“Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up.” — Robert Frost
In a recent article in Canada’s National Post, Tom Blackwell writes about the findings of an Alberta study which suggests that there is “a culture clash…common for graduates of foreign medical schools.” He recounts that some doctors new to Canada “balk at being taught by female doctors, struggle with the nuances of English, use inappropriate body language, are uncomfortable with the mentally ill–or unfamiliar even with the concept of patient confidentiality…” This situation -– this cultural divide -– was outlined in Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart (of Harvard University and University of Michigan), however, contend that “the Huntington thesis fails to identify the most basic cultural fault line between the West and Islam, which concerns the issues of gender equality and sexual liberalization.” They point out that “the mix of genders is also an issue with some foreign graduates refusing to shake hands with patients of the opposite sex, or recognizing that a female doctor could have authority over them.” Blackwell’s article mentions the observation of a Dr. David White, interim chair of the University of Toronto, who warned that some of these foreign graduates, after being educated abroad, are left with “knowledge gaps you could drive a truck through.”
This knowledge gap, this chasm between Islamic cultural norms and those of the Western world, instead of shrinking, is getting exponentially larger with the increase in Muslim immigration into the Western world. The gap is not the fault of Western democracies, but rather of the Muslim communities and their Imams, the former for obeying the counsel of the latter who teach that to be true to Islam, they should not assimilate nor construct an identity in any way definable by Western democratic norms and standards. In her book Citizen Islam: The Future of Muslim Integration in the West, Zeyno Baran writes, “The majority of Islamists in the West reject violence. But they share the legal, political, and social goals of their fellow Islamists who do espouse violence. All Islamist leaders follow the same strategic plan, as outlined by Muslim Brotherhood theorist Qutb in his seminal work Milestones. Their goal is to Islamize secular societies in a step-by-step, grassroots process. According to this plan, Muslims should set themselves apart from mainstream society rather than become loyal citizens of the countries in which they live. Muslims should adjust their social norms to consolidate themselves into a single and separate community; they should ignore their ethnic differences and consider ‘Muslim’ as their primary identity.” Today we see this “grassroots process” at work in obscene spectacles such as the Al Quds Day parades, the BDS movement, or the fatuous campaign to implement Islam’s sharia law into our Western judiciary.
An unrestrained, mass influx of Muslim refugees into Western Europe and North America can only complement these Islamic goals. This is because Islamic goals are all about religious hegemony, and demographics prove, especially where Islamic supremacist designs are concerned, that religious hegemony has been achieved in Western Europe whenever and wherever the Muslim population reaches a majority level. I know this will surely sound simplistic, but we must also remember that, in a country where democracy promises freedom of religion by proscribing the hegemony of one particular religion over another, Islamic supremacists, once in a majority position, regard with complete disdain such a well-intentioned proscription.
In her 2008 essay Turkey Divided, Zeyno Baran recounted that Turkey’s “secularists also worry that the West fails to grasp why freedom of the public sphere from religion—at the core of the Turkish and French conceptions of secularism—is essential in a Muslim-majority country, whereas freedom of religion based on the U.S. model can open the way for gradual Islamization.” Raphael Israeli is even more direct, reminding us that “on the one hand, the harsh, even fanatic, reaction of Muslims worldwide to what they perceive as the profanation of their holy sites or any slur to their culture, or the enthusiastic and self-assured way they go about spreading their faith and imposing it on others; but on the other hand, the unbearable ease with which they deny others’ religious rights, and even step in to obliterate the religious heritage of other faiths.”
A case in point here is the State of Israel and the Palestinian call for “right of return.” Hamas and the PA demand the “right of return” not because they are concerned about the welfare of those Palestinian families displaced by wars initiated by Arab Muslims. No, they demand the right of return for the sake of Islam’s imperialistic tenets, demanding religious hegemony for the Muslim Umma. And Israeli Jews today are being stabbed to death on the streets of Israel’s cities, not because of some Zionist invasion of the Levant, but because, from the time of Muhammad until now, Jews have rejected Islam’s essential policy of the planned obsolescence of Jews and Judaism and their divine mission to the world as “a light unto the nations.” Because we all know that Islamic supremacists tolerate no other “light” but their own – the “light” that even now is plunging so much of the world into utter darkness.
Edmund Burke wrote that “the effect of liberty on individuals is that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulation.” Well, by now it is no mystery what are the intentions of those who profess fealty to the Muslim Brotherhood and their plan of action for the Western world. Anyone with half a brain (excepting Western journalists) should be able to ascertain with little effort that their plan is gaining momentum. Canada’s new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau (a.k.a. Justin Tamerlane), has appointed Omar Alghabra as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Alghabra was formerly president of the Canadian Arab Federation, an organization which the Canadian Government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, halted funding to because, as pointed out by Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn, the CAF “supported organizations that Canada has declared to be terrorist organizations and which are arguably anti-Semitic.” The court also noted that the CAF had posted on their website links to videos of Hamas operatives and displayed also on their website flags of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This is the same Omar Alghabra who back in 2010 professed that, as a new Canadian, “now I have a unique appreciation for Canada and what Canada has to offer, so it is that passion about striving to protect the idea and the noble concept of democracy.”
The principle that “good fences make good neighbors” does not apply to those Muslims whose intentions are to transmogrify Western democracies into sharia-based autocracies fashioned after those of the Muslim Middle East – egregious cultures and all. Our kindnesses are being exploited by these religious people, only to further the designs of their religion and for no other reason — not for the good of democracy and surely not for the good of our non-Muslim citizens, but only for the dark visions of those who tear down fences instead of mending them, who regard our kindnesses as breaches in our fences. In his book The Suicide Of Reason (Radical Islam’s Threat To The West), Lee Harris writes: “The problem with assimilationism is that it ignores a law of great importance: Fanatics drive out non-fanatics. An intolerant code will always end by trumping a carpe diem ethical code. Today in the West, where people are ashamed to be fanatical about anything, those immigrants who bring with them deep-set traditions of fanaticism are able, by virtue of their insistent and repetitive fanaticism and their willingness to go to extremes, to get virtually whatever they ask for. Thus assimilationism offers another false promise: In fact, rather than the Muslims assimilating themselves to us, we in the West seem to be assimilating ourselves to them.”
Not only have we in the West forgotten why we put up fences in the first place; we’ve completely failed to recognize that those same fences no longer exist. Lee Harris concludes: “Indeed, it is tempting to speculate that it may well be those Muslims who have been most tempted by the carpe diem culture of the West who are the most committed to the violent effort to destroy it.”