Thursday, November 19, 2015

CounterCurrent — Donald Trump Says Muslims Should Be Forced To Wear ‘Special ID Badges’

Republican presidential candidate and frontrunner Donald Trump has just crossed the line from his usual rhetoric into full blown Nazism.
Hey, it worked for the Nazis.

CounterCurrent
Donald Trump Says Muslims Should Be Forced To Wear ‘Special ID Badges’
M. David; Reagan Ali and Abu Hussein

Think Progress
Trump’s Idea To Shut Down Mosques Is Really Popular With Republicans
Kay Steiger

Notice that Trump is being specific in his proposals in comparison with the other GOP candidates.

34 comments:

NeilW said...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But yes the left have a problem with zealotry. After all they don't even recognise it in themselves.

Anonymous said...

What a sniveling coward Trump is. How has such a insignificant and grasping little man been allowed to get this far in public life?

Septeus7 said...

It turns our that the story is a hoax see http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/19/how-the-media-smeared-donald-trump-as-a-nazi/. Trump never said anything about IDs. He simply talked about a database which we probably already have.

Kervick is only mad because his side of all people are the same "egalitarian" BS is losing.

Matt Franko said...

Putin: "“To forgive the terrorists is up to God, but to send them to him is up to me.”

Maybe he and Trump are going to get into a game of one-upmanship wrt the terrorists...

I dont see how the Dems are going to keep maintaining the Ukraine hijinks for Soros when so much else is to be gained with allying with Russia wrt increased allied operations against the terror states....

The more they keep the Soros thing going in Ukraine it puts the election at risk for them as they look foolish in foreign policy/national security... Trump looks a lot better to swing voters...

Matt Franko said...

"all people are the same"

You think of the group of people eating dinner with the young US coed studying architecture and design for a semester in Paris vs the group of people standing out on the sidewalk with AKs machine gunning them thru the windows and you have to question the basic mental capacity of people who can then maintain the "all people are the same!" pov....

Maybe THOSE people should have to wear a badge...

Anonymous said...

Nope. Trump has doubled down on his call for a registry of Muslims:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/

I've seen ordinary people all over the world responding to these violent assaults with dignity, courage and gravity - grace under pressure.

And then we have the other people.

We're all going to die at some point or another. That is assured. In response to mortality, you can either try to live in the open air with some kind of dignity and commitment to higher ideals and an embrace of your freedom, or you can go down like a sniveling coward, contracted in a ball of rage, panic and confusion, and leave a spot on the floor that will be an embarrassment to your descendants.

We've seen the path chosen by the hysterical pants-wetters of the right. They are exposed. There is no rock big enough for them to cower underneath without being seen now.

Tom Hickey said...

In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, especially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2]

Al-Jamil's "Hiding in Plain Sight" explains: ...social behaviors associated with religious dissimulation - known as "taqiyya,” a practice in which a Shi’ite can lie about their faith in order to save a life."[3]

This practice was emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion.[4] Taqiyya was developed to protect Shi'ites who were usually in the minority and under pressure from the majority Sunni Muslims, and Shi'a Muslims as the persecuted minority have taken recourse to dissimulation from the time of the mihna (persecution) under Al-Ma'mun in the 9th century, while the politically dominant Sunnites rarely found it necessary to resort to dissimulation.[5]

In summary, Yarden Mariuma writes: "Taqiyya is an Islamic juridical term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Muslim is allowed, under Sharia law, to lie. A concept whose meaning has varied significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes"[6]

In Sunni jurisprudence, denying faith under duress or other permissible reasons as per Islamic law is viewed "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory".[7]

In the Shi'a view, taqiyya is lawful in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.[1] Taqiyya has also been legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shia, in order to maintain Muslim unity and fraternity.[8][9]


Wikipedia/Taqiya

BTW, early Christians accepted martyrdom rather than commit blasphemy or apostasy.

Peter Pan said...

Any day now, 1.6 billions Muslims are going to rise up in a holy war.

In the meantime...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

406,496 versus 3380. Do the math. And as Dan suggested, stop pissing yourselves.

Tom Hickey said...

In Islamic jurisprudence kitmān (كتمان "secrecy, concealment") is a subfield of Ḥiyal (the science of deception or legal trickery), consisting of the art of making ambiguous statements, paying lip-service to authority while reserving personal opposition, in a kind of political camouflage or reservatio mentalis. The use of such practices to conceal one's religious affiliation when facing persecution or oppression is known as taqiyya.[citation needed]

Some early Muslim jurists such as Muadh bin Jabal were opposed to the concept altogether as they felt it implied “lying” (kidhb) and “hypocrisy” (nifaq). In the Ibadi denomination of Islam, the concept is considered an important one as the denomination's minority status and secretive nature drove many adherents to conceal their creed in order to survive.[1]

