This Is Why Islam Is Incompatible With The West

You can't entertain Americans when you actually hate the average American, their values, their belief systems, you know, the country that they love, enter the daily wire. Our newest release, run-hide fight infidel's is finally streaming, radical jihadists will destroy our freedom, but only if we let them. If you're a fan of those over-the-top action-packed films from the 80s and 90s, red dawn, toy soldiers, this is a movie you're not going to want to miss, red-blooded American good guys taking on the radical Islamic terrorists to regain their freedom, watch run-hide fight infidel's is streaming now only on the daily wire. Tired of your car insurance rate going up even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side-by-side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence, download the Jerry app or visit jerry.ai/wire. FanDuel is now available everywhere in the U.S. You can get in on the sports action no matter where you are, including these places. May this year most rewarding season ever with FanDuel, agent location restrictions apply, direct availability varies by market, see FanDuel.com for eligibility, gambling problem called 1-800-Gamber. Islam is not compatible with the West. You have to say that because virtually nobody in a position of authority will say anything remotely liked out these days. Now, this does not mean every single Muslim on planet Earth cannot live in the West peacefully or be a good Western citizen. That would be stupid and untrue, but that's not the question. If we ask whether communism is constantly with American values, you wouldn't answer that question by referencing individual communists you know who are nice people who are nice good American citizens, you'd analyze the meaning of communism as a philosophy. You'd look like what it looks like when it's been implemented as a governing doctrine. And that's the question. Whether Islam has a comprehensive religious legal and political doctrine, as currently implemented in ordering societies, conflicts with Western values. And the answer is yes. Duh. Individual rights, free speech, government by consent, separation of church and state, wherever Islamic law actually governs in every Muslim majority society on planet Earth today. These principles are not the ones that rule. Here's the test. You can run it on any majority Muslim society at any time. What happens when someone criticizes Islam? What happens when someone leaves it? What happens when someone tries to convert a Muslim to say Christianity? Run that test anywhere Islam holds political power on Earth right now and you get the same answer over and over and over again. That will give you a hint. It doesn't go great. And when people come to the West, it's determined to implement Islam as a governing strategy. Certain incidents tend to follow them. "Islam will conquer the West." "Islam will conquer the West." "Islamophobia." "For they say you're Islamophobic or you tell me about your Muslim neighbor or coworker, let us define our terms." "Don't do the norm McDonald's joke before I even get to the argument." Individual Muslims, again, can be and many are fully compatible with Americanism. That is not in dispute. The question at hand is one of systems, again, communism is incompatible with America. Islam is incompatible with America. The West is not only a place it is a set of ideas, separation of church and state, individual rights that come from God, not from government, these principles stem from millennia of political philosophy and biblical ethics going back to Jerusalem and Athens and Rome, their develops and debated in Europe and codified in the U.S. Constitution by the American founders. Western values are unique. Now let's look at Islam. Let's start with one indisputable fact, Muhammad was not merely a religious teacher. Two Muslims, he was a prophet, a head of state, a chief judge, and military commander of Medina all at the same time. In Islam, there is no fundamental distinction between church and state or the political and religious fears. Jesus says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Islam doesn't have a similar idea. Unlike Christianity, Islam was a state within its very first decade. That's a historical fact. It's also why Sharia, as a legal tradition, was never confined to personal devotion. Sharia extends into criminal law, family law, inheritance law, finance, political governance. Islam not only tells the believer how to worship, it tells the state how to rule, which is why there is literally no Muslim majority state that roots itself in non-Islamic ideals. This is a fundamental asymmetry and it has consequences. Let's start with freedom of religion. The West generally permits the construction of mosques. Saudi Arabia bans the public practice of every religion other than Islam, including the construction of Christian churches. Many Muslim majority countries that allow construction of churches generally require high level approval, put heavy restrictions on public display of Christian symbols, and restrict conversion from Islam. According to Pew in 2019, 22 countries had laws banning apostasy, the act of abandoning the faith. All 22 of those countries are majority Muslim nations. 