Thread: Why Won't Anti-Sharia Campaigners Oppose Muslim Immigration?

Opinions expressed are those of the author.

June 04, 2010

Why Won’t Anti-Sharia Campaigners Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Frank Gaffney Oppose Muslim Immigration?

By Brenda Walker

Even otherwise brave and sensible people can be afflicted with the irrational fear of immigration restriction—as I just observed with regret first-hand.

I had the opportunity to ask The Question of two well-known figures who fight against the worsening incursion of Islam and totalitarian sharia law in the West. Both flunked.

It is a no-brainer to exclude potential enemies from the immigrant multitudes when there are plenty of people from cultures friendly to our values. Europe has learned the hard way that more Muslim immigration means jihadist mass murder and social balkanization.

But both Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a former member of the Dutch parliament by way of Somalia) and Frank Gaffney (founder of the Center for Security Policy) rejected the idea of stopping Muslim immigration.

First, here's Ayaan Hirsi Ali on National Public Radio, with audio available at the link, responding to an email from me:

"NEIL CONAN: Here's an email from Brenda in Berkeley: "Don't you think that persons from traditional Muslim societies are not a good cultural fit for the West, particularly America, and should not be admitted as immigrants? Not all diversity is desirable." And she gives us examples of FGM, which by—I assume she means female genital mutilation, and polygamy.

Ms. ALI: You know, I don't—I really don't think that we—by excluding people or by kicking people out of the country, that that is where we should look for solutions. The United States is a highly moral country. Most Americans go out of their way to help people who are underprivileged, whether it's in the United States or outside of the U.S.

And I know there's a lot of criticism on American foreign policy, but I just see this great moral activity, and the only—my message is to share, first and foremost, the values that have made Americans successful and resilient with the newcomers.

And I think it's justified for those people who truly understand what the American Constitution is about and what democracy and liberalism are about and who reject it and who want Sharia to say it's common sense to tell them take illegal U-turn. Go back to where these Sharia. I think that's justified.

But for a lot of people who don't know of these ideas and who are here, I think the first step would be to educate them on these, you know, on freedom and the institutions and Constitution of freedom.

'Nomad' Ayaan Hirsi Ali On Reclaiming Islam, NPR, May 18, 2010

What a bizarre statement from a woman who needs round-the-clock bodyguards against Muslims trying to kill her because she renounced Islam and pledged her allegiance instead to Enlightenment values!

Ali had to leave the Netherlands (Muslim population 6 percent) for the relative safety of the United States. But she still wants more of them here!

Does she really believe that America should perform missionary work to teach Muslims the wisdom of the Constitution? There's no reason Muslims cannot self-educate on that subject at a distance.

Ali may be looking for "solutions" to the cultural clash of more than a millennium—good luck with that!—but my concern is U.S. national security.

Frank Gaffney was not a lot better. I asked a similar question at his April 28 talk, "Sharia Law—A Threat to America?", at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, which was the first one chosen during Q&A. You can listen to an audio file here. Following is my transcription:

“The first question asks, "Should America end Muslim immigration for the duration of Islam's war against the West?"

"GAFFNEY: Well, interesting you ask, isn't it given that this city has just decided to boycott Arizona for trying to implement federal immigration law. Federal immigration law!

“There are those who believe that Muslims should be collectively punished for the sorts of things I've just described. I hope you've taken what I said at the outset and repeated at the end as my personal view which is that I think we should not be encouraging the admission to this country of people who adhere to and are therefore obliged to promote sharia. I think most of you Muslims who have come to this country, at least until the State Department started bringing in large numbers of sharia-adherent Muslims as refugees, most Muslims came to this country trying to get away from sharia. We have different numbers been given, perhaps 2 million, maybe more, most of whom are professionals, most of whom practice their faith, if they do at all, practice it in a peaceable tolerant way that is consistent with, and I think, intended to be fully compatible with our Constitution. I personally have no objection to having them in this country at all and think they are part of the solution.

“I would like to see them more visible; I would like to see them more vocal. There's one I know of who's both visible and vocal, a marvelous man by the name of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, who hails from that state you all are boycotting at the moment, Arizona. He is one of the few who has had unbelievable courage to stand up and say pretty much what I've just said. He's been ostracized for it. He has his life threatened, because after all that is apostasy, according to the sharia adherents, but I personally think you don't want to leave those people out of the solution.

“But I think there's a lot to be said for saying, as we did at the time, we don't want communists immigrating to this country. We don't want sharia-adherent totalitarians here either."

Huh? So which is it?

Gaffney had just spoken for 30 minutes warning that hostile Islam is a major threat to the survival of all we hold dear in the West—yet he can't simply say “Yes! Stop immigration!â€

As long as it is used as an optional form of voluntary mediation rather than being mandated into our law we should not even oppose Sharia.

I have to be honest about this: I have been INTENSELY curious as to why people who become dissatisfied with Western materialistic and permissive values suddenly find a fulfillment in Islam. I have to say that I am glad that they find a religion that stops them from being street gang members or drunks or dopers. And very few of them, or other members of Islamic groups in western countries are going to become involved in terrorist cells. So I would say that there could be worse alternatives.

OTOH, I've known some Middle East people since I was a boy and even the Christian ones are very headstrong and opinionated---for lack of better terms.

But black Americans who turn to Islam really puzzle me even more. Are they getting a cold shoulder in the traditional black fundamentalist churches? Currently, most of these have become very liberal politically, so it is hard to see why that would happen, except that they may be like other churches: insular cliques. If they just knew how Islam has had a much longer and hideous persecution of African people maybe they would see it differently. Unfortunately Western academia has turned a spotlight on European slavery and missed that aspect of Islam's impact on the world. But then we know very little about Middle East culture to begin with.

Is the interest in Islam something to be welcomed as a compromise between Western decadence and Christian values? Or, are fundamentalist churches so withdrawn and insular that other people within our society don't have even the first shred of interest in belonging? I know that the latter has been a common complaint.

When Arab-Americans express these sympathetic views are they just having momentary lapses of cultural "homesickness?" Maybe they need some understanding of their own attributes?