What is to be done about Islam

Last November, two other writers and I worked briefly on a manifesto on what is to be done about Islam in America, and, by extension, in the West and in non-Islamic countries generally. The original draft made jihad the practical focus of the problem. Subsequent drafts included shariaï—the Islamic law—as well, based on the understanding that jihad is not the end of Islam but the instrument by which the end of Islam, which is the rule of Islamic law over the whole earth, is to be achieved. At that point we left the statement aside. Then this past week, in light of new insights and discoveries, namely that even a prominent opponent of jihad like Ayaan Hirsi Ali has no “problem” with the spread of sharia if it is pursued by democratic and respectful means, I went back to the draft and expanded it further. I’s possible that the resulting version is too long and detailed for its purpose, and perhaps the earlier, simpler version that focused only on jihad would be better. I am posting the latest draft now to invite criticisms and ideas.


Whereas treacherous war has been waged, is being waged, and will continue to be waged against the United States by an organized faction of the Islamic religion;

Whereas this war is being waged in obedience to a doctrine, jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic, and central feature of the laws and traditions of the Islamic religion;

Whereas Islamic law, sharia, divides the world into the Realm of Islam and the Realm of War, meaning that all non-Islamic states including the United States, simply by virtue of being non-Islamic, are at war with Islam, the only true faith, requiring Muslims to wage jihad on the Realm of War until all non-Islamic states including the United States have been brought under the political power of Islam;

Whereas the unchanging and ultimate aim of jihad is the imposition of sharia, the Islamic system of law, on all states and nations, including the United States;

Whereas the imposition of sharia on non-Islamic states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Islamic political influence and power;

Whereas sharia commands the extinction of self-government and of all the liberties and privileges existing under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the several states;

Whereas even the milder and more limited aspects of sharia, namely sharia family law as distinct from sharia criminal law, embodying such doctrines as polygamy and the sanctified inferiority of women, are totally incompatible with the customs, institutions, and liberties of the United States and with the traditions of the Western and Christian world as a whole;

Whereas jihad and sharia are inextricably linked, with sharia formulating and commanding jihad, and jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting sharia;

Whereas the doctrine of jihad requires Islamic citizens of non-Islamic states, including the United States, actively to engage in, or passively to support, sedition against those states;

Whereas adherence to this doctrine is not exclusive to those individuals immediately prepared to carry out acts of war against the United States, but embraces a wider circle of sympathizers and abettors, constituting a large part of the Islamic community;

Whereas in any conflict between a non-Islamic state and jihadists, the great majority of Muslims are in solidarity with the jihadists;

Whereas numerous so-called “moderate” Muslims, including the head of Britain’s most prominent “moderate” Muslim organization, have said that any attempt by Western governments to identify and suppress the jihadist elements of Islam is a deep insult to the “moderate” Muslims and will turn them into terrorists or terror supporters;

Whereas Islam is unique in being both a religion for its own followers and a political movement divinely commanded to seek global political power over all non-Muslims and to eliminate all non-Islamic states;

Whereas Islam’s unique status both as a religion and as a global political movement seeking power over non-Muslims through the imposition of sharia implies the following about the different types of “moderate” Muslims:

  • Muslims who refrain from speech and action for sharia but believe in sharia:

    Even if Muslims do not engage in explicit behaviors or speech to advance sharia and jihad, their silent belief in sharia or jihad means that they are on the side of those seeking sharia, whether through violent or non-violent means. As long as Muslims believe in Islamic law and believe that all Muslims—or all Muslims and all non-Muslims—should live under Islamic law, either they must support the spread and imposition of sharia, or, at best, they have no grounds on which to oppose the imposition of sharia.

  • Muslims who believe in sharia for Muslims, but not for non-Muslims:

    Many Muslims who believe in Islam as a religion but not as a political movement to impose sharia on non-Muslims nevertheless believe in the imposition of sharia on Muslims. Therefore, whenever Muslims dwell in a non-Islamic society, they will inevitably seek to bring themselves under sharia to the extent possible, demanding that the host society formally recognize at least some aspects of sharia. As the numbers and power of Muslims increases, the range of sharia regulations demanded by the Muslims, and the range of the society that must come under those regulations, will keep increasing.