13 of the 22 are in the Middle Eastern North Africa. There's also Afghanistan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Somalia. You get the picture. 10 of those 22 countries allow or mandate the death penalty for apostasy as well. But for the places where you're not getting executed, you might end up in prison or fog. I have that freedom of speech. The West protects your right to stand on a street corner and yell about how Jesus is terrible. Pew found that there are 79 countries that have blasphemy laws. Every single Muslim majority in the Middle East and North Africa have such laws. So simply put, the West grants Islam liberties that Islamic law wherever it governs refuses to return. Again, that's not Islamophobia, that's just data. Now, as far as the history of Islam, it didn't spread peacefully. According Islam, a religion of peace as George W. Bush did is kind of strange. Historian Bernard Louis spent a career explaining Islam's spread. The spark notes are these. Muhammad ruled in Medina, which is located on the Arabian Peninsula in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Muhammad's caliphate, expanded out of the Arabian Peninsula through conquest into the event that would be modern-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, Persia, which is now Iran, Egypt, North Africa, all the way to Iberia, which is modern-day Spain and Portugal, all within a century. The Ottoman Empire took Constantinople in 1453 and continued pushing into Europe for centuries. Islamic legal political theory has a name for territory ruled under Islam, Dar al-Islam. It has a name for territory outside of Islamic rule, Dar al-Harb, or a "bode of war." It is not a matter of selective translation. This is a framework in its big-toned Islam from the beginning. The operative question is not where Muslims may worship. The question is whether or not Islam rules. Muslims' borders have been historically and remain bloody, because those borders marked the frontier between Islamic rule and territory designated for future Islamic rule. Now, obviously, students will know Christianity spread through conquest, and that's true, but you should notice one crucial difference between Christianity and Islam. There was never an Islamic Reformation, like there was a Protestant Reformation. No institution within the Islamic world offered any form of moderation the way the Vatican too shaped Catholicism, or centuries of rabbinic interpretation shaped Judaism. There was never a piece of Westphalia, there was never an enlightenment. A comparable reconciliation of faith with empiricism in the modern world simply never took hold across Islam. From Spain to the Balkans, from South Asia to the Holy Land, and into sub-Saharan Africa, the expansion and contraction of Islam has produced conflict. That pattern persists to this day, the four deadliest terrorist organizations on Earth in 2025 were all Islamic groups. ISIS, JNIM, which is the West African branch of al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban, and al-Shabab. So, while the bloody borders have moved over time, the underlying reasons for the bloody borders have really not. That conflict is in just external, by the way, it's internal. The chief victims of Islam have been other Muslims. As Samuel Huntington put it in the clash of civilizations, quote, "Islam's borders are bloody, and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture, and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power." Now, again, I'm aware other religions have violent documents. Leviticus is an exactly gentle. The Old Testament contains passages of extraordinarily brutal warfare. Christianity historically, again, expanded its hold through military force. Christians burned heretics at the stake, too. But gradually and painfully, the West was able to implement principles of religious liberty and freedom of speech, and those principles sprang from its founding documents. Meanwhile, Islam has been continually animated by a need for bloody expansion. Ion Hirstie Ali, a dissident and apostate of the Muslim Brotherhood, writes in Tablet, quote, "Islam is animated by the beliefs that the Muslim world suffered a historical dispossession with the abolition of the caliphate, and that this loss must eventually be reversed, including the retaking of all lands that have ever been ruled by Muslims." We have to more on this in a moment first, there's a certain kind of crime. It doesn't just break a window or pick a lock. It walks right in through the paperwork, and by the time you notice, it's already inside, like, all the value is gone. This is what modern title fraud looks like. It's an invasion. Just not the kind you'd recognize, no broken glass, no alarm going off, just your name, your address, your signature, all public record, all sitting out there for anyone to find. Here's how it happened. A scammer pulls your public property records, uses AI to forge, a transfer of ownership, and files it. And just like that on paper, your home isn't actually yours anymore. They