This scene calls to mind one of the most noted political speeches of the 20
th century, Enoch Powell's "
Rivers of Blood."
The speech was delivered in Birmingham, England on April 20, 1968. The subject was England's immigration policy and dire predicted results.
Powell was both scorned for divisive comments and labeled a political prophet for his
visionary predictions. But none need biblical mandate to understand what happens if non-integrating aliens continue to infiltrate Western democracies and assert their will against law, culture, and freedom, as observed in
France today. Further, Obama has
openly supported the Ground Zero mosque and
nominates those who demand Shari'ah Muslim law in the US. These issues are the subject of this essay.
I Modern Dilemma: Porous Borders & Foreign Intrigue
Illegal immigration is recently a front-page issue despite developing as crisis decades ago. That the government has been derelict on its responsibilities to control the Mexican border, and therefore who entered America illegally, is a truism. That southern border states are in danger of
allowing Muslim terrorists to pass has not been examined in the media. Frankly, it would be easier for them to enter there into America than almost anywhere else.
It is true that unfettered illegal migration along our southern border causes problems regarding security, economics, tax, employment, drugs and violence, etc. Yet it would seem the Mexican problem pales in significance to what lies in store of the
Islamification of America. After all, Mexicans aspire to fit into the larger US culture, often working jobs others eschew, seeking the American Dream for their children. But immigrant
Islamicists seek a Shari'ah friendly state which has often been historically achieved at the
end of a sword.
For immigration, whether legal or illegal, the key question for those entering the States is whether they have any plan to assimilate? Many Muslims coming to America would like to wear the veil, pray in the streets, and
practice Shari'ah. But what can America do in the face of this danger of a wholesale rejection of American law and culture?
II Muslim States, Shari'ah Law & the West
A. Allegiance Only to Allah
A great Western misconceptions is the belief all persons naturally think like Europeans. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, Western values and mindset are the result of thousands of years of civilizing what once were pagan tribes into a Christian society, as described in Richard Fletcher's
The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity. Over time, to create a civil society, Westerners developed a practice of public grace upon topics that previously spawned cyclical violence, such as politics and religion.
Islam never developed anything close to a modern view of politics. One reason is Islam never evolved a notion of the independent country, as emerged from Europe after the medieval period. The result of this is there are only
two possible states in Islam --
Dar es Islam (دار الإسلام), the House of Peace; and
Dar el Harb (دار الحرب), the House of War [aka
Dar al-Garb "House of the West"]. This Manichean division is ultimately the basis of nonstop conflict between Islam and West as we experience today.
The normal state of relations between Muslim and non-Muslim is not peace, but war, according to
Majid Khadduri's translation of The Islamic Law of Nations,
Shaybani's Siyar (8th century). Khadduri writes in the introduction,
In accordance with Islamic legal theory a state of war exists between the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb until the time when the former overcomes the latter. The state of war should, accordingly, come to an end when the dar al-harb has disappeared. At such a stage the dar al-Islam, as the abode of peace, would reign supreme in the world. It may be argued, therefore, that the ultimate objective of Islam is the achievement of permanent peace rather than the perpetuation of war. Thus, the jihad, in Islamic theory, was a temporary legal device designed to achieve Islam's ideal public order by transforming the dar al-harb into the dar al-Islam.
Here one sees the traditional Muslim fixation with pounding enemies into subjugation via jihad until all the unbelievers are either dead or converted.
A traditional Muslim has no commitment to any country outside of one sanctioned by Allah, despite confusion upon what that might actually mean in practice. Farooq Hassan describes the idea of a modern Muslim state
The Concept Of State And Law In Islam:
State, Law, and Religion in Islam are simply different facets of the Faith...as Islam seeks to govern and direct the everyday life of not only the individual, but of the community and of all Muslims, regardless of the elements of time, place or geography...The main characteristics of the concept of State in Islam would be sovereignty belongs to God and does not vest in the State; all basic laws, organic or ordinary, are laid down by the Quran and the Sunna for all times...
B. Implications of Muslim Immigration: Islamic Monomania
Muslim doctrines on statehood, politics and faith mean a traditional believer cannot fit into a western democracy like America, unless they liberalize. Therefore, we need to be perfectly candid about what Muslims believe so we might rationally adapt and prepare for their continuing rise.
A general rule of peaceful Islamic incursions into foreign cultures is they adapt to local rules until they gain some kind of preeminence and then they seek dominance and Muslim law, aka Shari'ah. This is because Islam has a "one-kingdom" theory of statehood, which rejects the Christian two-kingdom notion of the universe being composed of the Kingdom of God and kingdom of man. This means Islam can only envision Islamic leadership and rules in the country in which they inhabit, if given a chance at preeminence, logically canceling out democracy.
