I’ve got to hand it to the kids at Vox.com. They have a real genius for burying the lede. The title on their post is “Donald Trump has a base: 76% of Republicans think Islam is un-American”. When you dig into the same poll as they’re citing in their post (I’ve cited it here before), you come up with the following:
- A majority of Americans (56%) believe that Islam is inconsistent with American values and the American way of life.
- A majority of black Protestants (55%) believe that Islam is inconsistent with American values and the American way of life.
- A majority of independents (57%) believe that Islam is inconsistent with American values and the American way of life.
- 43% of Democrats (possibly a plurality) believe that Islam is inconsistent with American values and the American way of life.
I would love to know how Hispanics responded but the data aren’t broken out sufficiently for me to determine that. I would bet a shiny new dime that a majority of Hispanics think that Islam is inconsistent with American values and the American way of life.
How would you interpret those results? I don’t think it would be “Republicans are out-of-step with how most Americans think on this subject”.
Just for the record I don’t think that Islam is any less consistent with American values and the American way of life than Catholicism is. I do think that Islamism (political Islam) is inconsistent with American values and the American way of life just as Soviet communism was and for the same reason. Just as Soviet communism was a stalking horse for Russian imperialism I think that Islamism is a stalking horse for Arab nationalism and a whole laundry list of beliefs and practices that most Americans including many American Muslims find offensive and objectionable.
The distinction between political and religious Islam is of course the crucial distinction, and should end the food fight. Of course the folks at Vox understand; never let a good meme go to waste.
As for those able to separate politics, religion and corrupted religion as a political tool, they could always be sent to OTB comments for re-education.
It’s hysterical watching the entirety of the Republican Establishment rush to identify themselves as friends of Muslims and Islamophiles following Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigration. Are they really that isolated from their own constituents?
This is almost like Obi-Wan telling Vader “If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine”, except that they’re not going to strike him down, they’re building him up.
Probability of a Trump nomination is now about 85%. Call the rest of it for Cruz, who is the only one of the bunch savvy enough to say something like, “While I don’t completely agree with Trump’s statement, I’m not going to be a retard and openly fight him on this.”
The distinction between political and religious Islam is of course the crucial distinction, and should end the food fight
Is there a difference? Doesn’t Islam adopt the exact opposite of the stance of “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”?
You are pulling our leg, right, ice?
I’m having some fun rattling the cages of the OTB monkeys and their deep, deep insight (snicker) that most practitioners of Islam are normal and peaceful people. The distinction between legitimate practitioners of Islam and those for whom a bastardized and bizarre Islam-as-a-rallying-political-tool is the whole point. Willful denial of the distinction leads to the grotesque policy distortions and silly public political posturing.
I really do wonder, though, if Obama believes that calling out the crazies will inflame legitimate Muslims. He’s unimpressive, but is he really that dim-witted?? I sarcastically queried the OTB crew if American Christians, Jews or Muslims took to he streets with pitchforks, pipe bombs and, well, guns, after Obama saw fit to gratuitously mock them with his “clinging to their religion and guns” nastiness. Memory fades, but not that I recall…….
I can’t you what he thinks or they think only what I think. I don’t think that what we do one way or another matters much except to us. That’s for two reasons.
The first is the low cost of spreading disinformation. We can’t possibly counter it. Same reason that half of African Americans believe AIDS was created and spread deliberately.
The second reason is that the U. S. is the New Rome. We are The Enemy. Everything we do can be twisted to support their beliefs.
re: Hispanics.
This is a different type of poll, it asks people to describe how warm they feel to a group (0 deg. being extremely negative and 100 deg. being extremely positive). For Muslims:
Total: 40
Know a Muslim: 48
Democrat/Lean Democrat: 46
Black Protestants: 44
Hispanic: 43
Whites: 38
Jewish: 35
Republican/Lean Republican: 32
White Evangelical: 30
No group gave Muslims a 50 deg. average or greater score. Given that knowing a Muslim tends to lessen negatives views, one suspects that Black scores reflect knowing Black Muslims. In any event, this poll indicates that one should not expect Hispanics to have more positive views on consistency of Islam with American values than African-Americans.
