Does The Democratic Party Want the Jihad Sympathizer Vote?

August 27, 2008

Ingrid Mattson was invited to speak at the Democratic Convention in Denver. She is president of the Islamic Society of North America, a large organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is waging “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions,” according to the MB’s own words. The ISNA was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case last year.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch lists 17 specific items which show Mattson to be a Jihad sympathizer and an Islamic Supremacist, each backed up by quotes and sources. I consider this post by Spencer to be a must-read article. I’ll just summarize two of his 17 points here:

First, Mattson praises the Jihadist, Maududi: “…. So far, probably the best work of Tafseer [Quranic commentary] in English is by Maulana Abul A’la Maududi.'” Spencer gives several examples of Maududi’s own writing which show Maududi fully supports offensive Jihad warfare and the worldwide imposition of Sharia. Here’s just one of those examples, from Maududi’s Jihad in Islam, page 9:

“Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic ‘Jihad’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.”

Here’s an even fuller expose of Maududi’s writings.

Second, a number of self-identified Muslim reformers and moderates have jointly criticized Mattson and ISNA. Here’s an excerpt from their statement, in which they take exception to the URJ (Union for Reformed Judaism) collaborating with ISNA:

ISNA… has a long history of association with extremist trends in Islam. ISNA has served as a front group for Wahhabism, the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the jihadist ideologies originating in Pakistan with the writings of a certain Mawdudi and the Deoband schools in that country — the latter of which produced the Afghan Taliban, and the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or Muslim Brotherhood.

Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA, revealed the style of radical rhetoric with which the organization is saturated ….

…. [The] noble goal [of furthering interfaith civility and cooperation], to which we as Muslims are called by our revelation and our traditions, cannot be served by flattery toward groups like ISNA, in which radicals are camouflaged as moderates.

…. We fear that heedless acceptance of ISNA as an ally of URJ does harm to both our communities, by legitimizing a radicalism that, regardless of ISNA’s rhetorical claims, is fundamentally hostile to Jews and suppresses the intellectual and social development of Muslims.

Nawab Agha, president, American Muslim Congress
Omran Salman, director, Aafaq Foundation
Kemal Silay, president, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Salim Mansur, Canadian director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Jalal Zuberi, Southern U.S. director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Imaad Malik, fellow, Center for Islamic Pluralism
M. Zuhdi Jasser, president, American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, president, International Quranic Center

So, my question is this: It would not have been difficult to vet Mattson before giving her such a prominent role at the Democratic National Convention. Since this vetting either was not done or did not result in her exclusion, it seems likely that one of the following must be true:

  • The Democratic Party does not know about the Islamic Jihad and Islamic Supremacy.
  • The Democratic Party does not care about the Islamic Jihad and Islamic Supremacy.
  • The Democratic Party wants the votes of Jihad sympathizers.

In fairness, some Republicans have, in the past, been equally clueless about Islamic Jihadists and Islamic Supremacists. However, the biggest gaffe in this election has been committed by the Democrats, at their most prominent event of the election cycle. This is an opportunity for the Republicans to distinguish themselves relative to the Democrats. I’d love nothing better than a little partisan competition to see which major party can best protect the country from those with the viewpoint espoused by Mattson. Ultimately, we need to have both the Republicans and Democrats on board to be successful in defending our way of life against both Jihadists and peaceful Islamic Supremacists.


Who Deserves Our Sympathy: Embarrassed Muslims or Mutilated Muslims?

July 28, 2008

Recently, the president of the UN Human Rights Council placed a ban on religious debates in their council. As a result, a discussion about stoning women, marriages for girls as young as nine, FGM (female genital mutilation) and honor killings was stifled. All of these practices are based on Islamic law and/or are considered Islamic by those Muslims who practice them. So, in the case of Islam, stifling discussion about religion means stifling discussion about human rights violations.

