Islamic integration | WarSclerotic | Page 10

Posted tagged ‘Islamic integration’

Islam’s “Quiet Conquest” of Europe

August 10, 2016

Islam’s “Quiet Conquest” of Europe, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, August 10, 2016

♦ “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam.” — Tariq Ramadan.

♦ In 1989, Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques.

♦ In Britain, mainstream Muslim organizations are “justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques.

♦ Civil war in France is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.

♦ Real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with France’s director of domestic intelligence, Patrick Calvar. “The confrontation is inevitable,” Mr. Calvar said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France’s seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the miscreants down the street.”

These Salafists openly challenge France’s way of life and do not make a secret of their willingness to overthrow the existing order in Europe through violent means, terror attacks and physical intimidation. But paradoxically, if the Islamists’ threat to Europe were confined to the Salafists, it would be easier to defeat it.

There is in fact another threat, even more dangerous because it is more difficult to decipher. It has just been dubbed by the magazine Valeurs Actuelles, “the quiet conquest“. It is “moderate” Islam’s sinuous project of producing submission. “Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely”.

That threat is personified in the main character of Michel Houellebecq’s novel, Submission:Mohammed Ben Abbes, the “moderate” Muslim who becomes France’s president and converts the state to Islam. And from where does President Ben Abbes start his Islamization? The Sorbonne University. It is already happening: Qatar recently made a significant donation to this famous university, to sponsor the education of migrants.

In France, the quiet conquest has the face of the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), which a Simon Wiesenthal Center report charged with “anti-Semitism, advocacy and financing of terrorism and call to Jihad… ”

Not only does UOIF not encourage the integration of Moslems in France,” the report states, “it actually provides a nursery for the most radical Islamist positions.”

In Italy we have just witnessed the strategy of this “moderate Islam.” The largest and most influential Islamic organization, l’Unione delle comunità ed organizzazione islamiche in Italia (Ucoii), sponsored Milan’s first Muslim councilwoman, Sumaya Abdel Qader, a veiled candidate of the center-left coalition. Qader’s husband, Abdallah Kabakebbji, openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel: “It is a historical mistake, a scam”, he wrote on Facebook. His solution? “Ctrl + Alt + Delete”.

Qader won the race over a real moderate Muslim, the unveiled Somali activist, Maryan Ismail. I met Mrs. Ismail at a pro-Israel forum in Milan. After losing the election, she broke with Italy’s Democratic Party in an open letter: “The Democratic Party has chosen to dialogue with obscurantist Islam. Once again, the souls of modern, plural and inclusive Islam were not heard”.

Take two “stars” of this French “moderate Islam.” The first one is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the motto of which is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Ramadan does not hide in Raqqa or shoot at French citizens. By applying for French citizenship, he would like to become one of them. His office is in the Parisian suburb of Saint Denis; he has written 30 books and he has two million Facebook followers. Ramadan has academic chairs all over the world, he is the director of the Research Center for Islamic Law in Doha (Qatar) and the president of the European Muslim Network. He publicly campaigns for Islam along with Italy’s former prime minister, Massimo D’Alema. Ramadan recently explained his vision for Europe and France: “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam”.

Ramadan’s project is not the hoped-for Europeanization of Islam, but the not-hoped-for frightful Islamization of Europe. He opposes the assimilation of Muslims into French culture and society. A few days before the election in Milan, Ramadan was in Italy to endorse the candidacy of Sumaya Abdel Qader.

The second French “star” is Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. In 1989, Boubakeur justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2002, he testified for the prosecution against the writer Michel Houellebecq. In 2006, he sued Charlie Hebdo in court, after the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France.

1772

Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, last year called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France. (Image source: TV5 Monde)

In the United Kingdom, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques. Divorce, polygamy, adultery and wife-beating are only some of these courts’ matters of jurisprudence. In Germany, vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel criticized Saudi Arabia for financing Islamic extremism in Europe. It is the same kingdom which last year offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany.

Qatar, with its Al Jazeera television megaphone, is also very active in sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood Islamic radicalism all over Europe. The Qatari royal family, for example, in 2015 donated £11 million to Oxford’s St. Anthony’s College, where Tariq Ramadan teaches. Qatar also announced that it was willing to spend $65 million in the French suburbs, home to the vast majority of the six million Muslims in France.

