Muslims on Coney
Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY
Are you aware
that CAIR insists that any and all Muslims from
around the world are automatically "entitled" to immigrate to America? FSM Contributing Editor Glen Reinsford
makes compelling arguments on this issue. Is an ever growing Muslim
population an asset or a liability for us?
Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing
Proposition for America?
By Glen Reinsford
FamilySecurityMatters.org
Pardon
the crude analogy, but what if someone handed you a revolver with one
bullet and five empty chambers and asked you to put it to your temple
and squeeze the trigger? Would you indulge them?
If
you are a sane person, then you would naturally decline the offer,
regardless of the number of empty
chambers. Even a one in a hundred chance of doing harm is hardly a
reason, in and of itself, for taking an unnecessary risk.
Consider
the similarities to Muslim immigration:
1)
In most cases,
nothing bad will happen.
2)
In some cases, it
will.
3)
The risk increases
as the process continues.
4)
There is an utter
pointlessness to the whole affair.
First,
let's concede that the majority of Muslim immigrants
mean Americans no harm. They have their reasons for not wanting to
live in Muslim countries and these aren't
hard to guess. Of the fifty-three Islamic
nations on the planet, there is hardly a single one that isn't characterized by some combination of debilitating
corruption, economic blight, third-world standard of living, political
repression, or an appalling human rights condition.
Unfortunately,
however, more Muslims in America will inevitably result in a more
Muslim America, which ultimately means having to deal with the problems
that plague Muslim society. If there are tangible benefits that
offset the added strain of trying to accommodate a religion that is
very much at odds with Western liberal values (including freedom of
conscience, social tolerance, democracy, and the equality of women),
then they are not immediately apparent.
Even
the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of the most vocal
advocates of unfettered Islamic immigration into America rarely bothers
to try and make the case that non-Muslim citizens will benefit from an
influx of those believing that Islam is meant to be the dominant
political, religious and social system that Muhammad required it to
be. Instead, CAIR merely implies that Muslims
are entitled to America by virtue of the
fact that the U.S. accepts other immigrants.
Beyond
flirting with cultural catastrophe, there is also the loss
of American lives resulting from the domestic terror attacks that will
certainly escalate as the U.S. inexplicably imports a fifth column in a
time of war.
A
Pew Research poll released in May shows that
one out of every four Muslims in America either supports al-Qaeda
outright or is ambivalent about the terrorists that slaughtered 3,000
fellow citizens in the name of Allah just six short years
ago. About the same percentage of younger Muslims also believe
that suicide bombings can be justified in "defense of Islam."
Support
for terrorism isn't just
theoretical. The release of the study was sandwiched between news
of a shooting rampage plot by Muslims against Fort Dix residents and a
separate Fedayeen plot literally to blow up JFK airport in New York. It also follows the murder
of five Americans at a Utah shopping mall by a Muslim teenager in
February.
In
each case, the terrorists are immigrants to America.
This
is also true of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet,
who murdered two people waiting in line at an LAX airline counter in
2002, Mohammed Taheri-azar, who intentionally ran down nine students
with an SUV in North Carolina in 2006, and OsamaAhmedIbrahim, a Muslim doctor in
Chicago who allegedly allowed a Jewish patient to die under his care in
2003. NaveedHaq, who shot
six women at a Seattle Jewish center last year, was the son of
immigrants.
The
Qur'an, Islam's holiest
text, contains dozens of verses that directly encourage religious
violence, and there are literally hundreds more that speak of Hell or
hatred toward nonbelievers. Muslim apologists usually insist that
the bloodiest directives are reserved for times of war (even if this
stipulation is not always evident from the context of the passage).
Many
Americans naively assume that they are safe from Islamic terror because
they mean Muslims no harm. Indeed, the Pew Research study showed
that the majority of American Muslims are "well-assimilated" and have a
"positive view" of American society, something that simply would not be
the case if there truly was a "war on Islam." Even CAIR
(an organization that normally tries to convince the world of just how
miserable life is for Muslims in the U.S.) hastily touted this part of
the study, as it tried to assuage the concerns of Americans over the
news that their Muslim neighbors may not be who they appear.
But
whether or not there actually is a war on Islam matters far less than what Muslims choose to
believe. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of Muslims
overseas and an alarming number of Muslims in the U.S. are
convinced that there is a war against their
religion. In fact, high-profile organizations like CAIR
and MPAC routinely feed this misconception with
negative propaganda, while very few Muslim leaders are active in
countering it.
Suddenly
the issue of whether or not those Qur'anic
mandates to "slay the infidels wherever ye find them" are limited to
times of war becomes somewhat academic. A Muslim who actually
believes the rhetoric of war (as most Muslims now do) has, at his
fingertips, a manual of instruction telling him to strike off heads and
fingertips in the cause of Allah. What sense does it make for the
U.S. to draw its future citizens from a pool of potential terrorists?
As
if this weren't bad enough, the
Pew Research study also finds that the younger generation of Muslims is
more accommodating of terrorism than their parents - a trend that is
supported by surveys of Muslims elsewhere in the West, with alarming
implications. While moderates are capable of breeding radicals,
radicals rarely breed moderates. Islamic extremism will expand
with each new generation, even if the overall number of Muslims stays
the same.
Progressive
radicalization is a persistent theme in Islam, not just in the West,
but in other parts of the world as well, where fundamentalism usually
has a way of winning out over pragmatism.
In
Gaza, for example, Palestinians recently used their new-found
"independence" to elect the bloody Islamist terror
group, Hamas, to power, even though it meant an
immediate and drastic reduction in foreign aid.
It is also highly unlikely that the Pakistan of today (where Islamists are forcing the implementation of Sharia
and the persecution of surviving religious minorities) is what the
father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had in
mind when he engineered an independent Muslim nation just 60 years
ago. Jinnah was a secularist who believed in
the separation of church and state.
