Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
04 Jun 17
08:49
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Jun 08
Last Sunday, I appeared on the BBC’s Sunday Politics to discuss the aftermath of the Manchester attack. I said what I thought, and various Muslim groups promptly went bananas.
This was not caused by my suggestion that this country should finally crack-down on British officials who spend their retirements working as shills for the House of Saud. Nor by my ridiculing of that modern European tradition whereby someone blows us up and we respond by singing John Lennon songs (and now Oasis too). Rather they objected to my simple two-word suggestion that we could all do with ‘less Islam’.
In a short film preceding the studio discussion, I mentioned that countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have very little Islam and very little Islamic terror. By contrast, France has a great amount of Islam and a great amount of Islamic terror. To most people it would seem obvious – to co-opt the immortal words of Donatella Versace – that ‘more means more’. Because although many communities are capable of producing extremists, only Islamic communities produce Islamic extremists. Of course some people don’t want to accept this fact. Not least because informed choices might result. For instance, it might help us weigh up the ongoing cultural benefits of large-scale Islamic immigration versus the down-side of dozens of obliterated lives every now and then.
If I were a Muslim I would like to think that I would be seriously ashamed about all this, and spend my time – like Sara Khan and a few other noble souls – trying to deal with my community’s problems rather than covering them over. Sadly – for reasons about which I dare not speculate – many of the most vocal Muslim groups in Britain have other priorities. Since last Sunday, various Muslim groups and individuals have made complaints against me, including promises to report me to the police. My old friend Mehdi Hasan used Twitter to attack the ‘taxpayer-funded impartial BBC for airing that’ and claimed that my two words were advocating ‘ethnic cleansing’. Of course Mehdi works for the non-independent, Qatari government-owned Al-Jazeera. A broadcaster that thinks it perfectly acceptable to promote his programmes with the use of Nazi-style anti-Semitic images like this.
But so it is that various Muslims and Muslim groups who have spent recent years urging British Muslims not to cooperate with the UK authorities on counter-terrorism are now keenly urging Muslims to complain about me to any and all authorities. A telling set of priorities, I would say.
In any case, what I really wanted to open up in that short segment was an oddity of our now 16-year old response to Islamic terror. For over that time we have essentially adopted the argument of the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups for whom the answer to absolutely everything is ‘Islam’. You have a problem? The answer is Islam. Something good has happened to you? The answer is Islam. You have a problem with Islam? The answer is Islam.
For a decade and a half the West has adopted this reasoning. If a group of men fly planes into the Twin Towers all the leaders of the free world rush to the local Islamic centre to extol the wonders of Islam. When a group of British Muslims blow up the London transport system the city’s police chiefs wave away the smoke and immediately extol the peacefulness of Islam. And when a suicide bomber in Manchester blows up 22 young people as they leave a concert, the one thing nobody must say is that there is any connection whatsoever with Islam. The problem cannot be Islam. Yet the answer apparently always is.
Personally I dislike this indecent over-compensation and would like rather less of it. I dislike the fact that before the victims’ bodies have been identified in the morgue the local police are at the local mosque for a group hug and photo. I dislike the politicians who, only hours after another Islamist atrocity, talk about how great it is that the violence has ‘brought us together’, so distracting attention from the bodies that have been blown apart. Of course it is a sickness of a sort – one which I have recently written about at some length. And all the symptoms are ongoing.
Consider the reaction last week on Question Time when an audience member, who happened to have the triple disadvantages of being white, male and not being young, waved an anti-Western leaflet he said had been handed out at an open day at the Didsbury mosque where Salman Abedi worshipped. This significant revelation mainly attracted awkward shuffling. By contrast, a young woman in a headscarf in the audience immediately dismissed the man’s leaflet as probably not from the mosque and in any case ‘taken out of context’. Along with the programme’s chair, David Dimbleby, she implied it was possible the man had made the leaflet up himself, leaving the poor man spluttering, waving his leaflet and clearly wondering why he wouldn’t be believed. Well he can join the rest of the non-Muslim nation (and the few actual reformers) in that club.
For the foreseeable future there remains little place for such people in the nation’s narrative. If the bomber is the problem, then his mosque has to be the answer. It’s the same everywhere: Don’t look back in anger, just forward in blind, bovine hope.
For instance, still nobody wants to ask what responsibility should be apportioned to Salford University where the Manchester bomber was recently a student. There seems very little interest in the fact that the Vice Chancellor when Abedi entered the university (Martin Hall) was vocally opposed to the UK government’s only counter-extremism strategy, which encourages people to report signs of radicalisation among students (see, for instance, here) Nor does anyone seem very interested in the fact that the current President of the Student Union – Zamzam Ibrahim – has a very interesting set of views. And not just that she has spent her time ‘representing’ Salford’s students by campaigning against the government’s only counter-extremism strategy. Ms Ibrahim has spent recent days deleting and making private various of her online profiles. Though not fast enough. Among the questions this enlightened young woman was asked on her now-deleted ask.fm profile was ‘Can there be friendship between a man and a woman’. Her short answer: ‘NO. More interesting is her answer to the question ‘What’s the one book you think everyone should be required to read?’ Her answer:
‘The Quraan [sic], We would have an Islamic takeover!’
All of which points to many specific questions and one overriding one: Why don’t we want to know? Why must the man waving the leaflet be the liar, and the mosque be innocent and the activities of officials like Martin Hall and Zamzam Ibrahim be of no interest? Has our society got zero interest in working out what might produce people like Abedi? The fact is – once again – that we may ask the question but we don’t want to hear the answer. Because if what all these things suggest is true then we could be in serious trouble. Perhaps we are.
This was not caused by my suggestion that this country should finally crack-down on British officials who spend their retirements working as shills for the House of Saud. Nor by my ridiculing of that modern European tradition whereby someone blows us up and we respond by singing John Lennon songs (and now Oasis too). Rather they objected to my simple two-word suggestion that we could all do with ‘less Islam’.
In a short film preceding the studio discussion, I mentioned that countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have very little Islam and very little Islamic terror. By contrast, France has a great amount of Islam and a great amount of Islamic terror. To most people it would seem obvious – to co-opt the immortal words of Donatella Versace – that ‘more means more’. Because although many communities are capable of producing extremists, only Islamic communities produce Islamic extremists. Of course some people don’t want to accept this fact. Not least because informed choices might result. For instance, it might help us weigh up the ongoing cultural benefits of large-scale Islamic immigration versus the down-side of dozens of obliterated lives every now and then.
If I were a Muslim I would like to think that I would be seriously ashamed about all this, and spend my time – like Sara Khan and a few other noble souls – trying to deal with my community’s problems rather than covering them over. Sadly – for reasons about which I dare not speculate – many of the most vocal Muslim groups in Britain have other priorities. Since last Sunday, various Muslim groups and individuals have made complaints against me, including promises to report me to the police. My old friend Mehdi Hasan used Twitter to attack the ‘taxpayer-funded impartial BBC for airing that’ and claimed that my two words were advocating ‘ethnic cleansing’. Of course Mehdi works for the non-independent, Qatari government-owned Al-Jazeera. A broadcaster that thinks it perfectly acceptable to promote his programmes with the use of Nazi-style anti-Semitic images like this.
But so it is that various Muslims and Muslim groups who have spent recent years urging British Muslims not to cooperate with the UK authorities on counter-terrorism are now keenly urging Muslims to complain about me to any and all authorities. A telling set of priorities, I would say.
In any case, what I really wanted to open up in that short segment was an oddity of our now 16-year old response to Islamic terror. For over that time we have essentially adopted the argument of the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups for whom the answer to absolutely everything is ‘Islam’. You have a problem? The answer is Islam. Something good has happened to you? The answer is Islam. You have a problem with Islam? The answer is Islam.