Today in Europe, several scenarios are possible, including the worst. Among them, there is a civil war, which many are beginning to talk about, including Patrick Calvar, the director of domestic intelligence. This is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.

The end is more important than the means. The Islamic State has the same goal as most of the members of so-called “moderate Islam”: domination under the sharia. Many supposedly “moderate Muslims”, even if they do not commit violent acts themselves, support them quietly. They support them by not speaking out against them. If they do speak out against them, they usually do so in coded terms, such as that they are “against terrorism,” or that what concerns them about violent acts by Muslims is the possibility of a “backlash” against them.

Violent jihadis, however, are not the only means of transforming Europe, and perhaps are even counterproductive: they could awaken the nations they attack. Soft and more discreet means, such as social pressure and propaganda, are even more dangerous, and possibly even more effective: they are harder to see, such as the West’s acceptance of dual judiciary and legal systems; sharia finance (if there had been a “Nazi finance” system, in which all financial transactions went to strengthening the Third Reich, what effect might that have had on World War II?), and the proliferation in the West of mosques and extremist Islamic websites. Although there are indeed many real “moderate Muslims”, there are also still many who are not.

To conservative Muslims, however, any Muslim who does not accept every word of Allah — the entire Koran — is not a true Muslim, and is open to charges of “apostasy”, the punishment for which is death. According to a leading Sunni theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, based in Qatar, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today.”

That is why the late writer Oriana Fallaci once said to The New Yorker: “I do not accept the mendacity of the so-called Moderate Islam”. That is why real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

This might summarize the current Islamic mainstream mentality: “Dear Europeans, continue to think about a shorter working week, early retirement, abortion on demand and adultery in the afternoon. With your laws, we will conquer you. With our laws, we will convert you”.

Categories: Britain, Europe, Islam and conquest, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Sharia law
Tags: Britain, Europe, Islam and conquest, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Fighting Hate Speech — British Style

August 7, 2016

Fighting Hate Speech — British Style, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, August 7, 2016

♦ The review found that chaplains at some prisons encouraged inmates to raise money for Islamic charities linked to international terrorism.

♦ In June, a Muslim cleric told the BBC that a manual used by imams to teach prison inmates about Islam risks “turning people into jihadis.” A section of the program on jihad says that taking up arms to fight “evil” is “one of the noblest acts.”

♦ Tommy Robinson was recently pictured at the Euro 2016 football championships in France wearing an anti-ISIS T-shirt and holding up a flag with “F**k ISIS” written across it. Upon his return to London, Bedfordshire Police immediately charged Robinson with inciting racial hatred.

♦ So, offending a murderous terrorist organization such as ISIS is apparently no longer protected by the rules of free speech and is now considered “inciting racial hatred” against Muslims.

In April, leaks from the review of extremism in prisons, which was commissioned by former British Justice Secretary Michael Gove and conducted by former prison governor Ian Acheson, revealed that Islamic hate literature — misogynistic and homophobic pamphlets and hate tracts endorsing the killing of apostates — is freely available on the bookshelves of British prisons. The hate literature is distributed to inmates by Muslim chaplains, who themselves are appointed by the Ministry of Justice.

According to the Daily Mail, a Whitehall source said that the material was kept in prison chaplaincy rooms and was available for anyone to come in and pick it up. The leaked review also found that chaplains at some prisons encouraged inmates to raise money for Islamic charities linked to international terrorism.

The review will finally be released to the public in August, after a long delay due, according to theDaily Mail, to the findings of the review sparking an urgent internal alert, because of the risk of “severe reputational damage” to the Ministry of Justice. Chris Phillips, the former head of the National Counter Terrorism Security Office, a police unit that works closely with the government on its counter-terrorism strategy, warned last year that staff shortages in prisons were making it harder to tackle Islamic radicalization, because extremists were not properly monitored. Then Home Secretary Theresa May rejected the claim by saying that the government was looking at “and continue to look at” preventative measures.

One former prison officer told the BBC that the “problem within prisons now is getting to a critical point”, with “many Muslim prisoners basically taking over the law of the prison.”