According to a joint statement prepared by the Association for World Education and the International Humanist and Ethical Union for the UN, 96% of Egyptian women’s genitals are mutilated despite the fact the practice of FGM was outlawed in 1997. Yet the Egyptian UN delegate was only concerned about exposing the link between Islam and FGM, not about the plight of mutilated girls and women. It seems he cares more about protecting Muslims from embarrassment than he cares about protecting Muslims from mutilation.

Similarly, the Muslim delegates seemed to be more concerned about embarrassment than about the victims of honor killings, stonings, and child marriages.

If these issues were more broadly discussed, solutions may be found. This shows that stifling free speech which may offend “religious sensibilities” has real victims, in the form of mutilated and/or dead women, and married little girls. Is it more important to protect Muslims from being embarrassed, or to protect the real victims? Remember this question the next time you read about how important it is not to offend Muslims.


Notice What Does NOT Offend Muslims

July 8, 2008

The Amboy Times has posted a growing list of Things That Offend Muslims. Several of the items on this list have been protested quite visibly by many Muslims, in some cases including death threats, violence and even murder.

Thousands upon thousands of Muslims have protested a bunch of cartoons published in Denmark. Muslims worldwide have expressed their outrage, not only through peaceful protests, but also by burning down embassies and murdering innocent people.

More recently, the movie Fitna was produced by Geert Wilders, a Dutch PM. Again, thousands protested.

Now, let’s look at what does NOT offend Muslims….

If worldwide demonstrations, violence, and mayhem shows us what offends Muslims the most, then it is equally revealing to pay attention to the events that do not cause sufficient offense for Muslims to muster any noticeable protest at all:

  • Apostates Tortured, Killed: As we have noted, apostates of Islam may be threatened with death, even in the West. Recently, a Muslim man who converted to Christianity in Iran was arrested, tortured, and may yet be killed. Many other apostates have been killed, beaten, or threatened. Where’s the Muslim outrage over this travesty? Why are there no large, visible groups of Muslims fighting for the right of apostasy?
  • Religious Minorities Persecuted Throughout Muslim Lands: Christians, Jews, Bahais, Hindus, Buddhists and others are persecuted throughout the Muslim world. Why aren’t Muslims more offended by this than they are by a movie?
  • Women Treated as Second Class Citizens: In Pakistan, thousands of women in prison are rape victims. Honor killings, stoning of adulteresses, and FGM (female genital mutilation) plague the Muslim world. Saudi women can get into trouble for driving a car. Why no big demonstrations against this appalling treatment of women? Is this less of an offense than a cartoon?
  • Islam Linked to Militant Jihad by Muslims: Muslims are offended when non-Muslims discuss Islamic Jihad (which was one subject of the movie Fitna). However, there are Muslims who have linked militant Jihad to Islam, in modern times and throughout history, yet these Muslims who promote militant Jihad are never protested in a large way by other Muslims. A press release may be issued, but Muslims are not demonstrating in the streets over this. Why the double standard?
  • Mohammed’s Example Justifies Marital Sex with Nine-Year-Olds: According to a Saudi marriage official, a girl can be married at any age, even one year, so long as the marriage isn’t consummated until she is nine. This is based on authenticated Muslim Hadith (traditions) that Mohammed married Aisha, his favorite wife, when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. How is it possible that Muslims aren’t sufficiently offended by the Saudi’s comment to protest his words?
  • Jews Marked for Death Worldwide: According to Palestinian cleric Wael Al-Zarad on Al-Aqsa TV, the Muslims’ blood vengeance against the Jews “will only subside with their [the Jews] annihilation.” This is not the only recent example of Muslims calling for a new Jewish holocaust. Why are Muslims not offended by these calls to genocide? Why is there no obvious sign of Muslim outrage over this?
  • OIC Moves to Quash Free Expression in the West: The OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) is making bold moves to stifle criticism of Islam through the UN. There is a plethora of other Muslim groups attempting to stifle free speech about Islam in the West. All Muslims who embrace free speech and free press must be terribly embarrassed about this. Where are the demonstrations?
  • Slavery Practiced by Muslims: Recently, UAE royals enslaved 17 women at a luxury hotel in Belgium. Slavery has never been entirely abolished in the Muslim world. Surely this would be enough to generate some Muslim outrage, but I have seen no mass demonstrations against those Muslims who continue this abhorrent practice.

