Second largest party in Denmark calls for a halt to Muslim immigration

The rising tide of jihad violence committed against Europeans by Muslim immigrants is having a predictable effect.  No matter how many times people are told that the “overwhelming majority” of Muslims are peaceful, people understand the calculation that a small percentage of a Muslim population numbering in the hundreds of thousands or millions amounts to an unacceptably large army of would-be terrorists in their midst.

As long as Islam’s scriptural commands to violent jihad are respectable within Islam’s ummah itself, this reaction is not just inevitable, but logical.

Thus, in tolerant Denmark, we learn via the Associated Press’s Jan M. Olsen:

Denmark should halt immigration from Muslim countries to stem the threat of violence from extremists, the nation's second-largest party argued Thursday.

The deputy party leader of the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party, Soeren Espersen, and other officials said the existing 270,000 Muslims in Denmark, a country of less than 6 million people, already posed a severe risk of harboring sympathizers to the Islamic State militant group.

In the 2015 election, the DPP became the second largest party, with 21.1% of the vote, an 8-percentage-point gain over its last showing, by far the fastest-rising force in Danish politics.  Needless to say, the Danish left is not happy:

Denmark's largest party, the opposition Social Democrats, condemned the comments and compared them to the anti-immigrant policies of U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Oooh, that means it must be bad, right?

Social Democrat lawmaker Lars Aslan Rasmussen, whose father is Muslim, said the Danish People's Party's position amounted to "religious discrimination, religious apartheid. ... It's far out."

The DPP has a plan to counter this criticism:

Martin Henriksen, the Danish People's Party immigration spokesman, told The Associated Press that his party — which supports Denmark's year-old minority government but holds no positions inside it — would not seek a law explicitly banning Muslim immigrants, but that would be a primary goal.

"Islam is a belligerent religion. One should not be blind that many who commit terror find inspiration in Islam. That is why there is a connection between the number of Muslims in a country and the general security risk," Henriksen said.

He declined to back the details of a proposal attributed to party colleague Espersen calling for Muslim immigrants specifically to be banned for four to six years. Espersen, who was quoted as telling this to the Berlingske newspaper, declined to comment Thursday to the AP.

Henriksen said any crackdown on immigration should be written as "religion neutral" but still have the greatest impact on reducing Muslim migration.

As the West grapples with the threat of violent jihad, I suspect we will be seeing more consideration of whether Islam is merely a religion or rather a totalitarian political doctrine.  Quite obviously there is considerable appeal among Muslims (see the support for ISIS) for the latter interpretation.

The rising tide of jihad violence committed against Europeans by Muslim immigrants is having a predictable effect.  No matter how many times people are told that the “overwhelming majority” of Muslims are peaceful, people understand the calculation that a small percentage of a Muslim population numbering in the hundreds of thousands or millions amounts to an unacceptably large army of would-be terrorists in their midst.

As long as Islam’s scriptural commands to violent jihad are respectable within Islam’s ummah itself, this reaction is not just inevitable, but logical.

Thus, in tolerant Denmark, we learn via the Associated Press’s Jan M. Olsen:

Denmark should halt immigration from Muslim countries to stem the threat of violence from extremists, the nation's second-largest party argued Thursday.

The deputy party leader of the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party, Soeren Espersen, and other officials said the existing 270,000 Muslims in Denmark, a country of less than 6 million people, already posed a severe risk of harboring sympathizers to the Islamic State militant group.

In the 2015 election, the DPP became the second largest party, with 21.1% of the vote, an 8-percentage-point gain over its last showing, by far the fastest-rising force in Danish politics.  Needless to say, the Danish left is not happy:

Denmark's largest party, the opposition Social Democrats, condemned the comments and compared them to the anti-immigrant policies of U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Oooh, that means it must be bad, right?

Social Democrat lawmaker Lars Aslan Rasmussen, whose father is Muslim, said the Danish People's Party's position amounted to "religious discrimination, religious apartheid. ... It's far out."

The DPP has a plan to counter this criticism:

Martin Henriksen, the Danish People's Party immigration spokesman, told The Associated Press that his party — which supports Denmark's year-old minority government but holds no positions inside it — would not seek a law explicitly banning Muslim immigrants, but that would be a primary goal.

"Islam is a belligerent religion. One should not be blind that many who commit terror find inspiration in Islam. That is why there is a connection between the number of Muslims in a country and the general security risk," Henriksen said.

He declined to back the details of a proposal attributed to party colleague Espersen calling for Muslim immigrants specifically to be banned for four to six years. Espersen, who was quoted as telling this to the Berlingske newspaper, declined to comment Thursday to the AP.

Henriksen said any crackdown on immigration should be written as "religion neutral" but still have the greatest impact on reducing Muslim migration.

As the West grapples with the threat of violent jihad, I suspect we will be seeing more consideration of whether Islam is merely a religion or rather a totalitarian political doctrine.  Quite obviously there is considerable appeal among Muslims (see the support for ISIS) for the latter interpretation.