In June, a Muslim cleric told the BBC that a manual used by imams to teach prison inmates about Islam risks “turning people into jihadis.” Sheikh Musa Admani, who according to the BBC is a chaplain and expert in interpreting Islamic texts, and has worked extensively on anti-radicalization programs in the UK and abroad, told the BBC that the so-called Tarbiyah programme, used in English and Welsh prisons since 2011, could turn people towards violence and should be withdrawn. A section of the program is on jihad, and it says taking up arms to fight “evil” is “one of the noblest acts.” According to the BBC, the Tarbiyah program was co-written by a number of imams and Ahtsham Ali, a prisons adviser to the Ministry of Justice. According to Sheikh Musa Admani:

“This document sets out the steps and then addresses various forms of jihad and then goes on to emphasise a particular type i.e. the killing and the fighting. It incites people to take up arms… It prepares people for violence. It could turn people when they come out of prison, supposedly rehabilitated, back into violence.”

Notably, all this is happening despite the fact that the British government’s anti-extremism Prevent strategy requires prisons to stop extremists radicalizing inmates. Clearly, that is not going very well.

Ian Acheson presented his findings from the review for the first time on July 13 at a meeting in the Commons Justice Committee. According to the Daily Mail, Acheson said that he found staff lacked the training to confront and deter Islamist extremist ideology, and were often fearful that they would be accused of racism if they did.

Judging by Acheson’s words, the review is damning of the National Offender Management Service (the institution in charge of prisons): “The service had made no provision at all to forecast the return of jihadi fighters from Afghanistan or ISIS-controlled territory or anywhere else… I found that quite astonishing.”

He also said that there were countless examples of extremist literature being present, while the recruitment, training and supervision of prison imams was “seriously deficient.”

Acheson spoke of an “institutional timidity” in “confronting this problem front and central” adding that the “extremism unit” at the National Offender Management Service “lacked an actual strategy to deal with extremism.”

He also said, “It seemed more concerned with briefing and collating information than providing robust operational support to the front line.”

British authorities are indeed in trouble, if a fear of being called “racist” interferes with their willingness to deal with Islamism.

Hate speech, moreover, is not only being preached in prisons. The young and impressionable are also getting their fair doses at British universities where, in the words of the Express, “Red-carpets [are] laid out for Islam hate preachers at universities and no one challenges them.” According to the Express, 27 events at UK universities had radical speakers in just four months, a rise of 35% in just the last year. This welcome exists despite the requirement of all universities to comply with the government’s anti-extremist program, Prevent.

According to the Express, the messages peddled at these academic events were contemplations such as “Jews are evil”, and a man wanting to marry a Muslim woman, if he did not pray, “should be executed.” Those universities in the British capital that hosted the most extreme events were London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, King’s College, Kingston University, the Institute of Education and University College London.

Among those given a platform at these universities were former Guantanamo inmate Moazzam Begg, director of the lobbying group CAGE, which opposes the British government’s anti-terror program, and South African politician Julius Malema — convicted of a hate crime for claiming a rape victim must have had a “nice time.”

In 2014, at least 70 events with Islamic hate preachers took place at British universities.

Under the Prevent strategy, British universities have to put in place policies to stop extremists radicalizing students and ensure they have measures in place to recognize and respond to signs of radicalization among their students. That, too, does not seem to be working very well.

While the British authorities do not seem equipped to deal with Islamic hate speech, they are impressively efficient when it comes to dealing with what they perceive as “Islamophobia.” British police acted promptly when Tommy Robinson was recently pictured at the Euro 2016 football championships in France wearing an anti-ISIS T-shirt and holding up an English Saint George Cross flag with “F**k ISIS” written across it.

Upon his return to London, Bedfordshire police immediately charged Robinson with inciting racial hatred and brought an application for a “football banning order” against him. Robinson, a Pegida UK organizer, previously received a three-year football ban, which expired in 2014. He has not been known to be involved in football disturbances since. The application against him claimed that he

“poses a significant risk of both violence and disorder… This is especially so in terms of his established capacity to organise disorder from an anti-Muslim perspective… Despite… recently reported ‘good conduct’ at Luton Town Football Club, significant concerns remain regarding his intentions and influences upon others to inflame racial hatred in a country where tensions are already high.”

