Comment 55 from an interesting thread at Ace of Spades on, Are Western Pluralistic Societies Incompatible With Islam?

When Muslims are a tiny minority in a population, they tend to be peaceful and keep to themselves. They may be upstanding members of society. They say, “We just want to be left alone to practice our religion in peace.”

As their numbers grow, they begin making demands on the majority population. They will use the infidels’ sense of tolerance against them. They will demand that Muslim cabdrivers not be required to pick up fares with alcohol or seeing-eye dogs, that Muslim checkout clerks in grocery stores not be required to handle pork products, or that Muslim-style footbaths be installed in public restrooms. Any resistance to their demands is met with accusations of bigotry or “Islamophobia”.

When their numbers climb above 5% or so, they begin to get violent. It starts small, with scattered incidents that gradually become more organized and frequent. Above 10%, conditions really begin to deteriorate. They become openly threatening and aggressive towards kaffirs in public. Muslim political leaders get elected to more and more government offices, and begin to influence public policy. They start putting loudspeakers on mosques, forcing everyone to hear that caterwauling five times a day, every day, for the rest of their lives. There is no escape.

As their numbers climb higher, violent incidents become endemic. They begin to attack churches and synagogues filled with worshippers. Non-Muslims start to flee the violence, causing the Muslim percentage of the population to grow even faster.

Above 50%, it’s “Convert, pay the jizya, or die, infidel.”

Then the Muslim percentage of the population explodes, as terrified people convert with a literal knife held to their necks. The conquest is complete.

Islam teaches that Muslims are superior to all other people. Non-Muslims are technically “tolerated” in a majority Muslim nation, but under sharia law they are legally second-class citizens. They must pay a special tax (the jizya) and there may be additional restrictions placed on their behavior. Historically, these have taken various forms in different times and places. For example, a non-Muslim may not be allowed to build his house taller than the house of a Muslim, or he may not be allowed to look a Muslim in the eye but must keep his eyes downcast, or he may be required to wear special clothing to advertise his status as a dhimmi. (Where do you think Hitler got the idea of making Jews wear a yellow Star of David? Yep.)

In a Muslim majority nation, non-Muslims may be subject to being beaten, raped, or killed by Muslims, at a whim or on a slender pretext, and there are often little or no legal consequences for doing so. Rape of uncovered women by Muslim men has reached epidemic proportions in parts of Europe, and they’re not even a majority. Yet.

While it may take decades or longer to play out, this pattern has repeated time and time again in countries that have been conquered by Islam. It is as predictable as the sunrise. The only way to avoid it is to make sure that Muslims remain a tiny minority in the population. Once they gain a foothold, the progression is inexorable.

Two articles from today that make a nice pairing. First this: German Official: We Regret Open Borders. And then this: American Jewish Movements Unite to Warn Trump Against Religious Tests. From the first of the articles.

Says growing Muslim population a challenge for open-minded society.

Berlin made mistakes with its “open-door” refugee policy, which “went off course” and saw hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers entering the country over the past two years, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble admits. . . .

He wrote in an October article for Die Welt that “the growing number of Muslims in our country today is a challenge for the open-mindedness of mainstream society.” Addressing the role of Islam in society, a hot issue in Germany, he vowed to create a “German Islam” compatible with the values of liberal democracy and pluralism.

And then from the second:

Organizations representing the three largest denominations of American Jewry – the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform movements – all issued warnings to the White House by Sunday night against institutionalizing religious tests at America’s borders.

The Jewish community urged US President Donald Trump to tread carefully between protecting the nation and encroaching on core American values after the new president issued an executive order on Friday banning all Syrian refugees and citizens from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States.

And then a bit of explanation from the President:

“This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” Trump said in a response to the crisis on Sunday. “There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.”

“America is a proud nation of immigrants,” he added, “and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border.”

The bottom line is that even though Trump understands what needs to be done, there is no constituency that will allow him to do it.

Don’t worry if you haven’t, but it is coming to a country near you. It is the opposite of one country, under God, indivisible. This is from a reasonably positive description:

The millet system was developed to protect the rights of the “tolerated clients of the Muslim community” as Ahl al-dhimmi (Bates, Rassam, p. 101) as designated People of the Book in the Quran and institutionalized after the fall of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmet II in 1453. However, the great expanse of the Ottoman Empire also leaves room for each community, geographically and culturally, to interpret and implement the rules and regulations of the empire differently, if they were respected at all. This applies not only to the term but to the millet system as well.

Israel sort of has one now, as do France and Sweden, but these are places which are not Muslim-majority nations. Here is something from a less positive view of the millet system:

I don’t think even at its height though you could say the Ottoman empire had more liberty than the most law governed and tolerant places in ‘Christendom’ and certainly while European thinkers respect the Ottoman system at its height it very much looked like an example of strong orderly monarchy, not decentralised liberty.

This is where things are heading and which the forces of the left are doing all they can to ensure. Not in my lifetime, but if you are young enough, almost certainly in yours.