How many Muslims must there be in America, before we are threatened by sharia rule?

Recently a reader asked me how I can think that there is any risk of America being taken over by Islam, when Muslims at present constitute only about one percent of our population. He said that when they get up to about 20 percent, then there might be a danger worth worrying about, but to talk about such a danger now is sheerest fantasizing.

In fact, with Muslims at only one percent of our population, a Seattle, Washington cartoonist named Molly Norris has had to go into hiding and change her identity in response to death threats over the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” which she started.

America is thus now in the same boat with the Netherlands, where the Muslim percentage of the population is perhaps ten times higher than in the U.S., and where Geert Wilders has had to live under armed guard for the last six years to protect him from murder threats from Muslim extremists.

With Muslims at only one percent of our population, we are already living under Muslim power and intimidation in our own country. The only way a person cannot see that fact is by wilfully choosing not to see it.

Has a single state or national politician spoken up against this horror—that an American woman must give up her job, give up her name and identity, give up her home, and go into indefinite hiding because of Muslim death threats against her over making drawings of Muhammad? Has a single Republican politician or prominent anti-jihad writer pointed out the indisputable fact that the only reason such a threat exists and can exist in our country is that we have admitted into our country millions of adherents of a religion that has been at war with our civilization for the last 1,400 years?

Ironically, one of Muhammad’s first acts after he installed himself in Medina and gained political power there was to order the murder of a woman who had written a satirical poem about him. Everything that happens with Islam has already been written down in the instruction manual which is the Koran, the hadiths, and Muhammad’s biography. What Muhammad has done or commanded, the Mohammedans, in one form or another, will do again.

And while they gain power and force us into hiding in our own land, we limpwristedly accept it. Below is the pathetic, spiritless announcement by the Seattle Weekly that Molly Norris is no longer with the paper. Look at how, in the first paragraph, her editor, Mark Fefer, casually turns her into a non-person: “there is no more Molly.” Then compare his reaction to mine, and ask yourself, which way offers hope? Which way is worthy of Americans?

On the Advice of the FBI, Cartoonist Molly Norris Disappears From View

Her work won’t be in Seattle Weekly anymore, or anywhere else.

Comments (232) By Mark D. Fefer Wednesday, Sep 15 2010

You may have noticed that Molly Norris’ comic is not in the paper this week. That’s because there is no more Molly.

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, “going ghost”: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It’s all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” cartoon.

Norris views the situation with her customary sense of the world’s complexity, and absurdity. When FBI agents, on a recent visit, instructed her to always keep watch for anyone following her, she joked, “Well, at least it’ll keep me from being so self-involved!” It was, she says, the first time the agents managed a smile. She likens the situation to cancer—it might basically be nothing, it might be urgent and serious, it might go away and never return, or it might pop up again when she least expects it.

We’re hoping the religious bigots go into full and immediate remission, and we wish her the best.

[end of Seattle Weekly article]

LA writes:

The hope that Islamic jihad goes into remission, on its own, without our having to do anything about it—that’s the best that Western liberals, including many conservative anti-jihad heroes, can offer. But it’s not going to happen. The only way Islamic jihad in the West will go away is if we make it go away. But no one wants to face that harsh reality, so they, the scared liberals and the conservative anti-jihadists, evade the issue, complaining and worrying about Islam, but not offering any strategy against it, except one, the hope for spontaneous remission (Mark Fefer); two, the hope for moderates to arise and change Islam into something it’s never been (most of the conservative anti-jihadists); three, offering no hope at all (Steyn, who by the way has quietly dropped his ridiculous and escapist idea, for which all sorts of unthinking conservatives treated him as their hero, that the West can save itself from Islam by increasing its birtth rate to Islamic levels); or four, pronouncing that We Are Doomed (John Derbyshire). However, I haven’t covered the gamut. What about those rare anti-jihadists, such as Andrew McCarthy, who say that there is no such thing as moderate Islam and no realistic hope of its coming into existence? What strategy against Islamization do they offer? I really don’t know. I read various of McCarthy’s many articles on the subject, and he is the best of the mainstream conservative jihad critics, but I still don’t know what he wants us to do.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

You wrote:

“Recently a reader asked me how I can think that there is any risk of America being taken over by Islam, when Muslims at present constitute only about one percent of our population. He said that when they get up to about 20 percent, then there might be a danger worth worrying about, but to talk about such a danger now is sheerest fantasizing.”

We have only to look at the Hispanic analogy—they moved seamlessly from “there are not enough to worry about” to “there are too many and we can’t afford to anger them”. Given that Muslims are ideologically predisposed to violence, the threshold for “too many to anger” is probably a lot lower than with Hispanics. Indeed, we might already have crossed it!

One could also ask—what is the rationale for permitting any Muslims to inhabit this country? They have no inherent right to come here, they serve no useful purpose, and they create a great many dangers. If we accept the liberal premise that we require “diverse” immigrants, why not obtain this diversity from non-Muslim sources?

Paul K. writes:

As to what percentage of our population must be Muslims before they represent a threat, that percentage was reached some time ago and we are reminded of it daily. I recently flipped through a book titled “Me of Little Faith,” a 2008 book on religion by the comedian Lewis Black who appears regularly on “The Daily Show.” Black, whose persona is angry rather than humorous, predictably takes on his own religion, Judaism, and goes on to mock the dogma of Roman Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Mormonism, etc. However, the chapter titled “Islam” is only one page, starting with “I have nothing to say. Nothing. And let’s leave it that way,” followed by a few space-filling remarks.

Black is acknowledging that in America, when it comes to religion, there is one sacred cow that we dare not mock. Shouldn’t that fact tell liberals everything they need to know?

Gintas writes:

You wrote:

I read various of McCarthy’s many articles on the subject, and he is the best of the mainstream conservative jihad critics, but I still don’t know what he wants us to do.

There is a long tradition on the right of sounding the alarm, and assuming that once the alarm is heard, appropriate actions will be taken. That would work in a healthy society, but liberalism has hollowed us out completely: an alarm at an approaching danger is a signal to send out a welcoming surrender party. The Tea Party movement is a healthy reaction to that, but it is an example of how no one seems to have any clear idea of what to do about anything. It has the feel of being a loose cannon on deck.

Robert B. writes:

The Moslem threat is real and growing—these people are a teeny tiny percentage of Minnesota’s population, and yet, through ghettoization of themselves, they have elected the first Moslem congressman and forced airlines into submission, airport authorities, school districts and even Fortune 500 corporations. If people can’t see this, they are blind.

Ferg writes:

Mark Fefer wrote:

“… following her infamous ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’ cartoon.”

I find the use of the word “infamous” by her own paper very instructive. It carries the implication that she has done something wrong. The paper’s editors are living under Sharia.

Carl P. writes:

Disgustingly apathetic acceptance of an intolerable condition, likening it to cancer, which is a natural disease over which we truly have little control. But even there, people “fight” their cancer and strive for survival.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 21, 2010 08:48 AM | Send