End Game -a must read

A Statement on Islam

From :View from the right
http://amnation.com/vfr/

Draft manifesto: Together facing the new Islamic jihad, by Lawrence Auster: “Since I have been so critical of the leftist, secularist manifesto against Islamism, “Together facing the new totalitarianism,” that was…”

What is to be done about Islam

Last November, two other writers and I worked briefly on a manifesto on what is to be done about Islam in America, and, by extension, in the West and in non-Islamic countries generally. The original draft made jihad the practical focus of the problem. Subsequent drafts included sharia—the Islamic law—as well, based on the understanding that jihad is not the end of Islam but the instrument by which the end of Islam, which is the rule of Islamic law over the whole earth, is to be achieved. At that point we left the statement aside. Then this past week, in light of new insights and discoveries, namely that even a prominent opponent of jihad like Ayaan Hirsi Ali has no “problem” with the spread of sharia if it is pursued by democratic and respectful means, I went back to the draft and expanded it further. It’s possible that the resulting version is too long and detailed for its purpose, and perhaps the earlier, simpler version that focused only on jihad would be better. I am posting the latest draft now to invite criticisms and ideas.

DRAFT STATEMENT ON ISLAM

Whereas treacherous war has been waged, is being waged, and will continue to be waged against the United States by an organized faction of the Islamic religion;

Whereas this war is being waged in obedience to a doctrine, jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic, and central feature of the laws and traditions of the Islamic religion;

Whereas Islamic law, sharia, divides the world into the Realm of Islam and the Realm of War, meaning that all non-Islamic states including the United States, simply by virtue of being non-Islamic, are at war with Islam, the only true faith, requiring Muslims to wage jihad on the Realm of War until all non-Islamic states including the United States have been brought under the political power of Islam;

Whereas the unchanging and ultimate aim of jihad is the imposition of sharia, the Islamic system of law, on all states and nations, including the United States;

Whereas the imposition of sharia on non-Islamic states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Islamic political influence and power;

Whereas sharia commands the extinction of self-government and of all the liberties and privileges existing under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the several states;

Whereas even the milder and more limited aspects of sharia, namely sharia family law as distinct from sharia criminal law, embodying such doctrines as polygamy and the sanctified inferiority of women, are totally incompatible with the customs, institutions, and liberties of the United States and with the traditions of the Western and Christian world as a whole;

Whereas jihad and sharia are inextricably linked, with sharia formulating and commanding jihad, and jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting sharia;

Whereas the doctrine of jihad requires Islamic citizens of non-Islamic states, including the United States, actively to engage in, or passively to support, sedition against those states;

Whereas adherence to this doctrine is not exclusive to those individuals immediately prepared to carry out acts of war against the United States, but embraces a wider circle of sympathizers and abettors, constituting a large part of the Islamic community;

Whereas in any conflict between a non-Islamic state and jihadists, the great majority of Muslims are in solidarity with the jihadists;

Whereas numerous so-called “moderate” Muslims, including the head of Britain’s most prominent “moderate” Muslim organization, have said that any attempt by Western governments to identify and suppress the jihadist elements of Islam is a deep insult to the “moderate” Muslims and will turn them into terrorists or terror supporters;

Whereas Islam is unique in being both a religion for its own followers and a political movement divinely commanded to seek global political power over all non-Muslims and to eliminate all non-Islamic states;

Whereas Islam’s unique status both as a religion and as a global political movement seeking power over non-Muslims through the imposition of sharia implies the following about the different types of “moderate” Muslims:

Muslims who refrain from speech and action for sharia but believe in sharia:
Even if Muslims do not engage in explicit behaviors or speech to advance sharia and jihad, their silent belief in sharia or jihad means that they are on the side of those seeking sharia, whether through violent or non-violent means. As long as Muslims believe in Islamic law and believe that all Muslims—or all Muslims and all non-Muslims—should live under Islamic law, either they must support the spread and imposition of sharia, or, at best, they have no grounds on which to oppose the imposition of sharia.

Muslims who believe in sharia for Muslims, but not for non-Muslims:
Many Muslims who believe in Islam as a religion but not as a political movement to impose sharia on non-Muslims nevertheless believe in the imposition of sharia on Muslims. Therefore, whenever Muslims dwell in a non-Islamic society, they will inevitably seek to bring themselves under sharia to the extent possible, demanding that the host society formally recognize at least some aspects of sharia. As the numbers and power of Muslims increases, the range of sharia regulations demanded by the Muslims, and the range of the society that must come under those regulations, will keep increasing.

