This question is by no means
rhetorical. The fact is that since 1952 there is a phrase in US federal
law that “Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney
General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United
States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in –
any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage
or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the
United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
any other unlawful activity, or
any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or
overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other
This immigration law, also known as the
McCarren-Walter law, has changed many times (especially in 1965), but this
phrase has remained unchanged until today. For reference, both McCarren and
Walter belonged to the Democrat Party. A Party with such a name still exists,
but it has long been transformed from the far-Right Party of American patriots
to the far-Left and anti-American Party.
As follows from the letter of the law, the
religious preferences of a foreign citizen alone cannot serve as a basis for
refusing entry into the United States. However, what about the category of
foreigners who only hide behind religion in order to participate in “activity a
purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the
Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means”?
Traditionally, the religious
preferences of Americans are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. At the same
time, religion in America, as in other Western countries, again traditionally,
refers to the relationship between God and Man. Is it possible to attribute
Islam to Judeo-Christian beliefs which focus on the relationship between God
As is known, the Judeo-Christian God, the God of
the Bible, is the almighty God-Creator. Moreover, the Muslim god Allah is an
entirely different character. If the God of Jews and Christians plays the role
of a caring and wise father, then Allah is more like the commander of the
garrison guard. In addition, the Quran, according to the testimony of the
illiterate Mohammed, was “whispered” to him not by Allah himself, but by an
angel – Archangel Gabriel. In other words, Islam is not a religion in the sense
that is understood in the Judeo-Christian world.
Formally, Allah also claims to be the Creator,
but his attitude towards his own followers rather resemble the habits of a
drill sergeant. If the Bible is the story of the relationship between God and
Man, the Muslim holy books – the Quran, Sira (life of Muhammad) and Hadith
(traditions of Muhammad) – is the story of the forced spread of Islam by sword,
instructions on the organization of the military camp, field guardhouse, and
military field courts. The Biblical God has outlawed murder and theft, but
Allah authorizes murder and theft from non-Muslims.
Even in related religions –
Judaism and Christianity – the relationship between God and Man differ
significantly. If Judaism permits Jews not only to communicate with God but
also to argue with Him, then Christians are deprived of the pleasure to ask God
tricky questions. However, Christians have an open channel of communication
with God; it has the form of a respectful request.
Supporters of Islam do not even have this. Their communication
with Allah is one-way communication. Muslims are obliged to unconditionally
fulfill the will of Allah, expressed by the clergy, the prophet, or in the
Quran. Muslims are instructed to ask for Allah’s help five times a day and
However, Allah himself believes that the human
race is not worthy to communicate with him directly; communication is done only
with the help of a mediator-prophet (by the way, the institution of the
prophets in Islam is essential, because, by tradition, Allah’s speech has no
beginning or end). All Muslims are obliged to obey the will of Allah, expressed
by the prophet (the word “Islam” in Arabic means “submission” or
“capitulation”). They are not allowed anything else. Thus, these three
monotheistic examples demonstrate the full spectrum of the freedom of human
communication with God – from complete freedom for the Jews to complete lack of
freedom for Muslims.
Initially, Islam was the
organizing force that allowed the robbers of caravans to unite and survive in
the harsh conditions of the dunes of the Middle East. The methods of organizing
and managing the night camps of the gang showed their many-year (one might even
say, centuries-old) efficiency, but did not lead to the development of the
sciences and the arts at a level that could compete with Judeo-Christian
civilization. However, Islam has succeeded in another endeavor, founding a new
type of expansionism
– Islamic imperialism.
Islamic imperialism overstepped the borders of
many countries. Fourteen centuries of continuous conquest led to the fact that
today every fifth inhabitant of the planet is a Muslim. The true task of Islam
is submission and expansion. Note that both Jews and Christians are interested
in the expansion of their ideas, but for them, this was never an end in itself
(let us recall that for them the main thing is the relationship between God and
Man). Judaism, in particular, has a very negative attitude to the institute of missionaries.
The asymmetry of Islam and Judeo-Christianity is
also manifested in the issue of migration. Humanity does not know any examples
of Christians or Jews penetrating en masse into the territory of Muslim
countries, building their churches and synagogues there, and at the same time
getting free accommodation, free food, and free healthcare.
Islam is the only “religion,” the exit of which is
punishable by death.
At first glance, this seems
strange, but it should always be remembered that initially, Islam was the gang
management system. Getting out of a gang means joining a rival gang, so
punishment for that is punishment for betrayal, not just a change of religion.
