A solution to the Islam problem?

(Note: Be sure to see, further down in this entry, here and, even more so, here, the remarkable news from Denmark that resistance by the Danish to the imposition of Muslim dress and customs in the public sphere is making a majority of young educated Muslims think about emigrating.)

Jeremy G. writes:

I’ve been reading through Andrew Bostom’s book, “The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism,” and it is very informative. The Koran is filled with injunctions for Muslims to subjugate, degrade, and humiliate Jews for eternity. It is interesting to note that in Denmark and the Netherlands, a movement that confronts Islam as an ideology and that condemns specific Koranic verses (and not Muslims directly) is gaining ground among Europeans and is convincing many Muslims to leave these countries voluntarily. If Israel were to follow a similar strategy and condemn/criminalize specific Koranic verses that command Muslims to degrade and humiliate Jews, they could begin the process of humanely “transferring” Muslims from Israel and at the same time Israeli society would put the blame squarely on the Muslims. This may be a more effective strategy than using the power of the state physically to expel Muslims from Israel en masse, which woud bring down intense condemnation from Israeli leftists and from the West.

LA replies:

This is very promising. Maybe there is something to Geert Wilder’s approach, of criticizing the “fascist” elements in the Koran and calling for their ban or removal. That way, he doesn’t have to attack Islam as such, yet in fact he is attacking Islam as such, since the objectionable verses are part and parcel of the Koran and the Islamic religion. If the Muslims find their holy book consistently condemned and rebuked by their Western hosts, they may do a 180 degree hegira to a more Muslim friendly place.

This could be the solution we’ve been looking for. Not to deport Muslims; and not to ban Islam as such (which I’ve proposed), as an indirect way to get Muslims to leave voluntarily; but to ban the specifically inhuman, murderous, hate-filled passages of the Koran (which happens to be large portion of the whole), as an indirect way to get Muslims to leave voluntarily.

- end of initial entry -

Alan writes:

I had posited that approach this morning on Ezra’s blog—doesn’t the Koran itself violate hate speech laws.

The only problem with that approach is that we have to go along with the transformation out country to one that accepts “hate speech” laws. That snake has two heads and will bite us just as easily as it can be used as a weapon.

However, it might make an effective strategy in that it will also likely cause a fight over hate speech legislation and whichever way it goes (Muslims leave or freedom of speech is protected) we end up ahead of where we are likely heading now)

Erich writes:

You wrote: “to ban the specifically inhuman, murderous, hate-filled passages of the Koran (which happens to be large portion of the whole), as an indirect way to get Muslims to leave voluntarily.”

A mere ban without teeth would be insufficient. What would be the penalty for Muslims who defy the ban in various ways? And how would we determine if any given Muslims are in fact defying the ban? It would be the punitive teeth backing up the legal ban, it seems to me, that would begin to displease Muslims—some of them, at least—sufficiently to make them want to leave. I doubt that Muslims will leave voluntarily just because we announce there is a ban, but fail to include actual penalties for defying that ban.

At the very least, a comprehensive program of vetting all mosque sermons would have to be implemented—as Ataturk did to control Islam in modern Turkey—as well as all Islamic publications, conferences, and their plethora of alphabet-soup associations and organizations, in order to know where and when they are complying with, or defying, the ban. Websites and the computer hard drives of individual Muslims as well as informal Muslim associations should also be monitored under such a program, to ferret out any ban lawbreakers.

But it’s the teeth—the penalty for defying the ban—that will be where the rubber meets the road: for, a broadly implemented program of giving the green light to legally punishing people (especially people who are mostly ethnic minorities) for certain tenets of their beliefs (especially “ethnic” beliefs) will run into pretty much the same politically correct multi-culturalist resistance as more comprehensive and more frontally anti-Islamic measures would have to face, it seems to me. That’s why I oppose these incessantly asymptotic, gingerly, walking-on-eggshells approaches to solving the problem of Islam. The goal should always be Islam and all Muslims who actively support or passively enable Islam—lock, stock and barrel. That formidable eventuality seems inevitable, and it will be less messy and less bloody the sooner we get to it and stop putting it off.

TWW writes:

You write:

“This could be the solution we’ve been looking for. Not to deport Muslims; and not to ban Islam as such (which I’ve proposed), as an indirect way to get Muslims to leave voluntarily; but to ban the specifically inhuman, murderous, hate-filled passages of the Koran (which happens to be large portion of the whole), as an indirect way to get Muslims to leave voluntarily.”

But wouldn’t the high priests of liberalism just use such bans to justify excision of Biblical passages dealing with homosexuality and the like?

Kristor writes:

Hate speech laws can cut both ways. On the one hand, this may be a way to push Muslims out of the West. On the other, it may be a way to get the left to abandon hate speech laws, and by extension PC in general. I wonder if there is a way for Mark Steyn and MacLeans to make the claim that the lawsuit against them amounts to hate speech against Christians and Jews? Or, better, against atheists, homosexuals, and women?

I don’t know who first said it, but I heard many years ago the aphorism that the best way to eliminate a bad law is to enforce relentlessly. Hate speech is one of those self-devouring categories so popular in Leftist “thought.”

LA replies:

Alan says the idea could lead to acceptance of hate speech laws, and TWW says it could open up endless debates on what constitutes dangerous and objectionable speech. But of course the whole purpose here is not some generic campaign against generic murderous commandments. Murderous commandments are coming from only one source, and that’s what this is targeted at. At the same time, my preference (which I recognize is very extreme by today’s understandings but which I think is the only true and correct solution) is to ban Islam outright. But if in European societies that currently have hate-speech laws locked in, if it’s the case, as Jeremy reported, that maybe just raising the issue and putting Muslims on the defensive will be enough to make many of them leave, then that’s something to pursue too.