For a decade and a half the West has adopted this reasoning. If a group of men fly planes into the Twin Towers all the leaders of the free world rush to the local Islamic centre to extol the wonders of Islam. When a group of British Muslims blow up the London transport system the city’s police chiefs wave away the smoke and immediately extol the peacefulness of Islam. And when a suicide bomber in Manchester blows up 22 young people as they leave a concert, the one thing nobody must say is that there is any connection whatsoever with Islam. The problem cannot be Islam. Yet the answer apparently always is.
Personally I dislike this indecent over-compensation and would like rather less of it. I dislike the fact that before the victims’ bodies have been identified in the morgue the local police are at the local mosque for a group hug and photo. I dislike the politicians who, only hours after another Islamist atrocity, talk about how great it is that the violence has ‘brought us together’, so distracting attention from the bodies that have been blown apart. Of course it is a sickness of a sort – one which I have recently written about at some length. And all the symptoms are ongoing.
Consider the reaction last week on Question Time when an audience member, who happened to have the triple disadvantages of being white, male and not being young, waved an anti-Western leaflet he said had been handed out at an open day at the Didsbury mosque where Salman Abedi worshipped. This significant revelation mainly attracted awkward shuffling. By contrast, a young woman in a headscarf in the audience immediately dismissed the man’s leaflet as probably not from the mosque and in any case ‘taken out of context’. Along with the programme’s chair, David Dimbleby, she implied it was possible the man had made the leaflet up himself, leaving the poor man spluttering, waving his leaflet and clearly wondering why he wouldn’t be believed. Well he can join the rest of the non-Muslim nation (and the few actual reformers) in that club.
For the foreseeable future there remains little place for such people in the nation’s narrative. If the bomber is the problem, then his mosque has to be the answer. It’s the same everywhere: Don’t look back in anger, just forward in blind, bovine hope.
For instance, still nobody wants to ask what responsibility should be apportioned to Salford University where the Manchester bomber was recently a student. There seems very little interest in the fact that the Vice Chancellor when Abedi entered the university (Martin Hall) was vocally opposed to the UK government’s only counter-extremism strategy, which encourages people to report signs of radicalisation among students (see, for instance, here) Nor does anyone seem very interested in the fact that the current President of the Student Union – Zamzam Ibrahim – has a very interesting set of views. And not just that she has spent her time ‘representing’ Salford’s students by campaigning against the government’s only counter-extremism strategy. Ms Ibrahim has spent recent days deleting and making private various of her online profiles. Though not fast enough. Among the questions this enlightened young woman was asked on her now-deleted ask.fm profile was ‘Can there be friendship between a man and a woman’. Her short answer: ‘NO. More interesting is her answer to the question ‘What’s the one book you think everyone should be required to read?’ Her answer:
‘The Quraan [sic], We would have an Islamic takeover!’
All of which points to many specific questions and one overriding one: Why don’t we want to know? Why must the man waving the leaflet be the liar, and the mosque be innocent and the activities of officials like Martin Hall and Zamzam Ibrahim be of no interest? Has our society got zero interest in working out what might produce people like Abedi? The fact is – once again – that we may ask the question but we don’t want to hear the answer. Because if what all these things suggest is true then we could be in serious trouble. Perhaps we are.
Show More
I am becoming of the persuasion now that the language of those that make decisions on other's behalf has to change.
The logic is that they simply can not stop Islamic terrorism in an acceptable manner without wholesale and fundermental changes to the very values accepted of this land and that, although a minority, Islam comes with a malignant element.
Therefore, the language of those in power has to change.
If they are dead set on integration then they have to say the deaths of innocents is an expected and acceptable consequence.
The logic is that they simply can not stop Islamic terrorism in an acceptable manner without wholesale and fundermental changes to the very values accepted of this land and that, although a minority, Islam comes with a malignant element.
Therefore, the language of those in power has to change.
If they are dead set on integration then they have to say the deaths of innocents is an expected and acceptable consequence.
I am inclusive and have been accused of being left wing in the past, but that is an excellent article, tons of sobs (excellent album, too.) This emotive issue, unlike most others, is being discussed whilst the root cause is being ignored - and there is a groundswell of popular opinion that now precludes anyone attempting to analyse that root cause as being "racist." The solution to this whole thing is not obvious - and many have said that part of what we are seeing now is partly a result of hundreds of years of British imperialist foreign policy, and anyone who truly knows the history of this island will appreciate the element of truth there - but nonetheless we have a problem that now exists.
Nobody is saying that all Islamists are terrorists, far from it, but until we strengthen our approach to dealing with the root of this problem, it will continue.
Nobody is saying that all Islamists are terrorists, far from it, but until we strengthen our approach to dealing with the root of this problem, it will continue.
Was it actually you on Question time -tons of sobs-or are you copying this from elsewhere?
Didn't see the program but what you write is very worrying.
Didn't see the program but what you write is very worrying.
The equation is this
Integration + freedom > Lives of the innocent
Politicians who support the status quo must explain this to the families of the dead rather than reverting type after atrocity.
Integration + freedom > Lives of the innocent
Politicians who support the status quo must explain this to the families of the dead rather than reverting type after atrocity.
when you suck all the money away to that fraction of one percent of the extreme rich.
You don't make the whole country safe. Cut police numbers because of lack of tax on those billionaires. allow offshore banking and untraceable accounts which benefits rich criminals and shady organizations which might help finance ISIS.
By having proper tax - you stabilize society. those guys last night could have targeted a rich area of London and killed a billionaire instead of some peasants. It's not making London safer by cutting tax on the super rich - the fraction of one percent.
tax a billion
50 percent would leave 500 million
60 percent tax would leave 400 million
70 percent tax would leave 300 million.
even at 70 percent tax - these multi billion companies are still raking it in.
1810 billionaires worldwide. are they immune from chaos in the streets.
You don't make the whole country safe. Cut police numbers because of lack of tax on those billionaires. allow offshore banking and untraceable accounts which benefits rich criminals and shady organizations which might help finance ISIS.
By having proper tax - you stabilize society. those guys last night could have targeted a rich area of London and killed a billionaire instead of some peasants. It's not making London safer by cutting tax on the super rich - the fraction of one percent.
tax a billion
50 percent would leave 500 million
60 percent tax would leave 400 million
70 percent tax would leave 300 million.
even at 70 percent tax - these multi billion companies are still raking it in.
1810 billionaires worldwide. are they immune from chaos in the streets.
I like being poor in a capatalist society, poverty doesn't bother me.
Excellent post from Tons of Sobs. After all these years I simply cannot vote Labour anymore, they have become the party of Islam and have betrayed the ordinary British working men and women. I'm an old man so don't count for much but hope the young will come to their senses about the current Labour Party under before it is too late.
Peasant - Pleb.
I'm poor too.... sob.
It's not exactly the same as past centuries. Only kings could afford meat, spices, alcohol etc. I can go into Morrisons and get fancy food at reasonable prices.
Panorama tried to trace Lord Ashcroft's accounts when they were investigating him. he would send money in a chain of banks bouncing around a labyrinth of red taped banks. It became impossible to know anything about what he was doing.
That's one man. They keep saying they're going to address this loophole but they never do?
tax havens are the nexus of evil on the planet. it allows cash hiding by criminals.
I'm poor too.... sob.
It's not exactly the same as past centuries. Only kings could afford meat, spices, alcohol etc. I can go into Morrisons and get fancy food at reasonable prices.
Panorama tried to trace Lord Ashcroft's accounts when they were investigating him. he would send money in a chain of banks bouncing around a labyrinth of red taped banks. It became impossible to know anything about what he was doing.
That's one man. They keep saying they're going to address this loophole but they never do?
tax havens are the nexus of evil on the planet. it allows cash hiding by criminals.
My wife Just spoke to our grandson, 20 year old avid Corbyn supporter, mentioned last nights attacks he replied "I haven't been following it nan"
Great post Tons, you've identified the problem and it should be discussed but what about a solution?
Douglas Murray offers few solutions....but plenty from America,...
Alas the perceived wisdom says Trump ''ideology'' is worse the Islamic.....
Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting
by Daniel Pipes
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2017 (view PDF)
Send
Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 27 establishing radically new procedures to deal with foreigners who apply to enter the United States. Building on his earlier notion of "extreme vetting," the order explains that
to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
On January 27, 2017, signed an executive order proclaiming that the United States cannot admit those who "do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law." Determining who fits this description is difficult and demands great skill but can be done, beginning with intensive entrance interviews.
This passage raises several questions of translating extreme vetting in practice: How does one distinguish foreigners who "do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles" from those who do? How do government officials figure out "those who would place violent ideologies over American law"?
More specifically, given that the new procedures almost exclusively concern the fear of allowing more Islamists into the country, how does one identify them?
I shall argue these are doable tasks and the executive order provides the basis to achieve them. At the same time, they are expensive and time-consuming, demanding great skill. Keeping out Islamists can be done but not easily.
The Challenge
By Islamists (as opposed to moderate Muslims), I mean those approximately 10-15 percent of Muslims who seek to apply Islamic law (Shari'a) in its entirety.[1] They want to implement a medieval code that calls (among much else) for restricting women, subjugating non-Muslims, violent jihad, and establishing a caliphate to rule the world.
For many non-Muslims, the rise of Islamism over the past forty years has made Islam synonymous with extremism, turmoil, aggression, and violence. But Islamists—not all Muslims—are the problem; they—not all Muslims—must urgently be excluded from the United States and other Western countries. Not just that, but anti-Islamist Muslims are the key to ending the Islamist surge as they alone can offer a humane and modern alternative to Islamist obscurantism.
U.S. bureaucrats are unsurprisingly incompetent at vetting possible Islamists. In 2001, the Pentagon invited Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Islamist, to lunch. In September 2011, he became the first United States citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike.
Identifying Islamists is no easy matter, however, as no simple litmus test exists. Clothing can be misleading as some women wearing hijabs are anti-Islamists[2] while practicing Muslims can be Zionists;[3] nor does one's occupation indicate much, as some high-tech engineers are violent Islamists.[4] Likewise, beards, teetotalism, five-times-a-day prayers, and polygyny do not tell about a Muslim's political outlook.
To make matters more confusing, Islamists often dissimulate and pretend to be moderates while some believers change their views over time.
Finally, shades of gray further confuse the issue. As noted by Robert Satloff of The Washington Institute, a 2007 book from the Gallup press, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, based on a poll of more than 50,000 Muslims in ten countries, found that 7 percent of Muslims deem the 9/11 attacks "completely justified"; 13.5 percent consider the attacks completely or "largely justified," and 36.6 percent consider the attacks completely, largely, or "somewhat justified."[5]Which of these groups does one define as Islamist and which not?
Islamists have fooled the White House, the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury, Congress, and law enforcement.
Faced with these intellectual challenges, U.S. bureaucrats are unsurprisingly incompetent, as demonstrated in a long blog titled "The U.S. Government's Poor Record on Islamists."[6] Islamists have fooled the White House, the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury, the Congress, many law enforcement agencies, and a plethora of municipalities. A few examples:
The Pentagon in 2001 invited Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Islamist it later executed with a drone-launched missile, to lunch.[7]
In 2002, FBI spokesman Bill Carter described the American Muslim Council (AMC) as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States"[8]—just two years before the bureau arrested the AMC's founder and head, Abdurahman Alamoudi, on terrorism-related charges. Alamoudi has now served about half of his 23-year prison sentence.[9]
George W. Bush appointed stealth Islamist Khaled Abou El Fadl in 2003 to, of all things, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.[10]
The White House included staff in 2015 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in its consultations[11] despite CAIR's initial funding by a designated terrorist group,[12] the frequent arrest or deportation of its employees on terrorism charges, a history of deception,[13] and the goal by one of its leaders to make Islam the only accepted religion in America.[14]
Fake-moderates have fooled even this author, despite all the attention devoted to this topic. In 2000, I praised a book by Tariq Ramadan; four years later, I argued for his exclusion from the United States. In 2003, I condemned a Republican operative named Kamal Nawash; two years later, I endorsed him. Did he evolve or did my understanding of them change? More than a decade later, I am still unsure.
Uniform Screening Standards
Returning to immigration, this state of confusion points to the need for learning much more about would-be visitors and immigrants. Fortunately, Trump's executive order, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," signed on January 27, 2017, requires just this. It calls for "Uniform Screening Standards" with the goal of preventing individuals seeking to enter the United States "on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission." The order requires that the uniform screening standard and procedure include such elements as (bolding is mine):
1. In-person interviews;
2. A database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants;
3. Amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent;
4. A mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be;
5. A process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and
6. A mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
Elements 1, 3, 5, and 6 permit and demand the procedure outlined in the following analysis. It contains two main components: in-depth research and intensive interviews.
Research
When a person applies for a security clearance, the background checks should involve finding out about his family, friends, associations, employment, memberships, and activities. Agents must probe these for questionable statements, relationships, and actions, as well as anomalies and gaps. When they find something dubious, they must look further into them, always with an eye for trouble. Is access to government secrets more important than access to the country? The immigration process should start with an inquiry into the prospective immigrant and, just as with security clearances, the border services should look for problems.
Most everyone with strong views at some point vents them on social media.
Also, as with security clearances, this process should have a political dimension: Does the person in question have an outlook consistent with that of the Constitution? Not long ago, only public figures such as intellectuals, activists, and religious figures put their views on the record; but now, thanks to the Internet and its open invitation to everyone to comment in writing or on video in a permanent, public manner, and especially to social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), most everyone with strong views at some point vents them. Such data provides valuably unfiltered views on many critical topics such as Islam, non-Muslims, women, and violence as a tactic. (Exploiting this resource may seem self-evident, but U.S. immigration authorities do not do so,[15] thereby imposing a self-restraint roughly equivalent to the Belgian police choosing not to conduct raids between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.)[16]
In the case of virulent, overt, outspoken jihadis, this research usually suffices to provide evidence to exclude them. Even some nonviolent Islamists proudly announce their immoderation.[17] But many Islamists adopt a milder and subtler tone, their goal being to appear moderate so they can enter the country and then impose Shari'a through lawful means. As suggested by some of the examples above, such as Abou El Fadl or CAIR, research often proves inadequate in these instances because cautious Islamists hide their goals and glibly dissimulate, which brings us to entrance interviews.
Entrance Interviews
Assuming that lawful Islamists routinely hide their true views, an interview is needed to enter the country. Of course, it is voluntary, for no one is forced to apply for immigration, but it also must be very thorough. It should be:
Recorded: With the explicit permission of the person being questioned ("You understand and accept that this interview is being recorded, right?"), the exchange should be visibly videotaped so the proceedings are unambiguously on the record. This makes avail-able the interviewee's words, tone, speech patterns, facial expressions, and body language for further study. Form as well as substance matters: Does the interviewee smile, fidget, blink, make eye contact, repeat, sweat, tremble, tire, need frequent toilet breaks, or otherwise express himself.
Polygraph: Even if a lie detector machine does not, in fact, provide useful information, attaching the interviewee to it might induce greater truth-telling.