It isn’t that no Muslims are offended by the above list. On the contrary, there are some examples of decent Muslims speaking out against abuses committed by Muslims, often in the name of Islam. To notice the lack of public demonstrations over the above list does not disparage the tremendous efforts of these brave individuals and small groups. However, the Muslim community as a whole does not seem sufficiently disturbed by the items on this list to protest them en masse. Why would some cartoons be more offensive than torturing and killing apostates? Why would a movie be more offensive than declarations of genocide? Where are the Muslims who would demonstrate in the streets for the right of apostasy, true equality for religious minorities in Muslim lands, equality for women, full renunciation of militant Jihad, marriage for adults only, respect for Jews, free expression, and a real abolition of slavery? Hello? Are you out there?


Would It Be Wrong to Reject a Muslim Presidential Candidate?

July 8, 2008

Many people believe Barack Obama is now or once was a Muslim. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not there’s any truth to those rumors, what if a Muslim did run for President? Would it be appropriate to elect a Muslim President of the United States at this moment in history? Various commentators have expressed dismay at the notion that a Muslim could be rejected for the office of President based on his religion. Recently, for example, Colbert King of the Washington Post wrote:

What will they [orators 150 years from now] say about our professed fidelity to religious freedom when they find out that many of the Americans who thank God for their religious liberty are also ready to turn their backs on a candidate if they think he is a Muslim or Mormon?

This clearly implies Mr. King believes that to turn our backs on a Muslim presidential candidate would be religious bigotry.

Let’s interject some common sense here. We have been attacked by Muslim Jihadists, and are in the midst of an ongoing conflict with Islamic Jihad. Even if there was no inherent conflict between certain Islamic doctrines and our Western values, this would not be an appropriate time to elect a Muslim to the Presidency. I have no objection to electing a Japanese-American as President at this time, but it would not have been appropriate to do so in the context of WWII. This is not bigotry, but simply acknowledgment of a basic principle: when an individual is a member of two groups, and there is a conflict between those groups, we cannot be completely certain where his loyalties lie. Maybe we can be certain enough to be the individual’s friend, but not certain enough to elect the individual President. The stakes are just too high.

In addition, a significant number of Muslims believe that Islam ultimately requires the removal of non-Muslims from power and implementation of Sharia law worldwide. There is considerable evidence that this agenda is being advanced by stealth. Sharia is in conflict with our Constitution, violating such principles as freedom of speech and press, freedom of religion, equality under the law, and more. This conflict would need to be decisively resolved, such that Sharia would no longer be considered a valid source of law by mainstream Muslims, before it could be appropriate to elect a Muslim as President of this country.

Is Obama, in fact, a Muslim?

From the evidence I’ve seen, I think it’s virtually certain he was raised as a Muslim, at least for a period of time. Taking into account his Muslim background, there is also a small chance he remains a closet Muslim, as we can’t read his mind to find out what he really believes in his heart. For a Muslim to deceive non-Muslims (taqiyya) in certain circumstances gets the green light by Sharia law. For example, according to Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali as quoted in Reliance of the Traveller, a classic book of Islamic law, lying is permissible to reach a permissible goal that cannot be reached by telling the truth. If, for example, a Muslim believed that he would have to lie about his faith in order to be elected President, lying in this context would be permissible according to Ghazali.

Of course, just because lying can be justified in Islam does not mean that Obama is a closet Muslim. Not all Muslims practice taqiyya, and non-Muslims can also be dishonest. However, since it appears Obama has been dishonest about his Muslim upbringing, is it wise to trust his honesty regarding his current religious beliefs? And, given that there’s probably a small chance Obama is a closet Muslim, would it be responsible for us to risk it? That’s a judgment call each of us can make, but it certainly is a legitimate consideration that has nothing to do with bigotry, and everything to do with national security.


