The fundamental problem is this: There is an asymmetry between the good that many moderate Muslims can do for Britain and the harm that a few fanatics can do to it. The 1-in-1,000 chance that a man is a murderous fanatic is more important to me than the 999-in-1,000 chance that he is not a murderous fanatic: If, that is, he is not especially valuable or indispensable to me in some way. — from this article by Theodore Dalrymple
The figures Dalrymple uses, however, are not the right ones. He uses the figure of “one in a thousand” Muslims who may be a danger. He does not go on to add that “all the evidence suggests that the percentage of the Muslim population that represents a physical danger to non-Muslims” is far higher than “one in a thousand.” He does not remind us that a great many Muslims support terrorist acts, or acts of violence, against Infidels and their institutions, as all the polls suggest.
And keep in mind that in such cases, the misreported opinions will only go one way, for no one would claim to be murderously hostile who was not, while some of those who are murderously hostile, recognizing the wisdom of not admitting to that — in order to protect Muslim interests and to keep Infidels unwary — will claim not to be.
This matter of the continuum of Muslim support for acts against the physical wellbeing of Infidels begins with active participation, then passive collusion (knowing what is up, doing nothing to stop it, not reporting it), and then support for such acts. That support takes the form of “understanding” them and claiming victimization at the hands of Infidels. Or it may manifest itself in the offering of a defense, of one kind or another, of terrorist acts. This support may be demonstrated by evidence that this or that “moderate” shares the same hostility toward Infidels that jihadists manifest — the same sense that Infidel attempts to maintain their own legal and political institutions are in themselves a provocation. Infidel refusal to change these institutions, and their refusal to change their social arrangements, and their refusal to yield on the matter of free speech (Jyllands-Posten, the movie “Submission”), are seen by many Muslims as acts of aggression toward Islam — when in fact they are merely the way Infidels choose to live, the rights they choose to maintain. But those Muslims believe that the mere continuance of the ways of the Infidels constitutes an “obstacle” to the spread of Islam, that is an act of aggression that justifies Muslim Jihad against them — for the Infidels might have gracefully yielded, and did not.
We already know that every 100 Muslim migrants has a number larger than 0 who will be perfectly willing to participate in acts of terror. We already know that many more will support those acts; that still more will express approval of such acts; that virtually all will support, as Believers they must, the concept of Holy War or Jihad, as defined in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. We already know that Believers accept the doctrine, central to Islam, that a permanent state of warfare — but not necessarily violent war — must exist between Islam and Unbelief, between Believers and Infidels, and that Dar al-Islam, the Abode of Islam, must inexorably expand until it finally swallows up Dar al-Harb, the Abode of War, until the entire world is subject, as by right it should be, to Islam, and Muslims dominate everywhere.
The mere swelling of Muslim ranks in the Western world will make it harder to properly monitor Muslim populations. It will make it much more expensive to do so. It will make politicians grow willing to curry Muslim votes and, to do so, willing to set up obstacles to the most sensible and straightforward of security measures.
Infidels did nothing to deserve this except to naively accept these populations into their countries. They gave no thought at all to the ideological content of Islam, nor to the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subsequent subjugation of Infidels — a history remarkably similar, from Spain to the East Indies. They do not deserve as a consequence of that act of naive generosity to now be forced to endure the large-scale presence of people who, to the extent that they remain true Believers, will create and have already created in much of Western Europe if not yet North America a situation that for the indigenous Infidels, and for other, non-Muslim, immigrants, is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without this large-scale Muslim presence.
There is not an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, a Dane, a Dutchman, a Belgian, a Swede, an Italian, a Spaniard, who — no matter what he may think of remedial action — can truthfully deny the truth of that last assertion.