Under oath: Knowing that falsehoods will be punished, possibly with jail time, is a strong inducement to come clean.
Public: If the candidate knows that his answers to abstract questions (as opposed to personal ones about his life) will be made public, this reduces the chances of deception. For example, asked about belief for the full application of Islamic laws, an Islamist will be less likely to answer falsely in the negative if he knows that his reply will be available for others to watch.
Effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics.
Multiple: No single question can evince a reply that establishes an Islamist disposition; effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics, from homosexuality to the caliphate. The answers need to be assessed in their totality.
Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of "Is Islam a religion of peace?"; "Do you condemn terrorism?"; "How do you respond to the murder of innocents?" depend too much on one's definition of words such as peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person's outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: "May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?"; "Does a Muslim have the right to renounce Islam?"
For questions to be effective at ferreting out the truth, examiners must look for inconsistency by asking the same thing in different ways. An example: "May a woman show her face in public?" and "Is a male guardian responsible for making sure his women-folk don't leave the house with faces uncovered?"
Variety in phrasing: For the questions to ferret out the truth means looking for divergence and inconsistency by asking the same question with different words and variant emphases. A sampling: "May a woman show her face in public?"; "What punishment do you favor for females who reveal their faces to men not related to them by family?"; "Is it the responsibility of the male guardian to make sure his women-folk do not leave the house with faces uncovered?"; "Should the government insist on women covering their faces?"; "Is society better ordered when women cover their faces?" Any one of the questions can be asked in different ways and expanded with follow-ups about the respondent's line of reasoning or depth of feeling.
Repeated: Questions should be asked again and again over a period of weeks, months, and even longer. This is crucial: Lies being much more difficult to remember than truths, the chances of a respondent changing his answers increases with both the volume of questions asked and the time lapse between questionings. Once inconsistencies occur, the questioner can zero in and explore their nature, extent, and import.
The Questions
Guidelines in place, what specific questions might extract useful information?
Zuhdi Jasser (L) with the author as teammates at a 2012 Intelligence Squared debate in New York City.
The following questions, offered as suggestions to build on, are those of this author but also derive from a number of analysts devoting years of thinking to the topic. Naser Khader, the-then Danish parliamentarian of Syrian Muslim origins, offered an early set of questions in 2002.[18] A year later, this author published a list, covering seven subject areas. Others followed, including the liberal Egyptian Muslim Tarek Heggy, the liberal American Muslims Tashbih Sayyed and Zuhdi Jasser, the ex-Muslim who goes by "Sam Solomon," a RAND Corporation group, and analyst Robert Spencer. Of special interest are the queries posed by the
German state of Baden-Württemberg dated September 2005 because it is an official document (intended for citizenship, not immigration, but with similar purposes).
Islamic doctrine:
1. May Muslims reinterpret the Qur'an in light of changes in modern times?
2. May Muslims convert out of Islam, either to join another faith or to be without religion?
3. May banks charge reasonable interest (say 3 percent over inflation) on money?
4. Is taqiya (dissimulation in the name of Islam) legitimate?
Islamic pluralism:
5. May Muslims pick and choose which Islamic regulations to abide by (e.g., drink alcohol but avoid pork)?
6. Is takfir (declaring a Muslim to be an infidel) acceptable?
7. [Asked of Sunnis only:] Are Sufis, Ibadis, and Shiites Muslims?
8. Are Muslims who disagree with your practice of Islam infidels (kuffar)?
The state and Islam:
9. What do you think of disestablishing religion, that is, separating mosque and state?
10. When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for female drivers' license pictures), what should be done?
11. Should the state compel prayer?
12. Should the state ban food consumption during Ramadan and penalize transgressors?
13. Should the state punish Muslims who eat pork, drink alcohol, and gamble?
14. Should the state punish adultery?
15. How about homosexuality?
16. Do you favor a mutawwa (religious police) as exist in Saudi Arabia?
17. Should the state enforce the criminal punishments of the Shari'a?
18. Should the state be lenient when someone is killed for the sake of family honor?
19. Should governments forbid Muslims from leaving Islam?
Marriage and divorce:
20. Does a husband have the right to hit his wife if she is disobedient?
21. Is it a good idea for men to shut their wives and daughters at home?
22. Do parents have the right to determine whom their children marry?
23. How would you react if a daughter married a non-Muslim man?
24. Is polygyny acceptable?
25. Should a husband have to get a first wife's approval to marry a second wife? A third? A fourth?
26. Should a wife have equal rights with her husband to initiate a divorce?
27. In the case of divorce, does a wife have rights to child custody?
Female rights:
28. Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in in-heritance shares or court testimony)?
29. Does a woman have the right to dress as she pleases, including showing her hair, arms, and legs so long as her genitalia and breasts are covered?
30. May Muslim women come and go or travel as they please?
31. Do Muslim women have a right to work outside the home or must the wali approve of this?
32. May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men?
33. Should males and females be separated in schools, at work, and socially?
34. Should certain professions be reserved for men or women only? If so, which ones?
35. Do you accept women occupying high governmental offices?
36. In an emergency, would you let yourself be treated by or operated on by a doctor of the opposite gender?
Sexual activity:
37. Does a husband have the right to force his wife to have sex?
38. Is female circumcision part of the Islamic religion?
39. Is stoning a justified punishment for adultery?
40. Do members of a family have the right to kill a woman if they believe she has dishonored them?
41. How would you respond to a child of yours who declares him- or herself a homosexual?
Schools:
42. Should your child learn the history of non-Muslims?
43. Should students be taught that Shari'a is a personal code or that governmental law must be based on it?
44. May your daughter take part in the sports activities, especially swimming lessons, offered by her school?
45. Would you permit your child to take part in school trips, including over-night ones?
46. What would you do if a daughter insisted on going to university?
Criticism of Muslims:
Denying the Islamic nature of ISIS reveals much about a Muslim.
47. Did Islam spread only through peaceful means?
48. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam even if it casts doubt on the received history?
49. Do you accept that Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
50. Is the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh Islamic in nature?
Fighting Islamism:
51. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight Islamism even if this might mean extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)?
52. When institutions credibly accused of funding jihad are shut down, is this a symptom of anti-Muslim bias?
53. Should Muslims living in the West cooperate with law enforcement?
54. Should they join the military?
55. Is the "war on terror" a war on Islam?
Non-Muslims (in general):
Praying at the Hindu Temple in Dubai, founded 1958.
56. Do all humans, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs, deserve equal rights?
57. Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims?
58. Do you accept the validity of other monotheistic religions?
59. Of polytheistic religions (such as Hinduism)?
60. Are Muslims superior to non-Muslims?
61. Should non-Muslims be subject to Islamic law?
62. Do Muslims have anything to learn from non-Muslims?
63. Can non-Muslims go to paradise?
64. Do you welcome non-Muslims to your house and go to their residences?
Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Islam):
65. May Muslims compel "Peoples of the Book" (i.e., Jews and Christians) to pay extra taxes?
66. May other monotheists build and operate institutions of their faith in Muslim-majority countries?
67. How about polytheists?
68. Should the Saudi government maintain the historic ban on non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina?
69. Should it allow churches to be built for Christian expatriates?
70. Should it stop requiring that all its subjects be Muslim?
Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Harb):
71. Should Muslims fight Jews and Christians until these "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).
72. Is the enslavement of non-Muslims acceptable?
73. Is it acceptable to arrest individuals who curse the prophet of Islam or burn the Qur'an?
74. If the state does not act against such deeds, may individual Muslims act?
75. Can one live a fully Muslim life in a country with a mostly non-Muslim government?
76. Should a Muslim accept a legitimate majority non-Muslim government and its laws or work to make Islam supreme?
77. Can a majority non-Muslim government unreservedly win your allegiance?
78. Should Muslims who burn churches or vandalize synagogues be punished?
79. Do you support jihad to spread Islam?
Violence:
80. Do you endorse corporal punishments (mutilation, dismemberment, crucifixion) of criminals?
81. Is beheading an acceptable form of punishment?
82. Is jihad, meaning warfare to expand Muslim rule, acceptable in today's world?
83. What does it mean when Muslims yell "Allahu Akbar" as they attack?
84. Do you condemn violent organizations such as Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Shabab, and the Taliban?