Lebanon , a vibrant and predominantly Christian nation before 1975,
is perhaps the most vivid example of Muslim immigration pushing a
nation past the tipping point in the modern age. Native Lebanese
expert, Brigitte Gabriel, traces
the downfall of her country to the
absorption of Palestinian refugees, which gave radical Islam the
foothold that it needed to trigger the civil war.
The
subsequent occupation by Syria forced out huge numbers of Christians
and devastated the social fabric of what had been the Arab world's best example of economic success,
civil liberty and tolerance. The free reign of Hezbollah
and other radical groups has virtually ensured Muslim hegemony and
Lebanon's grinding descent into the abyss
of dysfunction that defines those nations under Islamic rule.
Every
country that is Muslim today was once non-Muslim. Every culture
that found itself under the heel of Islam died a pitiful death as the
concentration of Muslims within the population gradually exceeded
critical mass. This is because Islam is an end
unto itself. Like a virus, once it is introduced, it uses the host's machinery to make copies and eventually strangle native
religions into tiny, persecuted minorities.
In
the past, Islam achieved its imperial goals by the sword. Today -
notwithstanding the occasional terror attack - Jihad against the West
is waged via the tactics of unilateral immigration and one-sided
proselytizing.
This
is not to say that all Muslims are a threat to America's
future, of course. Indeed, there is a handful in the United States
that does stand against extremism, trying their best to convince the
rest of the Islamic world that America is not a legitimate target for
terror. Unlike, say, the first-generation immigrants who mostly
make up the executive leadership of the Hamas-linked CAIR
, these Muslims aren't takers. They are makers - giving back to America,
rather than existing merely to foment grievance and group identity for
personal indulgence.
Presumably, there are potential Muslim immigrants who would also become
patriotic and productive citizens. Unfortunately, there is no way
of knowing who they are or predicting who their children might
become. Like putting a partially-loaded gun to one's
head, there is absolutely no compelling reason to gamble with American
life and civil liberty. What reward have Americans gained so far
that can possibly offset the loss of those already
killed by Muslims on American soil?
For
potential immigrants who believe that Islam is the true religion,
America's message should be one of challenge rather
than appeasement. Over the course of fourteen centuries now, Islam
has demonstrated a proven ability to take prosperous countries and turn
them into disaster zones. Now it is time for Muslims to show that
their "one, true religion" is capable of building societies in which
Muslims themselves actually want to live rather than escape.
After
all, what service to the Muslim world does the United States do by
absorbing the most reform-minded individuals from where they are needed
most?
It
should go without saying that citizens of America who happen to be
Muslim should not be viewed with suspicion or treated any differently
than anyone else merely on the basis of their religion. But
neither should Americans be afraid of confronting organizations like CAIR, which cynically exploit Western tolerance for the
purpose of ultimately destroying that tolerance and advancing a
theocratic system that is fundamentally opposed to the very principles
that made America successful and attractive.
Again,
the message should be clear: If you want to live in a Muslim
country, then go live in one. On the other hand, if you don't want to live in a Muslim country, then stop trying to
turn America into one.
The
problems are not uniquely American, of course. But Americans are
best positioned to avoid them if they can muster the
courage. Others in the West are not as fortunate. Some have
developed a pathetic resignation to their fate.
On
a recent visit to the United States, Queen Elizabeth talked positively
of the "challenges" posed by "diversity." This was a thinly-veiled
reference to the consequences of British immigration policy over the
last fifty years, which now include a disaffected Muslim underclass that is just beginning to flex its muscle. In the
Queen's mind, it would appear that diversity is the
tautological justification for very social "challenges" that diversity
creates.
But
"diversity" is merely a description, not a self-evident moral axiom
that confers any sort of legitimacy in its own right. The same
social engineers who champion the cause of diversity are often known to
sing a different tune when it comes to poverty, the uneven distribution
of wealth and the many other elements of economic diversity.
Challenge
and risk often have their place at the personal level. There is
usually nothing wrong with the challenge to exercise, eat right or
become more productive, for example. Likewise, there are rewards
in life, such as a lucrative career or meaningful friendships that are
often accomplished only through taking a measure of personal risk.
The
challenges posed by Muslim immigration are not personal, however, and
neither do the esoteric rewards (whatever they may be) offset the
all-too-tangible consequences for the broader society, particularly
since it will affect those members who never wanted to incur these
risks in the first place.
Muslim
immigration adds nothing that is truly necessary to the lives of
Americans, but its degenerative effects are already starting to
threaten the American way of life through demoralization, litigation
and the other subtle tactics of cultural Jihad.
In
this sense, Americans are following in Europe's
footsteps when they would do better to avoid the example being
set. Although the Brits may brag about the
problems that they have created for themselves, a more sensible France
is quietly trying to pay some of its five million Muslims to leave the
country. Other Western nations are also trying to
accommodate the social strain that is rising from a petulant and
increasingly unruly Islamic minority.
The
Muslim world does not accept non-Muslim immigrants. In fact, it is
becoming more homogenous as Islamic regimes drive out religious
minorities or whittle them down through other means of
attrition. Even Muslims who feel entitled to life in the West
often decry the presence of foreigners in Muslim lands.
But
if Muslim lands are for Muslims, then it is all the more reason for
insisting that this is where they stay, particularly since the legacy
of Islamic immigration into the West is becoming a series of unilateral
concessions to appease Muslims that not only go unreciprocated, but are
then the new foothold for even bolder demands.
Muslim
immigration is a losing proposition for America. At best, it is an
unnecessary risk that offers no comparable benefit. At worst, it
is suicidal.