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 –
(i) 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,
(ii) any other unlawful activity, or
(iii) 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 unlawful means,
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 and Man?
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 glorify him.
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 reign.
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 States.
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 enemies.
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 separate?
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 Democrats Rashida 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 Democrat Ammar 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 Munich Olympics.
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 Right Network]