My point is that the issue is less, as Vox implies, a Republican vs. Democrat issue than a progressive vs. everybody else issue.
I agree, and I think my alternative poll generally supports that. Americans tend to have a cool view of Muslims as a group. I think we’ve seen similar sentiments about Atheists.
After 9/11, there were a few incidents against Muslims, but there were not many. Like Donald Trump’s thousands of New Jersey cheering Muslims, nobody will be able to produce any evidence of widespread incidents against Muslims.
During his years in office, President Bush called it a War on Terror and called the participants various forms of radical Islamists. There was never any doubt he meant Muslims using terrorist tactics in a war against the US.
There was also never any doubt that he never meant the US was at war with Muslims or Islam. He said that “Islam is a religion of peace”, “Muslims are peaceful”, “a few individuals are hijacking the religion”, and so forth.
Except for the left, everybody understood who and what the fight was about, and somebody like Trump could not gain a foothold. After 3,000 Americans were slaughtered, there was little discussion of nuking Mecca, registering or banning Muslims, or who knows what else, but there was a president who at least did not have his head shoved all the way up his ass.
The idea that Muslims collectively or Islam could be a problem did not become a widespread belief until after the election of President Obama. Prior to his election, I would like a list of US actions that was done because of Islam, and it had better be something more than Billie Bob called somebody a “raghead”.
According to the FBI there are fewer than 200 hate crimes against Muslims per year in the United States. That compares with 1,000 against Jews. The U. S. is a country of 310 million people.
“I can’t you what he thinks or they think only what I think.”
But, but, but…..there are so many mind readers around these parts….
As for disinformation and Rome. Yeah, I think so. That’s why the handwringing seems so completely ludicrous to me. Hillary wants to fight the fight on social media. (Here I go with Sarc again) So she wants to infuse Facebook with positive American messages, target them to ISIL, and ask for a “Like?”
It makes no sense. So you have to ask, what really is the motivation? Unlike the OTB crowd I don’t assume anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. But I am flummoxed. Can Obama really (I mean really) believe what he says? That’s his worldview: play nice and adversaries will see the light? Iran just shot off a mid-range missile in violation of treaty. So much for verification, much less trust, in the recent giveaway deal. It defies rational explanation.
No need to answer. I cant read minds either.
The distinction between legitimate practitioners of Islam and those for whom a bastardized and bizarre Islam-as-a-rallying-political-tool is the whole point.
And how does one tell the difference? And how certain can one be that those in the first group won’t slide into the second group? The poor misunderstood Tsarnaev boys were radicalized here in the states. Apparently the same happened to Farooq. Some of the Paris attackers were born & bred in Europe. If the ones born & raised in the west can’t be expected to act like civilized human beings, why import more of them to breed more future attackers?
And the admission of Malik shows that the government is completely incapable or determining which immigrants are sane and which ones are batshit crazy (which is to say, a devout Muslim). The idea that the government can screen tens of thousands of towel heads from war-torn countries to determine which ones are serious risks and which ones aren’t is ludicrous. How are they even going to get records to establish if people are who they claim to be? Ask the Ba’athist government in Damascus?
(Hey, remember Obama mocking Republicans early last week for being scared of women and children? It took, what, two days before we had a women Muslim going all jihadi on us? I’m expecting some six year-old to suicide bomb his daycare any day now.)
Trump is going to win with the public on this because his position can be walked back just a little bit, but those claiming we need to let in everyone (which is everyone in the Democratic Party and the bulk of the Republican Party) are somewhere between being obviously stupid or downright evil in their intent.
