US Presidential Election 2016 --- Secularism vs Appeasement

US Presidential Election 2016 --- Secularism vs Appeasement

            Donald Trump’s December 7 call for at least a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration to the United States aligns him with the thinking of an enormous segment of the American public …including and especially a large majority of likely Republican primary voters. In a poll published by Rasmussen on December 10, 2015, 66% of Republican voters favored at least a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration to America (24% were opposed, 10% undecided); and 46% of the American electorate as a whole favored the same proposal, with 40% opposed and 10% undecided. Once again, as with his proposal to deport illegal aliens and build a physical barrier on America’s southern border, Trump has proposed a measure congruent with the views of large majorities of his own Party and at least a substantial plurality of the entire American electorate. Once again, the Republican Party establishment -- presidential candidates, major office holders, large contributors, and paid consultants -- was caught flat-footed and out of touch. Who knew, after fifteen years of unabated Islamist terrorism all over the world, that large segments of the American public might question the prudence of continued substantial immigration from the Muslim world? Mrs Clintons declaring Trump as “biggest employer or advertiser for ISIS” seems as if US should start appeasing muslims (as many so called seculars and leftists do in India) as otherwise ISIS will employ muslims. Next move she will suggest US administration to give subsidy to Muslims for HAJ pilgrimage (as is also given in India but not in even Muslim countries) or the reservation in Jobs to poorer Muslims. This is how democracy makes us knee before terrorism.

Trump’s proposal deserves serious and thorough public debate. Islam is inarguably unique among the world’s major religions in continuing to produce a steady stream of ideologically motivated mass killers. Islamist acts of violence continue to produce slaughter among its own contending factions and among the adherents of every other major religion (and of no religion), and that violence, far from abating, seems to be increasing in lethality and reach.  No sooner is one murderous Jihadist group apparently defeated (e.g., The Taliban, Al Qaeda) than others spring up (e.g., ISIS, Boko Haram). No other religious or ideological group is afflicted with anything remotely comparable to the cult of violence today emanating from Islam on every continent.  Islam’s leaders -- religious and political -- have shown little ability and less inclination to take the risks that might stem the spread, or diminish the allure, of the intolerant fundamentalism that undergirds Jihadist terror. “Moderate” Islamic voices, when they are heard at all, seem tardy, meek and ineffective. Islamic states that claim to be friends of the West, most notably, but not solely, Saudi Arabia -- continue to fund the Salafist version of Islam all over the world, including in Europe and America, a theology whose Quranic fundamentalism and intolerance leads directly to Jihadi violence. 

Islam is the preeminent source of ideologically motivated terror in today’s world is beyond dispute. But another fact bearing directly on the wisdom of continuing to welcome Islamic immigration to the West is much less widely known or acknowledged. The fiction that there is no substantial support among Muslims for terrorist atrocities. The trope that “overwhelming numbers of Muslims condemn terrorism,” manifestly false measured against mountains of polling data, refuses to go away. In one form or another it is trotted out by Jihadist apologists after each and every Islamist atrocity, always without factual support.   Polls of Muslims in Western and majority Muslim countries consistently reveal numerically significant support for Islamic terrorism.  The percentage of Muslim support for terrorism may be “low” among Western Muslim communities (as is the consistent headline by the Pew Research Center, many of whose reports are cited below); but, given the size of those communities (e.g., at least 5 million in France, about 2.5 million in America), those percentages translate into significant absolute numbers of Muslim sympathizers for terrorism within all Muslim communities.

On this subject we don’t have to guess. Highly reputable polling firms -- indeed, firms such as Pew, which obviously wishes its results were different -- have studied Muslim attitudes for many years, in both Western and majority Muslim countries.  Their results, in plain view on the internet, are chilling.   But, like most facts that undermine the purely relativist multicultural narrative, the American Left and its  media allies refuse to acknowledge these facts, let alone to discuss their implications for continued mass migration of Muslims to the West.