Western countries:
85. Are non-Islamic institutions immoral and decadent or can they be moral and virtuous?
86. Do you agree with studies that show non-Muslim countries such as New Zealand to be better living up to the ideals of Islam than Muslim-majority countries?
87. Is Western-style freedom an accomplishment or a form of moral corruption? Why?
88. Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries?
89. Do you accept living in Western countries that are secular or do you seek to have Islamic law rule them?
90. What do you think of Shari'a-police patrolling Muslim-majority neighborhoods in Western countries to enforce Islamic morals?
91. Would you like to see the U.S. Constitution (or its equivalents in other countries) replaced by the Qur'an?
This interview:
92. In an immigration interview like this, if deceiving the questioner helps Islam, would lying be justified?
93. Why should I trust that you have answered these questions truthfully?
Observations about the Interviews
Beyond helping to decide whom to allow into the country, these questions can also help in other contexts as well, for example, in police interrogations or interviews for sensitive employment positions. (The list of Islamists who have penetrated Western security services is a long and painful one.)
Questions about highly charged current issues should be omitted because Islamist views overlap with non-Islamist outlooks. Islamists are hardly the only ones who condemn Israel. Here Jewish Voice for Peace activists protest.
Note the absence of questions about highly charged current issues. This is because Islamist views overlap with non-Islamist outlooks; plenty of non-Islamists agree with Islamists on these topics.
Although Liel Leibowitz, for instance, sees Israel as "moderate Islam's real litmus test,"[19] Islamists are hardly the only ones who demand Israel's elimination and accept Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate political actors—or believe the Bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks, or hate the United States. Why introduce these ambiguous issues when so many Islam-specific questions (e.g., "Is the enslavement of non-Muslims acceptable?") have the virtue of far greater clarity?
The interviewing protocol requires case officers knowledgeable about those being interviewed, the societies they come from, and the Islamic religion.
The interviewing protocol outlined above is extensive, asking many specific questions over a substantial period using different formulations, probing for truth and inconsistencies. It is not quick, easy, or cheap, but requires case officers knowledgeable about the persons being interviewed, the societies they come from, and the Islamic religion; they are somewhat like a police questioner who knows both the accused person and the crime. This is not a casual process. There are no shortcuts.
Criticisms
This procedure raises two criticisms: It is less reliable than Trump's no-Muslim policy, and it is too burdensome for governments to undertake. Both are readily disposed of.
Less reliable: The no-Muslim policy sounds simple to implement but figuring out who is Muslim is a problem in itself (are Ahmadis Muslims?). Further, with such a policy in place, what will stop Muslims from pretending to renounce their religion or to convert to another religion, notably Christianity? These actions would require the same in-depth research and intensive interviews as described above. If anything, because a convert can hide behind his ignorance of his alleged new religion, distinguishing a real convert to Christianity from a fake one is even more difficult than differentiating an Islamist from a moderate Muslim.
Too burdensome: True, the procedure is expensive, slow, and requires skilled practitioners. But this also has the benefit of slowing a process that many, myself included, consider out of control with too many immigrants entering the country too quickly. Immigrants numbered 5 percent of the population in 1965, 14 percent in 2015, and are projected to make up 18 percent in 2065.[20] This is far too large a number to assimilate into the values of the United States, especially when so many come from outside the West; the above mechanism offers a way to slow it down.
As for those who argue that this sort of inquiry and screening for visa purposes is unlawful, prior legislation for naturalization, for example, required that an applicant be "attached to the principles of the Constitution"[21] and it was repeatedly found to be legal.
Finally, today's moderate Muslim could become tomorrow's raging Islamist, or his infant daughter might two decades later become a jihadi. While any immigrant can turn hostile, such changes happen far more often among born-Muslims. There is no way to guarantee preventing this from happening, but extensive research and interrogations reduce the odds.
Conclusion
Truly to protect the country from Islamists requires a major commitment of talent, resources, and time. But, properly handled, these questions offer a mechanism to separate enemy from friend among Muslims. They also have the benefit of slowing down immigration.[22]
Even before Trump became president, if one is to believe CAIR, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) asked questions[23] along the lines of those advocated here (What do you think of the USA? What are your views about jihad? See the appendix below for a full listing). With Trump's endorsement, let us hope this effective "no-Islamists" policy is on its way to becoming systematic.
Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. This analysis derives from a chapter in Conceptualizing Moderate Islam, edited by Richard Benkin (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2017).
Appendix
On January 18, 2017, just hours before Donald Trump became president of the United States, the Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed ten complaints with the Customs and Border Protection Agency for questioning Muslim citizens about their religious and political views. Among the questions allegedly asked were:
Are you a devout Muslim?
Are you Sunni or Shia?
What school of thought do you follow?
Which Muslim scholars do you follow?
What current Muslim scholars do you listen to?
Do you pray five times a day?
Why do you have a prayer mat in your luggage?
Why do you have a Qur'an in your luggage?
Have you visited Saudi Arabia?
Will you ever visit Saudi Arabia or Israel?
What do you know about the Tableeghi-Jamat?
What do you think of the USA?
What are your views about Jihad?
What mosque do you attend?
Do any individuals in your mosque have any extreme/radical views?
Does your Imam express extremist views?
What are the views of other imams or other community members that give the Friday sermon at your mosque?
Do they have extremist views?
Have you ever delivered the Friday Prayer? What did you discuss with your community?
What are your views regarding [various terrorist organizations]?
What social media accounts do you use?
What is your Facebook account username?
What is your Twitter account username?
What is your Instagram account username?
What are the names and telephone numbers of parents, relatives, friends?
CAIR also claims a Canadian Muslim was asked by CBP the following questions and then denied entry:
Are you Sunni or Shia?
Do you think we should allow someone like you to enter our country?
How often do you pray?
Why did you shave your beard?
Which school of thought do you follow?
What do you think of America's foreign policy towards the Muslim world?
What do you think of killing non-Muslims?
What do you think of [various terrorist groups]?
Finally, CAIR indicates that those questioned "were held between 2 to 8 hours by CBP."
Alas the perceived wisdom says Trump ''ideology'' is worse the Islamic.....
Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting
by Daniel Pipes
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2017 (view PDF)
Send
Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 27 establishing radically new procedures to deal with foreigners who apply to enter the United States. Building on his earlier notion of "extreme vetting," the order explains that
to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
On January 27, 2017, signed an executive order proclaiming that the United States cannot admit those who "do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law." Determining who fits this description is difficult and demands great skill but can be done, beginning with intensive entrance interviews.
This passage raises several questions of translating extreme vetting in practice: How does one distinguish foreigners who "do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles" from those who do? How do government officials figure out "those who would place violent ideologies over American law"?
More specifically, given that the new procedures almost exclusively concern the fear of allowing more Islamists into the country, how does one identify them?
I shall argue these are doable tasks and the executive order provides the basis to achieve them. At the same time, they are expensive and time-consuming, demanding great skill. Keeping out Islamists can be done but not easily.
The Challenge
By Islamists (as opposed to moderate Muslims), I mean those approximately 10-15 percent of Muslims who seek to apply Islamic law (Shari'a) in its entirety.[1] They want to implement a medieval code that calls (among much else) for restricting women, subjugating non-Muslims, violent jihad, and establishing a caliphate to rule the world.