Again, here’s my proposal. Anyone that wants to take in a refugee or immigrant from a Muslim country MUST take that person into their home for a minimum of two years, and ANY crime that immigrant commits (for the lifetime of the immigrant) will result in the sponsor being punished as though they had committed the crime themselves. So if you take in Little Akmed and he shoots up the mall, the sponsor gets the death penalty too. (Actually, strap a bomb to them and set it off, as that’s probably what Akmed will do.) We’ll see who thinks these fuckers are really so peace-loving then, and who is merely posturing to show how superior they are to their fellow citizens. Let’s see Huma and Hillary take in some 20 year-old former members of the Syrian Army into their home. Really, that would be grand!
Who cares? To date about 1% of the Chechens we’ve admitted into the country have turned out to be terrorists. That’s too high a percentage. Under the circumstances concluding that we shouldn’t admit any more Chechens to the U. S. is reasonable.
Although it’s frequently claimed that they self-radicalized, I have my doubts about the Tsarnaev brothers. The Russians didn’t warn us about the older brother just because they dislike Chechens but because he was associating with known violent radicals—probably his family and their friends.
To be honest I don’t think so. When you’re defending an ill-conceived idea you’ve promulgated for reasons of political expediency it’s pretty easy to tie yourself into a pretzel defending it. There’s a third option besides stupid and evil: stubborn. Unwilling to let go of a bad idea.
And then there’s a fourth reason: affiliational. The Democratic leadership have gotten themselves tied into pretzels courting the Mexican-American vote. A lot of other Democrats are supporting their dumb policies because they’re Democratic policies.
There’s a third option besides stupid and evil: stubborn. Unwilling to let go of a bad idea.
When countervailing evidence is abundant, defense of a bad idea becomes stupid.
And then there’s a fourth reason: affiliational. The Democratic leadership have gotten themselves tied into pretzels courting the Mexican-American vote. A lot of other Democrats are supporting their dumb policies because they’re Democratic policies.
But lots of Republicans support the same set of policies. This is a donor-class versus everyone else issue.
And even if one thinks the borders ought to be open to Latin Americans, that doesn’t mean we have to admit more Somalis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, Sudanese, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. And no one from Saudi Arabia! In fact, we should be looking to throw as many of them out of the country as possible. We’d probably have a lot less of these troubles if the Sauds weren’t exporting revolution everywhere else to hold onto their own positions. If we really want to drain the swamp, we should invade Saudi Arabia proper and put the entire royal family to the sword.
We don’t have to. That’s actually the subtext of my theme park idea. Send ’em home. Their own people will take care of the rest.
@Icepick
I meant to comment on your proposal in a previous post. I not only agree, but I would expand it to other areas. Any white person who says they have “white privilege” is immediately moved into a minority neighborhood. I suspect that their “white privilege” will be all gone in a week or two.
The Saudi problem is easily fixed. Let it be known that the US is no longer protecting them, and future bombing campaigns will be on the oil fields and refineries.
We don’t have to. That’s actually the subtext of my theme park idea. Send ’em home. Their own people will take care of the rest.
yes, but that still leaves the entirety of the rest of the Arab world, if not the Muslim world proper, for the Saudis to use as a dumping ground. And given that at least one Muslim nation already had nukes & missiles, containment becomes an issue.
I am quite sure that India and China are up to the task. And much more at risk than we are.
I am quite sure that India and China are up to the task. And much more at risk than we are.
I will admit that a nuclear exchange between nations worries me whether my nation is involved or not.
Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake. It’s very impolite.
Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake. It’s very impolite.
I’ll stop him if I think his mistake is going to impact me. Imagine the Ottomans in 1914 discovering a ploy by Serbian officials to assassinate the Archduke Ferdinand. Hey, that could lead to two enemies (de facto, though I don’t remember all the treaty obligations at the time) going to war with each other. So why get involved?
Some mistakes quickly lead to other mistakes. And I have a strong suspicion that two or more nations lobbing nukes at each other would be an excellent environment for “mistakes to be made.” That’s all I’m saying.