Why do we call those who meticulously follow the
rules and traditions of the most successful gangster clan from the 7th-century
town of Medina, “religious”? According to tradition, their Allah-feldwebel
appointed Corporal Mohammed as his deputy (an epileptic who had been a mediocre
poet before). Mohammed then managed to keep a gang of robbers in the sands of
Arabia in a state of acceptable discipline for quite a long time.
Most of the followers of Corporal
Mohammed were poorly versed in the “religious” component of their movement, but
they perfectly understood one of its main components – the expansionist one.
Therefore, the term “Muslim religion” must always be quoted. It also applies to
such a term as “peace” when it comes to Islam. The word “peace” is indeed
present in the Quran, but it has no meaning at all as in the Judeo-Christian
world. In Islam, “peace” means a state where, without exception, all people
converted to Islam. Then, from their point of view, “peace” on earth will
Of course, there are numerous examples of
Muslims who were completely assimilated in the Judeo-Christian world. However,
these examples, firstly, are few compared to the global Muslim population.
Secondly, the word “Muslims” must be applied to such people with the proviso –
they, although they come from Muslim countries, are, from the point of view of
Islam, “bad” Muslims, because they did not understand the true task of Islam –
universal and unconditional obedience and global expansion. We all know a short
and succinct word to achieve
this goal – jihad.
Islam without jihad
does not exist, just as there is no jihad without Islam.
Some Muslims living in the West
understand the true and self-evident moral nature of right and wrong, good and
evil, and thus do not become involved in terrorist acts (legal from the Quran
point of view, but illegal from the point of view of Judeo-Christian laws). In
any case, whether a Muslim understands or does not understand the true tasks of
Islam, if he/she does not participate in jihad, then such a Muslim, from the
point of view of Islam, is a “bad” Muslim.
We know of the numerous and artificial attempts
of some representatives of the Judeo-Christian world to divide Islam into two
factions. On the one hand, there are alleged “Islamists,” “extremists,”
“fundamentalists,” or “traditional” Muslims, and on the other – “moderate”
Muslims. Such an approach causes quite fair laughter from the Muslims
themselves. In any event, Sharia-compliant Muslims do not consider the Jews and
Christians “believers.” In the Muslim world, Jews and Christians have been
given the status of “peoples of the Book” (meaning the Bible). They must,
however, either pay a tax for “inferiority,” called jizya (Islam considers this
tax as a ransom to grant a life when conquering), or convert to Islam.
The question is when precisely, and for what reason, did the Jews
or Christians recognize Islam as a religion, if Islam itself does not recognize
the beliefs of the Jews and Christians as a religion?
Judaism was founded around the 12th century BC. Approximately six
centuries after Judaism, Buddhism was founded, and after about six centuries
after Buddhism – Christianity. Islam arose in about the same six centuries
after Christianity. At that same time, history does not know of any significant
example of the recognition of Islam as a religion by Jewish, Buddhist, or
Christian leaders and theologians.
For example, the Jews view Islam as a form of heresy, while
Christian opinions on Islam differ: from heresy and charlatanry to cult
(including the cult of Satan). Islam has been given the status of religion only
by atheists and by Muslims themselves. The commandments of Islam, based on the
strict discipline of the bivouac in the waterless desert, are called Sharia
law. The religious component (in the Judeo-Christian understanding) is
practically absent in Sharia law.
It is a body of law based on
strict unity of command and unquestioning obedience. Adolf Hitler (also a
corporal, by the way) was close to the truth, expressing
his opinion about the totalitarian socialist regime of the
Third Reich: “The Muslim religion would be much more preferable for us than
Christianity.” Therefore, under no circumstances can Sharia law be compatible
with the laws of a federative constitutional republic known as the United
At first glance, the attitude towards women in
Islam looks completely wild and barbaric. However, unlike the popular opinion,
degrading treatment of women is not the primary goal of Sharia. The laws that
regulate the behavior of women in the Islamic world take on a completely
different meaning if we understand that the rigid Sharia laws initially
regulated the behavior of men and women in the marching garrison surrounded by
As we know, the Founding Fathers
of the United States at the end of the 18th century made a very threatening
move against all potential American dictators. They postulated that human
rights were given to the citizens of America by the Judeo-Christian God, and
not by the government. This was in order to prevent any attempts by the
government at any level (federal, state, or local) to infringe or take away
these rights. As a result, the almighty Judeo-Christian God-Creator was
transformed by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution into an
omnipotent American God-politician.
