It’s Not Islamophobia To Recognize that Sharia is Incompatible with the Constitution

Political Islam is a lot like Communism. Except that it's worse.

By John Zmirak Published on December 13, 2016

The Washington Post is trying to pathologize as “Islamophobia” normal, human responses to the worldwide explosion of Islamic supremacism and jihad violence, including recent savage terrorist attacks in America by Muslims our government foolishly welcomed. In a recent column, William McCants tries to cast Donald Trump, Stephen Bannon, Newt Gingrich, Frank Gaffney, and anyone who agrees with them about the danger of Islamist radicalism as tinfoil-hat-wearing hatemongers or fools. That would have to include the scholars of the Claremont Institute, who issued this erudite warning of the grave threat posed to America by Islamist ideology and organizations — such as the many-tentacled Muslim Brotherhood.

No one knows the rules better than the Post: If you want to crush someone in America, link him somehow to racism, if only by some lame analogy. If you want to silence debate about your reasons for crushing him, suggest that he is frothing with hatred, to the point that his condition is a kind of moral disease. If anyone defends him, accuse that defender of that same disease and suggest that if he won’t throw his friend under the bus he could share his fate. Find out where he works, and look into getting him fired.

That’s how opinion is policed in America, where thanks to our Constitution elites don’t have the option of simply throwing dissenters in jail — as the Dutch establishment has jailed patriotic politician Geert Wilders, simply for opposing further Muslim immigration. That’s right, Wilders was sentenced to prison for making a policy argument. Fear not: Opinion polls suggest that he might be elected Prime Minister, at which point even EU minions would probably feel the need to let him out.

Or maybe not. The scorn which European elitists feel for mere citizens is so overpowering, that the Dutch might just leave Wilders to rot and annul the election — as EU satraps in Britain are trying to overturn the Brexit vote, and some Democrats are attempting to nullify the election of Donald Trump with wild charges of Russian “hacking.”

We can scent here the sniffy contempt that Clinton felt for “Deplorables,” which is shared by the Washington press corps. What’s funny is that this sense of superiority is absolutely groundless, built on wishful thinking and ignorance — in this case about what Islam really teaches and what it demands.

Communism was “pseudo-Islam.” The real thing is worse.

The brilliant economist and social philosopher Wilhelm Röpke — the very first professor fired by the Nazis for his ideas — once summed up Communism as a “pseudo-Islam.” A powerful insight: They are both creeds of conquest and domination. For a few generations, people were willing to lay down their lives for the sake of a future “socialist paradise,” but their fervor quickly faded. If you don’t believe in an afterlife, martyrdom is a pretty hard sell.

Islam, by contrast, from the very beginning offered rewards both in this life and the next one. Muhammad recruited warriors by promising them the three things which young men most crave: plunder, power, and pleasure. Those who followed him and his heirs would have Allah’s blessing in stealing loot from the unbeliever, subjugating him, and taking his wife or daughters as sex slaves. Here’s just one of the relevant verses from the Quran:

Quran (33:50)“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”

As The Religion of Peace explains: “This is one of several personal-sounding verses ‘from Allah’ narrated by Muhammad — in this case allowing a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restricted to four wives, but they may also have sex with any number of slaves, following the example of their prophet.” And of course if jihad warriors died in battle against the unbeliever, they would go straight to paradise and enjoy a harem in heaven.

Islamic sharia law is intrinsically political, oriented toward imposing Islam by force if necessary upon every nation on earth.

Sharia is an ideology, aimed at world domination.

Islamic sharia law is intrinsically political, oriented toward imposing Islam by force if necessary upon every nation on earth, keeping non-Muslims in a servile state, and defending masculine “honor” by savagely policing women’s sexual behavior. In every Muslim-dominated country, sharia does just these things. And every orthodox Muslim must accept sharia — including all its provisions about warring against unbelievers, with the goal of converting, killing, or enslaving every last non-Muslim on earth.

Imagine if rules for burning witches or torturing heretics were mandated in the New Testament, and put into practice in virtually every Christian country on earth, to this very day. Picture evangelicals hounding and killing witches in Alabama, and Pope Francis burning a hundred heretics or so each year in the Vatican. Don’t you think that non-Christian countries would be cautious about admitting Christian immigrants? Not just Christians with actual ties to witch-hunters and inquisitors, but any Christian who wouldn’t clearly renounce such violent practices?

In the center of Sunni Islam, Saudi Arabia, which seeds lands around the world with shiny new mosques and handpicked radical imams, all the most violent practices of primitive Islam are still in effect—from polygamy to blasphemy flogging, from cutting off hands of thieves to executing ex-Muslims for “apostasy.” The Islamic pressure groups funded by Saudi money, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, have close links to sponsors of terrorist groups like Hamas, as a U.S. federal judge concluded in 2009.

Time to Change Our Immigration Laws

Given these facts, it is folly to pretend that sharia is compatible with the American experiment. It is not. We need a change to our immigration laws requiring that every potential immigrant renounce the use of force to compel or restrain religious freedom — with provisions for deporting any newcomer who later expresses support for sharia or anything like it. We can model such a law on the perfectly constitutional, decades-long ban on immigration for members of Communist parties.

None of the recent jihadi attackers, in Florida, California, or Ohio, had any provable connection with terrorist groups. The Boston Marathon bombers grew up here since early childhood. What did each of these terrorists have in common? They were simply orthodox Muslims, steeped in sharia — thus primed by their creed and culture to turn against their non-Muslim neighbors. All it took was some piece of bad news, a personal setback, or the right imam spouting on the right message board, to light the spark. It is not Islamophobic to recognize this fact, and to take measures to protect ourselves and our loved ones from it. It is Islamo-realism.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Miracles in the Making
Susie Larson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us