Muslim Immigration as an Instrument of Jihad
Reader comment on item: [Hedayet and] Border Agencies in Denial

Submitted by F. Godunov (United States), Oct 26, 2002 at 21:10

Several months ago an Armenian acquaintance told me of another Armenian who had finally obtained a visa to visit the U.S. He was amazed to discover, when he went to the Consulate (?) in Aleppo (or perhaps it was at the Embassy in Damascus; he did not specify), that among the 25 who were chosen to come, only 5 were Christians (mostly Armenians), and the remaining 20 all Muslims, of what he described as "the worst kind of Muslims" -- i.e. the most militant. He, having grown up in that world, was keenly aware of which were the most dangerous -- all of those who had been chosen, he said, were of that kind.

Which leads me to a question: who is deciding whom to let in, in places like Aleppo and Damscus? Who is checking on their decisions? Is the personnel at the embassies made up of Muslims? Why is there no outcry about letting in people who do not wish us well and see immigration to the Lands of the Infidels as a weapon of Jihad?

Opposition to Muslim immigration has nothing to do with immigration generally. Immigration is not a right, but a privilege. Surely it ought to be resereved for those who at least might participate willingly in a pluralistic society, support democracy, equality of the sexes, and so on. But a Muslim Believer wishes, by demography and conversion, to spread Islam all over the globe. This is absolutely the doctrine of Islam, and any denier is simply engaging in dissimulation (religiously-sanctioned dissimulation) to proect the faith. To the degree that Infidel states admit in Muslims, they will be 1) denying some other potential immigrants, non-Muslims, who do not bear the animus that Islam inculcates against all Infidels and 2) is creating situation of considerable, and growing, danger for the Infidels themselves (one has only to look at France) 3) a growing Muslim population may prevent or inhibit an Infidel state from taking those measures it may deem necessary for its own survival (such as, for example, depriving Muslim states of weapons of mass destruction).

This is the greatest threat facing not only the West, but all Infidels, since Hitler and Stalin. We, the Infidels, and above all the Americans, need not willingly participate in our own destruction.

If sense is somehow to be dinned into our leaders (many of whom are inhibited about discussing Islam), then a good start might be made by some Samaritan who will buy a few thousand copies of Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim and send them to every member of Congress, the Administration, and the major media. If only 10% of the copies are read and thoroughly assimilated, it will be an important achievement.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".