Incidentally, the Serbian conflict with Austria-Hungary in 1914 is an excellent example of how to avoid bigger problems by minding one’s own business. I’ve heard many, most notably Kasparov & others of the most aggressive wing of the Neo-con movement, state that we needed to stop Putin in Crimea, and that if we don’t it will be just like the 1930s with Hitler nibbling away at things until he’s too big to stop. They’ve argued that it is ALWAYS best to stop aggression as early as possible, and that by doing so one can avoid a more costly conflict later. I’ve pointed out that if Russia (and everyone else) had minded their own business in 1914 Serbia and Austria-Hungary would have fought a limited war – and the vast slaughter now known as WWI wouldn’t have happened.
Minding one’s own business can be a strategically proper course of action.
But particulars matter, and I really do not like the idea of nuclear exchanges between nations, not one bit.
Note that when I advise for nuking Mecca, say, I am not talking about a nuclear exchange – I’m arguing for one-way action only. I’m arguing for Maslow’s Nuclear Arsenal.
Ok. So where are we?? North Shore white liberals and Chicago’s west and south side blacks are trading homes. Everyone here we don’t like is being shipped to Saudi Arabia. And after the beheadings, we are taking neutron bombs to Saudi Arabia. And immigrants are admitted and then asked to go down a trap door that takes them to northern Saskatchewan……
Seems this all got started with Syrian refugees. I’m still in the same place. Satisfy the humanitarian need by providing safe camps, over there, until things get sorted out. They don’t have to be admitted here. Call that the I beg your pardon, I never promised you a Rose garden scheme. Given that those who should know already do know that Syrian refugee streams are to be used to get ISIS in it seems only prudent.
Now, what about everyone else?? Brides by mail?? Only Middle eastern brides by mail?? Rope the Mexican problem in?? “Trumps Pause??”
“Trump’s Pause”!
I like it! Sounds like the Rhythm Method or some such!
Trump’s Pause = When it ain’t working, stop at least until you figure out what the Hell is going on.
This really is coastal progressives vs. everyone else.
Of course Islam is antithetical to American values, so is Christianity. The only reason we can live with the Christians is because they’ve been saddle-broken by secular power. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc… are decidedly not Christian values, nor are they Muslim values.
My friends on the Left are sadly brainwashed by easily-disproved memes, my favorite being, “Islam is a religion of peace.” What drivel. Any religion that currently occupies a significant portion of planet earth came to that possession by murdering the hell out of some other religion of peace. Ask the Incas, Sioux or Australian aboriginals whether they think Christianity is a religion of peace. Hell, Catholics and Protestants have only recently stopped murdering each other, and they belong to the same religion of peace.
As for peace-loving Islam, show me a some stability, peace or prosperity in the Muslim middle-east or North Africa. For a religion of peace they sure don’t seem to find any actual peace.
You know a peaceful religion? Bahai. They have a nice place up in Wilmette. And no home country.
Don’t you think you require overly literal interpretation of documents like the Bible, projecting the realities of the general human condition of the day and region onto religion, and reaching far back in time to make your case, Michael? Do you dread marauding bands of evangelicals when you leave your place in the morning? As recent events have proven, snot nosed liberal kids on college campuses pose a greater threat to ideas and body as religious practitioners.
You know why Bahá’à still exists? Because it started in Iran. In Iran Islam isn’t a tribal religion in the way that it is among the Gulf Arabs and the Iranians were able to tolerate it. It also helped that it started before the Ottoman was in full decay.
Actually, given Michael’s background and upbringing I think it’s quite possible that he might.
Guarneri:
I dread all ideologies and all religions. Once you decide to shove your brain into a narrow little box, or decide to subordinate your will to that of an imaginary sky fairy, you’re capable of anything.
So far in life I’ve gotten death threats from the Ku Klux Klan, a couple of Richmond Va restaurants, and my best friend’s brother, and probably a couple I’ve forgotten. But the only ideology-based threat was from professed Christians.
