Is it somewhere written that the countries of the advanced West are required to admit Muslims into their lands, or to continue to endure their large-scale presence, no matter what information may come to light, with greater understanding as a result, of the meaning and menace of Islam? It is by now quite clear, to all who are paying attention both to the canonical texts (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira) of Islam, and to the attitudes and observable behavior of many Muslims, that there is something deeply worrisome about the ever-increasing numbers of Muslims in the Bilad al-kufr (Lands of the Infidels). And it is also clear to many that this has led to a situation, in Western Europe though not yet in America, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for the indigenous Infidels (and for other, non-Muslim, immigrants) than would be the case were there no such large-scale Muslim presence.
It may be impossible to completely end Muslim immigration to the West, but can it not be cut way back in the interests of security? We already know that there are tens of thousands of jihadis among recent Muslim immigrants to Europe. Even to monitor just one suspect around the clock requires at least three members of the police. It’s a terrifically expensive undertaking. We simply lack the manpower and money to monitor all those who require it. Should we not return these Muslim non-citizens to their countries of origin rather than fail to monitor them, or monitor them only at great expense? On what theory are we required to allow them to stay? Similarly, can we not impose restrictions on money coming from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere that fund Wahhabi or other extremist mosques and madrasas, with their message of hatred for Infidels, all over the Western world? Can legislation be passed to allow for the monitoring of mosques, and stripping citizenship from those who by word or deed support Islamic terrorism, identifying such support as treason? Can we enforce the equality of women, and freedom of conscience, among Muslims in our own countries? We are expected to believe that “diversity” is always and everywhere a societal good, though there is no evidence for this belief that amounts just to that warm fuzzy feeling that so often substitutes for thought. We need to take a much harder look at the impact of Muslims on our societies, instead of dwelling on the presumed but unproven benefits of “diversity.”
Is it impossible to create the conditions where True Believers in Islam, with all that that implies, may have to make a choice? If they remain in the Lands of the Infidels, they will discover how hard it can be to lead a “full Muslim life.” The mixing and equality of the sexes, in schools and sports (no more yielding to Muslim demands for “women only” hours at public pools), and at work, the banning of burkas and niqabs for security reasons, the security afforded apostates from Islam, the punishment of Muslim men who commit “honor killings,” the denial of Muslim prayer breaks in schools and workplaces, the public denouncing, and punishment, of imams who call for the mass killings of Jews, or Hindus, or Christians, the ending of tax breaks for any religious institution where such preaching goes on, new laws to punish anyone who publicly calls for such genocide, with both fines and prison terms as possible punishments — all this can severely constrain the conduct of Muslim life. Some Muslims, in order to be able to freely lead a truly Islamic life, may rethink their plans to settle in the West and instead may never leave their homelands, or if already living in the West, may decide to return to the Muslim lands from whence they came.
Islam is not mainly, or merely, a “religion” as we understand that term. It is a religion and a politics, a Total Belief-System. If we come to view Islam as the threat it is to the legal and political institutions that have been created in our own societies over time — tolerant, liberal, with equality of the sexes and equal treatment for minorities enshrined in the law — that we have inherited, and that we have a duty to preserve, then we will be far more willing to consider, and then to take, the kind of measures that have been taken, within recent memory, by a tolerant and advanced people, who decided they were under no obligation to again endure, for the sake of some theoretical “standard of tolerance,” a situation that they could remedy once and for all. I am thinking of the case of the Czechs, and those Europeans of the civilized old school, the Czech leaders Jan Masaryk and Eduard Benes. Their government passed, and then put into force, what came to be called the Benes Decree in 1946. By that decree, the Czech government decided to expel the “Sudeten Germans” who had lived, for hundreds of years, along what was then the border separating the Czechs from the lands of Deutschtum, These ethnic Germans had before the war allowed themselves to be used by Hitler to whip up Western opinion against the Czechs, and during the war, the Sudeteners were to a large degree supporters of Nazi Germany, treated by the Nazis as German citizens, and given, for example, the larger food rations to which Germans, but not Czechs, were entitled. Benes and Masaryk did not want the Czechs to ever again have to endure, much less yield to, demands from their German population. So they expelled them, well aware that not every Sudetener was a threat, but that enough of them had been, and were, to justify such an act. No one then thought, and no one has thought since, that the Czechs were wrong to expel the Sudeteners. Why should the Western world, similarly, provide citizenship to Muslims, whose deeply-held beliefs are not consonant with, but opposed to, Western values? Shall we simply ignore the evidence, pretend that everyone shares those values, and hope for the best? Should those who believe deeply, sincerely, in the Qur’anic commandment to conduct violent Jihad, be allowed to remain in our countries? Why? On what theory?