Principles versus Reality

I have found this to be a very difficult commentary to write. I grew up believing that America’s founding principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, were universal - that they applied to everyone and that almost everyone believed in those principles and desired to live in a country ruled by those principles. As I grew up I came to understand that those American principles are not as universally desired as I once believed.

America has changed since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 and few would say that this change has been for the better. One of the worst changes in the US has been the radicalization of American politics. Many will blame Donald Trump for this radicalization but Mr. Trump is more a consequence of this radicalization than a cause of it. Another consequence, and a surprising one, has been the increasing presence of Muslims in this process of radicalization. The mere fact that New York City has elected a foreign-born socialist Muslim mayor only twenty-five years after radical Muslims tried to destroy the city is testament to this strange turn of events.

The outsized presence of Muslims in the American political arena is a bit strange, they only represent about 1.6% of the American population. But the Palestinian issue dominates American college campuses although the protests and boycotts have diminished recently, possibly as a result of the Trump administration’s suppression of wokeness and cancel culture. But antisemitism and hate crimes are on the rise and Jewish Americans no longer feel safe on our streets.

And Muslims seem to have staked out a presence in the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America. The co-chair of the DSA, Ashik Siddique, is a  Muslim as are several members of the National Political Committee of the DSA. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a member of DSA, is also a prominent example of this trend. Michigan senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed is currently trying to walk back his previous far-left positions (and also downplay his association with notorious antisemite Hasan Piker) but he still has the strong support of DSA.

But association with left-wing politics shouldn’t constitute a blanket condemnation of an entire religion, should it? Some might say that I am an unapologetic racist Islamaphobe for even bringing up these topics. The Economist magazine in a recent article, The truth and the lies about Islam in Europe (September 10, 2026) asserts that “Islam poses no serious danger.”  They point to “the conflation of Islam, a religion, with Islamism, a political ideology. Islam isn’t a problem; Islamism can be.” Zainab Al-Suwaij, president of the American Muslim League, supported this contention the same day in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, To Help Muslims, Reject Islamists (September 10, 2026),saying we must distinguish between extreme Islamists that hate America, and regular Muslims. But she doesn’t clearly define how we can tell the difference between the two. There doesn’t appear to be a fine line distinguishing the two camps. Is it even possible to separate Islamism from Islam? This is something we need to understand better.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali takes a distinctly different point of view in her commentary, What Mohamed Atta Was Trying to Tell Us(September 8, 2026). Somali-born Ms. Hirsi Ali underwent female genital mutilation at age five under the direction of her parents as was the custom in her country but she subsequently renounced the Muslim religion and wound up eventually in America. Unlike the Economist and Ms. Al-Suwaij, Ms. Hirsi Ali draws little distinction between Islamist extremists and regular Muslims. She describes Mohamed Atta, leader of the 9/11 attack on the United States, not so much being radicalized but as having “an uncompromising and militant commitment to Islam that he was ready to die for.” For those in the West trying to understand Muslims, she asserts that “much of the Western intellectual class reached for explanations that made sense within its own secular humanist categories.” In other words, we tried to understand Atta and other Muslims in terms of our Western civilization, not in the terms of Islam.

Western civilization is a civilization based on individuals and individual rights. Islamic society is a communalistic society where the rights of the individual are secondary to the good of the Islamic society, the Ummah. As such, Islam combines religious practice, the exercise of political authority and military prowess. Muhammed was not just a prophet, he was also a political leader and a military commander. This is why it is so difficult to separate Islam from Islamism. It is also why Islam is so foreign to American ideals and principles.

Individualism is the essence of America. Our unalienable rights (as described in the Declaration of Independence ) are individual rights. The concept of democracy is based on the individual rights of citizens. Our free market economic system (a system that has given us such great prosperity) is based on our individual pursuit of happiness (our American Dream). Socialism is opposed to these individual rights (what Mayor Mamdani calls the “frigidity of rugged individualism”). Socialism and Islam may not be totally in alignment but they are clearly a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

There are, of course, people living in Islamic countries that are not in agreement with the dominant culture. This is true is in all societies. Even in America. Such people have always been welcomed in America (at least eventually). And we have provided refuge for people fleeing religious persecution, totalitarianism and political violence. We have also provided opportunity for people seeking economic freedom. Most of these refugees and immigrants have been assimilated into the American population and culture. Exceptions that have been identified have been denied entry, incarcerated or deported. I am not sure that Muslims that have emigrated to America have assimilated our ideals and principles. It would appear to me that it would violate their religion to do so.

So, if Muslims are not assimilating into American society and adopting our principles of individual liberty, economic freedom and democracy, and further are gravitating toward socialism which opposes everything America stands for, then why should we encourage further immigration of Muslims into our country? Americans have rights because we live in the United States. Foreigners may or may not have rights, depending on the country they live in. But foreigners definitely do not have a right to come to America, become residents and apply for citizenship. These are not rights granted to non-citizens. They are privileges we can grant as we please. And we should do so to people who wish to adopt American principles. Other nationalities and ethnicities have done so with great success. Can we not ask the same of our potential Muslim immigrants? As Samuel P. Huntington stated in his seminal book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), “A multicultural America is impossible because a non-Western America is not American.” Our American principles, along with our traditions and history, urge us to welcome all sorts of people to our country, just like Emma Lazarus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty. But that welcome presumes that newcomers want to become truly American and adopt those ideals and principles that make America the great country that it is.

It is one thing to write about the rising influence of Islam and Islamism in the United States (and the West in general) and it is another thing to try to figure out what to do about it. First, many people would say that this rising influence is only a natural part of the democratic process and that it would be wrong to attempt to block or forestall this process. But the Islamification of American democracy is only one current in the deluge of socialist communal thinking that is sweeping over our country. Communal thinking that must be opposed if we are to save America and its Founding Principles.

Opposing the Islamification of America is not racist, no more than opposing socialism is. Islam encompasses many different races and ethnicities because Islam is a belief system. Western civilization, although originally conceived and developed by white Europeans, is also a belief system and philosophy. And many people of different races and ethnicities that have adopted Western ideals and principles have been extremely successful. Prior to the rise of Western Civilization most people throughout history were enslaved, ignorant and impoverished. Western civilization changed all that. This is a struggle between two philosophies about how to live life and I know which one I want to pass on to my children and grandchildren.

I am no religious scholar. I am just trying to make sense of a complicated world. Your thoughtful comments and alternative points of view might help me on this journey and are greatly appreciated.