Facing the Challenges of Muslim Immigration

The immigration policy of a rights-protecting state must uphold the principle of the Presumption of Innocence. This state should maintain open borders, allowing individuals to enter, live, and work freely. Invariably, it will attract significant Muslim immigration in search of greater freedoms.

The sanctity of individual rights requires that nonconsensual physical force be prohibited. Yet, there are Muslims who want to enforce Islam through such force. How can this threat be addressed?

The Attitudes of Muslims

Some advocates of Islam argue that it is a religion of peace, despite the verses in the Koran that call for violence. They contend that these verses must be understood within their historical context and are no longer applicable today. For example, the punishment for apostasy is often cited as applying only to political treason (such as defection to enemy forces), rather than merely leaving the religion.

Supporters of this view reference these verses in the Koran:

“The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills — let him believe; and whoever wills — let him disbelieve.” (18:29)

“Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold.” (2:256)

The advocates argue that the verses advocating punishments for adultery, such as stoning or flogging, were specific to the social and cultural context of the past and are no longer relevant in modern society. Similarly, they claim that the verses calling for violence against Jews were directed only at specific groups or individuals involved in hostilities with early Muslims and were not meant to apply universally or to all Jews, but were relevant only to the particular historical context in which they were revealed.

How many Muslims support this rights-respecting interpretation of Islam? Consider estimations based on a 2013 study by Pew Research, The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society [PDF].

Region	Set S: % Muslims favoring Sharia as official law in their country (PEW)	Set X: % of S favoring death penalty for apostasy (PEW)	Set Y: % of S favoring stoning for adultery (PEW)	Z = Max(X,Y)	SZ/100 = % Muslims favoring violence
Afghanistan	99	79	85	85	84
Pakistan	84	76	89	89	75
West Bank & Gaza	89	66	84	84	75
Egypt	74	86	81	86	64
Jordan	71	82	67	82	58
Malaysia	86	62	60	62	53
Iraq	91	42	58	58	53
Bangladesh	82	44	55	55	45
Thailand	77	27	51	51	39
Indonesia	72	18	48	48	35
Tunisia	56	29	44	44	25
Tajikistan	27	22	51	51	14
Kyrgyzstan	35	14	39	39	14
Lebanon	29	46	46	46	13
Russia	42	15	26	26	11
Kosovo	20	11	25	25	5
Albania	15	8	25	25	4
Turkey	12	17	29	29	3
Bosnia-Herzegovina	15	15	21	21	3
Kazakhstan	10	4	31	31	3

These figures are alarming. To put this into perspective, in Pakistan alone—home to a staggering 180 million people as of 2010 [Pew]—75% of the Muslim population declared support for violence in the name of Islam. That’s 135 million people, about the same as the entire population of Russia, who are endorsing violent actions to uphold their religious beliefs.

Could these declarations have been made under social pressure to align with the country’s politics? It’s possible. But a society gets the political system it deserves because it reflects their values. Even in a dictatorship, the ruler depends on the people’s support. If his orders violate society’s moral principles, the military and police—drawn from the very same people—will eventually turn against him.

This was demonstrated in Iran during the 1979 revolution. Although the Shah’s government relied on the military and police, the people, driven by powerful theocratic propaganda from Ayatollah Khomeini and the Mullahs, rose up and overthrew the regime. The military, once loyal to the monarchy, shifted its allegiance as society’s values changed, leading to the creation of the Islamic Republic.

This example, like many others, shows how evil ideologies can lead to evil regimes. Ayn Rand famously stated that “the uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow.” In The Return of the Primitive (1991 ed., pp. 36), she writes:

When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet. When reason is attacked, common sense is not enough.

Neither a man nor a nation can exist without some form of philosophy. A man has the free will to think or not; if he does not, he takes what he gets. The free will of a nation is its intellectuals; the rest of the country takes what they offer; they set the terms, the values, the course, the goal.

In the absence of intellectual opposition, the rebels’ notions will gradually come to be absorbed into the culture. The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other—until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.