Ground Rules for the Religious Pluralism Club

June 26, 2008

On a regular basis of late, Muslim spokespeople have called for “interfaith dialog”. They evidently want Islam to be viewed as a mainstream religion in a pluralistic world. This fits with a general desire for Islam to be respected by non-Muslims. It’s true that mutual respect is a desirable thing; however, for this to happen, I think it’s important for religious leaders to establish ground rules. Every community needs ground rules so that members can get along with each other, and a pluralistic community of religions is no exception. Here are five simple rules I would propose, based on fairness, which I believe are reasonable prerequisites for joining the club of religious pluralism:

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #1: Anyone Can Leave Any Religion

Oops, it appears that Islam is starting off on the wrong foot by breaking one of the very most important ground rules for fairness amongst religions. According to Sharia, the punishment for leaving Islam is death for men, and either death or life in prison for women (depending on the school of Sharia). Although few Muslim countries today enforce this punishment, vigilante enforcement is such that apostates from Islam fear for their lives, even in the United states. As long as this is the case, Islam is a religion that people can enter but cannot leave without risk. Why should other religions accept Islam when Islam traps its believers, including converts from other faiths, like flies on flypaper?

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #2: Anyone Can Promote Their Religious Beliefs to Anyone Else

Unfortunately, things don’t get any better for Islam here. It naturally follows that if Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam, non-Muslims are not allowed to do anything which might persuade Muslims to leave Islam. Christian missionaries throughout the Muslim world face persecution. In “moderate” Turkey, missionaries are sometimes arrested or deported, even though missionary activity is ostensibly legal. Niyazi Guney, Turkish Ministry of Justice director general of laws, has commented that “Missionaries are more dangerous than terror organizations.” Even in the West, police have been known to support Sharia rules banning non-Muslims from proselytizing Muslims though there is no legal basis for it. For example, in Britain, a constable told two preachers they couldn’t preach in a Muslim area. In the US, a Christian preacher at UC Irvine was assaulted by Muslim students, while campus police did nothing.

Even simple religious expression that falls far short of missionary work is banned for non-Muslims under Sharia. Displaying religious symbols and building new places of worship, for example, are forbidden for non-Muslims.

Meanwhile, under Sharia, Muslims are free to promote their faith to non-Muslims all they want, as well as building mosques and displaying Muslim religious symbols, which clearly violates the fairness principle.

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #3: Anyone Can Criticize Any Religion

Hmmm…. Islam just gets further in the hole with this one. As noted by Robert Spencer in this must-read article, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is making a concerted effort, and a successful one, toward shutting down all criticism of Islam. Add to this the efforts of organizations such as CAIR, the MSA, and the MSU, to name a few, and it’s easy to spot a trend.

I would also note that mainstream, traditional interpretations of the Quran are severely critical of non-Islamic faiths, including polytheism, Christianity, and Judaism. In addition, any religion with a prophet after Mohammed is widely regarded by Muslims as blasphemous, based on mainstream interpretations of Quran 33:40. How can it be wrong for Islam to be criticized, when Islam’s holy book defames non-Islamic religions? So long as Islam keeps the Quran (and traditional interpretations thereof), fairness dictates that criticism of Islam must be allowed.

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #4: Religions May Not Impose Their Rules by Force of Theocracy

In the past, Christianity was a misbehaver on this one, but this is the twenty first century. No major religion today other than Islam has a political agenda to rule the world. The rules of Sharia are incompatible with the US Constitution and basic norms of individual rights and freedoms in the West. Sharia includes laws which explicitly discriminate against other religions, such as valuing the legal testimony of a non-Muslims as half that of a Muslim. The barbaric punishments prescribed for certain crimes also comes off as unfriendly. Is it any wonder, then, that representatives of Islam have trouble gaining respect from non-Muslims?