Offending a murderous terrorist organization such as ISIS is apparently no longer protected by the rules of free speech and is now considered “inciting racial hatred” against Muslims. Does this, then, mean that British police assume that all Muslims identify with ISIS and are thus in some way victims of “racial hatred” when someone wears a T-shirt or holds up a flag that says “F**k ISIS”?

Not only do British police know how to deal swiftly with other people’s “Islamophobia”, they also know how to censor their own speech, when need be, in order not to come across as “Islamophobic.” At one of the UK’s largest shopping centers, during a terror drill designed to be similar to the Paris and Brussels terror attacks, the Greater Manchester police had the fake suicide bomber shout “Allahu Akbar” before detonating a mock device.

1596 (1)

A video still from the mock terrorist attack staged on May 9, 2016 by the police in Manchester, England.

For this realistic scenario — after all, that is what Muslim terrorists shout before they detonate themselves or their bombs — the Greater Manchester Police were subsequently criticized: The mayor of Greater Manchester and the area’s police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, said the operation had been “marred by the ill-judged, unnecessary and unacceptable decision by organisers” to have those playing the parts of terrorists shout the Islamic phrase. “It didn’t add anything to the event, but has the potential to undermine the great community relations we have in Greater Manchester.”

The new British government has its work cut out for it.

Categories: Britain, Britain and Islam, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic radicalization, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: Britain, Britain and Islam, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic radicalization, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Pope and Holy War

August 3, 2016

The Pope and Holy War, Gatestone Institute, Denis MacEoin, August 3, 2016

♦ The West that jihadists now terrorize has allowed itself to be weakened. A combination of political correctness, fear of giving offense, fear of combat, and a reluctance to upset illusory stability has led to an incredible series of opportunities for the jihadists.

♦ We have dropped our guard and turned away. Not because we have no security forces. We do. But because we often are not looking at the right things: the texts and sermons that prefigure radicalisation.

♦ “[T]he Noble Quran appoints the Muslims as guardians over humanity in its minority, and grants them the rights of suzerainty and dominion over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission. … We have come to the conclusion that it is our duty to establish sovereignty over the world and to guide all of humanity to the sound precepts of Islam and to its teachings…” — Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the morning of July 26, a priest serving mass, an elderly man of 85, Father Jacques Hamel,was butchered before his altar by one of two knife-wielding devotees of the Islamic State. His killer slit his throat and might very well have proceeded to behead him, as is the wont of many jihadi executioners. The followers of a faith that honours murderers as martyrs (shuhada’) created a martyr for quite another faith.

In both Greek and Arabic, the terms “martyr” and shahid mean exactly the same thing: “a witness”. Father Hamel was the latest in a long line of Christian martyrs who have been slain by men of violence, supposedly in order to attest to the sole truth of their faith. Many Muslim martyrs have died in much that way, but even more have given their lives while waging war (jihad) to conquer territories for Islam.[1]

The flag of the Islamic State reads “la ilaha illa’llah, Muhammadun rasulu’llah“. The words mean: “There is no God but God; Muhammad is the prophet of God”. Those two phrases are known as the shahada, the bearing of witness. You see it everywhere today, now in Syria, then again in France or the UK. But shahada also means martyrdom. And martyrdom while committing violence is what the killers of an innocent man of God achieved on that day when armed police found them and shot them dead outside the church they had desecrated.

On the following day, the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, issued a statement on the event, and for a moment it seemed that he had finally got things right. He said the world was now at war. Decades after the war started, here was a religious leader and statesman who seemed to have awakened to the fact that Western countries have been unwillingly and ineffectively failing to wage a war against Islamic radicalism. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that Islamic radicalism has been waging a war with us.

But then he blew it. What he then said was:

“It’s war, we don’t have to be afraid to say this … a war of interests, for money, resources. I am not speaking of a war of religions. Religions don’t want war. The others want war.”

What? Is slaughtering a priest at his altar linked to “interests, money, resources”? Were the killers driven by a longing for social justice, for more money, for access to greater resources? Did they think the violent death of a harmless priest would bring them any of that? They had not gone to steal any of the valuable altar table objects, the censers, the candlesticks, the crucifix, the monstrance. The killers had been shouting “Allahu akbar”, literally “God is greater” (than everything, especially, to Muslims, the supposedly non-monotheistic Christian Trinity and the Church). As we know only too well, “Allahu akbar” is a religious phrase that Muslims use often. It is the beginning of the call to prayer, the adhan, repeated six times, five times a day, preceded and followed by the shahada. It has been ringing in Western ears every time Muslims in Europe and North America carry out attacks or as a prelude to a suicide attack. It is precisely because Muslims believe that their God (named in Arabic as Allah) is superior to all other gods, because to them Islam is the greatest of all religions and lastly, because Islam is destined to conquer the world either by conversion or through violence.