Such absurdities became law indeed, leading to dire consequences. In theocratic Islamic states and majority-Muslim dictatorships, human rights abuses are not only severe but deeply ingrained. Atheists are executed for leaving the faith, and women are relegated to second-class status, deprived of basic freedoms like movement and education. They are often forced into marriages and subjected to horrific practices such as domestic violence, honor killings, genital mutilation, and oppressive dress codes enforced by both law and societal pressure. A detailed description of these atrocities can be found in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015 [state.gov] published by the U.S. Department of State. Here is an excerpt from the report on Kuwait, which addresses murder in the name of family honor:

Although officials did not report any honor killings during the year, there were familial attacks by male family members on female family members that fit the category of potential honor killings

The penal code penalizes some honor crimes as misdemeanors. The law states that a man who sees his wife, daughter, mother, or sister in the “act of adultery” and immediately kills her or the man with whom she is committing adultery[,] faces a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment and a fine of 225 dinars ($750).

Sentencing guidelines for honor crimes do not apply to bidoon. Media reported in November that a bidoon man stabbed his sister three times because he was upset she “was planning to stay alone in an apartment.” A local contact reported that in December family members raped, beat, and sexually assaulted a noncitizen woman for converting to Christianity from Islam.

Elan Journo, Senior Fellow and Vice President of the Ayn Rand Institute, surveys Middle Eastern countries in his book What Justice Demands: America and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, while comparing them to Israel. Below is an excerpt regarding Saudi Arabia:

What if you want to clear away some of that suffocating fog of religious oppression and think for yourself? Merely the idea of peeling Islam away from state power is incendiary. Just bringing it up, inviting people to contemplate the possibility of secular government, will cost you dearly.

Ask Raif Badawi, a writer and blogger. What’s holding back Saudi Arabia, he thought, is the saturation of life with religion. “Secularism respects everyone and does not offend anyone….Secularism…is the practical solution to lift countries (including ours) out of the third world and into the first world,” observed Badawi in one blog post. With stinging sarcasm, he ridiculed a Saudi TV preacher, because the cleric called for scientists to be punished for undermining religious law. Badawi also mocked the kingdom’s ban on non-Muslim holidays, such as Valentine’s Day, and the enforcement of that ban by the “morality police,” whose officers would skulk around flower shops and chocolate sellers, warning people away from infidel customs. Badawi hoped to spur discussion of secularism, gender equality, and what he called liberalism in society: “For me, liberalism simply means, live and let live,” he wrote. Though the kingdom vigorously censors the press, books, and the internet, it is emblematic of Badawi’s bravery that he was an active blogger, and he established an online forum called “Free Saudi Liberals Network.”

Initially, Raif Badawi faced charges of “apostasy” —the crime of leaving the religion of Islam-which in Saudi Arabia carries the death penalty. He narrowly avoided that fate. For “insulting Islam through electronic channels,” however, he received ten years in jail, a fine of more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and one thousand lashes.

Turns out that inflicting a thousand lashes all at once would almost certainly kill a person; the flesh on your back just cannot take such a flogging, and you might bleed to death. The regime delivered the punishment in phases: once a week, Badawi would be hauled out of jail to a public square in front of a mosque, flogged fifty times, then thrown back in his cell. Coincidentally-and without any deliberate irony-Badawi’s first flogging for the crime of “insulting Islam” took place soon after three self-identified jihadists stormed the office of the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and massacred the editorial staff-for insulting Islam.

In response to these facts, some countries have recognized the threat posed by Muslim populations and have taken measures to ban or severely restrict Islam. For example, Angola has reportedly banned the practice of Islam and demolished mosques. In China, the government suppresses Islamic practices, particularly among the Uyghur Muslims, who number 11 million. But are such policies consistent with the protection of individual rights?

The Correct Policy for Muslim Immigrants

A country founded on the principles of individual rights must uphold the principle of the presumption of innocence. Its government cannot assume that any particular Muslim is violent. After all, the vast majority of Muslims in the United States (4.5 million) and Canada (1.8 million, as of 2021) are not violent, demonstrating that it is possible to be Muslim and not engage in violence.

