Is a program of identifying and shutting down unacceptable mosques viable?

Since I and other Islam critics have frequently proposed outlawing pro-sharia and pro-jihad mosques, it will seem contradictory that I have criticized Cal Thomas’s idea of monitoring Islamic mosques. Aren’t the two proposals the same? I hadn’t thought this through before, but I guess my idea of identifying and closing threatening mosques was based on the assumption that a mosque could be checked out, its personnel, its literature, its preaching, its funding, and if it had the prohibited characteristics, it would be closed. End of story. I was assuming a more or less one time examination, leading in the majority of cases, or at least a very large number of cases, to closure. Thomas by contrast is talking about the continuous monitoring of every mosque in the country, an operation that would require the construction of a vast, permanent security apparatus that would turn us into a security state.

Now maybe my idea of a more or less one-time examination wouldn’t be sufficient, since the mosques are always changing and they will try to get around the authorities by hiding their sharia program and then bringing it back when the heat is off. Meaning that my preferred one-time identify-and-close program must inevitably evolve into a permanent monitoring program. And if that is the way it must be, then I think it simply points to the necessity of cutting to the quick and summarily banning all or most mosques.

That sounds shocking and extreme. But the unhappy reality that this discussion reveals to us is that there are no viable halfway measures of dealing with Islam in our society. Given that Muslims have a god-ordained mandate to spread sharia and subvert our laws and customs, as long as a substantial Islamic presence is among us, it will represent a continual, hostile threat. The Muslims will never accept our rules and guidance. They are ordered by their god to keep trying to spread Islam. They can’t help it. Yes, we can try to push them into our mold. But they must do what they must do.

So it’s a mistake to try to change the Muslims, to try to intimidate, lecture, cajole, fine, or scare them into conforming to our requirements, because, as long as they remain Muslims, the changes we impose on them will not stick. The conflict between our authorities and the Muslim community and mosque leaders, the constant push and pull, the constant deceptions by the Muslim leaders, will go on forever, draining our energy as they become more and more skillful in dealing with us and fooling us, and more and more determined to overcome us, even as they steadily if slowly increase their power.

That is why I say: stop all Muslim immigration, outlaw or radically restrict the practice of Islam, close all or most mosques, deport the known sharia- and jihad-supporters, and the vast mass of other Muslims will start to leave on their own, perhaps with the sweetener of a onetime substantial payment for leaving, and also perhaps to compensate them for the inconvenience of our letting them settle here and then pushing them out. And if they don’t leave, and keep trying to practice Islam in secret, then more forceful measures may be called for.

In any case, you cannot, as a logical matter, call Islam our enemy that seeks our defeat, as Cal Thomas does, and then advocate the half-way measures that he proposes. If Islam is truly our enemy, then we must treat it as such. You don’t let your enemy stay in your country. Sooner or later the Cal Thomases of the world will have to face that simple fact of life.

- end of initial entry -

Vivek writes:

All mosques teach from the same holy books: Koran, Hadith and so on. So unless their texts are changed or unacceptable contents are expunged officially, ALL mosques should be deemed unacceptable.

I recall here what you have rightly said repeatedly: There is NO moderate Islam; and moderate Muslims, if and wherever they may exist, have no power over Islam. You’ve also rightly and consistently pointed out in your writings that the changes must be made by them (Muslims) and not us (non-Muslims), and non-Muslims cannot wait till Muslims make those changes. Non-Muslims need to act now.

Moreover, I believe, even these necessary changes in Islam are extremely unlikely to emerge as a result of making reasonable demands to Muslims, rather they are only likely to be obtained, if ever, as a result of unreasonable (meta-reasonable) treatment by the non-Muslims. Thus, non-Muslims must become as unreasonable with Islam, if not more, as Islam is with non-Muslims.

I see no other way of avoiding more and more victims of Islam. Among the most recent example were Moshe’s parents. Moshe is the one year young surviving infant, of the Rabbi and his wife, both of whom were tortured and massacred in Mumbai.

Note that all of these victims were tortured and killed not by “Muslim radicals” or “Islamo-fascists” or “fundamentalist Muslims.” The perpetrators were GOOD Muslims, who are (except the one who is alive and is in police custody) are in Islamic-heaven and are enjoying their rendezvous with houries (Islamic heavenly damsels)! And I wonder if there are any moderate Muslims who believe otherwise. Huh.

LA replies:

I left open the possibility of closing “most” rather than “all” mosques because I don’t know enough about the distinctions between different kinds of mosques. For example, we often hear that 80 percent of mosques in the U.S. are associated with Wahhabism, a pure form of Sunni, jihadist Islam, clearly hostile to non-Muslims. Even moderate Islam critics like Daniel Pipes frequently mention the Wahhabi based mosques as objectionable. So, if those mosques are objectionable, and if a program of monitoring them and requiring them to drop their sharia teachings, etc. is unworkable and counterproductive for the reasons I’ve given above, then such mosques ought to be closed. But what if there are mosques that, though they teach the same Koran and hadiths, do not actively emphasize jihad and sharia, and just perform the prayers, the five pillars, and so on? They may actually be more moderate, less hostile to American society. I’m not saying they’re desirable—my basic principle remains that significant numbers of Muslims do not belong in any Western society. But how we go about moving toward that ultimate goal is a separate question. That’s why I left open the possibility of closing “most” rather than “all” mosques. We start with moving against that which is patently hostile to our society and form of government.

Vivek replies:

As traditionalists we must appreciate that religion and religious-scriptures evoke very deep-rooted responses from humans. So once the perilous components are retained in the books, the concomitant perils continue to loom large, and therefore the potential danger persists.

You wrote :

But what if there are mosques that, though they teach the same Koran and hadiths, do not actively emphasize jihad and sharia, and just perform the prayers, the five pillars, and so on?

Unless they explicitly de-emphasize Jihad and Sharia, it will be like a dormant virus, potentially virulent. So Non-Muslims have to remain wary of these dangers.

You wrote :

-my basic principle remains that significant numbers of Muslims do not belong in any Western society.

I would expand your statement into : A basic principle remains that significant numbers of Muslims do not belong in any Non-Muslim society. [LA replies: Of course, and I’ve also said that too on numerous occasions.]

What I see as a fundamental problem is that let us suppose America cleanses itself of Muslims, and Europe (say) does not. Muslims will use Europe as an in-between hop to get into America. This strategy can easily be generalized. And we are back with expensive monitoring programs which, as you have rightly said, are a drain on our energy. [LA replies: that is why I’ve often said that Separationism, if it is to be ultimately successful, i.e, if it is to keep Muslims out of all non-Muslims countries, must be a shared policy of all non-Muslim countries. However, each individual country cannot wait for all others to wake up before it starts to defend itself.]

I agree that we must start with the most hostile elements. Nevertheless, albeit I am no doomsday-sayer, I am apprehensive that the time is quite rapidly running out, and Non-Muslims must act quickly. I fervently hope that the patience of Non-Muslims runs out well before the time indeed runs out.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 04, 2008 12:05 AM | Send