with knives, lighting people on fire, and otherwise committing grave evils against humanity, I would (hopefully) come to doubt the truth of my religion. If it weren’t for the capital punishment for apostasy in Islam, I would find it more than passing odd that many Muslims aren’t renouncing their faith.
In sum, 1st Amendment protections should not be a suicide pact. We better come to terms.
P.S. I did not mean to suggest that Mormons are bad guys. I’m referring to the jihadists in particular in this remark. Just to be clear…
Imho this was the money quote from the article (emphasis added):
Imams at mainstream mosques are committed to their own importance – and as such, are “moderate”, in that terrorism undercuts that for them in Western society.
Eating in pork in public on SaturdaySigning a pledge that basically accepts intrinsic criminality in their community doesn’t work for them either.Jihadis in the West are much more likely to be radicalised through informal networks, or in undergroundish prayer rooms, than in mainstream mosques whose power structures have an investment in acceptance.
The Imams can’t tell you who’s thinkng of jihad because: they don’t know. And that’s another thing which undercuts their self-assigned role as community spokespeople.
Iow: wrong tree.
All correct, I’m sure. So, the answer is that they don’t become citizens if they won’t recognize our nation under OUR terms, as it is our country.
Well said Sister. Well said.
Yes. I agree there are several who I believe are attempting to help non-Muslims to understand the faith of the Muslims. And certainly not all Muslims engage in the open conflict with non-Muslims. I was just attempting to make a point, that if we begin with respecting the tenets of their faith, perhaps, we could find a way to help Muslims understand that in America, secular/constitutional laws supersede/trump faith-based laws in the public square/secular society. This is not a judgement about any faith, it is simple truth. In America, you may choose any belief system, however, when it comes to liberty, freedom, pursuit of happiness, crimes and misdemeanors, sovereignty — the constitutional law of this Country is THE governing law/principle. Example (extreme for effect): Under no circumstances will beheadings be permitted; honor be damned. If this standard violates ANY religion’s tenets/beliefs, then it’s members will simply need to learn and understand that this is the wrong country for them; and then leave, voluntarily or otherwise.
Continued …
continuing from #24 …
The second thought, although not explicitly stated above, I was hoping to create some reflection about is this idea that the difficulty with Muslims is the notion of “modernity”. Mostly when I’ve seen it used, it comes off as a polite insult. It’s as if people think, if WE non-Muslims could just convince Muslims that violent external focused jihad is “middle ages” cultural thinking and If WE could just bring the Muslims into the current century with jobs, housing, socialization, etc. WE could moderate jihad towards something less violent, something more tasteful, more “civilized”. What smug, self-deluded thinking!
How dare we be so disrespectful. “Muslim” is not just a culture, it is a faith; respect this fact. WE cannot do anything about the faith of Muslims; nor should we try. It is not our place to do so. Any moderation that is to occur is solely in the domain and at the discretion of the faith’s leadership and membership; we should be so vain as to attempt to usurp aspects of THEIR faith, we have no right to do so.
But what we can do and must do, to secure this country and protect all its citizens, is to respect and enforce our laws
I think that @trinitywaters has answered your question, possibly better than I could.
I would have cited the examples of Britain, over centuries, and Sweden, over the past decades, which have successfully assimilated waves of immigrants who unquestioningly accepted the way of life of their host country. It is when they do not do so that the trouble starts.
You are well placed to know that when the Catholic inquisition started persecuting the Jewish population (notably in Spain) and later under Nazi persecution, significant numbers of Jews were assimilated into more friendly nations precisely because they adapted their way of life to that of the host country, They kept their synagogue, their Sabbath and, in some cases, their dress, but adapted in every other way, with sometimes spectacular success.
Would it? Wouldn’t you expect a parent here to turn in a child for committing a crime. Or do you mean having to do it for the child committing terror, Richard?
Completely agree on this one, TW.
I can’t help believe, Hypatia, that they want this theoretically. But in reality, I have to believe that many Muslims would hate sharia in practice. But we have no way of knowing what most American Muslims would really want.