Hinduism Builds, Islam Destroys: Why Our Immigration Policy Must Recognize That Fact

Americans are right to ask: does every faith assimilate equally into Western democratic culture? Are we importing communities that will bolster or corrode our constitutional republic? These questions, though often dodged for fear of offense, demand an answer. In recent years, some have suggested that large-scale Hindu immigration is just as threatening to American values as Islamic immigration. This is false. It is false not merely as a matter of degree but in kind. Hinduism and Islam, as religious and civilizational systems, do not relate to the West in the same way. Hinduism is compatible with American values. Islam, in its classical and current form, is not.

What does it mean to be "compatible" with American values? At minimum, it requires a faith to affirm pluralism, individual liberty, the rule of law, and a separation between religious dictates and civil governance. Hinduism, with its polytheistic and philosophical elasticity, does this. Islam, with its foundational commitment to divine law (Sharia) over man-made law, does not.

Let us start with doctrine. Hindu scripture proclaims that truth is manifold, that different religions can represent different paths to the divine. The Rig Veda’s famous phrase, “Truth is one, the wise call it by many names,” exemplifies this inclusive spirit. There is no concept of eternal damnation for the unbeliever, no universal mandate to convert the world, no theological war against the infidel. By contrast, classical Islam divides the world into believers and unbelievers, mandates conversion or subjugation, and offers eternal reward to those who spread the faith by word or, historically, by sword.

This difference matters. In America, the First Amendment protects religion precisely because it assumes no religion will seek to dominate the state. Hinduism never has. It does not prescribe a specific political system, and in practice has coexisted with monarchies, republics, and democracies. Indeed, modern India, the largest Hindu-majority nation, is a secular state by constitutional design. Hinduism permits and even encourages religious diversity under a shared civic umbrella.

Islam, however, does the opposite. The Islamic concept of law, Sharia, is not merely a set of personal ethical precepts. It is a legal code derived from the Quran and Hadith and intended to govern all aspects of life, including criminal justice, family relations, finance, and political authority. Its implementation in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan provides ample evidence of its incompatibility with Western liberalism. In those regimes, women are second-class citizens, apostasy is punishable by death, and blasphemy, defined as criticism of Islam or its prophet, is criminalized.

Some will argue that American Muslims are different. And many are. Pew Research surveys indicate that American Muslims are among the most assimilated Muslim communities in the West, with significant portions supporting democracy and pluralism. But this is a credit to America, not Islam. The pressure to conform to Western norms has softened the edges of Islamic orthodoxy in diaspora communities. Crucially, this assimilation tends to occur when Muslims remain a small minority within a broader American context, where prevailing norms and laws temper religious extremism. However, when Muslims form a dominant demographic in a local area, as seen in parts of Michigan and Minnesota, the pattern shifts. Rather than integrating, some communities assert cultural dominance, pushing for Sharia-based laws, segregated public policies, and social norms that conflict with American constitutional values. The religion, as classically understood, has not changed. Consider the implications: Muslims must reinterpret, abandon, or secularize key tenets of their religion to live peaceably under American norms. Hindus do not.

This is not mere theory. It is borne out in practice. Hindu Americans are among the most successful immigrant groups in the United States. According to Pew, they have the highest levels of education and household income of any religious group. They participate in civic life, vote at high rates, and are disproportionately represented in medicine, engineering, and entrepreneurship. They do not form no-go zones. They do not lobby for parallel legal systems. They do not riot over cartoons.

Islamic immigration has presented far more friction. In Europe, the story is tragic and clear. Muslim enclaves in France, Germany, Sweden, and the UK have become flashpoints for violence, welfare dependency, and political separatism. The British government has investigated over eighty de facto Sharia courts operating within its borders, many of which have enforced discriminatory practices against women. The murder of Theo van Gogh, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and the massacre at Charlie Hebdo all speak to a theology unable, or unwilling, to coexist with free speech.

To anticipate an objection: is it not bigoted to paint all Muslims with the same brush? The answer is no, not when we distinguish between individual believers and the religious system they inherit. Individual Muslims can and do embrace American values. But that requires a selective reading or outright rejection of traditional Islamic teachings. Hinduism requires no such intellectual gymnastics. Its core tenets, karma, dharma, reincarnation, do not threaten constitutional liberties. Islam’s classical jurisprudence does.

Indeed, the central political distinction is this: Islam is not merely a religion, it is a totalizing system that encompasses law, state, and society. Hinduism is not. Islam has a political theology. Hinduism does not. Islam aspires to global dominion through conversion and migration. Hinduism does not. Islam has, throughout its history, spread via conquest and subjugation. Hinduism has not.

Migration is not morally neutral. It carries civilizational consequences. When Islamic immigration reaches critical mass, the host nation changes. The demand for halal-only food in public institutions, gender segregation in schools, blasphemy restrictions in media, and deference to Islamic sensitivities in politics, these are not hypotheticals, they are recurring features of Islamic migration patterns. They have emerged in Canada, the UK, Germany, and even pockets of the US. It is not xenophobic to notice this. It is prudent.

By contrast, Hindu immigrants do not arrive with political demands. They bring festivals, cuisine, yoga, and a work ethic. They do not seek to replace American institutions. They thrive within them. Their children succeed in school, not bomb them. There are no Hindu terrorist networks in the US. There is no push for Sanskrit to replace English in public life. No demand that Ganesh be depicted only with reverence in American films. No movement to outlaw beef.

There is also the matter of loyalty. Hindu Americans, when asked, identify as both Hindu and American without tension. Islam, however, elevates the ummah, the global community of Muslims, above national identity. This transnational allegiance is dangerous. It breeds the kind of thinking that justifies violence against one’s host country in the name of global Islam. It is not an accident that virtually every major jihadist in the West has cited religious duty over civic allegiance.

Of course, none of this justifies discrimination or denial of rights to individual Muslims. The Constitution protects all individuals equally. But we must not be naïve. A republic cannot long survive if it imports populations whose theological and political commitments undermine its founding principles. We have every right to distinguish between religions that assimilate and those that agitate, between creeds that coexist and those that conquer.

In sum, Hinduism aligns with the American experiment. Islam, as traditionally interpreted, subverts it. That is not bigotry, it is discernment. A sober assessment of history, doctrine, and demographic experience points to one conclusion: while Hindu immigration strengthens the American fabric, Islamic immigration, left unchecked, risks unraveling it.

Author's Note: While I love both Muslims and Hindus, I firmly believe that the Islamic religion, unlike Hinduism, is entirely incompatible with Western values and culture. Before you accuse me of being an Indian you should know that I am a Baptist from Dallas, Texas. My huguenot ancestors came to America in the 1600s fleeing genocide in France. I have traveled widely spending time in the Middle East and in India.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.