Fitzgerald: Muslim "over-representation" in prisons

Muslims are not only "over-represented" in prisons, but they also find prisons the perfect place to conduct Da'wa among the indigenous non-Muslims. The latter, for whom life has proven to be simply too much, may well welcome the Total Regulation of Life (do this, don't do that) that Islam provides. And what's more, Islam justifies their past, present, and future criminal behavior, insofar as it is directed -- and how! -- against Infidels. More than one imam has suggested that helping yourself to the property of Infidels without their permission is simply to be seen as helping oneself to the Jizyah that is owed, but until Muslims rule, cannot be forcibly extracted.

Furthermore, the more Muslims there are, and the more they are known for their solidarity, their violence, and their aggression, the more likely it is that non-Muslims, unless they are absolutely certain of being in the great majority, will -- out of fear, or out of a desire to turn aside Muslim wrath -- make themselves more accessible to and even more likely to accept the message of Muslim proselytizers. These proselytizers may be prison chaplains, paid for of course by the Infidel state, or fellow prisoners who are Muslims, eager to win points in Heaven by making more converts -- that is, signing up more recruits for the Army of Islam.

Muslim prisoners, where they are not native-born citizens, such as those at Guantanamo, should be deported. They are too expensive to maintain. And they will use their time in prison to conduct Da'wa -- in other words, to further the Jihad by spreading Islam. We can't have that. It does us harm. We cannot keep pretending that Islam is only, or mainly, a "religion." It isn't. Start making sense. Start segregating Muslim prisoners in special prisons or sections of prisons so that they cannot conduct Da'wa. And subject them to as much counter-Da'wa as is possible. For a few, if given the chance to read Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and others, the arguments against this belief-system which so obviously lends itself to totalitarianism, as a Total Regulation and Total Explanation, may finally win them over.

Listen to Spinoza, Hume, Voltaire, Diderot, Tocqueville, John Quincy Adams, Churchill, and others less known (from Ricoldo da Montecroce, a Dominican who knew all about Islam, on up). Ignore those who pooh-pooh the cassandra cries. Cassandra was right.

People will vary on what they think explains the incredible negligence of political and media elites in Europe, over the past three to four decades of virtually unhindered Muslim migration into almost every Western country. People will vary on what they think should now be done to deal with the consequences of that migration, and on what makes sense, and what is merely whistling in the dark.

But no one who is both intelligent and well informed can deny the truth of the following sentence:

The large-scale presence of Muslims in the countries of Western Europe has led to a situation that, for both the indigenous non-Muslims and for other, non-Muslim immigrants, is more unpleasant, more expensive, and more physically dangerous, than would be the case without that large-scale Muslim presence.

Take that last sentence. Admit its truth. And now refresh your memory about a statistic or two. Recall, for example, that in 1960 there were 1,500 Muslims in The Netherlands; in 1970, 1500; in 1997, 400,000; in 2008, more than one million. Recall as well the great and continuing spread between Muslim and non-Muslim birthrates. Ask yourself what it costs the welfare states to support these huge families, which take advantage of every conceivable benefit, and then some, even as they fill up the prisons, and of course keep the security services and the attendant personnel (detectives, judges, lawyers) expensively occupied.

Now ask yourself whether or not the legal and political institutions, the social arrangements, the museums and universities, the architectural monuments, all of the artifacts that are the result of the freedom of artistic expression and the encouragement of free and skeptical inquiry (philosophical, scientific) that are, in every conceivable way, flatly contradicted by the letter and spirit of the Sharia, of Islam, are worth preserving. And if so, what do you think should be done to preserve them? What is licit, and what do you think is not licit? Ask yourself. Think.

Now please -- write on only one side of the blue book.

Posted by Hugh at October 2, 2008 11:56 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |