Islam is simply not compatible with Western civilization and Western laws and customs. As a large group, Islam seeks to dominate and force submission from anyone who refuses to convert. They come in small numbers, then have lots of babies, then they start to exert control, then they dominate.
And why do all the Muslims in America vote Democrat? Is it because they are pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ? Nope! It’s because they know the Democrats are the most clueless to their plans. It’s much easier for them to fool the woke folks.
***********************
Almost a quarter-century has passed since September 11, when 19 Islamic radicals murdered nearly 3,000 people in line with the blunt teaching of “The Verse of the Sword” (Quran 9:5). That cataclysm should have sufficed to cause Western leaders to examine the doctrines of the Muhammadan religion in order to understand why the killers carried out this crime.
But that didn’t happen. Instead, we can summarize the Western leaders’ response in two statements.
Nine days after 9/11, President Bush 43 stated in his speech before Congress,
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics — a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.
Bush 43 also commented that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.”
After the December 14, 2025 jihadist mass murder of 15 Jews at Bondi Beach, Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese indicated that his government would focus on measures such as “increasing penalties for existing offences for hate speech” and “gun laws.”
These attitudinal bookends of the Western elites from 9/11 to Bondi Beach declare that 1) Islam is a peaceful faith hijacked by violent fringe loons, and 2) Islam is not mentionable because guns are the problem.
Does anyone with an ability to reason actually believe our globalist grandees’ cowardly drivel?
Happily, it seems that at long last, the groundswell of concerned citizens in the West is strong enough to mute the mendacity emanating from the halls of power. Regular Joes and Janes from Manchester to Melbourne to Milwaukee to Munich are expressing loudly on social media and in public displays of disaffection that we the people are tired of the official lies about Islam in our midst. We are done politely accepting as cultural novelty the clearly misogynistic hijab wardrobe; done being insulted for enjoying our family dog; done having our magnanimity returned with ingratitude and invectives against our culture, traditions, and lifestyle. We want our Christmas markets open without harassment and constant threats. We are sick of 5 A.M. calls to prayer. We’ve had it with streets blocked by hordes of disruptive praying zealots. We are beyond fed up with deadly knife, gun, and vehicular attacks under the war cry of “Allahu akbar.”
Some of our leaders are starting to experience the epiphany that Mr. and Mrs. America have increasingly recognized over the decades since 9/11. Of note, our director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, told the AmFest crowd:
When we talk about the threat of Islamism, this political ideology, there is no such thing as individual freedom or liberty. As Charlie [Kirk] said over and over again, it is fundamentally incompatible with our nation’s foundation of freedom.
The phrase “fundamentally incompatible” is an apt description of Muhammadanism in relation to Western civilization. Taking the Quran at face value, assimilation in non-Muslim cultures is disallowed (3:28 and 4:144). Why? Because Allah has declared Muslims the best of all creatures, whereas disbelievers are the worst (98:6-8). These best creatures are to fight disbelievers until the latter exhibit full submission (9:29). It is quite logical that Allah’s exalted class — Muslims — should never bend the knee to any non-Muslim.
Thus, Western societies (which have at our religious and civic core the teachings of the Jewish and Christian scriptures) are fooling ourselves if we think ethnic groups whose religious identity is devotedly Muslim will assimilate comfortably into our cultures. Instead, the last two decades have shown us a four-step process emanating from Islamic ideology vis-a-vis the West: First, they migrate. Second, they populate. Third, they agitate. And fourth, they dominate. By step four, we suffer all manner of trouble, up to and including horrific acts of violence. A prime example of this process is evident in Minnesota, albeit with a bloodless (so far) outcome: A Trump-hating corruptocrat who has openly declared her primary loyalty to Somalia is elected to Congress, and her constituents have stolen billions of taxpayer dollars through blatant fraud. Whether any of that ill-gotten gain ended up funding Islamic terrorists in East Africa is anyone’s guess, but it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
It is good that some among the West’s leaders are finally articulating that Islamic radicalism is imperiling our civilization. But in this struggle, there is verbiage that is still a hurdle to overcome: The idea that “Islamism” — not “Islam” — is the problem. Like Gabbard, Glenn Beck has often advocated a view that “Islamism” is a dangerous political ideology, whereas “Islam” is a hallowed monotheistic way of life that many sincere people spiritually follow.
The problem is that this dichotomy is not in concert with the comprehensive doctrine and praxis of the Quran, Hadith, and Sira. In this canon, the theological and political elements are irremediably intertwined. Islamic holy writ does not separate the religious from the political. This is why Turkish President Erdogan could confidently assert, “Islam cannot be either ‘moderate’ or ‘not moderate.’ Islam can only be one thing” and that “the concept of ‘moderate Islam’ has received attention. But the patent of this concept originated in the West.”
When well-meaning Westerners differentiate between “Islamism” and “Islam,” they delude themselves with a verbal narcotic. By this rhetorical device, they convince themselves that somehow we can accept some gelatinous type of nice Islam (in the form of people who are polite, sociable, non-ideological, mildly religious, and generally modern) into the West without concern because they aren’t involved in “Islamism.” But even those who practice only the spiritual elements of Islam are at odds with the West.
Hillaire Belloc described Islam as a grand heresy: Islam rejects the crucifixion (Quran 4:157), the divinity of Christ (5:75), and the Trinity (4:171). So in Western societies where Christianity is the default religious setting, Islam’s religious nature is utterly heterodox. As a medieval, anti-trinitarian doctrine that demands that its adherents fight infidels, Islam is by nature at cross purposes with societies that subscribe to broad Christian civic precepts, celebrate Christian holidays, and exist in a Christian cultural milieu.
Islam’s totality necessitates that its religious character cannot be disconnected from Allah’s bellicose socio-communist directives of conquest. This means that any practitioners of the nice Islam envisioned by Glenn Beck are actually ignoring the equally exigent political components of their faith, thereby making them apostates.
“Islamism” is ultimately a fiction hoped for by wishful thinkers who eagerly desire to believe that biblical values are universal across religious lines. Given that we have experienced in just this century round after round of jihad violence and can easily find doctrines in the Islamic holy books to support such atrocities, it is evident that Western values and Muslim values are most clearly not compatible.
So let’s ask this question: Is it wise for the West to continue to make excuses for semi-Muslims by trying to parse out “Islamism” from “Islam”? No, it is not.
I prefer to heed Laura Loomer’s direct recommendation: “Just call it Islam.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/12/just_call_it_islam.html