It is this God, the God-politician, the Supreme
author and defender of our unalienable human rights, that is meant when the
motto “In God We Trust” is minted on all US coins. This God-politician has
become an indispensable and influential attribute of American political life
which can neither be pushed aside nor ignored (and this applies to both believers
and atheists, no matter how strange it looks). How should the American
God-politician, God-defender deal with the Muslim Allah-drill-sergeant, who in
the 21st century began to practice, in addition to the traditional, the
informational jihad (for example, with the help of millions of dollars the
Qatar government has bought much
of the Washington establishment)?
In the West, it is often said that
in the Muslim world the religion is not separated from the state. However, to
say so is not only incorrect but also dangerous. The fact is that real Islam is
the state. The separation of state and religion (in the Judeo-Christian sense,
of course) is simply inappropriate here. The concept of a nation-state without
an official religion-ideology is foreign to Islam; Islam is by nature
supranational. Why artificially separate what Muslims themselves do not
America, the most successful modern society for
the last two centuries, clearly proves that a prosperous society is a community
of “bad” guys. Why the “bad”? Because for immigrants in America, for their
survival, it is simply necessary to become “bad” to some extent in terms of
their religion, their nationality, their clan, their parents, their culture.
For example, Muslims in America are forced to abandon certain Quranic
regulations and Sharia law; otherwise, they simply cannot survive. Thus, they
become “bad,” but only from the point of view of their compatriots remaining in
the distant sands.
Christians are forced to interpret the New
Testament in such a way that it does not interfere with business. Most Jews in
America are also “bad.” Disputes between the religious sages of America and
Israel about who among them is a “real Jew” will probably not cease anytime
soon. From this point of view, all American citizens are “bad,” because they
are different, and are forced to adapt to what is commonly called the American
way of life.
A nation of immigrants, America is
forcing every citizen to abandon something of “one’s own” and become a little
“alien” for his clan, but to the same extent become sufficiently “fellow” for
all other Americans. As a result, what is good in people becomes paramount, and
this is the American nation – “bad” and “good” at the same time. Thus, American
Muslims must choose – either they are bad Muslims and good Americans, or they
are good Muslims and bad Americans.
To which of these categories should we include
Tlaib and Ilhan
Omar, who won the elections to the Congress in 2018, although they
openly flaunt their anti-Americanism? To which of these categories should we
take the Democrat Linda Sarsour – one of the leading American
anti-Semites? Which of these categories should we include Valerie
Jarrett and Huma Abedin – Muslim Democrats and Chief Counselors of Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton?
To which category do we refer
Najjar, who back in 2018 was running for Congress from the state of
California, but lost, despite having received the public blessing of Barack
Obama himself? His grandfather is one of the most famous terrorists, Muhammad
Najjar (Abu Yusuf), who organized the killing of Israeli athletes at the 1972
The events of September 11-12,
1683, when the Polish king Jan Sobieski attacked and defeated the army of the
Turkish Sultan near Vienna, marked the peak of the expansion of the Islamic
world. The events of September 11, 2001, marked the peak of the despair of
Muslim civilization and its full awareness that the historical battle was lost.
By some unknown coincidence, Poland continues to lead in the fight against
Islam. The Polish government decided that it would be allowed to build a mosque
in Poland, but only after the first Catholic church was built in Saudi Arabia
(and this is even though the current Pope is Marxist).
According to statistics, more than 80% of
Muslims in the world are Judeophobic and Christophobic. Perhaps this is because
more than half of the living Muslims are the result of inbreeding. Inbreeding
is prevalent among Muslims, and now, after about 60 generations, the
intellectual level of the adherents of Islam is much lower than in the
Judeo-Christian world. Mass marriage to their first cousins led to
irreversible changes in the genetic pool of Muslims. For example, in Pakistan
and Saudi Arabia, the percentage of inbreeding reaches 70%, and in other
countries of the Middle East – about 60%.
American citizens are ready to
listen to any arguments in favor of how immigration from Muslim countries to
the United States has a statistically positive effect on the intellectual level
of Americans. In particular, because of the painful slavery issue in America,
in the twentieth century, the only countries where slavery was allowed were Muslim
countries (for example, in Mauritania it was officially canceled only in 1981).
Why does the Democrat
Party of the USA enthusiastically support Muslim immigration?
Why did Obama’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch once
say that the government would “aggressively pursue” all those who
disrespect Islam? What part of the “opposition to, or the control or overthrow
of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful
means” by the adherents of the Muslim pseudo-religion is still not understood?
[Originally published at New