Home - Religion - Islam - Islam in the West


These pages are based in the United States and are protected by the 1st Amendment.


  Muslim immigration

Is there really any threat to our liberties?

"Moderate" Muslims in the west

Sharia law in the West

Islam in the UK

Islam in Ireland

Islamist nightmare scenarios:

Islamophobia

Attacks on the west by violent Islamist immigrants:


Islam in the West

Since the 1950s, Islam has been growing in the West, mainly by immigration. Most immigrants come to the West precisely because they support its freedoms and want to escape failed states ruled by clerics and Islamic dictators. We have a duty to let these freedom-loving Muslims in. There is an upside to doing so:

  1. Western Muslims are the most liberal, tolerant, pro-democracy Muslims in the world. All the dissidents are here - the religious dissidents, the political dissidents, the feminist dissidents, and the gay dissidents. All the dissident works - such as criticism of Islam and Islamism - are published in the West.

  2. There is an argument that if there is ever to be an Islamic Reformation, it will come from the western Muslims, who are free to speak and question, rather than from the Muslims living in unfree states.

But there is a substantial minority (10-20 percent) of immigrants who threaten our western freedoms. What to do about these aggressors is one of the questions of our time.



Muslim immigration

For me, Islamic fundamentalism is under siege in its home countries, and will eventually lose out to democracy and freedom. The idea that Islamic fundamentalist immigrants could come to the West and eventually threaten our freedoms I find a bit far-fetched.

My instinct is totally pro-immigration, for many reasons:

  1. I believe human rights and western freedoms are universal, and all races can participate.
  2. Around the world, millions of people who live in tyrannies long for freedom and democracy. We have a duty to give pro-democracy activists, anti-communist dissidents, anti-Islamist dissidents and western freedom-lovers a haven. The west is the natural place for them to set up their opposition parties, newspapers, websites and governments-in-exile, which we should support.
  3. We have a duty to give a haven to people fleeing genocide and persecution.
  4. I believe free movement of people, like free trade, is good for the economy. Skilled people move where the work is. Attempts to stop this are like protectionism, and restrict the economy.
  5. I despise anti-immigration movements that are based on ethnic purity. Some of the paleo-conservatives seem to be in or near this territory. I think the desire for ethnic purity is one of the single worst ideas in human history. My country, the Republic of Ireland, is far too ethnically pure already, having lost most of its ancient Protestant and Anglo-Irish population. In general, ethnic purity is a sign of failure. Immigration is a sign of success.

Having said all that, there is one troubling issue:

  1. How about letting in people who hate you and threaten you? To oppose immigration per se (or be against all immigrants once they are in) seems racist to me. But the western left ignores the fact that immigrants may hate western freedoms, and want to end them, and force their primitive, barbarous ideas on me. Obviously, not all immigrants have been threatening like this, so we must be careful to focus on the ones who have issued such threats. At the moment this category consists almost entirely of Islamists who openly want to destroy our freedom and some day set up sharia law in Europe.


My response to the existence of such appalling people is as follows:


  1. Let in freedom-lovers, exclude freedom-haters. - Yes, I agree that people who hate western freedoms should not be allowed in. Islamist activists should not be let in, even if they are being persecuted. West-haters can be hard to identify on arrival, though. You need to be careful that your rules and checks do not exclude democracy-loving Muslims who are fleeing Islamist religious states. These are exactly the people you want to let in.


  2. Deport freedom-haters. - Inevitably, you will let in some freedom-haters by accident. If they are serious, they will eventually do something, at which point they can be identified. Then you have the problem of: Can they be deported? After all, native born people are allowed hate the west. Are we making immigrants second-class citizens, with less freedom of speech than natives? It's certainly a difficult issue. I think they can be deported, on the grounds that letting them in was clearly an error at the time. So I think, yes, an immigrant can be a second-class citizen in this sense for n years, until they have proved they are not an enemy of the country. This is not a restriction that will bother any immigrant who does not actually hate the west.

    Native born people cannot be deported, even if they hate the west and its freedoms. They must be first-class citizens. In a free society, we tolerate citizens who hate tolerance and want to end it. We have free speech for people who want to end free speech, such as fascists, communists and Islamists. But the point is: We can be relaxed about this when they are powerless cranks. But what if there is a growing number of such people who want to end freedom? My response would be that we should still have free speech, but a free society has every right to try to survive. It must do everything possible to reduce the numbers of such people, and not let any more in.



Is there really any threat to our liberties?

Will Muslim immigrants really threaten our liberties? I'm fairly relaxed so far, but that situation may of course change. West-hating immigrants have achieved little so far, though there are some worrying signs:


Apologists for rape



Pessimism

Even if freedom-hating immigrants never succeed in actually changing our laws, there is another threat, which is that of sporadic violence and terrorism. Importing Muslims means inevitably importing some jihadis. Even if you only let in freedom-loving, democracy-loving Muslims (as discussed above), their children may be jihadis. This seems to be the case with the London bombings. The simple act of letting in Muslims at all increases the number of jihadis who will try to kill you.

