The minimum

For any commentator who describes Islamization as a calamity that must be prevented at all costs, here is what I would see as the minimum position on Muslim immigration and the regulation of the Islamic religion that is consistent with such a view:

• All new mass immigration of Muslims under the national quotas and other general immigration laws, not just from Muslim countries, but from all countries, must stop. Only select numbers of Muslim individuals with particular connections to the U.S., of a family or business nature for example, can be admitted.

• To the extent possible, all Muslims here illegally must be found and be made to leave (the U.S. made a nice start of that in 2002 and 2003 when it got a large number of Pakistani illegals to depart voluntarily).

• All legal resident alien Muslims must be subjected to a Robert Spencer-style examination of their beliefs and allegiances. Anyone found to support sharia and jihad, or who on the basis of his background and associations, can be reasonably expected to support sharia and jihad, will be deported. As compared with the outright exclusion of prospective immigrants that I propose above, the milder expedient of a questionnaire is suitable in the cases of legal residents because these are persons who have already been admitted to the U.S.

• Mosques and Muslim schools must be closely examined and monitored for promotion of jihadist beliefs and those that fail the test will be closed.

That is not the totality of what may need to be done. It is the minimum of what needs to be done. In my view, any commentator who goes on and on about the horrors of Islamization that are facing the West, and who doesn’t support doing at least this much to stop it, is not a serious person and is wasting our time.

Robert Spencer says that Muslims should be asked their views of sharia in order to determine if they are prospective loyal citizens of the West. I think that’s a fine idea. It’s a good thing to get people to tell us their true opinions, so we can know where they really stand. Therefore I think Spencer and other the Islam critics should be asked their views of what ought to be done to stop the Islamization of the West, in order to determine if they are serious Islam critics.

- end of initial entry -

Sam H. writes:

I fail to understand the point of these Robert Spencer-style interrogations. Surely you are familiar with the Islamic concept of taqiyya?

Pious Muslims, i.e. Muslims who follow the sharia, are taught to dissimulate until their numbers in a host country have exceeded a certain minimum percentage, above which they can speak openly about their demands. Pious Muslims will therefore lie about their adherence to shari’a.

It’s an entirely useless and indeed counterproductive tactic.

LA replies:

Of course asking people questions is not the final answer to anything. But (1) The interrogation is only for legal residents, not for immigration applicants, who would be excluded on masse as Muslims. (2) such interrogations would signal to the Muslims and to ourselves that we not are simply tolerant of everything, that we know that Islam is a problem to us and we are on watch against it and if they visibly go outside what is allowed, they cannot stay in our country. (3) These are not just questions for people to answer but examinations of their record and associations. If it is reasonably concluded that legal residents are jihad and sharia supporters, they would have to leave. (4) This is designed as a minimum set of procedures that Islam critics ought to support.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 29, 2006 06:48 PM | Send