Further, Islam also has but a single theory of law. In the medieval period of Europe, according to Prof. Fritz Kern in
Kingship And Law In The Middle Ages, there was a single idea of law which dominated the pagan tribes. As ancient Roman law was rediscovered, and then intersected pagan and Christian law, a two-law theory was developed. This allowed for human "positive" law to be overseen by Natural Law to help keep it pure. Yet, Islam never developed a genuine modern theory of law, which is why
Shari'ah is such a dominant idea in Muslim thought. To a traditional Muslim, only
Shari'ah can even be called law.
Moreover, preeminent orientalist
Joseph Schacht points out Islam is not dominated by religious instincts, but instead by those of control and dominion. In this sense, the religion aims at
political domination more so than conversion. For this reason
Islam means "submission", ie to Allah's will. He writes how law is therefore at the center of the enterprise, saying "Islamic law is the epitome of Islamic thought, the most typical manifestation of the Islamic way of life, the core and kernel of Islam itself." Therefore, foremost on a traditional Muslim's mind is control of both believers and unbelievers in the society.
III Enoch Powell & River's of Blood
British MP
Enoch Powell's speech
Rivers of Blood may be the most influential ever delivered on the topic of immigration and multiculturalism. This speech challenged the British Government over implications of the immigration policy regarding UK territories. Much of the speech has no bearing upon current conditions in the States. For example, America has no colonies from which the residents are given right to relocate and instant citizenship,
ipso facto.
But the main questions it raises applies equally now as then. These questions deal with a nation's duty to self-rule and whether the people have a right to resist foreign incursions of values and law brought by immigrants and established via imposition or even via pseudo-democracy.
The main issues to take from Powell's
speech would seem these:
- Every state's government has a duty to citizens of protecting them from foreseeable harms.
- Each country holds values which cannot arbitrarily be allowed undermined by foreign elements.
- Race and national origin are irrelevant, whereas culture and creed are definitive.
- Multiculturalism results in evil when preempting society's careful definition of the Good Life.
- Americans have every right to act in a manner to protect self and state when under duress.
The real issue for America is whether we will allow Islam, Mosques, and
Shari'ah to trump our ideas about democracy, religion and our ancestral freedoms.
IV Mosques, Shari'ah Law, & Loyalty Tests
The present Ground Zero mosque is a fit entree into the issue of Islam in the USA. What is the answer to America's growing problems with Islamic law and our 1
st Amendment rights of free belief and to worship as we see fit? Can religious believers practice in any way they desire under the US Constitution? If not, where and how do we draw the line?
An important, undeniable fact is Islam does not allow the
free expression of religion in its own countries, as seen in America. This is because the Quran does not envisage such freedoms for non-believers. And as explained above, there is a transition that normally occurs when Muslims claim hegemony in a society. This change is a simple asserting of power over the
Dhimmis --being the People of the Book, aka Jews and Christians. In a true Muslim state, any who are neither Muslim nor Dhimmi can be killed on the spot.
Could a compromise be allowed where immigrants were asked to swear to a "Loyalty Test" to the US Constitution, as has been asked of Muslims in
Israel and
Germany? After all, would this not clear up once and for all who should stay? The problem with this idea is that the persons most dangerous to the US are undoubtedly Muslim plants who would never admit they were not loyal. Further, it is
allowed within Muslim law to
lie to unbelievers as they
choose, a doctrine called
Taqiyya.
V Can the West Still Assert Homeland Preeminence?
A question must be asked which can neither be avoided, nor dismissed as irrelevant: What if Muslims in America are not allowed by their religion to follow American laws or our cultural practices? Shall they adapt to us --or us to them? Further, in the gathering and building of the
Muslim communities in the US, when these develop a growing heft of influence, what shall be done if these reveal an anti-American bent?
There are generally two kinds of Muslims that should interest Americans. The first group are
classical liberals able to agree with America's secular state and Constitution, despite their religion. But the second group give an unfettered loyalty to Allah in every possible scenario, even against our laws to the extent of supporting or actually waging Jihad, like the
Ft Benning Shooter. The latter group is a problem which will not solve itself, and further --threatens the statehood of America and all Americans. We must develop a contingency plan for this second group in the interest of sheer survival. We must come to an answer before disaster strikes us again.
Conclusion
The stakes could not be greater. The question is: What can be done about Islam in America to protect all citizens from the excesses of religious fanaticism? The answer must fit into our traditional respect for religion, and respect for civil rights. But if our city centers are slowly taken over by mosques and our streets blocked by devotees praying in broad daylight, as occurs in
Paris today --won't it already be too late to even act? And, because of our failure to defend ourselves due to Political Correctness, could an American jihad still cause rivers of blood to flow in our streets, decades after the Sept 11
th holocaust?