I don’t have to go far back in history to fear Christians. I’m a Hebrew – Christians love killing the hell out of us.
On the other hand the Jews were never expelled from Ireland the way they were from most European countries at one time or another. The Irish and the Jews have tended to get along pretty well—kindred spirits, I think.
When I was a kid the president of Ireland was an Irish Jew. Many Irish Jews played prominent roles in the Rebellion.
As far as I know, the official position of the Iranian government is still that the Baha’i are a Russian-based conspiracy against Iranian Shi’ism. I think the only reason they still exist is that they’re a useful foil. If not for them, Iran would have to import more Jews. (Something to be kept in mind, Russian imperialism in Iran is not forgotten)
I have read the claim though that Iranian Shi’ism following the ’79 Revolution took on an Arab cast.
I would think not. A big chunk of Iran was occupied by the Soviets during WWII. The Tudeh (which but for the putsch that overthrew Mossadegh would have taken the country over) was financed and supported by the Soviets until the Shah shut them down.
“I’m still in the same place. Satisfy the humanitarian need by providing safe camps, over there, until things get sorted out. They don’t have to be admitted here.”
There seems to be a perception that everyone who applies to be a refugee gets accepted. That does not appear to be true. Multiple articles place it at about 50%. Last year only about 1800 Syrians were resettled here, so it dozens look like many actually want to come, or the vetting process kicked out more last year. If someone doesn’t pass the vetting process, then don’t bring them over. OTOH, if you don’t trust the vetting process, then don’t let any foreigners in the country. No way to be 100% sure that someone isn’t a secret Muslim killer from England or Brazil or wherever.
“Do you dread marauding bands of evangelicals when you leave your place in the morning?”
Nope, but then I don’t dread Muslims either. I am ten times more likely to be killed by lightning, and I don’t dread that either. (I actually do dread evangelicals gaining more political power. They would quite happily take away a number of our liberties. Of course they have a spectrum, lie most other religions. If the ultra orthodox equivalents took power, you would have girls going to school to become home ec majors, or home schooled like they are in my family. Booze would be gone, again. Forget about being gay and having a job. Provoking war in the ME to bring on the end times would be important, but then we already seem to be doing that.)
Steve
Ok, so in the last 10 years Muslims have killed about 70 people in the US. The US Muslim population is somewhere between 2 and 7 million. So let’s assume it’s 2 million. That’s 0035% of Muslims who end up killing someone in this country.
But who cares about that, let’s have a national freak-out and ban Muslims because of the “threat” they pose.
This country is as secure as it’s ever been yet we are collectively pissing our pants in fear of an Islamic fifth column that will do….what exactly? It’s nothing but fools and fear-mongering IMO. The idea that specifically banning Muslim immigration will somehow protect us is foolish and dumb.
“Once you decide to shove your brain into a narrow little box, or decide to subordinate your will to that of an imaginary sky fairy, you’re capable of anything.”
Not really, Michael. That’s overwrought. You are imputing very broad based beliefs and actions to people who really confine them rather narrowly. I think I know already, but I’d be interested in hearing directly what your view on the intellectual integrity of, variously, faith, atheism, and agnosticism are.
As for Jewish persecution, I can only relay my personal experiences. I worked in what was really an all Jewish department at the bank. I became close friends and golfing buddies with the dept head and chief credit officer. It lead to certain discussions. They would definitely find your concerns, again, quite overwrought. Do you feel your personal characteristics contributed at all to,your experiences?
And now for something important. Hawks take care of business against Preds. Team is actually starting to gel.
I find the statistical comparisons between terrorist attacks and things like lightening strikes to be wrongheaded to the point of being intellectually light.
The point is that ISIS is a relatively new entity, and only now evolving into action mode. People don’t pay me to wait until the results of an investment are known. They pay me to be correct far more often than not when the unknowns are still out there, and react accordingly. We should expect the same of those who profess to protect us.