What did Pope Francis mean when he said “Religions don’t want war. The others want war”? This is a man with access to endless colleges of scholars, to academics worldwide, to specialists in Islam and the Middle East. It is simply not true. To begin with, who are these “others”? Non-religious people? Atheists? Agnostics? Protestants?

In order to win a war, you have to be able to identify your enemy, understand his motives, figure out just what drives his soldiers to risk their lives in battle, know for what cause mothers and wives should send their sons and husbands to fight, knowing they may never return. Ignore all that, invent false motives for the enemy, or fail to know his ultimate aims, and you will lose. “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles”, said the great Chinese general, Sun Tzu, in his Art of War.

A day after that remark, the Pope sadly compounded his ignorance. A report in a Catholic magazine, Crux, stated that:

The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, “a small group of fundamentalists,” including in Catholicism.

“When fundamentalism goes as far as murdering … you can murder with your tongue and also with the knife,” he said.

“I believe that it’s not fair to identify Islam with violence. It’s not fair and it’s not true,” he continued, adding that he has had a long conversation with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the Cairo-based Islamic university often described as the Vatican of the Sunni world.

“I know how they think. They look for peace, encounter,” he said. [Author’s italics]

Unfortunately, it is clear that the Pope (along with hundreds of politicians and religious leaders in the West, although not in Israel) does not know his enemy at all. If he thinks that “religions do not want war,” it is also clear he has never studied Islam or received truthful instruction in it from anyone. Here is why.

The later chapters of the Qur’an contain dozens of verses calling on the believers to go out to fight jihad or to use their resources to pay others to do so. The purpose of jihad is “the strengthening of Islam, the protection of believers and voiding the earth of unbelief”.[2]

According to a modern expert on jihad, “the Qur’an… presents a well-developed religious justification for waging war against Islam’s enemies”.[3]

Islam is not merely a religion; it is a system of governance. Here is Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood:

Islam is a comprehensive system which deals with all spheres of life. It is a state and a homeland (or a government and a nation). It is morality and power (or mercy and justice); it is a culture and a law (or knowledge and jurisprudence). It is material and wealth (or gain and prosperity). It is an endeavour and a call (or an army and a cause). And finally, it is true belief and worship.[4]

What does this mean for non-Muslims? Banna again makes this clear:

This means that the Noble Quran appoints the Muslims as guardians over humanity in its minority, and grants them the rights of suzerainty and dominion over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission. Hence it is our concern, not that of the West, and it pertains to Islamic civilization, not to materialistic civilization. We have come to the conclusion that it is our duty to establish sovereignty over the world and to guide all of humanity to the sound precepts of Islam and to its teachings, without which mankind cannot attain happiness.[5]

1746

Pope Francis (right), recently said that “I am not speaking of a war of religions. Religions don’t want war,” and “I believe that it’s not fair to identify Islam with violence. It’s not fair and it’s not true.” Hassan al-Banna (left), founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote that “the Noble Quran appoints the Muslims as guardians over humanity in its minority, and grants them the rights of suzerainty and dominion over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission.”

The Islamic Tradition literature, found in the six canonical collections, lays down descriptions of jihad and instructions on how to fight it. Please do not be misled by the oft-repeated obfuscation, “The greater jihad is a struggle with the self, a spiritual war”. There is no mention of this idea in the classical texts.[6] For centuries, jihad has meant physical warfare. Even the mystical Sufi brotherhoods have engaged in that extremely physical struggle.[7]

The Islamic prophet Muhammad led his men into battle on many occasions and sent out around 100 raiding parties and expeditions.[8] His successors, the caliphs, did the same. In the half-century after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., Muslim forces had conquered half the known world. Jihad wars continued to be fought on an annual basis by all the great Islamic empires, with no exception.