Religious Pluralism Ground Rule #5: Religions May Not Support Holy War

Yes, it seems people get really annoyed when they or their loved ones are killed for being infidels. That’s just not a good way to get along with others–it makes people testy. Of course, the majority of Muslims have no interest in participating in Jihad warfare. However, Jihad warfare remains, to this day, very much a part of Islamic theology. Where are the mainstream Muslim organizations who denounce Jihad warfare under any circumstances and refute the theological justification for Jihad warfare on Islamic grounds? There do not appear to be any at all. Support for Jihad warfare amongst everyday Muslims remains uncomfortably high, as well.

Conclusions

Only Islam violates all five of these rules for respectful relations with others. Although there are individual Muslims who do want to follow these ground rules, they are not the ones who are “driving the bus” of Islam. Those who call for religious dialog can start by challenging the Muslim world to follow the same general ground rules that other religions today generally follow.


Do Blasphemy Laws Really Protect the Best Interests of Muslims?

June 8, 2008

We have witnessed a series of Muslim outrages over Westerners’ remarks or art about Islam. To name a few, there’s the movie Submission, the Danish Mohammed cartoons, the Pope’s quotation of Pope Benedict XVI, and recently, the movie Fitna. These outrages are always followed by (or even, as in the case of Fitna, preceded by) calls for self-censorship and/or hate speech laws.

Self-censorship, typically called ”showing respect for religion” or “responsible free speech”, in this case basically comes down to a voluntary internalization of Islamic blasphemy laws. Who decides what kind of speech regarding Islam is “respectful” or “responsible”? Why, that would be Muslims.

Hate speech legislation, or laws against “defamation of religion”, basically comes down to a government’s official adoption of Islamic blasphemy laws. Who decides what speech regarding Islam is “hateful” or “defamatory”? Why, that would again be Muslims.

It’s difficult to imagine how anyone could think Muslims should determine what non-Muslims can and can’t say about Islam, any more than Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, or any other group of people should decide what non-members can and can’t say about their ideology. This notion is indefensible on its face, and to even consider going down that road is to take the fist step toward a theocracy.

Muslims don’t get the notion of what constitutes an outrage out of thin air, but from centuries-long traditions of dhimmi laws, subjugating non-Muslims under Islamic rule. Just one small part of this subjugation is controlling non-Muslims’ speech. Andrew Bostom notes, following Muslims’ outrage over the Pope quoting Pope Benedict XVI:

The ultimate source of the convulsive reaction to the Pope’s speech is the Islamic belief that spiritually and physically debauched infidels have no right to express opinions—least of all negative opinions—regarding Islam’s sacred text, the Koran, the Muslim prophet, Muhammad (Ecce Homo Arabicus), or the sacred Islamic Law (Shari’a), which includes the permanent institution of jihad war.

Such deep-seated intolerance has always predominated under Muslim rule….

Blasphemy laws and their first cousins, heresy laws, are currently used to persecute religious minorities including Christians, Hindus, and Bahais. Accusations of blasphemy can also provide cover for the murder of non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

Many observers have commented about the dangers to non-Muslims of restricting our speech concerning Islam in the West.

Islamic Blasphemy Laws Are Bad for Non-Muslims. But Are They Good for Muslims?

It may seem as though blasphemy laws are bad for non-Muslims, but good for Muslims. However, the question is: Which Muslims? Unorthodox Muslims are among the primary victims of blasphemy laws. For example, in Muslim countries, the peaceful Ahmadiyya sect is typically deemed heretical and is stifled, even in a “moderate” country like Indonesia. Other “heretical’ sects are persecuted elsewhere in the Muslim world, such as the Alevis in “secular” Turkey. Then there are the well-known conflicts between the Sunnis and Shias, much of which is kept alive through charges of blasphemy. Pretty much any Muslim sect can be considered heretical by other Muslim sects.

