The most succinct statement of the Islam problem

A commenter writes at Rick Darby’s blog:

Now we know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding. There is no doubt though, that once the Muslim population in any country is large enough, Muslims are required to institute sharia, and they will do so. The distinction between “moderate” or “radical” Muslims is thus totally meaningless in this context. It also means, that all Muslims, including peaceful ones, are an existential threat.

That is the single most succinct statement of the problem I have seen.

Unfortunately, the same commenter then goes on to wring his hands at the supposed impossibility of stopping and reversing the immigration of Muslims. He is putting the cart before the horse. Once Americans clearly recognize the nature of the problem, the problem could be solved. There are, after all, only about two or three million Muslims in this country, and the majority of them are non-citizens who could be removed from the U.S. simply by taking away their residency privileges.

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

Also unfortunately, the same commenter, who calls himself DP111, says in a later comment:

The Nazis were truly bad, but despite that they were part of the West, and their triumph would not have led to the destruction of the core values of the West.

So my praise for one of DP111’s comments should not be taken as overall agreement with him or approval of his judgment. He seems to be over the place. He is correct, however, on the most important point, that Islam represents an existential threat to the West unlike any other.

N. writes:

This comment indeed is a very good, perhaps the optimal, summary of the Islam problem. I would add to it only one thing:

The Koran both commands and explains in detail how this is to be done.

Let me explain this a bit. Many people I have known, including some quite well read in comparative theology, find the Koran to be baffling, incomprehensible, incoherent. I myself found it that way upon the first attempt to read it. Then I discovered that the Koran is arranged not in chronological order, but in order of length. The first book is the longest, the second is shorter, and so forth with the last being very short indeed. There are no doubt historical reasons for this, but the effect is to chop up the overall message of the Koran in such a way as to make it difficult for someone not versed in the Koran to make any sense of it.

If one reads the Koran in chronological order, all is made clear. The verses that date from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, when his followers were few and he was attempting to recruit more, are those that extol tolerance, that speak of “no compulsion in religion” and so forth. The later verses, dating from the time Mohammed and his followers decamped en masse to Medina, become more and more fiery and violent. The verses that postdate the murder of the Jews of Medina are even more violent, leading to the totally unjustified (in traditional Arab terms) attack upon the Burani oasis, which seals the Islamic doctrine of “defensive attack.”

Reading the Koran in chronological order, a lesson plan for infiltration, subversion, and ultimate dominance of a society emerges. When the Moslems are few, the Koran teaches, speak of pluralism, no coercion in religion, tolerance. As the Moslems become a greater portion of a society, begin to make demands of the host culture in the name of the previously outlined pluralism and tolerance. When the Moslems are a substantial plurality, commence physical intimidation and attacks. Once the Moslems are a majority, subject all non Moslems to the harsh dictates of dhimmitude in order to assure perpetual dominance by Sharia.

It’s not hard to find, it’s actually spelled out quite clearly. We can already see the shift from phase one to phase two in Europe, where no-go zones are a sad feature of many countries from Spain to Sweden. We can see phase one at work in New York City, with the victory mosque being pitched in terms of “tolerance” and “pluralism,” even as the supporters of it talk plainly of eventually dominating America. Meanwhile, the moderate Moslems remain in the background; some of then oppose the victory mosque, but very few will say so in public. Very likely they know the danger they would be in were they to do so—and doesn’t that implicit threat speak volumes all by itself? If moderate Moslems fear their co-religionists now, in America, and therefore won’t publicly oppose them, what of moderate Moslems in the future?

James P. writes:

Unfortunately, some take the attitude of this commenter at Mangan’s:

As to the whole Islamisation of America thing, I have to profess I just don’t get it. There aren’t that many. Of course, eternal vigilance and whatnot, but people who talk as if this is a likely event don’t make too much sense to me. What’s likely is them shifting your cultural norms (and other aspects of your society) to something you don’t want by their presence, but an actual Islamisation of your society seems out of the picture. They’re not Jews and aren’t in a position to wield disproportionate power.

In short: there aren’t enough Muslims to matter, and Jews are the main problem anyway.

N. writes:

Reading the entry James P. points to, one can only conclude that none of Mangan’s followers has been to Dearborn, Michigan, let alone attempted to hand out Christian fliers there.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 29, 2010 08:20 AM | Send