The murders in Paris on November 13 did not halt the invasion of Europe by the forces of Islam. Muslim masses are still on the march toward Europe, by the hundreds of thousands this year alone, joining the tens of millions of Muslims already in Europe who came during the last few decades. These Muslims arrive as “refugees” claiming a “right of asylum.” They claim this right because they are fleeing something. What is that something? It’s the chaos and cruelty, the internecine violence, of Muslim peoples and polities. Many Muslims would like to flee these places. Were they able to make the connection between the chaos and cruelty and Islam itself, that would be one thing. But they do not make that connection. They do not flee from Islam itself, but bring it with them in their mental baggage.
Some of those “Muslim refugees” take Islam very much to heart, others perhaps not quite as much. But many non-Muslims to whom we look for guidance — writers for The Guardian, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Hillary Clinton – are quite definite in their dismissal: they continue to assure us that “the attacks in Paris had nothing to do with Islam.” What you think of that assertion? What texts were in the minds of those killers in Paris? What models of conduct did they have in mind? When someone tells you that Muslims in the Islamic State, or Al Qaeda, or just plain-vanilla Muslims, when they carefully quote the Qur’an, or adduce a hundred Hadith, to explain and justify their behavior, don’t you worry a little bit about their grasp of Islam? Don’t you wonder why they continue to hold up for inspection and discussion such prompters of hostility and hate toward non-Muslims as Qur’an 9.5 and 9.29, among more than one hundred “Jihad verses,” and in addition to the Qur’anic passages, many hundreds of “authentic” Hadith from authoritative (sahih) collections, especially those by Al-Bukhari and Muslim, offering the words and deeds of Muhammad himself, so full of malevolence toward Infidels?
Is the desire to flee violence enough to earn, for Muslims, both Sunni and Shi’a, right of entry into non-Muslim lands, into the heart of the civilization of the West? Are we not a little too quick with our compassion, a little too willing to welcome, a little too incurious about the ideology of Islam? Millions of Muslim refugees have fled Iraq and Syria for such neighboring Muslim countries as Jordan and Turkey. Do they not have such places still available to them? And are there not vast areas in many other Muslim countries where they ought reasonably to find or expect refuge? Why must the Infidels of Germany, or Sweden, or France be expected to admit them into their Infidel midst? Why must they go to Germany, or Sweden, or Norway? For Shi’a, there are still plenty of places – Iran or Hezbollah-controlled parts of Lebanon, to start with, and still much of Syria, and Baghdad, and southern Iraq – where Shi’a are in control and where other Shi’a could find security. And Sunni Arabs who want to flee the violence of Iraq and Syria have Turkey and Jordan, to which so many have already fled, and instead of being made Europe’s responsibility, the refugees could be asked to knock on the doors of Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, all of which have need of foreign workers, and none of which have to date taken in more than a handful of those Muslim refugees who might serve as those workers.
Why don’t we ask the obvious question: why do 800,000 Muslims seek refuge just in Germany alone this year, and none of those 800,000 seek refuge closer to home? Why aren’t those Muslim refugees requesting admission to Kuwait, Qatar, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia? And why aren’t Kuwait, Qatar, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, requesting those Muslim refugees to come on in, because they are needed?
Remember: Muslims are taught – all Muslims, not just members of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda – that they have a duty to conduct the struggle, or Jihad, to remove all obstacles to the spread and then the dominance of Islam, so that ultimately, all over the world, Islam will dominate and Muslims rule. Now given that, why should any non-Muslims anywhere make that Jihad easier? Or why should Europeans pretend that that solemn duty of Jihad is an islamophobic figment, or try to convince themselves that thoroughly modern Muslims don’t take that duty to heart? This is a policy that could please only a Pollyanna – or a Hillary Clinton.
Now there is a category of people fleeing Syria and Iraq who, unlike Muslims, really are without any place of refuge in the Middle East (save, of course, for these people possibly settling in the “West Bank” in an an exchange of populations, where they would be traded for Muslim “Palestinians”). We call these people “Christians.” Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq, Catholics and Orthodox and Armenians in Syria, Copts in Egypt – these people, to varying degrees, and at various times (sometimes more, sometimes less) have suffered the same fate at the hands of Muslims: attacks on their churches, disruption of their ceremonies, kidnapping and forced conversion and rape and enslavement of their women, murder of their menfolk. But the Muslims who seek to enter Europe neither need nor deserve that refuge, for there are vast areas of the Muslim world that could be open to them.