The first two major Islamic empires, that of the Umayyads (661-750) and their successors under a new dynasty of caliphs, the Abbasids (750-1258) carried out annual expeditions (usually two or more per year) against the Byzantine Empire (based in Constantinople). These raids were an ongoing tradition based on the earliest jihad wars in both the West and the East. They were never haphazard, but well planned. There were usually to two summer campaigns, often be followed by winter expeditions.

The summer jihads usually took the form of two separate attacks. One onslaught was called the “expedition of the left”. It was launched from the border fortresses of Sicily, whose troops were mainly of Syrian origin. The larger “expedition of the right” would be carried out from launched from the eastern Anatolian province of Malatya, deploying Iraqi troops. These jihad expeditions reached their height under the third major empire, that of the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinople in 1453, thereby bringing an end to the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople was renamed Istanbul and its chief basilica, Hagia Sophia, was turned into the imperial mosque of the Ottomans.

Today’s jihadist organizations, from the Islamic State to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Islamic Jihad, Jabhat al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Hamas, al-Shabaab and hundreds of others are simply carrying out, on a broader canvas, the jihad wars of the nineteenth century.[9]

Jihadists seem to do this in preference to missionary work (although other groups such as the Pakistani Tablighi Jamaat do plenty of that) because their wars hark back to the days of Muhammad and his companions, the first three warlike generations. The term salafi, used now for the most radical Islamic groups, comes from salaf, or “ancestor,” but with a specialized meaning of the first three generations of Islam. Muhammad, his first followers, their children and grandchildren. Jihadists do it because, having lost military strength since the collapse of the Ottoman empire in 1918, they seem still to feel compelled to fight back against the power of the West, the triumph of the Christians (or in Israel, the Jews). God, in their eyes, promised his followers, the Muslims, that they would one day rule the world,[10] and for many centuries, Muslims may have thought that was actually happening. Then such hopes were dashed. Western empires started conquering, colonizing and ruling Muslim states, such as northern India, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and elsewhere — a reversal quite unthinkable.

To fight back, jihadists have chosen to use the best weapon at their disposal: terrorism. Worse, the West they now terrorize has allowed itself to be weakened. A combination of political correctness, fear of giving offense, fear of combat, and a reluctance to upset illusory stability has led to an incredible series of opportunities for the jihadists.

The young Islamist who killed the priest in France, for example, had been twice arrested for trying to head to Syria to serve with the Islamic State. At the time of the murder, the kindly authorities had forced him to wear an ankle bracelet with which to be monitored — but his curfew was only overnight. During the day, he was allowed to wander the streets freely. On that fateful morning, he decided to walk with his companion into a nearby church and fulfil his longings for martyrdom and for killing a Christian.

Unfortunately, Pope Francis could not be more wrong. One religion has wanted to fight wars from its inception. We have had more than 1400 years to guard ourselves against that, as when the Ottoman Empire was stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. Now, we have dropped our guard and turned away. Not because we have no security forces. We do. But because we often are not looking for the right things: the texts and sermons that prefigure radicalisation.

Why do young Muslims turn from ordinariness to recruitment for the extremists? Young Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Baha’is do not move in that direction. Could it be because so many young Muslims, first in the Islamic countries, now in the West, are taught from an early age that Islam aspires to domination, that jihad is not an evil but rather an expression of their faith, that they suffer as victims of “Islamophobia,” that Western women are immoral, and that other religions are false?

It is time to wake up. We are indeed at war, whether we like it or not. “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”, Leon Trotsky said.

Our enemy is an extremist version of Islam that has yet to undergo a reformation, one that takes Muslims not back to the seventh century, but forwards to the twenty-first and possibly beyond.

_________________________________

[1] “The concept of martyrdom developed differently in Islam than it did in either Judaism or Christianity. Martyrdom in Islam has a much more active sense: the prospective martyr is called to seek out situations in which martyrdom might be achieved.” David Cook, Understanding Jihad, University of California Press, 2015, p. 26.

[2] Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History, The Hague, 1979, p. 10

[3] Cook, p. 11.

[4] Hasan al-Banna, Message for Youth, trans. Muhammad H. Najm, London, 1993, p. 6

[5] Wendell Charles (trans), The Five Tracts of Hasan Al-Banna (1906-1949), University of California Press, 1978, pp. 70-73.