  • Muslims who don’t believe in sharia at all:

    Even the Muslims who believe in Islam solely as a private religion and do not believe in sharia either for Muslims or for non-Muslims are, though notably less dangerous than other Muslims, nevertheless members of the global Muslim community or umma and thus, as Muslims, will tend to feel solidarity with their fellow Muslims who believe in jihad and sharia, especially when the latter come into conflict with non-Muslims.

  • Muslims who oppose jihad and do not support sharia but nevertheless support the right of Muslims to campaign peacefully for sharia

    By supporting the right of Muslims peacefully to spread sharia, such non-jihadist Muslims are in effect on the side of the spread of sharia.

The above considerations make it clear that it is not practically possible to distinguish “radical,” dangerous sharia-supporting Muslims from “moderate,” non-dangerous sharia-supporting Muslims. To a lesser degree, it is not possible to distinguish non-sharia supporting Muslims from sharia-supporting Muslims. The spread and imposition of sharia is a function of Islam as such, and any increase in the number of Muslims in a society helps advance sharia.

Furthermore, it is essential to understand that what makes both “radical” and “moderate” Muslims dangerous to non-Muslim societies is not that the Muslims are morally bad people, but that they are Muslims. As Muslims, they are required by their god and their religion to do and believe certain things. As long as they remain Muslims, the things Islam commands them to do and believe are sacred to them. In waging jihad and instituting sharia, they are not being bad people, they are being good Muslims. Thus the question of the moral goodness or badness, the kindness or the meanness, of individual Muslims is utterly irrelevant from the point of view of the threat Islam poses to non-Muslim societies. The issue is not the moral character of individual Muslim persons, but the unchanging and unchangeable character of Islam itself. Therefore in excluding Muslims, we are not discriminating or passing judgment against them as human beings, we are protecting ourselves from the religion to which they, as Muslims, are inextricably linked.

It follows from the above that the purpose of these measures is not to promote hostility against Muslim persons or to spark civilizational warfare between the West and Islam, but to reduce and to end the current increasing civilizational warfare by permanently separating Muslims from the West. We respect the right of Muslims to follow in peace their religion in their lands. But in order for us Americans to continue to have the right to follow in peace our respective religions, to live according to our culture and way of life, to enjoy our liberties, and to preserve our nation, the followers of sharia need to leave our country and return to the historic lands of Islam.


That the doctrines of sharia and jihad being totally incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the several states, and with our most fundamental customs, institutions, and liberties, the advocacy and promotion of these doctrines is deemed not to be protected speech or a protected exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the Constitution;

That advocacy of the Islamic doctrines of jihad and sharia is tantamount to sedition and ought to be expressly proscribed in law;

That any person who espouses, promotes, formulates, or apologizes for these doctrines is committing sedition against the United States and against the state wherein he resides;

That adherence to the doctrines of jihad and sharia, even in the absence of open advocacy of same, is incompatible with adherence to the Constitution, laws, liberty, and sovereignty of the United States;

That with the exception of immediate family members, diplomatic personnel, and temporary visitors for business and other prescribed legitimate purposes, all immigration into the United States of persons known or determined to be followers of the Islamic religion, whatever the person’s nationality or country of residence, shall cease;

That with the exception of diplomatic personnel and temporary visitors for business and other prescribed legitimate purposes, no person who advocates or adheres to the doctrines of jihad and sharia shall be permitted to enter the United States as a temporary visitor;

That any legal resident alien who advocates, or who adheres to, or who on investigation can be reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;

That any legal resident alien who espouses, or promotes the right of Muslims peacefully to espouse, the institutionalization of sharia in the United States shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;

That any naturalized citizen who advocates, or who adheres to, or who on investigation can be reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be deprived of his citizenship and removed from the United States;

That any natural born citizen of the United States, descended of Muslims born abroad, who espouses, promotes, formulates, or apologizes for the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall lose his citizenship and be removed from the United States.