Tragically, it seems that the second London bombing attack was by refugees, on the country that took them in. They came to Britain as child refugees from war-torn Africa. And they repaid British generosity by trying to slaughter its people.

I have no answer for this. If the war against the jihad escalates, we may have to stop all Muslim immigration, including those fleeing persecution. I hope to god it never comes to this awful scenario.





"Moderate" Muslims in the west

As I said above, it is true that the west is the heartland of truly moderate Islam. Western Muslims are far more moderate than Muslims in the Islamic world. There are millions of Muslims and lapsed Muslims in the west who believe in democracy and freedom, and are in the west precisely because they do not wish to live under Islamic law.

At the same time, many Muslim leaders promoted by the media as "moderate" Muslims turn out to be anything but. Sometimes, hate-filled extremist jihadis, such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, are simply described as "moderate". More often, "moderates" turn out to be religious ultra-conservatives who have crackpot views on Israel and America, and who seem incapable of condemning Islamism. Certainly, nobody who believes in Islamic law, or subscribes in any way to Islamism, could possibly be described as a "moderate". Nobody who supports attacks on Israeli civilians could possibly be described as a "moderate". Any time I hear the left describe some Muslim, such as Tariq Ramadan, as a "moderate", I now assume they are lying.

And finally, it is also true that 10-20 percent of western Muslims do support the global jihad.



Supposed "moderate" Muslims


Actually moderate Muslims

What I mean by actually moderate Muslims (as opposed to the fake "moderates" so often promoted) are Muslims who oppose Islamism.


Survey of American Muslims

Survey at Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Convention, Sept 2006 shows us the cold reality of western Muslims. It's not that they support the jihad. It's that they are of no use in stopping it:


5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 117
NO 139
UNDECIDED 51

6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 200
NO 70
UNDECIDED 37

7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 106
NO 151
UNDECIDED 50

8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
REAL 126
FAKE 129
UNDECIDED 52

9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 140
NO 104
UNDECIDED 63


15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:

a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
YES 37
NO 258
UNDECIDED 12

b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
YES 43
NO 255
UNDECIDED 9

c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
YES 64
NO 232
UNDECIDED 11

d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
YES 35
NO 258
UNDECIDED 14

e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
YES 52
NO 242
UNDECIDED 13


Just as the Irish in Britain were of little use against the IRA, and just as the "good Germans" were of little use in WW2, so western Muslims will be of little use in this war. They don't like the jihad, but will make no attempt to fight it, and have only criticism for those who do.

10 percent of western Muslims will help fight this war. 10 percent will fight for the enemy. 80 percent will sit on the fence, and then, when the war is over, will be perfectly happy with the allied victory.





Islam in the UK (separate page)




Islam in Ireland (separate page)




Sharia law in the West

Islamism has made little progress in threatening our civil liberties in the West so far. But there is a steady and constant threat.




Canada



Support Ezra Levant against the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission.
Stop sharia law in Canada!



Defend the great Mark Steyn
against the offensive lawsuit of the obnoxious, speech-stifling Canadian Islamic Congress.
Stop sharia law in Canada!




The article Canada is trying to make illegal: The future belongs to Islam, Mark Steyn, Oct 20, 2006.
And search for copies.


Canadian Human Rights Commission drops complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean's!



Holland



Is criticism of Islam and Islamism becoming illegal in Europe?
Shame on Holland for driving out Ayaan Hirsi Ali, after jihadis and leftists killed both Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh.
Cartoon from Cox and Forkum (see here). See Cartoon Use Policy.





Islamophobia (separate page)




Optimism

I'd rather end on an optimistic note. I don't think Islamic fundamentalism is going to triumph in the west. I think democracy is going to triumph in the Islamic world.

I think Islamic fundamentalism is far more under threat than western ideas are. Which is not to say that Islamic fundamentalists won't cause a lot more death before they exit history. But exit they will, just as the entire, bloodthirsty Christian medieval world is gone. Just as the entire Soviet world is gone. Democracy is unstoppable.




The Forward Strategy of Freedom:

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. The advance of freedom is the calling of our time"

President George W. Bush, Nov 2003.
Bush understands the "root cause" of 9/11 - the lack of freedom in the Middle East.



Return to Islam page.



Feedback: Comment on this page

About feedback

  1. Enter URL:

  2. Select one:
    This URL doesn't reference your site. It's just something you should see.
    This URL references your site.

  3. This image contains a password:
    Enter password (this is to confirm you are not a spam program):