“Meanwhile, refugees are still heading into Germany — at a rate of around 10,000 a day. … The decade after Ms. Merkel first came to power in 2005 now looks like a blessed period for Germany, in which the country was able to enjoy peace, prosperity and international respect, while keeping the troubles of the world at a safe distance. That golden era is now over.” –Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times
I’ve always contended that the most difficult social obstacle for Muslim immigrants now living in United States and Canada, especially those who hail from parts of the world where Islam exists as the preponderant religious faith, is the blatant reality that Christians and Jews here have never accepted their designation by the general Muslim umma, or Muslim clerics in particular, as “infidel” and the example of the inferior human being Islam paints of those who are not readily and entirely convinced of its goodly promises. Hostilities between Muslim and Jew (to use the Jewish experience in the Middle East as an example) regarding the pertinacious existence of the State of Israel in the shadow of multiple Arab Muslim androcracies have nothing to do with geopolitics but rather have everything to do with the provocative reality, for the Arab Muslim consciousness, of Jews flying fighter jets or driving Merkava tanks when in the Arab Muslim and Ottoman past Jews were required to step off the sidewalk when Muslim children approached or pay jizya tax as a systematic public example of subjugation to the primacy of Islam’s theological boasts.
To find himself living in what must seem an inverse world, where egregious cultural traditions synonymous with those Islamic societies impervious to Western democratic influence are prohibited by law, and those practicing such cultural traditions are prosecuted by law, must surely be an overpowering source of vexation for the Muslim immigrant who regards the religiously established norms of his country of origin as being morally superior to the Western justice system of his present national abode, a system Harold J. Berman of the Louisiana Law Review (2000) described as an “historically developing culture.” It’s perplexing to me how our democratic freedoms are so enviable to these Muslim immigrants while they’re still “over there” but worthy only of condemnation after they arrive “over here.” Terence’s warning that “Extreme law is often extreme injustice” is completely lost on these fundamentalists who, to date, are enthralled by the grossly imprudent notion that 7th century sharia law can somehow enhance Western style democracy. Such insouciance begs the question: Why displace oneself and one’s family from a country where your religion is familiar, to a far country where your religion is regarded by most of its inhabitants as something brutally ancient and unwelcomed if it wasn’t one’s initial intention to exploit and subvert the civil liberties of that far country? The West should be more wary of a religion encumbered by its congeries of rampageous sects and a religious prone to violently asserting their devotion to its imperialistic motif.
Anyone reading the newspapers lately cannot have missed the reports about the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe (soon to become a crisis in USA and Canada). Soeren Kern of the Gatestone Institute, in a very disturbing article on the subject, quotes Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times who laments, “Meanwhile, refugees are still heading into Germany — at a rate of around 10,000 a day. … The decade after Ms. Merkel first came to power in 2005 now looks like a blessed period for Germany, in which the country was able to enjoy peace, prosperity and international respect, while keeping the troubles of the world at a safe distance. That golden era is now over.” Kern also cites a leaked German intelligence document which warns, “”We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” These warnings are eerily similar to the clarion calls from concerned politicians and citizens in both United States and Canada about the dangers of admitting Muslim refugees (so-called refugees) from distant nations (or what’s left of those nations) where Islamic imperialism is considered intellectually palatable. The term “Trojan Horse” has come into play of late and rightly so: we are facing an imminent influx of Muslim refugees, many of whom could very well be sympathetic toward, or an integral part of, the very Islamist fundamentalism their advocates assure us they’re trying to outmanoeuvre.
In his book Arabs In Israel: Friends Or Foes, Raphael Israeli writes, “When one apprises them [Israel’s detractors] of the prospective consequences of the Arabization of the State, i.e. that if the Jewish majority that established its values, built its economy, instilled freedom and democracy in it and enhanced its power was lost, it will immediately be transformed into another poor, backward, corrupt and autocratic Arab country, as was the case in Gaza. They object to the ‘racist’ statement, which questions the Arab ability to establish and sustain a progressive, open and thriving state, although they are unable to produce an example or precedent for a state of that sort among their 22 countries and the 200 million Arab brethren.” Patriotic Canadian and American citizens might also apprise those who are insisting that our respective countries “take in” thousands of Syrian refugees of the same “prospective consequences of the Arabization of the State.” In Canada our traditional goodwill toward immigrants has been exploited by Zunera Ishaq, formerly a Pakistani national, who took the Canadian government to court in order to defend her perceived right as a Muslim immigrant to wear the niqab during the official swearing-in ceremony required before receiving Canadian citizenship. In France a law prohibits wearing “in a public space” the niqab or “any clothing intended to conceal the face.” This ban was challenged unsuccessfully in a court of law by a 24 year old French woman. Ironically—if you’re Canadian—a breach of this ban results in the wearer (as reported by the BBC) “having to undergo citizenship instruction.” Anyone who has been following closely the history of Muslim migration to the Western hemisphere knows that this is only the beginning of such legal battles involving Muslim activists versus the governments of Canada and the United States.
Junius (pseudonym of the author of a series of letters in the London Public Advertiser 1769-1771) wrote, “The least considerable man among us has an interest equal to the proudest nobleman, in the laws and constitution of his country, and is equally called upon to make a generous contribution in support of them—whether it be the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, or the hand to execute.” Call me politically incorrect, but it seems to me that many of the Syrian refugees (read Muslim refugee) are not interested in “the laws and constitution of his country” nor do they consider themselves “called upon to make a generous contribution in support of them.” Any “refugee” who makes it to the safe haven of Western democracy and then defecates on the floor of passenger trains, or leaves a wide swath of garbage in his wake, or shamelessly and violently demands of his rescuers that they provide him his due, had never any intention of conceiving, directing or executing any good for the sake of the laws and constitution of his new country.
Times have changed. The golden era is certainly over. The presence of hard working immigrants in our midst is unfairly obscured by the efficacious and insalubrious immediacy of those “refugees” who today arrive on our shores with a vision not to make Western democracy stronger, but rather to subvert it—to transmogrify and negate altogether our Judeo-Christian traditions and long instituted cultural norms. Refugees who, as Raphael Israeli writes (to borrow again from the Jewish experience in the Middle East), “…stand, uncritically and without balanced deliberation, alongside our enemies.”