Czesław Miłosz in the The Captive Mind uses the concept (spelled Ketman) as a metaphor for understanding how intellectuals behaved under the totalitarian regimes in the postwar communist Eastern Bloc. Miłosz makes parallels between kitman and the act of public hypocrisy (that is, publicly professing orthodoxy, while privately believing heterodoxy with the hope of one day being in a position of authority to spread one's hidden ideas) in the name of individual conscience.[2] Milosz likened this mentality to a kind of acting, similar to the dissimulations of heretics in Persian Islam, who take great pleasure in pretending to be what they are not in order to avoid censure or punishment, and about whom Arthur Gobineau wrote:

"Ketman fills the man who practices it with pride. Thanks to it, a believer raises himself to a permanent state of superiority over the man he deceives, be he a minister of state or a powerful king; to him who uses Ketman, the other is a miserable blind man whom one shuts off from the true path whose existence he does not suspect [while] ... your eyes are filled with light, you walk in brightness before your enemies. It is an unintelligent being that you make sport of; it is a dangerous beast that you disarm. What a wealth of pleasures!"[3]

Nearly every clash of ideas, doctrines, and ideologies are accompanied by some form of kitman. Consider the Nicodemite who were concealed Christians under the Roman Empire or the Marranos in fifteenth-century Spain.[4]


Wikipedia/Kitman

Ignacio said...

A terrorist is totally going to wear a badge before carrying out an attack you know. The whole thing is stupid not because the badge itself, is stupid because it does nothing lol. Just like having taps on all mosques over USA in the last decade yield zero arrests.

I mean, those ISIS terrorists are not the lightest bulbs in the neighborhood, but those policies are imbecile at best, or simply dishonest in what they are trying to achieve.

Endless stupidity in this world...

Malmo's Ghost said...

"We've seen the path chosen by the hysterical pants-wetters of the right. They are exposed. There is no rock big enough for them to cower underneath without being seen now."

You mean those college morons trampling all over academic freedom?

Whatever. You're a morally anointed, Obama apologist (Hillary too) tough guy. Still it's pompous, sanctimonious, self congratulatory drivel you're running here, and far from objective truth. Oh but spoken like a true, latte sipping (at Starbucks, of course), living in his bubble, lily white (in reality) liberal.

Anonymous said...

I have my coffee black. No lattes :)

Malmo's Ghost said...

Ah, liberalism. A few hundred years of labeling anyone to the right of them (even slightly right) as subhuman and still trying to stay relevant.

Malmo's Ghost said...

Dan,

I latte sip (at Starbucks, skinny vanilla), live in a bubble for the most part, am far from lily white, and surely am more tolerant of Muslims than you are of right wing Americans. So there.

Roger Erickson said...

Register Muslims?

How about those Catholics that blew up the Murrah bldg?
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/mcveigh/okcwhy.htm

Matt Franko said...

Roger there has been some surveillance of those right sects over the years... it forms a legal precedent in this situation...

Carlos said...

What do you get called if you are socially conservative but economically left wing? Is it even a thing? How do you vote?

Like if you are all gangbusters to build a wall in Texas, want to bomb Iran and you are against abortion. But you want a single payer health scheme and a big welfare state...I don't know... I'm just curious.

Peter Pan said...

Eclectic?

Tom Hickey said...

What do you get called if you are socially conservative but economically left wing?

Conflicted or confused.

Anonymous said...

Islam’s Record of Tolerance
The leading British scholar of Islam of his generation, Sir Hamilton Gibb, wrote in 1932:
 
Islam possesses a magnificent tradition of inter-racial understanding and co-operation. No other society has such a record of success in uniting, in an equality of status, of opportunity, and of endeavour, so many and so various races of humanity.

Bernard Lewis
Multiple Identities of the Middle East, 1998
Pluralism is part of the holy law of Islam, and these rules are on many points detailed and specific. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam squarely confronts the problem of religious tolerance ... For Muslims, the treatment of the religious other is not a matter of opinion or choice, of changing interpretations and judgments according to circumstances. It rests on scriptural and legal texts, that is to say, for Muslims, on holy writ and sacred law.

Norman Daniel
Islam, Europe and Empire (1966
“The notion of toleration in Christendom was borrowed from Muslim practice.”

John Locke: “Letter Concerning Toleration”, 1689:
Christian denominations were free to enact their specific forms of Christian worship if they lived in the Muslim Ottoman Empire, but not if they lived in certain parts of Christian Europe. So:
“Would the Turks not silently stand by and laugh to see with what inhuman cruelty Christians thus rage against Christians?”

Anonymous said...

Who is saved?

Qur'an 2:62
Truly those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabeans—whoever believes in God and the Last Day and performs virtuous deeds—surely their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve.

Why is there a diversity of faiths?

Qur'an 5:48:

For each We have appointed a Law (shirʿa) and a Way (minhāj). Had God willed, He could have made you one community (umma). But that He might try you by that which He hath given you [He has made you as you are]. So vie with one another in good works. Unto God you will all return, and He will inform you of that about which you differed.

What is the purpose of warfare in Islam?

Qur'an 22: 39-40:

Permission [to fight] is given to those who are being fought, for they have been wronged … Had God not driven back some by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques—wherein the name of God is much invoked—would assuredly have been destroyed .