The state can only question someone at the border for a clear reason. If it starts questioning everyone, it would need to monitor the border closely, with entry only through specific gates where people are questioned. This slippery slope leads to questioning without probable cause, undermining individual rights.

Besides, it is unclear whether such questioning would be effective. If individuals crossing the border truly harbor violent intentions in the name of Islam, why would they openly declare it at the border? Background checks would be of limited use, as documents and database records in countries ruled by violence can easily be falsified.

The solution is to retroactively investigate which Muslims who have entered the country pose a threat. Let them settle, but have law enforcement monitor them closely, with undercover agents infiltrating Muslim communities. The police must detect any signs of activity that violates individual rights early and take swift action to stop it.

The task isn’t limited to preventing the formation of terrorist cells; it also includes addressing any activity that violates individual rights. For example, if a husband denies his wife the right to dress as she wishes and threatens harm if she disobeys, it may not be considered terrorist activity, but it must still be stopped. In such cases, the woman must have access to a safe way to seek help—whether to report the abuse, find refuge, or trigger an investigation. Police must ensure these resources are accessible to her.

Police can develop various methods to assist this hypothetical woman. One idea could be to use female undercover officers or communication devices in women’s restrooms in public places, like malls. If a woman is not allowed to leave her house, a simple signal—such as a sign in the window—could alert the police to trouble inside. The nature of the signal could be discreetly communicated to women, perhaps by marking their undergarments.

Such signals could be sufficiently varied to avoid detection by the oppressor, yet the police would still be able to identify them using technology. For instance, a certain sequence of positioning a flower in the window, over the course of several days, can be such signal. Photographs captured daily of windows, even from distance, can be analyzed by computers and patterns detected. The police can then follow up with undercover agents.

Police must take immediate action to prevent the creation of no-go zones for non-Muslims—areas where non-Muslims are unsafe or unwelcome. Ignoring this issue would lead to situations similar to those in some European cities, where certain neighborhoods are effectively off-limits to outsiders. Allowing such zones to form undermines the safety and rights of all residents, and the police must ensure they are prevented from emerging in the first place.

These tactics require hiring police officers from the Muslim community who understand and support the country’s values. Officers must not turn against the government due to their religious affiliation. A hierarchical structure of the law enforcement organization would allow a small number of Objectivist officers to guide a large police force, which, especially in the beginning, will mostly not be made up of Objectivists, or even atheists, but can still be proactively educated to respect individual rights as fundamental.

In statist countries, the government allocates funds to many areas it should not control, such as education and healthcare, which should be private, and regulatory agencies that should not exist at all. As a result, the police are often underfunded. Consequently, police departments tend attract the uneducated. Usually these are people with an anti-conceptual mentality, those who have a “passivity in regard to the process of conceptualization and, therefore, in regard to fundamental principles.” [aynrandlexicon.com]

Instead, the police force must be well-funded and attract top talent by offering salaries higher than those of other jobs, with a premium for the physical risks officers face. Police must be granted the same prestige and respect as firefighters, rather than being denigrated as “pigs.” A positive image of the police must be promoted by private initiatives, funded by those who recognize the critical role police play in maintaining a peaceful society. (Note: the government cannot dictate morality and therefore should not engage in public propaganda.)

No Moral Relativism

Western culture is superior to others because, unlike many other cultures, it upholds individual rights. This truth must be declared by the president of a free country as emphatically as Reagan did when he called the USSR the “Evil Empire” in 1983.

As stated earlier, the government cannot dictate morality, but it can remind the public of the country’s foundational principles. Ample opportunity for this occurs in the law courts. For example, once a lawbreaker is apprehended and the safety of potential victims is ensured, he must be judged in a public trial. His actions must be clearly identified as both wrong and illegal.

This approach discourages others from following the same path—not just because of the law, but because of the country’s core values. Protecting individual rights is not just a legal obligation—it’s a moral principle that all citizens, regardless of their cultural background, must accept.