can borrow against your equity or try to sell your house out from under you while you're still living in it completely unaware. I used to assume I'd know if something like this happened to me, but I don't make that assumption anymore, which is why I use home title lock. They monitor your title 24/7, the second something changes, you'll know. If you do become a victim, the Restoration team will spend up to a million bucks fixing it. You check your bank account, you check your credit card statements. One's the last time you actually check to legally owns your house, for most people that never happened. So the invasion could already be happening, and no one has just told you. yet. But a home title lock dot com use promo code Ben for a free title history report plus a free trial of million dollar triple lock protection. So you can find out now, not after it's too late, it's home title lock dot com promo code Ben. So again, the question is not which religious text contains the most brutal passages ugly passages can be found in pretty much all ancient scripture. The question is how that religion in the year 2026 projects institutional authority. You cannot find a single Christian majority country today in which apostasy from Christianity is a capital offense. The relevant comparison is not medieval Christianity to present day Islam. The actual comparison is Christianity today versus Islam today. So now you might be asking yourself where are all the moderate Muslims that we're constantly hearing about. Ion Hershey Ali would say they don't really exist. Quote Islam as much resembles totalizing an irredentist political ideology as it does a religion. I would answer that wherever they do exist, they don't hold institutional power. What's more, open discussion about reforming Islam in a more moderate direction is not happening at scale. The case for moderate Islam is important and I hope many many more Muslims make it. But unfortunately, even in the West, true moderate beliefs in the Islamic community remain at best highly controversial. Western Muslims are by and large, far more moderate than Muslims in Muslim countries, and still 44% of American Muslims, according to Pew, hope favorable feelings for the terrorist group Hamas. Only 24% of British Muslims believe that Hamas committed rape and murder on October 7th. Again, by global standards, those would be moderate numbers. Pew's global survey, from a few years back, found 99% of Muslims in Afghanistan want surreal laws to govern their country. 91% in Iraq, 84% in Pakistan, 74% in Egypt, 81% in the Palestinian territories. Moderate Islam is simply not the mainstream of Islam as practiced as a governing philosophy across the world. So sure, there are patriotic Muslims who live in America today, who vote, pay taxes, raise their families, send their kids to the US military. But that's not the global default, and no one who is intellectually honest can say that it is. So, what does Islamic take over of the West look like? Well, it looks like minority status turning into majority status, and then Islam moving from the realm of personal practice into governing force. How does that happen? In the Daily Wires upcoming movie, run-hide fight infadels, Jonathan Majors plays Captain Clay Saunders, our entire Delta Force Captain, who is brought to a college campus to tell students the truth about Islam. There are three ways Islam will conquer the West, through immigration, through the wombs of our women, and by using our own Western freedoms against us. The demographic change comes first, and the subversion comes second. That line deliberately identifies something the West refuses to acknowledge to this day. Civilizations don't tend to die of homicide, they commit suicide. Civilizations endure when people believe in them, defend them, have kids, and transmit their values to the next generation. Islam and Islamic terrorists understand this about their culture. The West appears in Tent on Committing Suicide. The Left tells women that marriage is oppressive, motherhood is a burden, children are an environmental liability, the civilization that granted them, unprecedented freedom, is uniquely evil. Then the same Islamist Left will happily import millions of people from cultures, with higher birth rates, for stronger religious identities, and radically different ideas about women's rights. And insist that noticing the consequences is bigoted. Across Muslim-majority societies today, restrictions on women are embodied in family codes, guardianship systems, dress mandates, restrictions enforced by government, clerics, families, and mobs. That's not the view of a few powerful fundamentals, that's reflected in public opinion. In 2013, Pew surveyed more than 38,000 Muslims across 39 countries. In Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, only about 45% of respondents said a woman should decide for herself, whether or not to wear a veil. The right to leave a marriage, only 26% of Muslims in Pakistan agreed, only 22% in Egypt and Jordan agreed. Again, we're not doing vibes here, this is just data. How about mass migration, while Europe serves as a cautionary tale