Terrorism is the least of the problems with Muslim immigration

I received a comment on this site the other day talking about how Ben Brown’s piece supporting Le Pen depicted Muslims unfairly as too radical or extreme, talking about the plenty of moderate Muslims who get a bad name due to bad apples. This is especially topical with the attack on Manchester yesterday. Nothing in this article is particularly new or original, but it apparently needs to be said.

If you don’t need to be convinced that Islam isn’t some docile religion like Jainism,  a topic already beaten to death, you can skip to the bold paragraph below.

Islam is simply not a religion of peace, according to itself, and I’m not referring to the intermittent terrorism that we see in Europe. You can quote and talk about the interpretation of verses for years, but the religion was spread through three major conquests, which are not detached from its teachings and incidental to its spread, but rather celebrated as some of the most glorious times of Islam, under its warlord prophet. Islam has terms for the different parts of the world based on what Islam conquered and what it didn’t (Dar-al-Islam, Dar-al-Harb, etc.). You don’t have to be a scholar of Islam to know this.

One need only be basically acquainted with the Muslim world to see that the reach of its spread and influence across land, almost entirely accomplished by violent conquest historically, is central to its belief system and cultural attitude, along with resulting geopolitics. Are there some liberal scholars today who believe that expansionary conquest is over? Sure. You can find Muslim scholars, especially in the West, who say anything.

None of this changes the fact that Islam as practiced and believed is a militant religion and political ideology, that seeks political influence and even dominance when it can. One need not look at verses and commentaries in depth, and getting embroiled in sophisticated theological debates is a mistake – this is evident in the history of Islam itself; “the proof is in the pudding,” as they say. Ordinary Muslims, even kind people who would never commit terrorism, will still bloc vote with the political and cultural interests of their group, with few notable exceptions which prove the rule. Even peaceful Muslims will easily support curtailing free speech, especially criticism of Islam, as is already the law in Western Europe and Canada.

ISIS is not an aberration from historical Islam; its primary differences are its lack of foresight, and the fact that it’s a specifically Sunni expression of frustration and anger at their current situation in the face of Shias and the West. One can also make the case that ISIS is more wantonly brutal than some previous iterations, but to get bogged up in these differences is to miss the point. The Almohad Caliphate of the 12th century is a great case study of a forerunner to ISIS.

It may sound like I am trying to insult Islam, but I am not. The conviction, tenacity, solidarity, and sense of traditionalism that Muslims have is something I respect immensely; when I listen to Muslims talk about their land, for example, I envy them and wish my own Jewish brethren were more like them in some regards. However, this must inform a realistic approach to Islam for people who are thinking of inviting it into their countries.

(“But what about Christianity’s violence?” quoth the leftist. I am not here to absolve Christianity or say that its practitioners haven’t been violent. Jews more than anyone should know that. However, the equivalence is naive in context for a few reasons:

The West, as a civilization, is Christian in heritage. Therefore, the conquest and violence of an outsider should concern it more than its historical crimes against others, when considering its own safety and longevity. Also, Christianity is not a codified religion of conquest; Christian Europe’s imperial and colonial dominance of the world does not trace back to Christian doctrine but to militarism and Faustian aspirations that predate it, whereas Islam is an expansionist and political ideology in which conquest is directly built in to the theology, unlike Christianity. The Crusades are the exception to this, but even they are not remotely close to Jihad in scope, were partly defensive, and not “imperial” in the way we think of other conquests. There is of course, the huge elephant in the room that the specifically Christian violence of old is simply gone, whereas explicitly Islamic Jihad is alive and well. And of course, enlightenment ideals of secularization and pluralism take root in European Christian societies whereas they don’t in Islam for specific reasons. I am not saying all of the above are positives – the latter, for example, could easily be construed as a negative – but differences are what they are and must be spoken about realistically for our purposes here.)

Here’s the important part though. Let’s say for the sake of argument, that Muslims were totally peaceful people with no political aspirations and never committed terrorism. Let’s say they contributed economically to society more than your average native European.

Even if both of these premises were true, this is not a reason to want Muslim immigration. It is still a different culture with a higher birthrate than the native population, that will overtake the host culture as it gains demographic and cultural standing within society. This should be obvious. East Asians, for example, contribute more economically to society on average and commit less violent crime than whites. Does that now mean that is in the interest of the white host population to take in an influx of East Asians with a higher birthrate? Of course not. There is more to political interests than merely economic variables. Culture and preservation matter more than just some statistics about economic growth. This would be the case even if there was mass immigration of atheist Arabs moving in, rather than Muslims. This alone is a good reason to oppose any immigration, let alone Muslim immigration. (There is a case to be made for extremely limited skilled immigration for certain purposes, as even some homogeneous countries do, but this is so extremely small that it never tips demographic balance in any meaningful way, and is not the purpose of this article.)

Even without one drop of blood shed, a nation can lose a country merely via democracy and socialism, as is the case with Western Europe. As the demographic shift continues, the minority gains political power and also is able to use intimidation tactics, building coalitions with the left, until it eventually is a majority. This has already happened in a city like London, which is minority white British and has a Muslim mayor, and is the blueprint for the rest of the country. It is not the white man’s obligation to fund his own colonization and dispossession, and he has every reason to fight against it, as anyone in any country does. This is the real problem with Islam; terrorism is merely the cherry on top.

The burden should be on the one who is advocating for immigration, to explain why it is in the interests of the host country, since the default position is a closed border, as it predominantly has been for thousands of years of recorded human history. The burden should not be on the one who doesn’t want to take in immigrants to prove why the border must remain closed. Not wanting to feel like a cultural stranger within in your country is a very reasonable and healthy interest.

We live in a time in which wanting closed borders is depicted as radical and even morally reprehensible. This is the trick of the left, to make normal positions that have been by far the norm throughout the history of the world, and still are in most of the world, seem radical and revolutionary, while normalizing their own stances that have only become acceptable extremely recently and would be considered absurd not even a century ago, representing a blink of an eye in terms of human civilization.