In addition to heretical sects, individual Muslims are punished for blasphemy. Arifur Rahman, a 20-year-old cartoonist in Bangladesh, was recently sentenced to six months amid public demonstrations calling for his death. He wrote a cartoon making fun of a local custom involving the name “Mohammed”. Parwiz Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old Afghan student journalist, has faced the death penalty for downloading and distributing articles that were said to question some tenets of Islam. (So far as I know, he is still in prison pending final appeals.) Street thugs sometimes mete out punishment vigilante-style: Naguib Mahfouz, an Egyptian novelist, was stabbed in the neck by a Muslim who was angry at his portrayal of God. Jawaad Faizi, a Pakistani journalist in Canada, was beaten for criticizing an Islamic organization. Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Taha was kidnapped and killed in Sudan for publishing an article which he personally disagreed with, questioning the ancestral lineage of Mohammed. These are just a few examples.

Muslims who choose to leave their religion, even in the West, had better keep quiet about their thoughts on Islam. Just ask Salman Rushdie.

Muslim and ex-Muslim reformers are often hurt by blasphemy laws and Muslim vigilanteism. Rashad Khalifa in Tucson, Arizona, founder of the “Submitters” sect, was declared to be an apostate due to his blasphemous ideas and assassinated. Farzana Hassan Shahid, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress who receives death threats from other Muslims for her views, explained: “There is an underlying fear all the time…that uneasy feeling is part of my daily life. I have been declared an apostate twice, for opposing the Sharia [Islamic law]….” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the well-known Somali ex-Muslim, wrote “…the reformists are shunned by their families and communities and live under the constant fear of assassination.”

Of course, blasphemy laws and fear of vigilante punishment also cause immeasurable harm to all the unorthodox Muslims we don’t know about because they dare not speak or publish their views freely.

Islamic blasphemy rules for non-Muslims are somewhat different from those for Muslims, because non-Muslims endure the added element of dhimmi subjugation, as noted above. Certain things could be considered blasphemous for non-Muslims to say, but not for Muslims to say. Nevertheless, all Islamic blasphemy laws share a common assumption: the Islamic orthodoxy gets to regulate what people can and can’t say about Islam. Any time the West gives any credence to this assumption, we strengthen and legitimize it.

So even if, in a fit of madness, we non-Muslims cared nothing about our own interests and only about the interests of Muslims, we would still need to decide which Muslims’ interests would be important to uphold. It would be absurd to throw the peaceful Ahmadis and reformers under the bus, to “respect” the religious thought police who would persecute them. Given the harm caused to unorthodox Muslims by blasphemy laws, we should think twice before adopting them ourselves. We may not be able to do a lot for the Ahmadiyya sect in Asia or for young cartoonists like Rahman, but at least we can set a good example by protecting freedom of expression in the West. If we do not protect it here, freedom of expression may well disappear from the world.


How Can We Screen Out Jihadist Immigrants if Muslims Themselves Can’t Tell the Difference?

May 26, 2008

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, some immigrants to the US from Muslim countries are frustrated that their citizenship applications are taking so long. Some are even suing the federal government. They believe their civil rights are being violated if it takes longer for them to gain citizenship than it does for an immigrant from a non-Muslim country. The immigration authorities take longer with Muslim applicants so that a thorough background check can be performed.

It is common sense that for would-be immigrants, US citizenship is not a right but a privilege. Immigration, within certain limits, is good for this country. However, it does not make sense to bring in immigrants from demographic groups that have a higher risk for committing acts of terrorism, or crimes of mass destruction, unless there is a reliable way to distinguish between those who are potentially violent and those who are not. Screening out potential Islamic terrorists protects all people in this country, both Muslim and non-Muslim. A background check is the least we can do; but is it enough?

Is There a Reliable Way to Screen Out Potential Jihad Terrorists?

Robert Spencer and others have stated many times that there is no reliable way for immigration authorities to tell the difference between potential Jihadists and those who will never participate in Jihad. They are correct, and here’s more evidence:

Even Muslims Can’t Tell the Difference!

