Dan Kimmel, 63, may have come up with the worst possible campaign statement for someone running as a candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives. The Democratic candidate tweeted that the Islamic State group “isn’t necessarily evil” and its members were doing what they thought was best for their community. Not only is the tweet bizarre but it occurred shortly before the massacre that left more than 120 people dead and more than 350 wounded in Paris by ISIS. Kimmel has since resigned from the race.
Kimmel’s tweet was the ultimately expression of the moral relativism that has taken hold in parts of our society. He said “ISIS isn’t necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.” This is an organization that burns people alive, tortures prisoners, enslaves and rapes girls, and destroys art and historical artifacts in the name of acting for the “best of their community.”
Kimmel later said that “The tweet was stupid. I’m sorry, . . . I deplore the evil acts of ISIS. I do not defend their acts.” Yes it was stupid but I cannot imagine how one actually assumes such a position in the first place. There is a tendency to treat all values as relative and the reject the concept of foundational “truths” that underlie Western Civilization like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal rights, and due process. There is a resistance to saying that those who would deny basic rights are wrong and, yes in the case of ISIS, evil. Whether they believe that they are right is immaterial. They are fighting to deny rights to women, other religions, journalists, political dissidents and the like. Hitler also thought he was right and “helping his community.” Does that make him or ISIS any less evil?
I understand that everyone on occasion will send out a stupid or unintended tweet. However, this tweet reflects a more fundamental problem of creeping relativism that is coming into vogue in the West. The values of free speech and other rights define not just Western Civilization but human rights. Countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and others have fought to convince people that different cultures are allowed to define human rights in different ways. Thus, Saudi Arabia and Iran can claim that beating and killing nonbelievers is “right” according to their values and laws. ISIS is the most extreme form of that perverse and relativistic perspective. There are truths that transcend borders . . . and tweets.
Source: Fox News
No law or program may be brought for the benefit of Muslims.
No immigration of Muslims is constitutional.
Muslims are sworn enemies of America and Americans are enemy “infidels.”
Islam in its Quran requires the death of the infidel (i.e. Americans).
Islam, the Quran and Muslims are anti-American, anti-Constitution and mortal enemies.
That they can coexist, as “sleeper cells,” for a period of time, with Americans before they execute the
mandate of the Quran, does not make them safe or otherwise constitutional immigrants.
Muslims, or sworn enemies of the state may not benefit from American law or immigrate to America.
__________
To wit,
The Religion of Peace.com
“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God; however this works both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy – and that of his companions – along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.”
The Quran:
“Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, “fitna”, can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – i.e. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Wasn’t it Voltaire who spoke to defending the right to speak? I certainly defend his right!! Now the electorate has one less moron running for office. Now if only Hitler and the others had had impulsive Twitter tweets???
Al heem….indeed who defines ‘evil’? I always thot it with the devil….ie opposite of not evil. …godly. Suddenly the wrong from right and wrong ….can be called evil….so what the church speaks of evil…..can be invoked for evil…..half the time. What the church speaks as godly ( like no gay marriage) can be invoked the other half as still evil. Who defines evil?
Max,
While you are accurate as to the current predominate demographic of terrorists here, does that mean we need to increase the diversity of terrorists?
I think most people are fine with Muslims, so long as they are law-abiding and want to assimilate and BE American. The Muslims I know here do not want the problems France is having just as I do not want our country to have the problems France is having.
People are concerned there is a high probability of importing Islamic extremists by inviting the Syrian refugees to our shores. France certainly seems to have had that problem.
What are your thoughts on this possibility?
Kerry said the rationale behind the Charlie Hebdo murders was “understandable” and Obama called the Paris massacre “a setback.” WTF???
There seems to be a truth serum in the water supply, maybe just in PC acceptable bottled water. Bernie Sanders saying Global Warming is more of a threat than ISIS. John Kerry saying today IN PARIS that there was a rationale to the Charlie Hebdo murders. Then, this Gopher pandering to Somali’s. Gaffes are the mistake of saying what you actually think.
