Muslim presence, Muslim menace.

Consider the following:

Businesses throughout the region pay the radicals protection money, and officials who have bribed their way into influential Moscow positions do not dare to refuse paying kickbacks or protection money to the Wahhabis. In the North Caucasus, you have to play by local rules. If you betray one militant, another will kill you.

If this is an accurate description of the way that Wahhabis operate outside of the North Caucasus as well, and it is, then you cannot expect so-called “Muslim moderates” to be any kind of a bulwark against Islamic radicals. The idea of a “moderate” Muslim makes no sense because any Muslim who calls himself a Muslim by definition favors the subjugation or extermination of infidels; the supremacy of the shariah over any law like, say, the U.S. Constitution; and the spread of Islam over all the world. Call me unreasonable, but I think that makes someone deranged not “moderate,” unless surrender to Islam is ipso facto the baseline of our moderation.

There is no “alternate” interpretation of the Koran and any deviation from orthodox Islam is met with vigilante punishment. E.g., defenestration, firebombing, murder.

And leaving Islam entirely is something that leads to death threats and bricks through the window or judicial murder. (If the latter seems a stretch, consider what would have happened to Mr. Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan had there not been an international outcry and the court not devised a face-saving lie.)

So, if there are Islamic “militants” in town, murder and extortion become the bedrock realities of society and missing links become the voice and the reality of Islam if not the de facto rulers.

If Afghanistan can have a law making it a death penalty offense to leave Islam, we can take a long-overdue step by making it our law that any non-citizen imam or other Muslim shall be forthwith denied entry or deported if he or she does not deny under oath that apostates from Islam may be killed. Other refinements can be added. “Threat” jurisprudence under the First Amendment would be one place to start. Of course, there are the usual laws against extortion, solicitation to murder, murder, and attempts to do the same.

We do not have to tolerate incompatible minorities or encourage their immigration. The tra la la/Three-Great-Religions-of-Man option is a suicide pact.

Muslim immigration is thrust upon us by the curse of multiculturalism and leftists eager to destroy western culture. If we did not have a large Muslim population in our country our energies could be focused on more productive activities.

What exactly are the benefits to Americans of a Muslim presence? Some sort of abstract "diversity" is magnified to no purpose that has ever been put before the American people. That I get. Bottom line: we pay an enormous price for that presence. Yes, yes, there are exceptions but that search you love at the airport passenger gate isn't because of disturbed members of the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod.

There is nothing about Muslim thinking or culture that I admire. 9/11 and the ongoing manipulation of our legal system for oppressive ends, among other outrages, are too high a price to pay for what little benefit that accrues from welcoming Muslims.

There is but one lesson that Islam teaches every day. That it is inferior. Can we ignore the clear lesson of the North Caucus, to name but one? Or does the problem identified there strike you only as a problem that other people in distant lands need to deal with?

Islam as practiced here in the United States is completely different.

Right?

"The Caucasus Emirate." By Yulia Latynina, The Moscow Times, 31 March 2010.