It would be reasonable to assume that Muslims, being intimately familiar with the various strains of Islam, could spot a potential Jihadist more easily than a non-Muslim, especially if they are close friends or family members. However, this does not seem to be the case in every situation.

Nail Bomber’s Muslim Friend “Stunned”: Nick Reilly, aka Mohammed Rasheed, a British convert to Islam, was recently arrested for attempting to detonate a nail bomb in a restaurant. Omar Siddiqui, Reilly’s friend and president of the Islamic Society at the local university said, “I believe the Islamic community will be stunned by what he is alleged to have done because he always seemed so calm and nice.” According to neighbors, Reilly had a screen saver of the twin towers coming down on 9/11.

Accused July 21 Bomb Suspect’s Sister “Surprised” He Had Jihad Book: When Adel Yahya was being prosecuted for his alleged involvement in the July 21 bomb plot in Britain, his sister Lina evidently knew nothing about a Jihad book he had in their home. Lina said, “This is a surprise. He’s never really had these sort of views.” (Adel’s jury failed to reach a verdict, after which he pled guilty to a lesser charge.)

SUV Jihadist’s Sister “Shocked”: Mohammed Taheri-Azar drove an SUV into a crowd of people on the UNC campus to “avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.” His sister, Laila, describes her brother as “a kind, gentle and pure soul.” She says his actions are “as much a source of shock and distress to us as they are to you.” This is despite the fact that he admitted plotting the act for two years.

July 7 Bomber’s Wife “Had No Idea of His Plans”: Germaine Lindsay, aka Jamal Lindsay, was one of the bombers in the attacks on London’s public transport system on July 7, 2005. His own wife, Samantha Lewthwaite, a British convert to Islam who was pregnant at the time of the bombing, said, “He was a good and loving husband and a brilliant father, who showed absolutely no sign of doing this atrocious crime.”

So, since it’s apparent that Muslims who are close to the Jihadists can’t predict what they will do, how does anyone expect the immigration officials to do so?

By now, you may be saying, “Wait a minute. These people may have known more than they’re admitting.” This is true, but it doesn’t matter. If the Jihadists’ closest friends and family members could not tell they were Jihadists, that’s a good reason to stem the flow of Muslim immigration. If the Jihadists operate in a community that conceals their activities from the authorities, that’s a good reason to stem the flow of Muslim immigration.

Some Jihad plots are foiled due to Muslim informants, and they deserve credit for helping keep us safe. But not every plot is foiled by informants, and it only takes one successful plot to do a whole lot of damage.

How Do We Screen Out Peaceful Islamic Supremacists?

In addition, since our Constitution is not compatible with Sharia law, we should also be attempting to screen out Muslims who believe Sharia should one day be the law of the entire world. Our system of representative government with individual rights cannot be maintained if a significant portion of the population is hostile to our basic system, whether or not they are potentially violent. Since no one seems to be able to tell with certainty who is a Jihadist, how is anyone to tell whether someone is an Islamic Supremacist?

How Do We Screen Out Those Whose Children Will Be Islamic Supremacists?

In addition to the risks of terrorist immigrants and peaceful Islamic Supremacists immigrants, there’s also the risk of homegrown terrorists and peaceful Islamic Supremacists. More than once, moderate Muslim parents in the West have been appalled to find their children becoming more radical than the parents are. We already have this risk with the population we currently have. However, the larger our Muslim population, the more this risk grows.

I believe it would be good policy to drastically reduce or stop immigration from Muslim majority countries, as well as Muslims from Europe and elsewhere, until this threat has been dealt with successfully. If we allow any immigration at all from Muslim countries, we should give preference to peaceful religious minorities, apostates and heretics from those countries. This is not because all Muslims are Islamic Supremacists, nor will their children all be such. It’s because we have no way of knowing which are which.

Note that this policy protects not only non-Muslims, but also those Muslims already living here who value our way of life and don’t want to change it. Those are the Muslims we should be concerned about, not the ones who want to replace the Constitution with Sharia.