That any mosque, Islamic center, or Islamic school in the United States that promotes, or disseminates any literature promoting, or hosts sermons or classes promoting, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be closed.

That the United States shall encourage the voluntary departure of Muslim legal immigrants and their descendants by offering them $______ in a one-time fee to return to their native land and never to seek to return. The federal government will assure that departing Muslims will receive a fair market price for their real property, investments, and other property that they must sell prior to leaving the United States. To facilitate the acceptance by the respective Muslim governments of their returning emigrants and ancestral sons and daughters, the United States may also consider paying those governments a one-time fee for each person who relocates from the U.S. back to his respective native or ancestral land.

—end of initial entry—

Mark J. writes:

Wow! I love it! Very clear, very precise, with the proposed solution clearly spelled out. No one can say that you haven’t suggested a plan.

I was stirred by this statement. Clarity of thought does that to a person.

I read it carefully and did not come up with any other suggestions.

I don’t think it’s too wordy. I think it’s extremely valuable in that it spells out clearly the nature of the threat and makes specific policy suggestions. No one else has done that—no one!

LA replies:

Thanks to Mark J. Also, what he says about clarity of thought being stirring fits perfectly with a comment by Jim Kalb I just posted in another entry:

“Men rely on overall conceptual structure to give point to what they do. Tell them there is no such thing, and drive the point home constantly, and they become aimless and depressed or mindlessly aggressive.”

Now, if we put together Mark’s sense of being invigorated by conceptual clarity on the Islam issue, with Mr. Kalb’s observation of how the denial of any conceptual structure is demoralizing, we arrive at the result that I have so often pointed to in my criticisms of the Islam critics who fail to follow through on their own argument. By constantly telling their conservative readers that Islam is a mortal danger to our society, and by simultaneously refusing to say anything negative about the continuing mass immigration of Muslims into this country, they inchoately give their readers the message that the complete absence of conceptual clarity on this issue is NORMAL. To paraphrase Mr. Kalb: Tell conservatives there is no such thing as conceptual clarity on the Islam problem, and drive the point home constantly, and they become aimless and depressed or mindlessly aggressive.

We don’t have to look far in the conservative blogosphere to find examples of both the aimless and depressed reaction and the mindlessly aggressive reaction.

Maureen C. writes:

The manifesto needs an appendix that cites the disgusting bits of the Koran which support Allah’s command to kill unbelievers and enslave women and other peoples—and lie when convenient. A relevant sampling of Hadith and Sharia Family Law (say, from Egypt) should be cited in the appendix as well; otherwise, softheaded thinkers will dismiss the statements in the manifesto as unsubstantiated allegations.

Reader EK suggests two further “Whereas” clauses:
Whereas Islam is by sharia law and by historical experience intolerant of non-Muslims, non-Muslims are not required to be tolerant of the intolerant.

Whereas the followers of sharia do not employ or otherwise provide sustenance, housing etc to non-Muslims, it is reasonable that non-Muslims treat Muslims the same.

Alexander G. writes:

I highly appreciate your recent document, which not only characterizes the situation re Islam with ultimate accuracy and clarity, but also offers very constructive steps to reverse the suicidal paralysis of the U.S. and the whole Western world. I was waiting for the appearance of such an author and such a declaration for quite a long time.

Why don’t you contact Dr. Michael Savage, the talk show host, whose position is very close to yours and mine? I hear what people speak to him. There are millions of conservative Americans out there who would like to establish a powerful organization based on patriotic principles like in your draft. (So far I know only few small and weak organizations, like United American Committee UAC, fearing their own shade, mostly “showing the finger in the pocket.”)

I think on the contrary: enough of Newspeak and doubletalk. We need the ultimate mathematical clarity and straightforwardness, like that achieved in your Declaration.

May G-d bless you and G-d bless America.

Bob H. writes:

Regarding your Muslim Manifesto, I like the content, but definitely do NOT like the style. The numbing repetition of WHEREAS is unnecessary and distracts from the content. A manifesto should be written in stirring language, not like a contract or a peace treaty. May I suggest that you rewrite it? It could be much shorter and more forceful.

