Separationism, restated

And what about the clean-cut, wholesome appearance of the Bombay killers, so different from that of Muhammad Atta’s inbred-looking crew? It is the clearest demonstration of the eternal power of Islam over its followers. Even Muslims who seem entirely normal and “mainstream” might be terrorists. But we already knew that, didn’t we? Remember the photo of one of the July 2005 London bombers that was taken when he was on boating vacation a couple of weeks before the attack? A smiling, happy-looking, athletic young man. Yet he was a mujahadeen prepared to mass murder non-Muslims and die in the act. Such is the power of the jihadist mandate over the souls of Muslims. It has nothing to do with poverty, grievance, mistreatment, inequality. Their readiness and desire to kill are purely a function of the Koranic commands themselves, efficacious throughout the centuries:

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5)

And fight against all the polytheists, as they all fight against you. (9:36).

Fight against those among the People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not consider the true religion as their religion, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard against evil. (9.123)

O Prophet! wage jihad against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. (9:073)

O True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads. (47.4)

We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust. (3:151)

Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able to gather, to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies. (8:60)

Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world’s life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward. (4.74)

This is the song that the Koran has sung to the souls of Muslims for 1,400 years and sings to them still. This call is for them the most sacred, the most holy, the most beautiful. So it doesn’t matter if they seem assimilated into the modern world—it doesn’t matter if they are clean-cut, well-educated, athletic, and with charming personalities. As long as they are Muslims, their souls are liable to thrill to that song.

And that is why the only way the non-Muslim countries can make themselves safe from jihadism is by excluding Muslims and quarantining them in their own lands. If non-Muslim humanity is to be safe and free, Muslim humanity must be permanently separated from the rest of mankind and be deprived of any means of having any effect on the rest of us. There is no other way.

- end of initial entry -

EK writes:


James Pillman writes:

Great article. Some form of permanent separation from Muslims and the Muslim world is indeed the only way to protect ourselves. Did you see this article, where the only captured terrorist admitted that his instructions were to “target whites, preferably Americans and British”? I’d like to see this angle explored more, the specifically anti-white bias of Islamic terrorism. The Bali bombers code name for their prospective victims was “white meat” and Ayman al-Zawahiri has called for non-whites to rise up against whites in America. This is as much of a one-sided race war as it is a conventional jihad.

Lisa writes:

I totally agree. However, I would add one more thing after your last statement:

“If non-Muslim humanity is to be safe and free, Muslim humanity must be permanently separated from the rest of mankind and be deprived of any means of having any effect on the rest of us.”

The way to deprive them of having any effect on the rest of us it to find another source of energy, so that oil becomes worthless. Think of it. That’s the weapon they use to blackmail other countries. All the money we send them goes to either building madrassas, buying up shares in our media outlets and other corporations, as well as setting up anti-American, anti-semitic “Islamic studies” departments in our universities. This has got to stop.

Taffy writes:

Not that this doesn’t make sense, but it’s not as though we can suddenly begin erecting fences or expelling heretofore law-abiding citizens. That’s what makes it all the more frightening. Remember the British-Muslim doctors?

LA replies:

First, it cannot take place as long as non-discrimination is our ruling ideology. Once we reject the non-discrimination ideology, which in itself would be a radical change, then we could begin to be able to act rationally to defend ourselves.

Second, it’s not a one-shot deal—instantly expelling all Muslims. To put it in those terms is to kill it in people’s minds, just as making the removal of illegal aliens appear to be a matter of instantly deporting them all has the effect of killing the idea of doing anything about illegals, other than legalizing them. It would not involve, at least in the early and medium stages, expelling law-abiding Muslims with no connections to sharia and jihad. I have proposed a range of measures, starting with (1) expelling the most objectionable and most excludible Muslims, (2) placing legal restrictions on the religion of Islam, such as, at a minimum, closing pro-jihad, pro-sharia mosques, and (3) offering to pay Muslims to return permanently to their home countries. These steps would make Muslims feel unwelcome here, leading many of them to start to depart voluntarily, a process helped along by the offer of payment. The minimal, and perhaps the sufficient, goal of the policy is not to have literally zero Muslims in America, but to reverse our present course, so that the presence and power of Islam in America, rather than steadily increasing, as is now the case, is steadily decreasing.

As far as legal measures to restrict Islam are concerned, my own preference, which I recognize goes too far even for many people who support Separationism, is for a constitutional amendment banning the practice of Islam in the United States.

Transatlantic Conservative writes:

I wholeheartedly agree with you on every word of your short article. These Quran suras are all over the place in blogs and conversations. Very many people know of them meanwhile. The difficulty seems to be that a majority of Westerners see Quran suras the same way they see their own book, the Bible: a book of fairy tales, that has nothing to do with their real world. It’s voluntary blindness towards Islam and although every day brings a new Muslim terror attack somewhere in the world, they still WANT to believe Islam to be harmless. Therefore I do not see any change in perception by the Western public until the advent of a REALLY CATASTROPHIC Muslim attack on the US or Western Europe. If the Muslims are smart, they stop their terror attacks and just continue their demographic jihad. In Western Europe it is working already! And it will in the US, with the support of a foolishly permissive Democrat or Republican government. There’s no difference between the two.

How do you plan to arrive at a separation under these circumstances?

Give me the practical side of your thoughts!

LA replies:

You lay out a scenario, in which Muslims consciously cease any behavior on their part that may provoke our reaction against them, and then you ask me for my practical thoughts on how to remove people who are deliberately refraining from doing anything provocative!

In my view, horrific terrorist attacks should not necessary to wake us up, though in reality they probably will be. The steady growth of sharia, the ever greater assertiveness of Muslims in imposing their ways on us, should be enough to make people recognize that Islam is totally incompatible with, and ultimately fatal to, our way of life. The more advanced stage of this process in Europe should be enough to show us where it is tending.

Transatlantic Conservative (who immigrated to the U.S. from Europe some years ago) replies:
In Europe it is evident that (and I was in my homeland in September and listened) the “boiled frog” effect takes place. As long as the VAST majority cares solely about keeping their hedonistic little way of life, Europe is doomed. Besides a huge attack, only a significant economic depression (the real McCoy, with hunger and cold and all!) will save the frog.

Vivek writes:

A fundamental question that we need to address is: are we obliged to be reasonable with those peoples who are determined to be unreasonable with us, and who will exploit our reasonableness only as additional weapons against us?

My meta-reasonable answer is : When a problem is unreasonable, it may merit an unreasonable solution. Therefore, we should not only not rule out, we should actively explore and be prepared to use—and even proactively use—unreasonable methods to solve it.

Separationism is the very least that we need to do, albeit I wonder if that would suffice. So we must be ready for doing even much more, however unreasonable it may appear at the outset.

On a lateral (and only somewhat lighter) note, this is not an unprincipled exception, rather it is a principled exception that we may need to employ to save ourselves (non-Muslims) from Islam.

Joel LeFevre writes:

Here’s something a friend of mine ends his e-mails with:

Since psychologists have proven that children frequently reject the “excesses” of their parents, which includes excessive liberalism, every “moderate” Muslim can be carrying the seed of the next jihadi.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 30, 2008 02:01 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):