For many non-Muslims, the rise of Islamism over the past forty years has made Islam synonymous with extremism, turmoil, aggression, and violence. But Islamists—not all Muslims—are the problem; they—not all Muslims—must urgently be excluded from the United States and other Western countries. Not just that, but anti-Islamist Muslims are the key to ending the Islamist surge as they alone can offer a humane and modern alternative to Islamist obscurantism.
U.S. bureaucrats are unsurprisingly incompetent at vetting possible Islamists. In 2001, the Pentagon invited Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Islamist, to lunch. In September 2011, he became the first United States citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike.
Identifying Islamists is no easy matter, however, as no simple litmus test exists. Clothing can be misleading as some women wearing hijabs are anti-Islamists[2] while practicing Muslims can be Zionists;[3] nor does one's occupation indicate much, as some high-tech engineers are violent Islamists.[4] Likewise, beards, teetotalism, five-times-a-day prayers, and polygyny do not tell about a Muslim's political outlook.
To make matters more confusing, Islamists often dissimulate and pretend to be moderates while some believers change their views over time.
Finally, shades of gray further confuse the issue. As noted by Robert Satloff of The Washington Institute, a 2007 book from the Gallup press, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, based on a poll of more than 50,000 Muslims in ten countries, found that 7 percent of Muslims deem the 9/11 attacks "completely justified"; 13.5 percent consider the attacks completely or "largely justified," and 36.6 percent consider the attacks completely, largely, or "somewhat justified."[5]Which of these groups does one define as Islamist and which not?
Islamists have fooled the White House, the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury, Congress, and law enforcement.
Faced with these intellectual challenges, U.S. bureaucrats are unsurprisingly incompetent, as demonstrated in a long blog titled "The U.S. Government's Poor Record on Islamists."[6] Islamists have fooled the White House, the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury, the Congress, many law enforcement agencies, and a plethora of municipalities. A few examples:
The Pentagon in 2001 invited Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Islamist it later executed with a drone-launched missile, to lunch.[7]
In 2002, FBI spokesman Bill Carter described the American Muslim Council (AMC) as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States"[8]—just two years before the bureau arrested the AMC's founder and head, Abdurahman Alamoudi, on terrorism-related charges. Alamoudi has now served about half of his 23-year prison sentence.[9]
George W. Bush appointed stealth Islamist Khaled Abou El Fadl in 2003 to, of all things, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.[10]
The White House included staff in 2015 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in its consultations[11] despite CAIR's initial funding by a designated terrorist group,[12] the frequent arrest or deportation of its employees on terrorism charges, a history of deception,[13] and the goal by one of its leaders to make Islam the only accepted religion in America.[14]
Fake-moderates have fooled even this author, despite all the attention devoted to this topic. In 2000, I praised a book by Tariq Ramadan; four years later, I argued for his exclusion from the United States. In 2003, I condemned a Republican operative named Kamal Nawash; two years later, I endorsed him. Did he evolve or did my understanding of them change? More than a decade later, I am still unsure.
Uniform Screening Standards
Returning to immigration, this state of confusion points to the need for learning much more about would-be visitors and immigrants. Fortunately, Trump's executive order, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," signed on January 27, 2017, requires just this. It calls for "Uniform Screening Standards" with the goal of preventing individuals seeking to enter the United States "on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission." The order requires that the uniform screening standard and procedure include such elements as (bolding is mine):
1. In-person interviews;
2. A database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants;
3. Amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent;
4. A mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be;
5. A process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and
6. A mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
Elements 1, 3, 5, and 6 permit and demand the procedure outlined in the following analysis. It contains two main components: in-depth research and intensive interviews.
Research
When a person applies for a security clearance, the background checks should involve finding out about his family, friends, associations, employment, memberships, and activities. Agents must probe these for questionable statements, relationships, and actions, as well as anomalies and gaps. When they find something dubious, they must look further into them, always with an eye for trouble. Is access to government secrets more important than access to the country? The immigration process should start with an inquiry into the prospective immigrant and, just as with security clearances, the border services should look for problems.
Most everyone with strong views at some point vents them on social media.
Also, as with security clearances, this process should have a political dimension: Does the person in question have an outlook consistent with that of the Constitution? Not long ago, only public figures such as intellectuals, activists, and religious figures put their views on the record; but now, thanks to the Internet and its open invitation to everyone to comment in writing or on video in a permanent, public manner, and especially to social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), most everyone with strong views at some point vents them. Such data provides valuably unfiltered views on many critical topics such as Islam, non-Muslims, women, and violence as a tactic. (Exploiting this resource may seem self-evident, but U.S. immigration authorities do not do so,[15] thereby imposing a self-restraint roughly equivalent to the Belgian police choosing not to conduct raids between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.)[16]
In the case of virulent, overt, outspoken jihadis, this research usually suffices to provide evidence to exclude them. Even some nonviolent Islamists proudly announce their immoderation.[17] But many Islamists adopt a milder and subtler tone, their goal being to appear moderate so they can enter the country and then impose Shari'a through lawful means. As suggested by some of the examples above, such as Abou El Fadl or CAIR, research often proves inadequate in these instances because cautious Islamists hide their goals and glibly dissimulate, which brings us to entrance interviews.
Entrance Interviews
Assuming that lawful Islamists routinely hide their true views, an interview is needed to enter the country. Of course, it is voluntary, for no one is forced to apply for immigration, but it also must be very thorough. It should be:
Recorded: With the explicit permission of the person being questioned ("You understand and accept that this interview is being recorded, right?"), the exchange should be visibly videotaped so the proceedings are unambiguously on the record. This makes avail-able the interviewee's words, tone, speech patterns, facial expressions, and body language for further study. Form as well as substance matters: Does the interviewee smile, fidget, blink, make eye contact, repeat, sweat, tremble, tire, need frequent toilet breaks, or otherwise express himself.
Polygraph: Even if a lie detector machine does not, in fact, provide useful information, attaching the interviewee to it might induce greater truth-telling.
Under oath: Knowing that falsehoods will be punished, possibly with jail time, is a strong inducement to come clean.
Public: If the candidate knows that his answers to abstract questions (as opposed to personal ones about his life) will be made public, this reduces the chances of deception. For example, asked about belief for the full application of Islamic laws, an Islamist will be less likely to answer falsely in the negative if he knows that his reply will be available for others to watch.
Effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics.
Multiple: No single question can evince a reply that establishes an Islamist disposition; effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics, from homosexuality to the caliphate. The answers need to be assessed in their totality.
Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of "Is Islam a religion of peace?"; "Do you condemn terrorism?"; "How do you respond to the murder of innocents?" depend too much on one's definition of words such as peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person's outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: "May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?"; "Does a Muslim have the right to renounce Islam?"
For questions to be effective at ferreting out the truth, examiners must look for inconsistency by asking the same thing in different ways. An example: "May a woman show her face in public?" and "Is a male guardian responsible for making sure his women-folk don't leave the house with faces uncovered?"
Variety in phrasing: For the questions to ferret out the truth means looking for divergence and inconsistency by asking the same question with different words and variant emphases. A sampling: "May a woman show her face in public?"; "What punishment do you favor for females who reveal their faces to men not related to them by family?"; "Is it the responsibility of the male guardian to make sure his women-folk do not leave the house with faces uncovered?"; "Should the government insist on women covering their faces?"; "Is society better ordered when women cover their faces?" Any one of the questions can be asked in different ways and expanded with follow-ups about the respondent's line of reasoning or depth of feeling.