LA replies:

Good idea on the style. However, I don’t know how much shorter it could be and still have the same content. Certainly it could be simplified and shortened somewhat.
Mark J. writes:

I respectfully disagree with Bob H. I think the “whereas’s” give the manifesto the feeling of a serious, foundational document. He dislikes the repetition; well, read the Declaration of Independence. It is made up mostly of paragraphs starting with “He has” and “For” the list of ignominies committed by the King of England. That is the historic, formal style of a declaration, and that is what this is.

I found the “whereas’s” part of what made it stirring.

Another thought: why not add a prologue just like the Declaration of Independence? Something that makes the case for such a manifesto—THEN go into the “whereas’s” to detail the facts. That might add the “stirring” element that Bob H. feels is lacking. Everyone remembers the first couple sentences of the Declaration of Independence.

Charles T. writes:

I believe the draft proposal is an excellent starting point. This document addresses the pertinent problem; namely, Islam.

Several months ago I wrote President Bush and my congressman. I pointed out that since Islam is the problem, we should (1) stop Islamic immigration to this country now, and (2) make it known that the U.S. will not accept Sharia law in any fashion in this country. I have yet to receive a reply. Of course, due to the politically correct environment in Washington, I do not expect one. President Bush will not touch this.

Our national policy leaders do not have a clue about who or what they are fighting. Clueless, is in fact, a complement. Incompetent would be more to the point.

Our national leaders need to be considering proposals like this one.

LA replies:

Unfortunately the problem is deeper than cluelessness or incompetence. The problem is liberalism, and its quasi-religious commitment (as strong as the Muslim’s commitment to the Koran) to the idea there are no human differences that matter.
Irv P. writes:

On 9/11/01, without being well read or knowledgeable about the history of Islam, sharia, jihad and the like, I knew instinctively (survival) that “they” had to go. But, I asked myself, how could we determine who was loyal and who was not? Those were the exact words that kept reverberating in my head. By noon that day I was struggling mentally with this clear revelation that would by necessity “change the character and essence ” of our country. How could we be the beacon of freedom and deny a religion their rights?

Your document addresses this fundamental issue and the education I have received on your web site, have made me see that the premises under which I was influenced, as I thought deeply about the crisis we had been thrown into, were fundamentally flawed, brought on by a lifetime of exposure to liberalism. Am I so different from the average person who loves his nation? Probably not; but “the people” have to be awakened by knowledge of just what we are up against.

You MUST keep up the fight. I hereby enlist as a soldier in the “army” that is willing to be activist in securing our nation for future generations.

LA replies:

Thank you for seeing this. This is key. As long as our conceptual framework is a world consisting of a bunch of “religions,” all of which are basically the same in that they are essentially private and have no impact on common public life, we will automatically and as a sacred American obligation extend our total approval and tolerance to a “religion,” Islam, which in reality is not just a religion but an imperial creed that is aimed at achieving tyrannical power over us and that will use the protections that we are granting it in order to enslave us.

In this connection, Robert Spencer in his recent criticism of my restatement of my Islam proposals (prior to this current Draft statement) made an interesting argument (unfortuntely he mixed his substantive arguments with gratuitous out-of-context quotations of year-old e-mails that I sent to him in reply to his repeated attacks on me and my honesty), which I explain here). He said that America in dealing with dangerous ideologies in the past such as Communism, has never banned a belief, but only specific actions; and therefore we could not deport Muslims or deny their Constitutional protections solely on the basis of their beliefs as distinct from their actions. However, this argument fails to grapple with the unique nature of Islam. Communism is (was) a political ideology; if a person merely believed in Communism, but did not do specific seditious acts connected with Communism, it could be said that he did not pose a danger and could be left alone. But Islam is unique in being BOTH a political ideology AND a religion with a billion followers that encompasses every aspect of personal and social life. So even if a Muslim does not engage in specific dangerous or seditious behaviors, his identity and commitment as a Muslim still makes him obligated to take the side of his fellow Muslims against infidels, and to believe in and support the replacement of American law by Islamic law; further, his very presence in our country as a member of the Islamic community strengthens the force of both the Islamic community and of the Islamic political movement.