Muslims who don’t believe in sharia at all:
Even the Muslims who believe in Islam solely as a private religion and do not believe in sharia either for Muslims or for non-Muslims are, though notably less dangerous than other Muslims, nevertheless members of the global Muslim community or umma and thus, as Muslims, will tend to feel solidarity with their fellow Muslims who believe in jihad and sharia, especially when the latter come into conflict with non-Muslims.

Muslims who oppose jihad and do not support sharia but nevertheless support the right of Muslims to campaign peacefully for sharia
By supporting the right of Muslims peacefully to spread sharia, such non-jihadist Muslims are in effect on the side of the spread of sharia.

The above considerations make it clear that it is not practically possible to distinguish “radical,” dangerous sharia-supporting Muslims from “moderate,” non-dangerous sharia-supporting Muslims. To a lesser degree, it is not possible to distinguish non-sharia supporting Muslims from sharia-supporting Muslims. The spread and imposition of sharia is a function of Islam as such, and any increase in the number of Muslims in a society helps advance sharia.

Furthermore, it is essential to understand that what makes both “radical” and “moderate” Muslims dangerous to non-Muslim societies is not that the Muslims are morally bad people, but that they are Muslims. As Muslims, they are required by their god and their religion to do and believe certain things. As long as they remain Muslims, the things Islam commands them to do and believe are sacred to them. In waging jihad and instituting sharia, they are not being bad people, they are being good Muslims. Thus the question of the moral goodness or badness, the kindness or the meanness, of individual Muslims is utterly irrelevant from the point of view of the threat Islam poses to non-Muslim societies. The issue is not the moral character of individual Muslim persons, but the unchanging and unchangeable character of Islam itself. Therefore in excluding Muslims, we are not discriminating or passing judgment against them as human beings, we are protecting ourselves from the religion to which they, as Muslims, are inextricably linked.

It follows from the above that the purpose of these measures is not to promote hostility against Muslim persons or to spark civilizational warfare between the West and Islam, but to reduce and to end the current increasing civilizational warfare by permanently separating Muslims from the West. We respect the right of Muslims to follow in peace their religion in their lands. But in order for us Americans to continue to have the right to follow in peace our respective religions, to live according to our culture and way of life, to enjoy our liberties, and to preserve our nation, the followers of sharia need to leave our country and return to the historic lands of Islam.

THEREFORE, RESOLVED:
That the doctrines of sharia and jihad being totally incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the several states, and with our most fundamental customs, institutions, and liberties, the advocacy and promotion of these doctrines is deemed not to be protected speech or a protected exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the Constitution;

That advocacy of the Islamic doctrines of jihad and sharia is tantamount to sedition and ought to be expressly proscribed in law;

That any person who espouses, promotes, formulates, or apologizes for these doctrines is committing sedition against the United States and against the state wherein he resides;

That adherence to the doctrines of jihad and sharia, even in the absence of open advocacy of same, is incompatible with adherence to the Constitution, laws, liberty, and sovereignty of the United States;

That with the exception of immediate family members, diplomatic personnel, and temporary visitors for business and other prescribed legitimate purposes, all immigration into the United States of persons known or determined to be followers of the Islamic religion, whatever the person’s nationality or country of residence, shall cease;

That with the exception of diplomatic personnel and temporary visitors for business and other prescribed legitimate purposes, no person who advocates or adheres to the doctrines of jihad and sharia shall be permitted to enter the United States as a temporary visitor;

That any legal resident alien who advocates, or who adheres to, or who on investigation can be reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;

That any legal resident alien who espouses, or promotes the right of Muslims peacefully to espouse, the institutionalization of sharia in the United States shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;

That any naturalized citizen who advocates, or who adheres to, or who on investigation can be reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be deprived of his citizenship and removed from the United States;

That any natural born citizen of the United States, descended of Muslims born abroad, who espouses, promotes, formulates, or apologizes for the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall lose his citizenship and be removed from the United States.

That any mosque, Islamic center, or Islamic school in the United States that promotes, or disseminates any literature promoting, or hosts sermons or classes promoting, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be closed.

That the United States shall encourage the voluntary departure of Muslim legal immigrants and their descendants by offering them $______ in a one-time fee to return to their native land and never to seek to return. The federal government will assure that departing Muslims will receive a fair market price for their real property, investments, and other property that they must sell prior to leaving the United States. To facilitate the acceptance by the respective Muslim governments of their returning emigrants and ancestral sons and daughters, the United States may also consider paying those governments a one-time fee for each person who relocates from the U.S. back to his respective native or ancestral land.

- end of initial entry -