to America? As her CLE documents in her book Prey, nearly 3 million people entered Europe illegally between 2009 and 2021, most came from Muslim-majority countries. Approximately 230 were male, roughly 80% were under the age of 35. What happened next wasn't really mysterious, rape and sexual assault rose between 2014 and 2017 in every single European country. In Denmark, the rate doubled. Non-Western migrants accounted for approximately two-fifths of the rape convictions, and according to one-third of grouping convictions, despite constituting 13% of Denmark's population. England experienced this firsthand recently in the Pakistani grooming gang scandal. Three years, gangs of predominantly Pakistani Muslim men groomed, raped, and trafficked thousands of vulnerable British girls, while police, social workers, and local officials repeatedly failed to act fearing that confronting the ethnic and cultural pattern would be condemned as racist. A UN survey questioned nearly 5,000 men across Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, and the Palestinian territories, 31% of respondents in Lebanon, 64% in Egypt admitted to sexually harassing women and girls in public. That ranges from stalking to sexual assaults rape. Many said they did it for fun. Not again, again, for the 1,000th time, not every Muslim migrant is a rapist. Nobody serious is making that argument. Hercielli even points out that mass migration of Muslim men into the West is a problem separate from overt acts of terrorism. She says remove the Islamist, a good part of the problem still remains of a culture that as it exists today is incompatible with and defines itself in opposition to key Western values. In other words, men yelling "Alahu Akbar" in public spaces before you blow people up is only one part of a broader problem. This is in fact a clash of cultures, and this is how mass migration will see to the end of the West. Once millions of people with values diametrically opposed to the West are inside the gates, the decisive question is whether or not the newcomers assimilate into the civilization they enter. But as we have discussed, Islam doesn't typically assimilate particularly well. The demographic change is simply the precursor to subversion. Today, Islamists have found millions of willing allies among people who already despise the West, and the Democratic Party, hating America, is now a feature not a bug of the party platform. For example, the left enthusiastically advocated for open borders in order to subvert the West values even further. These kinds of actions, they are the actions of a reckless agency that is operating with impunity, one that deserves to be abolished frankly. This moment is finally here, the snowblow with the most votes, most entries abolish ice. Is ice too entrenched to even be abolished at this point? I mean nothing is so entrenched to be abolished. This is where hundreds of people are streaming into the United States illegally right now, certainly does not look like. Keep in mind, that warning in Captain Saunders' speech about Islamists using our own Western freedoms against us, that's real. The left supplies the moral indictment of the West and the Islamists supply the alternative political order, from college campuses, to Times Square, to a frustrated terror attack, and the foreign controlled algorithms brainwashing are kids on TikTok. "Never look at life the same, I will never look at this country the same, I will never. " "I feel like I'm going through like an existential crisis right now. It's actually so mind-fucking to me." Americans keep electing extraordinarily radical Democratic Socialist candidates, who literally share Osama bin Laden's grievances about America. Different messengers same complaint. People claim that the West is somehow empty, the liberty has failed, but secularism and capitalism have corrupted our civilization to the point where an entirely new constitutional order is needed under a new moral leadership. The establishment of Islamic charity schools and NGOs routinely use America's civil liberties protections as scaffolding for Muslim Brotherhood aims. A lot of that, by the way, is federal court record. In the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation case, to this day, the largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history, five defendants were convicted on 108 counts for funneling $12.4 million to Hamas. Prosecutors named care, the Council on American Islamic Relations, ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust as unindicted co-conspirators. Every one of those organizations is both active and growing in the United States today. Zorn Mamdani, who once made a rap record that gave a shout-out to the Holy Land 5, again, the Holy Land 5, were the people who were indicted. In that case, personally Rob Zelboz, with unindicted co-conspirators from that case. Abdul al-Assad, Democrat Michigan, Senate candidate, has a father-in-law who is a founding member of ISNA. These politicians and their surrogates have difficulty condemning events like 9/11 for a reason. "Because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." "America