These Muslim “refugees” are obviously interested in more than just a refuge. They are keenly interested in the amount of support they will be able to receive. If refuge from Middle Eastern violence were all they wanted, it would be enough for them to land in Greece, or Spain, or Italy. But once they land on Lampedusa (in Italy), or Greece, they keep trying to get to the generous countries of the north, to Germany, to the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom, to the Scandinavian lands – that is, where the housing subsidies, the free or highly subsidized medical care and education, the family allowances are at their highest. Desperate refugees — people fleeing Nazis, or Communists — ordinarily do not worry about where the benefits will be best.
And then there is the matter of how these “refugees” behave in their host countries. Do they shed, like a snakeskin, the ideology of Islam? Do they participate wholeheartedly (or at least, as much as they can before becoming citizens) in their host societies, or do they segregate themselves, refusing to embrace the laws and customs of these Infidel societies? Do they accept, for example, full equality of the sexes? The right to criticize Islam as to criticize all other faiths? Do they accept the notion that a democratic government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people expressed through the vote, while in Islam any government has legitimacy to the extent that it reflects the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an? And in what European country has the large-scale presence of Muslims not created, for the indigenous Infidels, a situation that is more unpleasant, more expensive, and more physically dangerous than would be the case without that large-scale presence?
That word “refugee” waved about by Muslims and their apologists puts Western politicians on the defensive. They find it difficult to properly protect their own indigenous non-Muslim populations, the very people they have a duty to protect, by doing the obvious: cutting off that Muslim immigration. Western governments claim to subject these “refugees” to rigorous controls. How do you think that “rigorous” vetting has worked out so far?
We’ve now had a few decades of experience with a large population of Muslim migrants in Europe. And what have been the observable results? Tens of millions of Muslims, with rates of criminal activity and unemployment and incarceration, and birth rates many times higher than that of either the native non-Muslims or of other, but non-Muslim, immigrants. Muslims who, when they are asked, say that yes, they would like Sharia to be implemented. Where is a single success story, from the viewpoint of sensible Infidels, of Muslim migration? Where is the land in which the Muslim immigrants have successfully been integrated, have even enriched, in any sense, the lives of the non-Muslims into whose lands they have settled?
Suppose that in the wake of the Parisian horrors, European governments do start to come to their senses, do make resolutions about strict limits on Muslim migrants, do look as if they mean it. If you look back at all the noises made after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, you find that a few months later it had all come undone. When it comes to Western governments dealing with Muslim migrants, Proust’s witticism has held firm: “All our final resolutions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last.” But if they do mean to do things right this time, one place to start would be by ceasing to accommodate Muslim demands for special treatment, for special prayer rooms and time-outs for such prayer, in factories or offices or schools, for Muslim-women-only hours at municipal pools. In other words, end any special arrangements for Muslims.
Should we be gladdened that Western governments will now be more careful, and from now on will be sure to admit only the “moderate” Muslims, keeping out the “Jihadists”? Do those distinctions convince you? Are you convinced that there is some way to truly identify the “moderates”? Aren’t the “moderates” the ones we all know are moderate because, you see, they tell us they are? But isn’t it possible that some of those Muslims might be practicing taqiyya, in order to gain entry to a Western country? I am waiting for someone to tell us how the winnowing of the “moderate” Muslim – that is, the unobservant or Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim – from the real thing is to proceed. Do we not have examples – even among the eight Muslim terrorists who were killed the other day in Paris – of hard-partying Muslims who gave every sign of wanting to participate in Western decadence right up to the moment when they decided they didn’t, and sought to make up for their previous bad behavior by mass-murdering Infidels? How, in any case, can Western governments determine who is a real, and who a false moderate? How can the content of a particular Believer’s belief be judged? Is the record of the Western security services good enough to convince you that the threat from Muslims, whether born and bred in the West, or arriving as “refugees” whom we apparently have a duty to admit, will surely be detected in time? Do you worry about Muslims in the West, that is the five million or ten million who within a generation will inexorably double or triple?