Kristor also sees the idea as creating a focus on hate speech laws, but in a helpful way, leading to their elimination.

As for Erich, we’re basically in agreement that Islam itself is the problem. That’s also the idea of my proposed constitutional amendment (linked above), which, to my surprise, not a single reader has ever commented on, even though I’ve re-linked it several times. I figured it was so extreme that people couldn’t relate to it.

Leonard K. writes:

Jeremy G. writes:

“…in Denmark and the Netherlands, a movement that confronts Islam as an ideology and that condemns specific Koranic verses (and not Muslims directly) is gaining ground among Europeans and is convincing many Muslims to leave these countries voluntarily.”

Can Jeremy provide any statistical evidence? How many is “many”? Are the Muslims actually leaving, or are the Europeans just “convincing” them to leave, but to no avail?

LA replies:

Yes, we need more facts here.

Jeremy G. writes:

Here is an indication of the effect that open criticism of Islamic influence is having on the thinking of Muslims in Denmark. In an article about a campaign by the Danish People’s Party to ban public employees from wearing Islamic headscarves, this is reported:

A poll by Politiken, a daily, of 315 young Muslim students, found that two-thirds of them were considering emigrating after graduation. Most gave as their reason “the tone of the Danish debate about Muslims.”

I haven’t come across any actual numbers of Muslims leaving, but the “tone” that Muslims don’t like has just recently emerged and so the desirable effects may take some time to become manifest.

Then this item on the same story:

“Shakoor says that whether the youth will move or not, it’s a serious sign that some young New Danes don’t feel accepted in Denmark with a Muslim identity”

Also, as you linked to the other day, Geert Wilders addressed the Danish parliament and gave a very good speech about the dangers of Islam to Europe. No far right group in Europe (i.e. the BNP, Vlaams Belang, National Front) would have such mainstream access.

LA replies:

So, two-thirds said they were thinking of emigrating, and a majority of those said it was because of the tone. So let’s say that 40 percent of Muslims students in Denmark are thinking of leaving Denmark merely because a political party is demanding the judges in Danish courts and other state employees not wear Islamic head scarves on the job! Meaning that those 40 percent of Muslims students expect as a matter of course that Muslims in official government positions should be able to wear Muslim dress while working. And that any resistance to this outrageous Muslim expectation by the Danish makes the Muslims so uncomfortable in Denmark that they contemplate leaving the country. Which shows how deep their roots in Denmark are.

This is great news. It suggests that if the West starts telling the Muslims that we don’t want their customs in our face, at least some of them will start to leave. And if we tell them that we don’t want them in our face, even more of them will start to leave.

I’m not saying that this is a complete solution. But remember. The Muslims never dreamed on their own of coming to the West. They only began coming because the West gratuitously opened its doors and welcomed them. If those countries withdrew the welcome, and began to show open hostility to Islam, the current of Islamization would grow smaller and could possibly even be reversed.

The whole point is that the peoples of the West ceased to assert themselves, turned themselves into nonentities, vacuums where once there were living nations, so that these aliens began to pour in, full of confidence and the sense of entitlement that the West’s own passivity gave them. If the Western peoples began to assert themselves again, the entire situation would be transformed.

Jeremy writes

Here’s another article , translated from the Danish news site Politiken, which spells out in more detail the results of the poll:

[In a] survey by Politiken among 315 young Muslims currently studying or finished studying for a degree, 65% answered that they’re considering moving abroad once they have their diploma.

When asked for the reason: 9% said it was family related, 36% said it was for better educational or job opportunities in their profession, 81% said it was because they didn’t feel accepted in Denmark due to the tone of the value debate and 24% said ‘other’.

I realize that considering to emigrate is not the same as actually emigrating. But the “tone” in Denmark is just starting to change in the right direction. Given the vile hatred for non-Muslims that is expressed at great length in the Koran, there is a lot of room for the “tone” to grow.

You also linked to an excellent speech on the dangers of Islam that Geert Wilders gave to the Danish parliament. This is an indication of his growing respectability and the soundness of his approach to the problem.

LA replies:

81 percent of 65 percent is 53 percent. Over half of college educated Muslims in Denmark are seriously unhappy in that country and are thinking of taking their precious selves elsewhere, based purely on the “tone.” This is the most heartening, hopeful news in a long time. It is clear proof that the Islamization of the West can be reversed.

Steve D. writes:

Count me among those who believe that using hate speech laws against Islam is only likely to further legitimate the concept of thought control in this country. I also don’t believe a Constitutional amendment is necessary (and certainly not likely), although I would vote in favor of your amendment if ever presented with the chance (even less likely).

What is needed, it seems to me, are social rather than legal teeth. This would require the wholesale repeal of laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which codify anti-discrimination. Accomplishing this would be a good thing anyway, and it could have the added benefit of ridding us of Moslems.

Currently, you cannot legally refuse to hire, sell to, rent to, or provide services to someone on the grounds that he’s a Moslem; but if you could…if Moslems found it increasingly difficult to find work, to rent apartments or buy homes, to get loans, to shop in stores, all because of their adherence to Islam, that would provide a powerful incentive for them to leave America for more Islamic climes. It would also allow society to shun anyone else who demonstrates contempt for the values that society is founded upon. In other words, it’s something that is urgently needed anyway.

LA replies:

First, again, I don’t think that Wilders, or I in picking up on his idea, spoke of “hate-speech laws.” Wilders spoke of outlawing the fascist passages of the Koran. I spoke of outlawing the dehumanizing, murderous, hate-filled passages of the Koran. The context here is not anti-hate-speech. The context here is anti the specific aggressive character of Islam.

Second, of course I agree that the anti-discrimination laws must be repealed.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 12, 2008 03:49 PM | Send