Repeated: Questions should be asked again and again over a period of weeks, months, and even longer. This is crucial: Lies being much more difficult to remember than truths, the chances of a respondent changing his answers increases with both the volume of questions asked and the time lapse between questionings. Once inconsistencies occur, the questioner can zero in and explore their nature, extent, and import.
The Questions
Guidelines in place, what specific questions might extract useful information?
Zuhdi Jasser (L) with the author as teammates at a 2012 Intelligence Squared debate in New York City.
The following questions, offered as suggestions to build on, are those of this author but also derive from a number of analysts devoting years of thinking to the topic. Naser Khader, the-then Danish parliamentarian of Syrian Muslim origins, offered an early set of questions in 2002.[18] A year later, this author published a list, covering seven subject areas. Others followed, including the liberal Egyptian Muslim Tarek Heggy, the liberal American Muslims Tashbih Sayyed and Zuhdi Jasser, the ex-Muslim who goes by "Sam Solomon," a RAND Corporation group, and analyst Robert Spencer. Of special interest are the queries posed by the
German state of Baden-Württemberg dated September 2005 because it is an official document (intended for citizenship, not immigration, but with similar purposes).
Islamic doctrine:
1. May Muslims reinterpret the Qur'an in light of changes in modern times?
2. May Muslims convert out of Islam, either to join another faith or to be without religion?
3. May banks charge reasonable interest (say 3 percent over inflation) on money?
4. Is taqiya (dissimulation in the name of Islam) legitimate?
Islamic pluralism:
5. May Muslims pick and choose which Islamic regulations to abide by (e.g., drink alcohol but avoid pork)?
6. Is takfir (declaring a Muslim to be an infidel) acceptable?
7. [Asked of Sunnis only:] Are Sufis, Ibadis, and Shiites Muslims?
8. Are Muslims who disagree with your practice of Islam infidels (kuffar)?
The state and Islam:
9. What do you think of disestablishing religion, that is, separating mosque and state?
10. When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for female drivers' license pictures), what should be done?
11. Should the state compel prayer?
12. Should the state ban food consumption during Ramadan and penalize transgressors?
13. Should the state punish Muslims who eat pork, drink alcohol, and gamble?
14. Should the state punish adultery?
15. How about homosexuality?
16. Do you favor a mutawwa (religious police) as exist in Saudi Arabia?
17. Should the state enforce the criminal punishments of the Shari'a?
18. Should the state be lenient when someone is killed for the sake of family honor?
19. Should governments forbid Muslims from leaving Islam?
Marriage and divorce:
20. Does a husband have the right to hit his wife if she is disobedient?
21. Is it a good idea for men to shut their wives and daughters at home?
22. Do parents have the right to determine whom their children marry?
23. How would you react if a daughter married a non-Muslim man?
24. Is polygyny acceptable?
25. Should a husband have to get a first wife's approval to marry a second wife? A third? A fourth?
26. Should a wife have equal rights with her husband to initiate a divorce?
27. In the case of divorce, does a wife have rights to child custody?
Female rights:
28. Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in in-heritance shares or court testimony)?
29. Does a woman have the right to dress as she pleases, including showing her hair, arms, and legs so long as her genitalia and breasts are covered?
30. May Muslim women come and go or travel as they please?
31. Do Muslim women have a right to work outside the home or must the wali approve of this?
32. May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men?
33. Should males and females be separated in schools, at work, and socially?
34. Should certain professions be reserved for men or women only? If so, which ones?
35. Do you accept women occupying high governmental offices?
36. In an emergency, would you let yourself be treated by or operated on by a doctor of the opposite gender?
Sexual activity:
37. Does a husband have the right to force his wife to have sex?
38. Is female circumcision part of the Islamic religion?
39. Is stoning a justified punishment for adultery?
40. Do members of a family have the right to kill a woman if they believe she has dishonored them?
41. How would you respond to a child of yours who declares him- or herself a homosexual?
Schools:
42. Should your child learn the history of non-Muslims?
43. Should students be taught that Shari'a is a personal code or that governmental law must be based on it?
44. May your daughter take part in the sports activities, especially swimming lessons, offered by her school?
45. Would you permit your child to take part in school trips, including over-night ones?
46. What would you do if a daughter insisted on going to university?
Criticism of Muslims:
Denying the Islamic nature of ISIS reveals much about a Muslim.
47. Did Islam spread only through peaceful means?
48. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam even if it casts doubt on the received history?
49. Do you accept that Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
50. Is the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh Islamic in nature?
Fighting Islamism:
51. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight Islamism even if this might mean extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)?
52. When institutions credibly accused of funding jihad are shut down, is this a symptom of anti-Muslim bias?
53. Should Muslims living in the West cooperate with law enforcement?
54. Should they join the military?
55. Is the "war on terror" a war on Islam?
Non-Muslims (in general):
Praying at the Hindu Temple in Dubai, founded 1958.
56. Do all humans, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs, deserve equal rights?
57. Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims?
58. Do you accept the validity of other monotheistic religions?
59. Of polytheistic religions (such as Hinduism)?
60. Are Muslims superior to non-Muslims?
61. Should non-Muslims be subject to Islamic law?
62. Do Muslims have anything to learn from non-Muslims?
63. Can non-Muslims go to paradise?
64. Do you welcome non-Muslims to your house and go to their residences?
Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Islam):
65. May Muslims compel "Peoples of the Book" (i.e., Jews and Christians) to pay extra taxes?
66. May other monotheists build and operate institutions of their faith in Muslim-majority countries?
67. How about polytheists?
68. Should the Saudi government maintain the historic ban on non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina?
69. Should it allow churches to be built for Christian expatriates?
70. Should it stop requiring that all its subjects be Muslim?
Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Harb):
71. Should Muslims fight Jews and Christians until these "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).
72. Is the enslavement of non-Muslims acceptable?
73. Is it acceptable to arrest individuals who curse the prophet of Islam or burn the Qur'an?
74. If the state does not act against such deeds, may individual Muslims act?
75. Can one live a fully Muslim life in a country with a mostly non-Muslim government?
76. Should a Muslim accept a legitimate majority non-Muslim government and its laws or work to make Islam supreme?
77. Can a majority non-Muslim government unreservedly win your allegiance?
78. Should Muslims who burn churches or vandalize synagogues be punished?
79. Do you support jihad to spread Islam?
Violence:
80. Do you endorse corporal punishments (mutilation, dismemberment, crucifixion) of criminals?
81. Is beheading an acceptable form of punishment?
82. Is jihad, meaning warfare to expand Muslim rule, acceptable in today's world?
83. What does it mean when Muslims yell "Allahu Akbar" as they attack?
84. Do you condemn violent organizations such as Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Shabab, and the Taliban?
Western countries:
85. Are non-Islamic institutions immoral and decadent or can they be moral and virtuous?
86. Do you agree with studies that show non-Muslim countries such as New Zealand to be better living up to the ideals of Islam than Muslim-majority countries?
87. Is Western-style freedom an accomplishment or a form of moral corruption? Why?
88. Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries?
89. Do you accept living in Western countries that are secular or do you seek to have Islamic law rule them?
90. What do you think of Shari'a-police patrolling Muslim-majority neighborhoods in Western countries to enforce Islamic morals?
91. Would you like to see the U.S. Constitution (or its equivalents in other countries) replaced by the Qur'an?
This interview:
92. In an immigration interview like this, if deceiving the questioner helps Islam, would lying be justified?
93. Why should I trust that you have answered these questions truthfully?
Observations about the Interviews
Beyond helping to decide whom to allow into the country, these questions can also help in other contexts as well, for example, in police interrogations or interviews for sensitive employment positions. (The list of Islamists who have penetrated Western security services is a long and painful one.)