Consider the following:

            In 2010  and 2011 the Pew Research Center (which a Slate writer described as  “… one of the least biased, most reliable polling organizations in the country”) polled American Muslims and found that approximately 13% thought that under at least some circumstances acts of terrorism against civilians are justified. Assuming a U.S. Muslim population of approximately 2.5 million, that figure would translate into somewhat more than 300,000 American Muslims who, under some circumstances, support murderous attacks against civilians. In the same 2011 survey 27% of US Muslims self-reported their belief that  there was either a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of support for “extremism” within the US Muslim community. The attitudes toward terrorism among Muslims living in other Western countries are no more comforting.  Pew reports that in 2010 up to 35% of French Muslims, 25% of Spanish Muslims and 24% of British Muslims expressed some level of  support for suicide attacks against civilians under some circumstances.

And the BBC -- hardly noted for anti-Muslim bias -- sponsored a study of the attitudes of British Muslims on various subjects that found 32% of British Muslims did not express agreement with the statement, ”Acts of violence  against those who publish images of the prophet can never be justified.” The same study revealed that among British Muslims 51% of the respondents could not agree with the statement, “Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of the mainstream.”

 In 2005 the British government leaked a report that concluded, based in part on the Yougov polling firm’s work, that approximately 16,000 British Muslims  were “willing or eager” to embrace violence in the effort to bring an end to  “decadent and immoral” Western society.”

In a poll published by Newsweek in August of 2014, 16% of French Muslims expressed favorable views of ISIS. A British polling firm found that one in four British Muslims believed the July 7, 2005 London train bombings were justified. A Dutch language Belgian newspaper reported in April of 2013 that 16% of young Muslims living in Belgium stated that “terrorism is acceptable.”Viewing the attitudes towards violence among Muslims in majority Muslim countries, Pew once again reported that in Afghanistan 39% of Muslims (who are 99% of the population) support suicide bombings in some circumstances while 29% of Egyptian Muslims do. Both countries continue to supply “refugees” to Europe and America.  In a 2013 survey Pew reports that 16% of Turks supported suicide bombings (up   from 13% in 2012, which, disturbingly, was up from a “mere” 7% in 2010).  The trend in Turkey, a nation with a population of 77,000,000 that seeks entry to  the EU, is not encouraging. By Pew’s 2013 survey, at least 10,000,000 Turks to one degree or another support terrorism against civilians.

In a December 2013 publication, Pew released the results of its study of the attitudes of Muslims in 11 majority Muslim countries, with the finding that  terrorist groups still enjoyed double-digit support in many: Specifically, among Egyptian Muslims 28% supported the Taliban, while in Indonesia that percentage was 20%. Despite widespread killing of Muslims, Al Qaeda enjoyed the support of 23% of Indonesians and 20% of Egyptians.

In its most recent 2015 survey Pew reported the disturbing results of its survey on attitudes towards ISIS among Pakistani Muslims: 28% expressed a   negative view of ISIS; 9% a positive view (that would translate to 19,000,000   Pakistani supporters of ISIS); while an overwhelming and worrying 62%  expressed no opinion or refused to respond. In that same 2015 survey Pew reported that 20% of Nigerian Muslims hold a favorable opinion if ISIS (to which the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram has sworn allegiance).  And in its 2015 survey, Pew reiterated its 2011 finding that 86% of American Muslims condemn acts of terrorism (i.e., 14%, to some degree, do not).

The foregoing is far from exhaustive of the information readily available in the public realm. Much of it was drawn from the scrupulously non-ideological Pew Center.  The links above allow the reader to peruse and reflect for him/herself on the more detailed findings.  There is much more to be found, as anyone who spends an hour or two on Google with searches like “Muslim attitudes to terrorism” will discover.

But some conclusions that are beyond reasonable doubt can be drawn. In the Muslim communities of the West -- Europe and America -- there is   numerically significant support for atrocities against civilians, though the   percentage of such support appears to remain low. In the US, some level of   support for such acts appears to hover around 300,000 persons, based on the

most recent Pew findings.  In Europe, given the higher percentages of such   support for terrorism within European Muslim communities and the larger number   of Muslims living in Europe, the number of European Muslims who to some degree   support violence against civilians is much higher than in the US.

             In majority Muslim countries there is  even greater support for terrorist atrocities, including in at least one country seriously seeking membership in the European Union (Turkey), and two countries from whom substantial numbers of Muslims are presently moving, or seeking to move, into Europe (Afghanistan and Egypt). What the figures would be for the countries presently sending streams of refugees into the West (Syria and Iraq) is anyone’s guess.  But there is little reason to suppose those numbers would differ markedly from those known for nearby majority Muslim states (e.g., Turkey, Egypt).