See The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World, by John Andrew Morrow.

Qur'an 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion.The right direction is henceforth distinct from error"


“There are three signs of a hypocrite: When he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is trusted, he betrays his trust.” – Muhammad


Worth watching: Sh. Imran Hosein, who's been featured several times at The Saker.

A few writings which may be of interest to readers:

Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legact--Jonathan A.C. Brown

What Does Islam Mean in Today's World?: Religion, Politics, Spirituality--William Stoddart

Islam, Fundamentalism & the Betrayal of Tradition, Revised--edited by Joseph E. B. Lumbard

Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations--Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

Recollecting the Spirit of Jihad--http://www.amaana.org/ikhwan/rezajihad.htm

Do Muslims and Christians Believe in the same God?--http://faith.yale.edu/sites/default/files/shah-kazemi_final_paper_0.pdf

Emir Abd el-Kader: Hero and Saint of Islam--Ahmed Bouyerdene


Anonymous said...

Wrong as usual, Malmo. The left sees conservatives as stupid, self-absorbed and cowardly humans, but still human. Only conservatives label others as not fit to existst on the same planet with their sainted selves. Although I suppose you can jump into the way-back machine and tell those French peasants they were scum for thinking they deserved respect, if you like.

You guys never change.

Anonymous said...

Or to put it simply

Left on the other: they need enlightenment.

Right on the other: kill them.

Anonymous said...

“If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad?”
― Alphonse de Lamartine, History of Turkey

“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire: that is MUHAMMAD. As regards all the standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?”
― Alphonse de Lamartine, History of Turkey

“The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.”
― Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History

“His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad”
― William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca

Malmo's Ghost said...

"Or to put it simply

Left on the other: they need enlightenment.

Right on the other: kill them."



lol. You know that's bullshit or at least you should.

The atrocities by the left the past 100 years number in the 200 millions of murders alone. While not an apologia for the right and it's relative evil deeds, the left stands alone as the most brutal butchers the world has ever seen.

Veronica said...

November 18, 2015
Five Truths You Should Know About Terrorism And Islam

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/18/five-truths-you-should-know-about-terrorism-and-islam/

"Acts are (judged) in accordance with their intentions." (Hadith of Muhammad)

Tom Hickey said...

@ James

The same can be said about the greatness of Muhammad in the case of Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Abraham, and Jesus wrt the cultural effects they have had as the founders of the great religions that shaped history in lasting ways and whose influence is still felt strongly in large parts of the world today and to some degree everywhere.

As thought-leaders, I would also rank Lao Tzu, Confucius, and Socrates-Plato-Aristotle very highly in shaping history. Moses and Paul would have to be included with Abraham and Jesus respectively. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not religious figures per se, but they are regarded as founders of liberalism, even though their thought was also pressed into service in the formation of Christian doctrine and theology. Ideas are powerful forces historically, and religions have been powerful transmitters of ideas, cultures, and institutions based on them.

However, it was only Muhammad that had the effect personally within his own lifetime. See Michael H, Hunt, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978). Hunt is Everett H. Emerson Professor of History Emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His top five are Muhammad, Newton, Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Confucius.

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and amy be questionable by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

Anonymous said...

The atrocities by the left the past 100 years number in the 200 millions of murders. . .

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were conservatives using conservative means of mass violence to achieve conservative goals of centralized authoritarian power and aristocracy.

Mass murder is always the tool of the right.

Anonymous said...

Carlos,

The fascist parties of Italy, Spain and Germany promoted public welfare programs and full employment achemes to alleviate economic hardship. So you can call such a person (if one wishes to be polite) a social corporatist.

Malmo's Ghost said...

"Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were conservatives using conservative means of mass violence to achieve conservative goals of centralized authoritarian power and aristocracy.

Mass murder is always the tool of the right."



LOL, and the Pope's Protestant.

Tom Hickey said...

IMHO, the political compass is more accurately expressed if the vertical axis is labeled authoritarian-libertarian and the horizontal axis, reactionary and radical.

Graphically, the vertical axis is correctly labeled with authoritarianism at the top in that it represents top-down horizontal organization and with libertarianism at the bottom in that it represents consensual bottom-up organization.

The horizontal axis is properly represented with reactionary to the right and radical to the left.

Thus the four quadrants, authoritarian-radical — authoritarian-reactionary, and libertarian-radical — libertarian-reactionary

But, as Joe Firestone has pointed out, the four quadrant political compass in not nuanced enough to represent the political spectrum accurately. More distinctions are needed to delineate the differences.

Malmo's Ghost said...

I get that, Tom, but it's just special pleading to ignore the leftism dominant with the likes of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin.

Anonymous said...

Glenn Greenwald on "Submissive" Media's Drumbeat for War and "Despicable" Anti-Muslim Scapegoating

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43504.htm

U.S. Senator : “War On Syria Was An Unlawful War Of Aggression”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43500.htm

Andy Blatchford said...

Yes it's a thing and it's called Third Positioning being neither Socialist or Capitalist. The Strasser brothers are an example.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Third_positionism