Congratulations to Daniel Pipes for his timely and serious, if occasionally satirical, call to resettle Muslim refugees from Syria in Islamic nations (“A common culture for refugees,” Commentary, Sept. 25). Mr. Pipes’ satire exposes the canard of the rationale for Syrian-refugee resettlement in Western countries with Judeo-Christian traditions: Why would a believer in the Islamic ideology consent to resettlement in a Western nation? Our culture accepts the use of alcohol and pork products by unveiled, “liberated” women who may be attired in miniskirts or less. Why not settle instead in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or even Indonesia or Kenya, where the refugees have much more in common with the natives, likely including some degree of enthusiasm for Shariah law?
Terrorists know how to game the system. The elder of the Boston Marathon bombers traveled back to the Chechen region of his birth to circulate with jihadists in an area so rife with terrorists that his family falsely claimed it could no longer safely live there. Instead, they needed to live on public assistance in Boston. The Muslim perpetrator of the Trolley Square massacre “fled persecution” in Bosnia as a youth only to be resettled in Salt Lake City.
We must refocus our government to see the threat emanating from Islamic ideology itself. In fact, since Islam is the aggressor internationally and increasingly here at home, it is actually those who harbor the Islamic ideology who make refugees of others.
To those who would argue that, for example, Shia are victimized by Sunnis and vice versa: Your argument fails because that persecution is only a function of the total lack of tolerance in the countries where such victimization occurs.