So in the case of Islam, it makes sense that pro-sharia and pro-jihad belief as well as specific pro-sharia and pro-jihad actions must be targeted. However, even here, my draft statement makes distinctions between different types of persons. It makes belief in sharia a factor justifying loss of U.S. residency in the case of resident aliens and naturalized citizens. In the case of natural born citizens descended from Mideastern Muslims, my draft statement posits a higher standard and says there must be actual pro-sharia speech or actions to justify loss of citizenship; mere belief in sharia is not enough.

Further, Spencer contradicts himself on the above point. While he rejects my idea of removing people from the U.S. on the basis of their beliefs alone, he himself proposes screening Muslims from U.S. immigration solely on the basis of their stated pro-jihad beliefs or even on a reasonable inference of their pro-jihad beliefs based on their associations and background.

Victoria Nolon of Concerned Citizens for National Security writes:

Your recent article on What is to be done about Islam is outstanding. In particular the paragraphs starting with “Furthermore” and “It follows” were more clearly elucidated than I have ever read before. Kudos.

Jason writes:

This proves we can do something without my more extreme decision to use our vast military might and simply destroy Islam. This is a clear and concise law and will separate the civilized world from the uncivilized world that Islam tends to bring about. It also requires no real violence on our part as civilized people except in response to their actions.

It also gives the American Muslim population an out with honor, at least in their own minds. We will not be throwing them out of the country or round them up. We will be giving them an option to leave. Most of these countries where they will relocate or go home to are Third World. So if you they go to these countries with a few hundred thousand dollars, they can live like kings and queens.

It also gives Islam a final chance to change as so many say it can. Maybe a doctrine like this could bring about a few people who actually want to rewrite the Koran and eliminate Sharia law from the doctrines of Islam. I for one do not think this is possible, but it does leave the door open for it. This will allow those of us who think this is a great idea to say to the detractors that they do have one last chance, and this is it.

I will pass this on to many others if you do not mind. Thank you for the great read as always.

Jim F. writes:

You have covered most of the ground very well; I support this idea.

Two thoughts come to mind that I believe would be necessary to include:

1. I agree with Maureen C.,who says quotes or references from the Koran/Haddith/Fatwas, Etc, would vastly strengthen the case; If you look up jihad in Google, you will find a huge set of references.

2. For some reason, I fail to find references to natural born American citizens who have taken up Islam; One doesn’t have to have ancestry in Islamic nations to join. The most visible person is Mohammed Ali, but Louis Farrakhan and his crowd is more dangerous.

A further comment; Let us suppose that this manifesto is made into law (which has near-zero probability at this time, in my opinion) on a clear night a year from now. What would the economic consequences be? At the moment, we import perhaps 40% or more of our oil from Islamic nations, I believe. Our dependence appears to be growing as well. Then too, Arab and other investors in America amount to billions upon billions of recycled petrodollars. We would have a rather large financial problem if the Islamic nations veered away from supporting us, I believe. Any weaning of us from our oil supply would be quite painful. It is hard to imagine that Islam would take our shunning and deportation without retaliation of some kind using oil and dollars as the levers.

So I believe this question needs to be answered thoroughly, if the manifesto is to be taken at all seriously. Perhaps an Appendix that spells out the answer would do, if there is one that is crisp and convincing; I simply do no have a clue.

LA replies:
Jim F.’s point about the economic consequences raises an interesting problem. A manifesto or declaration by its nature does not deal with the details of policy but with broad positions of right and wrong. For such and such reasons the United Colonies ought to be free of Great Britain . For such and such reasons Muslims should not be welcome in America. But the exclusion and reversal of Muslim immigration that I am outlining obviously has vast political, economic, and military implications that must be dealt with, but that are not appropriate for a manifesto-type statement. So a combination of a manifesto with further back-up documents may be called for, as Jim F. suggests.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 14, 2007 11:57 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):