The penalty for infringing on individual rights must be proportional to the severity of the offense, yet harsh enough to deter such behavior. A man who denies his wife freedom, for instance, cannot simply be let off with a fine. A judge might impose a jail sentence followed by a five-year parole period, during which the offender is banished from the city where his wife lives.

Countries like Singapore and Japan prohibit littering on public roads, imposing harsh penalties for actions like discarding gum or cigarette butts. While these measures are non-essential, the truly essential task is to impose severe sentences for those who engage in non-consensual physical force (violence) or threaten it. This will give laymen pause, making them realize that the government is “pretty serious about this rights stuff.”

Free Speech Exposes Bad Apples

A free society allows unrestricted free speech, including criticism of Islam in any form, whether it angers Muslims, mocks their religion, or challenges Islamic beliefs. There will always be individuals, such as militant atheists and followers of other religions, who engage in such criticism. The police should leverage these situations to their advantage, using them to identify Muslims who may respond with violence. Law enforcement must closely monitor these scenarios and intervene before any physical harm occurs.

In order to effectively respond to potential threats, the police force must be adequately staffed. If the force is too small to manage these risks, it must be expanded until safety is ensured. The state must spare no resources in protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety.

While freedom of speech allows for offensive language and insults, it is important to distinguish between speech that harms feelings and speech that incites violence. Racial slurs and offensive remarks, though unpleasant, do not constitute physical force or threats and should remain lawful. However, calls to violence, which can incite physical harm, are unlawful and must be addressed. It is analogous to a man who is waiving a gun in public. He hasn’t shot it yet, but he indicated that he is dangerous.

All education must be a private matter, and the government must have no authority to dictate how parents teach their children. Muslim parents, like all others, have the right to teach their children their religion. However, the government cannot permit children in Muslim homes, schools, or mosques to be taught violence. For instance, teaching children to view Jews as enemies to be killed is illegal. In such cases, a judge may order the removal of the children from their parents and place them in foster care, while incarcerating the parents for their actions. As mentioned earlier, a crucial method for uncovering harmful practices is the use of undercover agents to infiltrate Muslim communities.

Naturally Reforming Muslims Through Laissez-faire Capitalism

Once a safe environment is established—one free from the threat of unwelcome physical force—Muslims will naturally feel pressure to reform aspects of their culture. In a free society, people are not compelled to interact with customs they find unpleasant. For instance, many might find it uncomfortable to engage with a woman who covers her body completely except for her eyes.

In a free society, businesses have the right to set their own policies and refuse service to anyone. For example, a private bus company can deny service to a Muslim passenger if he chooses. This does not infringe upon the individual rights of the Muslim, as the bus company has the right to establish its own terms for use of its private property, owing no justification to the public. This is akin to a homeowner deciding who may enter his house. The role of the police in these cases, would be to uphold the right of property owners to make such decisions, even if those decisions are irrational.

Individual rights do not include a guarantee of being served or accommodated by others. They only protect the right to act freely on one’s own property and to engage in voluntary cooperation with others. Consent from others cannot be assumed or enforced. In other words, individual rights do not protect a person from discrimination by others.

Discrimination is legal, but irrational discrimination would face natural consequences in a competitive market. For example, if some bus companies irrationally refuse service to Muslim passengers, other companies would emerge that offer service to all, gaining a competitive edge and profiting in the process. Over time, the market would eliminate xenophobic practices through competition and the pursuit of rational self-interest.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a rights-respecting state must prioritize the protection of individual rights by prohibiting nonconsensual physical force. While the majority of Muslims may not advocate violence, the significant number who do pose a serious challenge. The solution lies not in interrogating immigrants upon entry, but in a proactive, vigilant approach that swiftly identifies and addresses any violation of individual rights.

Through effective law enforcement and laissez-faire Capitalism, a country can foster an environment in which individuals are encouraged to act rationally and benevolently toward one another. Such a society improves with each generation, and the need for policing diminishes, requiring fewer resources and easing the financial burden on the public to fund the police.

• Immigration