The odds of the twin towers coming down was on par with lightening striking until they came down. And I do recall all of those of leftist political pursuasion wasted no time in their outrage that a (Republican) administration didn’t see it coming. How convenient.
I find it interesting that terror events affect Americans attitudes so powerfully and actually run against the interests of the stealth Jihadists.
Just a reminder that they are not monolithic and if Jews and Westerners were all gone, the Jihad would continue. And I agree with Trump, let it continue elsewhere.
Just for the record I don’t think that Islam is any less consistent with American values and the American way of life than Catholicism is. I do think that Islamism (political Islam) is inconsistent with American values…
I think the lines between Islam and Islamism are much blurrier between Islam and Islamism than between modern Catholicism and any political ideology that might be based on it. And that’s really what Muslims living in Western democratic countries should be expected to do- draw hard lines between their faith and politics.
Listen more closely to Francis. Catholics should be challenging the societies in which they live. Too many American Catholics confuse Catholicism with Americanism.
That’s only a distinction in where to draw the line. There’s nothing subversive, no incompatibility, in political participation that is informed by faith and morality. That is a much different thing than a religion that IS a political ideology with endorsement of Sharia law.
Where I think we can agree is that the lack of a magisterium in Islam presents problems that Catholicism does not. The idea, for example, of progress in Islam, e.g. when people talk about the need for a Reformation in Islam (what they usually means is an Enlightenment), is nullified by the lack of a magisterium.
That is absolutely one of the problems. Would you also agree that other problems include:
1. The (seeming) lack of rejection of the concept of conversion by the sword? Christianity had to wrestle with this as well, but as Pope Benedict pointed out on his Regensburg lecture, the infusion of Greek philosophy gave theologians the concept of Logos, meaning that God cannot contradict Himself so the true God cannot and would not expect men to use violence or take away the free will of other men for the purpose of conversion.
2. Dhimmitude. Historically the peaceful periods of Islamic culture were times that people of other religions were subjugated. As far as I know, there is no history of a majority Islam nation which was fully pluralistic, allowing people of other religions to coexist without being subjugated in some form.
” The (seeming) lack of rejection of the concept of conversion by the sword? ”
Have you had a Muslim try to convert you that way? Me neither. How often do you that happens among the 1.1 billion people in the world? AFAICT it is pretty much limited to ISIS and similar groups doing that. What is more of a problem is going after people trying to leave Islam. That they certainly do.
As to your #2, I have gotten mixed messages on how non-Muslims are treated in Lebanon and Jordan.
Steve
In answer to both of your questions, CStanley, it’s complicated. On the one hand there definitely has been conversion by the sword in Islam. On the other “there is to be no compulsion in religion”. Just google it.
With respect to the status of non-Muslims in Muslim majority societies, there are two ways of looking at it. One is that non-Muslims are subjugated. The other is that they are protected and granted certain privileges not available to non-Muslims. For example, under the Ottoman private ownership of property was forbidden except to non-Muslims.
“I find the statistical comparisons between terrorist attacks and things like lightening strikes to be wrongheaded to the point of being intellectually light.”
It is not really an intellectual but an emotional issue. I don’t really run around afraid of lightning or mobs of Muslims. You, apparently do. I think the problem needs to be addressed, but am not in panic mode. I have also accepted that we have limited ability to address self radicalization, just as we have limited ability to address gun violence.
Steve
Hmm. steve, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Statistically, the likelihood of your being struck by a car is quite low.
I look at this very differently—in terms of risk mitigation. There are actual risks. There are actual costs. I think the costs of mitigation are extremely low and the risk while small is not non-existent.
Of course, my preferred approach to mitigation is not a maximalist one. Costs are commensurately higher for a maximalist strategy.
Most people will accept an authoritarian solution to a chaotic problem, and as the chaos increases, their acceptance of authoritarianism increases.
