69 million page views

Survival is the issue, not doctrine

Reader comment on item: Why the Paris Massacre Will Have Limited Impact
in response to reader comment: My aim is getting to a majority of Democratic Citizens to hold Muslims accountable for religious choice

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Dec 17, 2015 at 09:06

Hi, Demsci. You said,

"It seems obvious no majority will ever condemn the whole Islam (Although I read in IsraelNatNews that Japan seems to keep Islam very much at arm's length). But neither can maybe 30 to 45 % of Dem.citizens accept Islam totally unqualified, it seems. I have this compromise and it is based on the concept that Islam is VAGUE, not CLEAR. While Democracy, our creed, can be very clear indeed and beat Islamic theory soundly in that respect."

I am descended from Jan Van Haarlem, a Dutch captain-turned-pirate, who converted to Islam to gain his freedom from an Algerian prison. He became a Barbary pirate, kidnapping entire towns and selling their inhabitants for ransom. His sons, Anthony (my ancestor) and Abraham Van Salee, by a Moorish concubine, were probably the first Muslims in North America; but the next generation were Dutch Reformed. They were let into this country, because Jan (aka "Pirate John" and "El Caid Murato") had political clout in a world of rampant piracy, kidnapping and suddenly changing political alliances -- a world, in fact, much like it has been the past seven years under Obama.

I suppose you can blame the Dutch, then, and my family in particular, for letting this Muslim madness get into America. Around this time, we had an "immigrant crisis" of some Semitic immigrants trying to gain residence in New York without proper papers:

"Freedom of religion was also tested when Peter Stuyvesant refused to allow Jewish refugees from Dutch Brazil to settle permanently in New Amsterdam (without passports) and join the existing community of Jews (with passports from Amsterdam). Stuyvesant attempted to have Jews "in a friendly way to depart" the colony. As he wrote to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company in 1654 he hoped that "the deceitful race, — such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ, — be not allowed to further infect and trouble this new colony." He referred to Jews as a "repugnant race" and "usurers", and was concerned that "Jewish settlers should not be granted the same liberties enjoyed by Jews in Holland, lest members of other persecuted minority groups, such as Roman Catholics, be attracted to the colony"

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stuyvesant

The Dutch India Company overruled Stuyvesant, and the new Jews were allowed to stay. Thus began our slide into the current lack of discrimination and discernment of incoming alien religions. I think you can see by this, one reason that American Jews are some of the biggest advocates of accepting Muslims. You went on,

"In my scheme the West need no longer uncritically tolerate the clearly intolerant, but also no longer the too irresponsibly vague neutral Muslims. Only Democratic Muslims can be allowed to immigrate, including for marriage, and they must be on lifelong probation."

You are suggesting that we somehow sort out the "doctrinally correct" Muslims from the real lulus. How can you expect this, of a people who can't even discern between Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, Unitarianism, Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism and the myriad other religions and ideologies that make their way to our shores (and in some cases, even sprout up here as "native")? I believe that Muslims, "good" or "bad", are living in darkness -- as are probably the majority of Christians and Jews, based not on Qur'an but on the Bible -- a book that I and millions of other Americans trust to be the true word of God. That Bible tells me that there is none good, no, not one; that we are all sons of Hell and in need of repentance; and that those who are acceptable to God are so only because of His grace and forgiveness.

Who should be kept out of the country, based on the scriptures? Practically everyone! But then, how would we live? Even our Pilgrim ancestors accepted unchurched settlers such as Miles Standish, because we needed them for our survival. Now, as then, that ought to be our criterion for accepting or rejecting immigrants: "Will they enhance, or detract from, our ability to survive as a people?"

This is not a matter of doctrinal correctness. I couldn't care less, whether a Muslim is correctly or incorrectly following Qur'an, or even whether he or she is "doctrinally inclined" to radicalization. All I know, is that Muslims are particularly susceptible to Jihadi madness, and few others are. It's just common sense, then, as a matter of American national survival, that we exclude them from immigration until further notice.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)