When The Mask Finally Slipped

There is a comforting lie people in the West have been telling ourselves for some decades, as we import literally millions upon millions upon millions of Muslims from third-world countries: Islam is generally compatible with Western civilization.

That was a weird idea historically, since from its birth Islam was founded in direct conflict with the West. But the idea that Islam was in conflict with the West was always awkward because it dictated that the West might have to face down implacable ideological enemies who would not be wooed by the power of simple economics.

Religious enemies are different from communist enemies. Yes, communism is a form of religion, but it is, in the end, dictated by the power of the economic vision. The true neoliberal fallacy was not that free trade raises living standards, because it does. The fallacy was that economics always dictates ideology, that if you put economic pressure on radical Muslims, they will magically accede to your cultural changes and that they will moderate in some way.

It didn’t work with China. It certainly was never going to work with radical Islam.

We decided that we were going to import massive numbers of radicalized Muslims to the West, people who do not believe in the basic rights which the West was founded upon. These are people who see the West as a plum ripe for the picking, and then who tell us that if we see what they are doing and what they believe, it must be because we are Islamophobic.

Here’s the deal: There are a lot of wonderful people who are Muslim. I know many of them, just as there are a lot of wonderful people individually of pretty much every persuasion. That doesn’t mean every persuasion is equivalent, nor that Islam is generally a philosophy particularly compatible with Western belief systems.

This was the subject of debate at Oxford Union just a couple of weeks ago. This debate went so poorly for the pro-Islam side that they delayed the release of the debate for a couple of weeks.

The resolution at Oxford was “This House believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam.” The resolution did not pass. It was voted down.

One of the people who was arguing in favor of the idea that the West should be suspicious of Islam was Tommy Robinson, who has been labeled “extremely radical” by the Left.

But when he said that Islam is not particularly compatible with the West, that was the argument of virtually every Western leader for several centuries.

Anti-Robinson protesters were numerous and well-organized.

Roughly 80,000 pounds were spent on police security due to the protesters.

The greatest mark that your religion is a religion of peace is when it requires tens of thousands of pounds in security to prevent people from storming the place and chopping off people’s heads.

One clip from the event shows the truth about what Islam in the West really means.

The people who argued for Islam ended up making a case against Islam. They accidentally said the quiet part out loud.

One of the people who argued in favor of the proposition that the West ought to be suspicious of Islam was British actor and now quasi-activist Laurence Fox. He stated, “Islam literally means submission. So there is no church, there is no state, there is only Islam. My suspicion of Islam, therefore, is strongly and I think reasonably held. Islam is a comprehensive social, political, and military doctrine which leaves no part of its followers’ lives untouched. As Andrew Hussey, the British historian, says, ‘Islam more closely resembles a ruthlessly efficient war machine than a religion. Islam is borderless, expansionary and interested only in submission to Allah.’”

British podcaster and broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti added, “And their devised strategy was one of patient Islamic transformation from within: a civilizational jihad. Don’t worry, that is not a far-Right name made up by Tommy Robinson or me. That’s actually what they called it, and we know that because the FBI seized their 1991 explanatory memorandum setting out the plan to settle in the West, build Islamic centers as bases, infiltrate institutions, and work until ‘Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.’ Nearly a century later, they are widely accepted across Europe and in the U.S. and much of the West as a dangerous threat to democracy.”

That is what the pro-resolution side had to say about why the West should be suspicious of Islam. Then the anti-resolution side got up and proved that the pro-resolution side’s entire case was accurate.

A student named Aisha Khan Aziz was talking to Tommy Robinson about the mob outside. This is the clip that I referred to, where she said the quiet part out loud.

She said to Robinson — whose given name is Stephen — “Stephen, there is a crowd outside rioting against you tonight. And without the protection and generosity of a Muslim Palestinian president and a mostly South Asian executive committee, you would be quite literally cooked.”

I believe that’s making an argument that is the opposite of the argument that you are seeking to make. If the idea is that the Muslims are so moderate that they are willing to heed any debate, then the idea that “we are being nice by allowing you to speak here, and if it weren’t for us, our friends outside would murder you,” doesn’t exactly fit.

That also happens to be the statement of many Muslims who live in the West: “We are the moderate ones. We’re moderate because we just want our aims. But if you anger us, if you draw a cartoon in a newspaper, we will riot all across Europe. If you are a person who speaks out against Islam in ways that we find offensive, we’ll beat the living crap out of you.”

How do people think that Islam became a global religion? It did not become a global religion because missionaries were sent to far-flung places. It became a global religion through conquest and war.

The best way to adjudicate the quality of a religion is by its adherents. Has the religion had a positive or negative impact on the societies in which it exists?

One of the reasons that people have trouble understanding the infiltration of radical Islam into our politics is that the Left — which theoretically should oppose radical Islam because it is tyrannical and anti-freedom — is happy to join in the chorus of “Islamophobia” every time somebody notices the problem.

The reason is that it always comes down to the coalition of the scavengers.

As long as you hate the system, you will fellow-travel with anyone, including the radical Muslims who would like to destroy it.