deserved 9/11, dude. I'm saying it, hurt people, hurt people." And under the rubric of Western Free Speech, the left, Islam, and portions of the Horseshoe Red Joint Forces just view nonsense like this. "The people who run the country are ruling class. It's not enough that they profit it. Does feel like they're trying to hurt the people they rule." That's the. I mean, I've reached that conclusion. What is that? "So I'm most angry at our politicians, and I'm going to give you an analogy about that in a second. So Israel, Farma, they're going to logically try to rob us." "Of course, I get it." "Right, I get it." The King takes most for himself. "United and unholy alliance against America, they all seek to overthrow. Their worldview seeks to undermine all criticism of Islam as Islamophobia, and spend world events into a broader conspiracy about America being uniquely evil. In the case of 9/11 terrorism, it's just something America did to itself. This is the blowback excuse. Here are Mehdi Hassan and Hassan Piker offering it up in its purest formulation. "The classic one they throw you, America deserved 9/11. You've withdrawn that comment, I believe." "Yeah, I said it in 2019, and you know, if you listen to the full conversation, you very quickly understand what I'm talking about. You'll do that foreign policy blowback." So again, according to the Islamic Left, America had a coming. Dress it up in some historical context, academic jargon, or Twitch streamer, the argument remains the same. Now, Foreign policy, of course, has consequences. But foreign policy is not the explanatory factor when you are talking about theology. Terrorism is not the result of American policy. Terrorism is the result of fundamentalism layered on top of a tribal, anti-Western politics that values death over life. Something has to convert political grievance into sacred violence, and that something is the political philosophy that Islam promotes. This is the golfant values the West must acknowledge. They desire death as ardently as we desire life. They believe there's their right to take from you the subjugation. Even to kill you. There is a reason Christians are not strapping on suicide vests to indiscriminately kill people halfway across the world. There's a reason that nobody ducks when someone shouts, "barch Hashem," or "Christ is King." But, if you're in a crowded place, and someone shouts, "Alohu Akbar," the reaction is a little different. Resist it while you still can, and before the right to complain is taken away from you, which will be the next thing. You will be told you can't complain because you're Islamophobic. The term is already being introduced into the culture as if it was an accusation of race hatred, for example, or bigotry, whereas it's only the objection to the preachings of a very extreme and absolutist religion. Watch out for these symptoms. They're the symptoms of surrender. At some point, Americans have to stop acting as though all other people and cultures are the same as America, they aren't. American hegemony has enabled and inspired a historically unprecedented level of health, wealth, national sovereignty around the globe. It turns out that people around the globe have their own belief systems just like we do, and they're not always compatible. The proper response to Islam's incompatibility with the West is for America to defend herself, our borders are laws, and Western civilization more broadly. We ought to badmast migration from Muslim majority countries. If you go to a mosque that promotes terrorism, we should deport you. By the way, if you're a communist or Nazi, we should also deport you. If you hate America, you should leave. All foreign funding into political organizations ought to be scrutinized, material support for terrorism warrants prosecution. If you're an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, we should prosecute and deport you. A simulation is the price of entry. It is not a nice to have bonus. We ought to protect speech, obviously, criticizing every religion Islam included. Hate speech is just blasphemy laws with Western branding. Now, the truth is, the first victims of Islam are usually dissident Muslims. People like Salman Rushdie, women like Ion Hercielli, the countless protesters who are being shot in the street in Iran, but defending the West means defending them as well. A political system built around fundamentalist divine law enforceable by the state cannot coexist on equal terms with America's system. It was built on a different set of values. One of those systems has to win, and one has to lose. I would prefer the American system win. Some members of the left, much of the media, would prefer to bury their head in the sand, that unpreparedness only guarantees that the West will lose down the line. Obviously, you should be free to be Muslim in America. But if Islam dominates America, that is a different story. You're free to believe that Sharia comes from God, but you are not free to subject your neighbor to it. And of course, in America, you're free to call this argument Islamophobic. We are also free to just ignore you, because that's silly. [BLANK_AUDIO]