Questions about highly charged current issues should be omitted because Islamist views overlap with non-Islamist outlooks. Islamists are hardly the only ones who condemn Israel. Here Jewish Voice for Peace activists protest.
Note the absence of questions about highly charged current issues. This is because Islamist views overlap with non-Islamist outlooks; plenty of non-Islamists agree with Islamists on these topics.
Although Liel Leibowitz, for instance, sees Israel as "moderate Islam's real litmus test,"[19] Islamists are hardly the only ones who demand Israel's elimination and accept Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate political actors—or believe the Bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks, or hate the United States. Why introduce these ambiguous issues when so many Islam-specific questions (e.g., "Is the enslavement of non-Muslims acceptable?") have the virtue of far greater clarity?
The interviewing protocol requires case officers knowledgeable about those being interviewed, the societies they come from, and the Islamic religion.
The interviewing protocol outlined above is extensive, asking many specific questions over a substantial period using different formulations, probing for truth and inconsistencies. It is not quick, easy, or cheap, but requires case officers knowledgeable about the persons being interviewed, the societies they come from, and the Islamic religion; they are somewhat like a police questioner who knows both the accused person and the crime. This is not a casual process. There are no shortcuts.
Criticisms
This procedure raises two criticisms: It is less reliable than Trump's no-Muslim policy, and it is too burdensome for governments to undertake. Both are readily disposed of.
Less reliable: The no-Muslim policy sounds simple to implement but figuring out who is Muslim is a problem in itself (are Ahmadis Muslims?). Further, with such a policy in place, what will stop Muslims from pretending to renounce their religion or to convert to another religion, notably Christianity? These actions would require the same in-depth research and intensive interviews as described above. If anything, because a convert can hide behind his ignorance of his alleged new religion, distinguishing a real convert to Christianity from a fake one is even more difficult than differentiating an Islamist from a moderate Muslim.
Too burdensome: True, the procedure is expensive, slow, and requires skilled practitioners. But this also has the benefit of slowing a process that many, myself included, consider out of control with too many immigrants entering the country too quickly. Immigrants numbered 5 percent of the population in 1965, 14 percent in 2015, and are projected to make up 18 percent in 2065.[20] This is far too large a number to assimilate into the values of the United States, especially when so many come from outside the West; the above mechanism offers a way to slow it down.
As for those who argue that this sort of inquiry and screening for visa purposes is unlawful, prior legislation for naturalization, for example, required that an applicant be "attached to the principles of the Constitution"[21] and it was repeatedly found to be legal.
Finally, today's moderate Muslim could become tomorrow's raging Islamist, or his infant daughter might two decades later become a jihadi. While any immigrant can turn hostile, such changes happen far more often among born-Muslims. There is no way to guarantee preventing this from happening, but extensive research and interrogations reduce the odds.
Conclusion
Truly to protect the country from Islamists requires a major commitment of talent, resources, and time. But, properly handled, these questions offer a mechanism to separate enemy from friend among Muslims. They also have the benefit of slowing down immigration.[22]
Even before Trump became president, if one is to believe CAIR, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) asked questions[23] along the lines of those advocated here (What do you think of the USA? What are your views about jihad? See the appendix below for a full listing). With Trump's endorsement, let us hope this effective "no-Islamists" policy is on its way to becoming systematic.
Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. This analysis derives from a chapter in Conceptualizing Moderate Islam, edited by Richard Benkin (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2017).
Appendix
On January 18, 2017, just hours before Donald Trump became president of the United States, the Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed ten complaints with the Customs and Border Protection Agency for questioning Muslim citizens about their religious and political views. Among the questions allegedly asked were:
Are you a devout Muslim?
Are you Sunni or Shia?
What school of thought do you follow?
Which Muslim scholars do you follow?
What current Muslim scholars do you listen to?
Do you pray five times a day?
Why do you have a prayer mat in your luggage?
Why do you have a Qur'an in your luggage?
Have you visited Saudi Arabia?
Will you ever visit Saudi Arabia or Israel?
What do you know about the Tableeghi-Jamat?
What do you think of the USA?
What are your views about Jihad?
What mosque do you attend?
Do any individuals in your mosque have any extreme/radical views?
Does your Imam express extremist views?
What are the views of other imams or other community members that give the Friday sermon at your mosque?
Do they have extremist views?
Have you ever delivered the Friday Prayer? What did you discuss with your community?
What are your views regarding [various terrorist organizations]?
What social media accounts do you use?
What is your Facebook account username?
What is your Twitter account username?
What is your Instagram account username?
What are the names and telephone numbers of parents, relatives, friends?
CAIR also claims a Canadian Muslim was asked by CBP the following questions and then denied entry:
Are you Sunni or Shia?
Do you think we should allow someone like you to enter our country?
How often do you pray?
Why did you shave your beard?
Which school of thought do you follow?
What do you think of America's foreign policy towards the Muslim world?
What do you think of killing non-Muslims?
What do you think of [various terrorist groups]?
Finally, CAIR indicates that those questioned "were held between 2 to 8 hours by CBP."
why aren't there white guys doing the same thing in Saudi Arabia?
It seems May wants to change the equation such;
Integration > freedom + innocent deaths
Since her argument is simply greater control over not just Islamic terrorists, nor all Islamists.....but also everyone else who are neither, by building up portfolios of all activities online.
Politicians talk so much Bol lox
I'm reverting back to no vote on Thursday, since if labour can be blamed for appeasement, and the Tories are the party of totalitarianism then there's only UKIP for segregation.
I'm out ffs.
Integration > freedom + innocent deaths
Since her argument is simply greater control over not just Islamic terrorists, nor all Islamists.....but also everyone else who are neither, by building up portfolios of all activities online.
Politicians talk so much Bol lox
I'm reverting back to no vote on Thursday, since if labour can be blamed for appeasement, and the Tories are the party of totalitarianism then there's only UKIP for segregation.
I'm out ffs.
You mayor at this moment is looking over the area where he thinks good work was done. I do wonder???
So, this big form to be filled in if you want to enter the country.
Is it not possible to simply lie?
Is it not possible to simply lie?
It isn't islamic extremism that is the danger. It goes much deeper than that. People really need to do some reading to understand before reacting and gobbing off about the results of long term education of the mind.
Great post tons of sobs.
Various issues not least the use of the word extremist. It's the attempt to seperate Islam from extremism.
Moderate Islam is very extreme to western eyes. It can be easily argued that so called extremists are merely doing what Mohammed orders in the Hadiths.
Nearly all the guff on radio and tv is about the operational nature of the attacks and aftermath. Very, very little discussion of 'what is Islam' and 'what is a true expression of Islamic teaching'.
Obviously to ask those questions would be to open the biggest worm can known to mankind...and that's why the cover up continues..
Various issues not least the use of the word extremist. It's the attempt to seperate Islam from extremism.
Moderate Islam is very extreme to western eyes. It can be easily argued that so called extremists are merely doing what Mohammed orders in the Hadiths.
Nearly all the guff on radio and tv is about the operational nature of the attacks and aftermath. Very, very little discussion of 'what is Islam' and 'what is a true expression of Islamic teaching'.
Obviously to ask those questions would be to open the biggest worm can known to mankind...and that's why the cover up continues..
if I may add - and millions of votes to loose if you upset them
Imagine if a government sent people into every mosque and school to listen out.
Imagine if a government sent people into every mosque and school to listen out.
or into many of the unregistered schools
etc etc
you wouldn't just have millions of muslims against you but millions of free thinking liberal minding folk
who are interested in freedom of the individual and free speech.
etc etc
you wouldn't just have millions of muslims against you but millions of free thinking liberal minding folk
who are interested in freedom of the individual and free speech.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539