Islam is Incompatible with a Free Society
By Gina Miller
RenewAmerica.com
Listen to an audio version of this column
In my columns, I don't normally address the
"concerns" of liberals in response to anything I
write, but today I will. Last week I wrote
a column condemning Brandeis University for its
shameful withdrawal of an honorary degree it was to
bestow on human rights activist,
Ayaan Hirsi
Ali. Brandeis' capitulation was in response to a
slanderous
open letter about Ms. Hirsi Ali written to
Brandeis by the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR). The slanderous nature of the open
letter was in CAIR's description of Ms. Hirsi Ali as
a "notorious Islamophobe" and that promoting her
work is "... equivalent to promoting the work of
white supremacists and anti-Semites," among other
bogus descriptions of her. The CAIR letter also
describes Ms. Hirsi Ali's views as
"unconstitutional" and "anti-constitutional."
After posting my column on my public Facebook
page, a liberal named Rob came on scolding me,
saying:
"This is a very selective reporting of her
activity. She has not merely declared war on radical
Islam but moderate Islam as well, and she wants to
close down all Muslim schools in America, regardless
of their politics. This is what Brandeis is
concerned about and by omitting these facts you are
lying by omission."
First, a note for clarification. He mentions
"radical Islam," because the title of my column as
posted at BarbWire.com, is "Brandeis
Bows to Radical Islam." The streamlined title
was written by our senior editor, because it was
better than the original, cumbersome one I had
written. But, I do not use the term "radical Islam,"
because I believe there is no such thing as "radical
Islam." Likewise, there is no such thing as
"moderate Islam." There is just Islam, period.
Liberal Rob's comments that Ms. Hirsi Ali wants to
close down all Muslim schools and that she has
declared war on Islam are references to CAIR's open
letter. He accuses me of not including this
information in my column, although I did provide a
link to CAIR's letter in the piece. That wasn't good
enough for Rob the liberal. He still accuses me of
"lying by omission" for not transcribing her words
in my article:
"Lying by omission is when you specify "Radical
Islam" when you mean "All Islam." Lying by omission
is when you fail to tell your readers the extent of
the woman's anti-Islamic crusade (which includes
shredding our Constitution with radical First
Amendment violations!) that are the actual reasons
for Brandeis withdrawing the honor."
The real question is whether or not Ms. Hirsi Ali is
working to subvert the United States Constitution,
and I firmly contend that not only is she not
working to subvert the Constitution, she is, in
truth, working to protect it from the Islamic threat
to its very existence.
Ms. Hirsi Ali's quotes that were included in CAIR's
letter came from a
2007 interview in Reason Magazine. Here are Ms.
Hirsi Ali's selected words from that extensive
interview that CAIR and Rob the liberal claim to
mean that she is acting against the Constitution:
Reason: Do you think Islam could bring
about... social and political changes?
Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because
right now, the political side of Islam, the
power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become
superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the
peace-seeking Muslims.
Reason: Don't you mean defeating radical
Islam?
Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it's
defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful.
It's very difficult to even talk about peace now.
They're not interested in peace.
Reason: We have to crush the world's 1.5
billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms,
what does that mean, "defeat Islam"?
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with
Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars. Islam
can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop
the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there
are native Westerners converting to Islam, and
they're the most fanatical sometimes. There is
infiltration of Islam in the schools and
universities of the West. You stop that. You stop
the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you
look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you
say, "This is a warning. We won't accept this
anymore." There comes a moment when you crush your
enemy.
Reason: Militarily?
Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don't
do that, then you have to live with the consequence
of being crushed.
... Hirsi Ali: ...There is no moderate Islam.
There are Muslims who are passive, who don't all
follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only
one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God.
There's nothing moderate about it...
Reason: Here in the United States, you'd
advocate the abolition of –
Hirsi Ali: All Muslim schools. Close them
down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years
ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie
is out of the bottle. I've been saying this in
Australia and in the U.K. and so on, and I get
exactly the same arguments: The Constitution doesn't
allow it. But we need to ask where these
constitutions came from to start with – what's the
history of Article 23 in the Netherlands, for
instance? There were no Muslim schools when
the constitution was written. There were no
jihadists. They had no idea.