The Muslims keep coming, from Syria and from Iraq mainly, but also from other Muslim lands, all the way to Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and a few dozen more. Right now all kinds of noises are being made about clamping down; let’s see if that can happen. Let’s see if, even if it happens, that turns out not to be enough for stopping the increase in Muslim numbers. Those Muslim migrants, after all, are fleeing violence and misrule that is endemic to Muslim societies. They make their way by land through Turkey; they arrive by sea, across the Mediterranean. They settle in cities, they settle in small towns. Why, just the other week 100 inhabitants of a German hamlet were told by their government that they were to welcome into their midst 700 Muslims, refugees, “Syrians.” For how long are such guests to be endured? If comparative quiet were to return to Syria, or Iraq, would migrants from those countries be required to return home?
What is a country? Is it merely a land area, unconnected to a particular civilization or people? Is there still a “Western civilization” that deserves to be preserved? Do Germans, or Swedes, or French, or any other Europeans, have a duty to admit Muslims? Are countries all over the world to be open to whoever manages to smuggle himself in? Can we who are non-Muslims decide whom we wish to admit, and in making that decision, take into account 1350 years of Islamic history, which history was made over a vast land area, from the Iberian Peninsula to the East Indies?
Should an Infidel, having learned something of what the texts of Islam contain, and learned, too, something of the history of Islamic conquest, and having had sufficient time to observe the effect of a growing Muslim population in his own country, be expected not to be alarmed? What has that large-scale presence of Islam meant to him and his fellow Infidels, in his own city, or village?
And do you think those who worry about the Muslim presence can still be dismissed as “far-right”? What exactly makes them “far-right”? Other than being unafraid to discuss Islam and Muslim behavior, what has earned Geert Wilders the description of being “far-right”? Wilders demands higher social spending, especially on the Dutch elderly (who have seen their financial support limited because of the amounts spent on Muslim immigrants) – does that make him “far-right”?
That epithet is useful for one thing: it’s a way of making sure that Wilders need not even be debated, but can simply be dismissed. Repeat that epithet “far-right” endlessly in the press, on radio and television, and for many people, that is the end of the matter. No further discussion necessary. The People’s Party in Norway that opposes Muslim immigration? Call it “far-right.” The Freedom Party in the Netherlands? “Far-right.” Paul Weston’s Liberty Party in the United Kingdom? “Far-right.” Presumably “far-right” too, are all those defectors from the Army of Islam, such as the articulate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq. Wave that epithet about. It’s a magic wand.
Particularly infuriating has been the attempt by Muslims and apologists for Islam to label the many Germans now mobilizing and marching against Muslim immigration as “neo-Nazi.” What makes a member of Pegida, disturbed at the Muslim flood, and watching as, in Thilo Sarrazin’s memorable phrase, “Germany undoes itself,” a “neo-Nazi”? The Nazi past haunts all political discussion in Germany, but “neo-Nazi” is not an epithet to be flung about. When Angela Merkel initially insisted that Germans should be prepared to welcome many hundreds of thousands of Muslims into their midst, it was clear that this reflected nothing more than her understandable hypersensitivity about the treatment of minorities, given what Germans had done to the Jews not so long ago. But was the way to make amends for murdering Europe’s Jews really admitting Muslims into Europe, given that the chief carriers of antisemitism in the world today are Muslims? It is in their texts that Jews are depicted as the chiefest enemies of Islam, descendants of “apes and pigs.” Because Germans murdered the Jews of Europe under Hitler, are they now to make amends by admitting Muslims into Germany, and thereby to swell the ranks of antisemites in the new Germany? If you worry about the future of Jews in Europe, and whether they have a future, you have to worry not about admitting, but about keeping out, Muslim “refugees.”
No one at this point need allow himself to be bullied into silence by fear of being called “far-right” or “neo-Nazi.” And if a German, or any European, wants to make life possible for Jews in Europe, the best way to do so is to minimize the Muslim presence.
That’s not all that needs to be said about Muslim “refugees.” There’s a lot more that one could say. But that’s enough for now.