White Americans are the biggest terror threat in the United States
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6592741/2015/06/24/white-americans-are-biggest-terror-threat-united-states
The RELIGIOUS LIBERTY to deny other FAITHS in America…
… Support the FIRST AMENDMENT and welcome ALL FAITHS, not just the bigoted ones, America.
As Americans, either we support the First Amendment or we do not. We can not pick and choose which religion is free and which religion is VERBOTEN!
Paul C. Schulte
Does that shipping include an invoice and tracking label?
Hitler and Eichmann were just trying to do what was best for their communities.
I think this fool was just pandering for votes from the large Somali population in Minneapolis. He is typical of politicians who have no moral anchor, and will say anything to get elected.
Considering this January article preceded the tragic events in France, it is prophetic:
“About 300 Muslim Belgians, the vast majority young men, have traveled to fight on the Syrian and Iraqi battlefields, and about a third of them have returned, according to the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College in London.
“Belgium is experiencing the same types of problem that you see in France,” said Ian Lesser, senior director for foreign and security policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “In many cases, the society in Belgium is more transnational, more connected to North Africa and Syria and Iraq.””
“Though Belgium does not have Europe’s largest concentration of Muslim immigrants — that designation belongs to France — it has not integrated them into Belgian society well and has no concrete plan to do so, said Stevie Weinberg, director of operations at the International Institute for Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel.”
“Recruiting network Sharia4Belgium wants to convert Belgium — whose capital of Brussels is also the capital of the European Union — into an Islamic State. The group is one of the most prolific recruiters of European fighters for al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, but many European analysts have a hard time explaining why, said Thomas Hegghammer, director of terrorism research at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.
“We don’t know why Sharia4Belgium has been more successful than its sister organizations in other European countries,” Hegghammer said.
European leaders have long tolerated citizens traveling to Middle Eastern war zones to fight with foreign armies and terrorists because so few of them returned to commit jihad at home, he said. That appears to be changing, but policymakers are not sure how to respond.”
This was written less than a year before the events in Paris, when so far, at least on of the terrorists had Syrian ID. I mention ID rather than actual country of origin, because with so many forged Syrian IDs who knows the source country at this early stage.
Do people really not understand that Syria is a hotbed for terrorism? And that letting in surges of people with no documentation, no background checks, could be detrimental? Mere days after this savage massacre in Paris, there is still this pushback on vetting immigrants properly? Still pushback on the remark that the Middle East has done zero to accept any of these refugees? Stem the rampant fraud?
Here is another article, this one detailing how Belgium is now a source of terrorists, who train in Syria with ISIS.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/16/belgium-terrorist-crossroad/21866187/
Dieter:
Yes, I think (or hope) that all the State governors who voice their opposition understand that there is free movement within the US.
What these governors also understand is that . . . there is free movement within the US. The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens do not show up for their immigration court proceedings. They just disappear into the country. Which is what the “Syrian refugees” would be predicted to do, as well.
If you have not read my link above, you should consider it. There are IDs from other countries abandoned all along the “Syrian refugee” route. Basically, it’s a free for all for anyone who wants to enter Western countries and get refugee status – that includes actual Syrian refugees, but it also includes jihadists, criminals, and anyone who wants to immigrate for financial reasons without going through the immigration process. Have you seen photos and videos of the “refugees”? Almost all of them are young men.
We are not vetting them, because they have no documents (literally 90%), or forged documents, and there are no reliable databases in Syria tracking terrorist ties. What? Do we expect Assad’s regime to help us verify who are really nice people and who are jihadis?
I am curious what percentage of refugees are even from Syria, but that will be difficult to determine.
Again, there is this emotional pushback against governors (and anyone else) who objects to huge numbers of un-vetted immigration from territories infamous for spawning terrorism. As Paris discovered to its grief.
What Kimmel said was not too different from what Patrick L Smith, Salon’s “foreign affairs columnist” wrote on Sunday:
“An estimated 50% of all refugees that move into Europe are children.”
Completely wrong.
65% of this wave from Muslim countries are young men.
This is not immigration, but an invasion.
He is only 63? He must be lying about his age. He needs to move to Arizona. And I know why.