The reason for rapid rise in Islam is its inability to coexist with other religions. Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.  The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God; however this works both ways.  Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence.  Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny.  Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

The Quran:Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"  (Translation is from the Noble Quran)  The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families.  The historical contextof this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries.  In fact, the verses urge offensivewarfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did).  Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest).  The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse).  The word used instead, "fitna",  can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation.  This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".  This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."  The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter.  These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah.  This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward "  This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes.  It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle.  Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption.  (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).  According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."  Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"  No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

 Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah"  Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for  2:193).  The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj.  Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction.  The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam (which he later did).  Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition.  According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

 Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."  

India and US are two largest democracies of the world. The majority of the people in two countries consider secularism as an essential pillar of democracy. But the current trends for civilizations in both the democracies indicate that sooner or later both will lose their primary culture and religion in 22^nd century. Hinduism in India and Christianity in US will no more be the religion of the majority population. In India, extinction is faster as the hinduism has decreased in terms of its believers from 94% in 1947 to about 75% at present. Similarly, in US, muslims have increased from almost nil in 1950 to around 2.4%. 

Although it is a fact that Islam is growing rapidly in the West. This new religious movement is sweeping across Europe also. The Real Truth is that Islam will, in present century, will conquer Europe? (http://realtruth.org/articles/253-wice.html). The traditional “Christian” world will not be able to absorb this into the fabric of Western society. This movement is destined to swallow the traditions of the West? It will be interesting to see what does the future hold for these two religious cultures? The observers are saying that Europe is becoming a post-Christian society with an ever-diminishing understanding of its historical Christian values. Many are calling this the “hallowing out” of traditional Christianity. In her new book, The Force of Reason, famed Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci claims that Christianity’s ancient stronghold on the European continent is rapidly giving way to the ambitious and assertive religion of Islam. Analysts estimate that in Britain, for example, Islamic mosques host more worshippers each week than the Church of England! Filling the void of traditional Christianity is a robust, energetic and youthful movement afoot in Europe. If this continues at the present rate, cathedrals will appear as vestiges of a civilization of times past. The great national cultures of Italians, French, Germans and others may be replaced by a new transnational Muslim identity.

           This is not a new 21st century prediction, but one that was actually brought out in 1968 by the British politician Enoch Powell. That year, he gave his famous speech, “Rivers of Blood,” in which he warned that by allowing excess immigration, the United Kingdom was “heaping up its own funeral pyre,” bringing major religious/cultural changes. His message damaged what, at that time, was a promising career.

           Recently, an Israeli foreign ministry report stated that Islam is now the second largest religion in Europe. According to this report, most EU nations perceive the presence of radical Muslims as a threat to state security and the fabric of life. The Muslim population in Europe is growing rapidly and may now be approaching 15 million. The report states, “According to the demographic data, the number of Moslems will continue to steadily rise due to a high birth rate and the continued mass immigrations. This means that such a rise could be the increased influence Moslems will have on the shape of Europe in the future.”

            The religion of peace is bringing its peaceful message to the Christians among the Muslim refugees that are fleeing to Germany and that message is “convert or die.”(http://therightscoop.com/christians-terrorized-by-muslims-in-german-refugee-camps/) reporting that Muslims are terrorizing Christians in the refugee camps: Germany’s Merkel insists that Europeans have to take in Muslim migrants playing refugee for the sake of European values. Here’s what these European values look like. Christian refugees are already being terrorized by the Muslim migrants in Germany. Mainly Syrian refugees, mostly devout Sunni Muslims, live in the home.

Especially dramatic is the case of a Christian family from Iraq, which was housed in a refugee camp in the Bavarian Freising. The father told a TV crew of the Bayerischer Rundfunk of beatings and threats by Syrian Islamists. “They wake me before dawn during Ramadan and say that I should eat before the sun comes up. If I refuse, they say, I’m a, kuffar ‘, an unbeliever. They spit at me,” They treated me like an animal and threatened to kill me.They yelled at my wife and beat my child. They say.. “We will kill you and drink your blood” The family lived in the rooms of the home as prisoners.