Reason: Do you believe that the U.S.
Constitution, the Bill of Rights – documents from
more than 200 [years] ago – ought to change?
Hirsi Ali: They're not infallible. These
Western constitutions are products of the
Enlightenment. They're products of reason, and
reason dictates that you can only progress when you
can analyze the circumstances and act accordingly.
So now that we live under different conditions, the
threat is different. Constitutions can be adapted,
and they are, sometimes. The American
Constitution has been amended a number of times.
Here is a pertinent passage that CAIR omitted from
its open letter to Brandeis:
Reason: You're in favor of civil
liberties, but applied selectively?
Hirsi Ali: No. Asking whether radical
preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not
hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it's an
attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this
one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn't
allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools
in the West, some of which are institutions of
fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs
and monkeys – I would say in order to preserve
civil liberties, don't allow such schools.
As I told Rob the liberal, Ms. Hirsi Ali is warning
of the danger Islam poses to the freedoms of the
West, as she fights against the brutal treatment of
women and children under Islam. I also pointed out
that it is the pushers of Islam, not Ms. Hirsi Ali,
who are working to subvert our freedoms and
Constitution. This is by their own admission.
Besides the plethora of shouts of "death to the West
and the Great Satan U.S.!" from Muslims all over the
world, an official Muslim Brotherhood document
introduced into
evidence during the
2008 Holy
Land Foundation terrorism funding trial made it
quite clear that the followers of Islam have very
bad intentions toward the United States and the
West.
Concerning, "An
Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal
for the Group in North America," written by
Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram,
Discover the Networks reports:
Written sometime in 1987 but not formally
published until May 22, 1991, Akram's 18-page
document listed the Brotherhood's 29 likeminded
"organizations of our friends" that shared the
common goal of dismantling American institutions and
turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation. These
"friends" were
identified by Akram and the Brotherhood as
groups that could help convince Muslims "that their
work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in
eliminating and destroying the Western civilization
from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by
their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam]
is made victorious over all other religions."
Akram was well aware that in the U.S., it would be
extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of
terror attacks. Thus the "grand jihad" that he and
his Brotherhood comrades envisioned was not a
violent one involving bombings and shootings, but
rather a
stealth (or "soft") jihad aiming to impose
Islamic law (Sharia) over every region of the
earth by incremental, non-confrontational means,
such as
working to "expand the observant Muslim base";
to "unif[y] and direc[t] Muslims' efforts"; and to
"present Islam as a civilization alternative." At
its heart, Akram's document details a plan to
conquer and Islamize the United States – not as an
ultimate objective, but merely as a stepping stone
toward the larger goal of one day creating "the
global Islamic state."
The fact is that Muslim operatives are using our
Constitution and our freedoms against us. They are
furthering their stealth jihad against the United
States by hiding under our freedom of religion. When
our Founding Fathers created the Constitution and
codified our God-given freedom of religion, they
never intended it to protect the subversive
activities of Trojan horse enemies of the United
States. They never meant for the First Amendment to
give cover to anti-American treachery.
So, is Ms. Hirsi Ali's call for the eradication of
Islam and Islamic schools truly anti-Constitutional?
No. We must come to understand that Islam is a
tyrannical, militant-political ideology operating
under the guise of a "religion," and its followers
seek to overthrow the United States by stealth
subversion of our freedoms and institutions. If we
hope to survive as a free country, our leaders must
one day have the courage to call a spade and spade
when it comes to Islam. I am in agreement with Ms.
Hirsi Ali on the nature of Islam and her call for
its ouster from any free society, because it is
utterly incompatible with freedom. As she states at
the end of
her Reason Magazine interview:
The Western mind-set – that if we respect them,
they're going to respect us, that if we indulge and
appease and condone and so on, the problem will go
away – is delusional. The problem is not going to go
away. Confront it, or it's only going to get bigger.
© Gina Miller