Telling people that there is no problem when they can clearly see a problem increases the problem and the amount of chaos. Donald Trump is only possible because President Obama refuses to admit there is a problem and to work toward a solution.
Refugees coming from Syria are a problem, and claiming that they are not is ludicrous. The problem may be large or small, but it exists. To claim that a rigorous vetting process exists is ludicrous. Where is this process getting the rigor from? Is the Syrian government secretly working with the US? Where is the information coming from?
(Obviously, US intel in the area is worthless, and if that is what is being used, I can only imagine who will get in.)
Forget terrorists, what about criminals. Does anybody remember the Cuban refugees? If you think the Syrian refugees will be the best of the best, implement @Icepick’s solution. It will be an educational experience for little Joey and little Suzy.
The domestic attacks keep being mislabeled “lone wolf” attacks as if these people just woke up one morning and decided they would become a terrorist. Most of them were in contact or had attempted to contact terrorist organizations or areas where they are located, but if there is no terrorism problem, there is no reason for additional scrutiny of these people.
If the Russians had tipped off the IRS that the Tsarnaev brothers were visiting Russian right wing groups, does anybody think Lois Lerner would have just let them go. I suspect she would have found something on their tax returns even if she had to put it there herself – “drop tax deductions”.
When Secretary of State Kerry blamed Charlie Hebdo for the terrorist attack on it, he did not misspeak. He slipped and stated the Obama Administration’s real understanding of Islamic terrorism. It is not terrorism. It is payback, and it is justified. The US and Europe brought this upon themselves, and it is understandable that Muslims are acting out.
One of the problems is that Sec. Kerry and President Obama both believe that they know the actual history when what they know is a combination of the actual history (meaning the actual events that occurred), 1960s-1970s Soviet disinformation, agitprop, and Arab nationalist creation myths.
In their defense, no one knows the actual history. It would be nice if they were a little more skeptical about Soviet disinformation than they are, though.
The emergence of a Caliphate is more important than forced conversion, dhimmitude, and the lack of a magisterium. The Caliphate is the magisterium, or at least as originally created, vested political and religious power in one authority. Centuries ago Muslim writers trying to explain the Papacy to fellow-Muslims would describe the Pope as analogous to the Caliphate, though the analogy would have been stronger if the Pope had been the head of the Holy Roman Empire, instead of just the Papal States.
While the existence of a Caliphate appears contested, its emergence would be a game-changer in terms of increasing conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims (as well as btw/ Muslims and Muslims).
To extend the analogies, the so-called Caliphate has the power to direct lightning across the world, including the United States. It does not have tight operational controls at to when and where these attacks occur, and it is not clear how many it can direct or whether its capabilities will improve.
With respect to the status of non-Muslims in Muslim majority societies, there are two ways of looking at it. One is that non-Muslims are subjugated. The other is that they are protected and granted certain privileges not available to non-Muslims. For example, under the Ottoman private ownership of property was forbidden except to non-Muslims.
Even so, that’s best case scenario and it’s still a theocracy and incompatible with a modern pluralistic society.
Dave– We average about 4500 pedestrian deaths per year. The safety folks often claim driving is safer than being a pedestrian. Still, I do look both ways. What I do not do is demand that we stop importing cars from other countries. I don’t demand that we invade Detroit. I take sensible precautions when crossing the street, recognizing that I can still get hit by someone’s (maybe even foreign) car because the driver isn’t paying attention and could swerve up on the curb and hit me.
Steve
Dave,
FYI, on pretty much every browser I’ve tried (chrome, edge and IE, plus chrome and safari on iOS) I can’t see the first 50 comments of this post and there’s no link to access them.
I’ll look into it.
The problem appears to be with my theme. I’ve reported it.
Works for me now. Didn’t notice it until Andy mentioned it.
Fixed! Thanks Dave!
Also thanks for this site – I don’t say that nearly enough. It is an island of sanity on the internet.