           In the U.S. alone the number of Muslims has risen dramatically, from about 10,000 in 1900 to 30 million or more in 2015 (Most of the Muslims do not mention their religion in the census and are so counted as of “No religion”). Most of this growth is due to recent immigration and the high birth rate of Muslims (5 children per family on average), rather than to conversion. Still, the number of those who convert to Islam is significant. In the U.S., the majority are African-American (a third of all Muslims according to most authorities), but there have also been significant numbers of Anglos to convert as well, many of them well-educated.

           Similar is the case in india where in 1947 (at the time of independence of india), the population of hindus was 33 crore (94%) whereas muslims were 3 crore (5%) and others were 1 crore (1%) as according to Census Data: Oct 1949; Sec 33/B Para 7, ‘Demographic Summary’ Page 791, Imperial Regulatory Act, 1817. However in 2008, hindus are 82 crore (75%)  i.e. with a growth rate in 61 years 249% and 4.07% per year, muslim are 25 crore (23%) i.e. with a growth rate in 61 years 833%  and 13.7% per year and others are 3 crore (2%) (Census Data: Mar 2009; Central Census Department, Statistical Department Gazette Appendix IX, Article 442, Page 6329)

           Based on simple arithmetical interpolation on only birthrates, and without any deviations from SAMPLE MEANS under very likely events like mass religious conversions of poor Hindus (mostly in Andra, Orisa, NE States by Christian missionaries), massacre of Hindus in hindu-muslim riots, migration to other countries, natural calamities, etc. in India, the situation in 2035 would be that Muslim will be 92.5 crore (46.8%), Hindu: 90.2 crore (45.6 %) and Others: 7.6 crore (7.6%)

By all reckoning estimations, from 2040 all Hindu festivals will be BANNED by Muslims - no Diwali & no Holi; please take just a little time to imagine the situation!Hindus will be treated as they have been treated in indian neighbourhood Islamic states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In pakistan, Hindus were 24% in 1947, now they are less than 1%. In Bangladesh, Hindus were 32% in 1947, now they are less than 5%. The effects are visible in indian states like Jammu & Kashmir and Kerala where the hindu population has decreased from 25% and 90% to less than 1% and 35% respectively. It is estimated by 2070, Hindus got no option but to live somewhat like Yajidies lived in ISIS rule. This will be because ‘Islamic Republic of India’ would then be claimed as seized from Kafir Hindus and according to Islamic system, all Kafirs are punishable to death after maximum torture.

The focus of this article has been the prudence of continued substantial Muslim migration to the West as that question is affected by only by two factors: Islam’s unique status as the source of world-wide, religiously/ideologically motivated terrorism; and the presence in Muslim communities of large numbers of those who sympathize with that terrorism. At least two other considerations not dealt with here bear on the wisdom of continued Muslim immigration: First, the degree to which actual terrorists, as opposed to mere sympathizers, are secreting themselves within the minimally vetted masses now moving from the Middle East to the West; and second, the intensity of the desire of large percentages of Muslims already living in the West, and even larger percentages of those who wish to come, to live under Sharia law, a system of Islamic law indisputably at variance with Western values of religious freedom, equality of the sexes, and freedom of expression.  Both subjects would require separate articles, and both considerations would provide further support for Trump’s proposal.

But, considering only what we know now about Islam as a unique source of terror and about the attitudes towards that terror among all Muslim communities, Trump’s proposal deserves a thorough and intellectually honest public debate. We are long past the point where proposals to reduce or eliminate, at least for a time, Muslim immigration to the West can be dismissed with epithets such as “Islamophobia,” “xenophobia” or “bigotry.” Trump’s proposal arises out of unpleasant but unavoidable facts two of which are discussed above. Those presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, who dismiss that proposal with the usual invective drawn from the Left’s phrase book, are signaling their lack of either the analytical ability or the courage to lead the West in its current struggle with militant Islam. Once again, in his brash indifference to the rules imposed by America’s self-appointed betters, Trump has raised an important issue.  Once again, whatever one thinks of him, the US electorate owes him a thank you note.


(Our purpose to write this blog is not to hurt feelings of any individual, but only to spread the truth. We sincerely thank to the website TheReligionofPeace.com ; Guide to Understanding Islam)