[6] “Traditions indicating that jihad meant spiritual warfare… are entirely absent from any of the official, canonical collections (with the exception of al-Tirmidhi, who cites ‘the fighter is one who fights his passions’; they appear most often in the collections of ascetric material or proverbs.” Cook, p. 35.

[7] “This paradigm persisted into medieval times, where we often find the Sufi groups fighting the enemies of Islam. For example, after defeating the Crusaders under Guy de Lusignan at the Battle of the Horns of Hattin (1187), the Muslim leaders Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi [Saladin] (1169-91) gave the captive Crusaders to several of his Sufi regiments to slaughter.” Cook, p. 45.

[8] A comprehensive and fully annotated list is available at Wikipedia.

[9] For details of these, see Rudolph Peters, passim.

[10] “He (God) it is who sent his Messenger [Muhammad] bringing guidance and the True Religion in order to make [Islam] dominant over all other religions” (Qur’an 9:33). The fifth verse of that same sura is known as the “Sword Verse”, because it is the first to encourage physical attacks on non-Muslims.

Categories: Caliphate, Islam - submission, Islam - the religion of peace everlasting, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic slaughter, Islamic terrorism, Pope Francis
Tags: Caliphate, Islam - submission, Islam - the religion of peace everlasting, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic slaughter, Islamic terrorism, Pope Francis

Comments: Be the first to comment

Far-right anti-Erdogan protest allowed to go ahead in Cologne on day of demonstrations

July 31, 2016

Far-right anti-Erdogan protest allowed to go ahead in Cologne on day of demons, Deutsche Welle, July 30, 2016

(How “far left” must Germany be when voicing displeasure with Erdogan is deemed “far right”? — DM)

Some three million people of Turkish origin live in Germany, making it the world’s largest Turkish diaspora.

***********************

A court in Münster has given permission for a far-right protest against Turkish President Erdogan to take place on Sunday in Cologne. Erdogan supporters will also be taking to the streets of the western German city.

erdogan protest

A spokesman for the Higher Administrative Court in Münster confirmed on Saturday that it had rejected an appeal by Cologne police to ban an anti-Erdogan demonstration called by the far-right political party Pro NRW for Sunday.

The court upheld an earlier decision by a Cologne court to allow the demonstration to go ahead, despite police fears that violent members of the HoGeSa (Hooligans Against Salafists) group could join in the protest.

The demonstration is to take place under the motto “No tributes to Erdogan in Germany: Stop the Islamist autocrat from the Bosporus” in response to a planned rally by up to 30,000 Erdogan supporters in the city on the same day.

No Erdogan live presentation

The Münster court, which is responsible for administrative disputes, also rejected an appeal by the organizers of the pro-Erdogan demonstration to be allowed to show the Turkish president live on a large screen during the event.

Police have voiced fears that such a presentation could cause participants to become over-excited.

Police in Cologne are planning to deploy 2,300 officers and have six water cannon on hand in case violence does break out at any of the demonstrations planned in the city on Sunday, which also include rallies by leftists and youth organizations affiliated with German parties.

fear

Özdemir warned of an “atmosphere of fear”

Erdogan critics ‘targeted’

In comments carried in the Saturday edition of the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” newspaper, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called on participants in the pro-Erdogan demonstration to display moderation.

Steinmeier said it was “not permissible” to bring domestic political tensions from Turkey to Germany or to intimidate people with different political views.

The leader of the Greens, Cem Özdemir, also criticized alleged attempts at intimidation ahead of the demonstration, telling newspapers of the Funke media group that critics of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan among Germany’s Turkish community were being targeted.

Özdemir said that demonstrations for or against Turkish leaders had to take place “on the basis of the [German] legal system.”

“An atmosphere of fear must not be created,” he said.

Turkey in turmoil

Sunday’s demonstrations come as Erdogan continues with purges of the army, judiciary, the education system and the media following a failed coup on July 15.

Critics of the president fear that he might be using the coup as an excuse to increase his already tight political grip on the country.

Some three million people of Turkish origin live in Germany, making it the world’s largest Turkish diaspora.

Categories: Erdogan, Germany, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Turkey, Turkey and Europe, Turkish immigrants
Tags: Erdogan, Germany, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Turkey, Turkey and Europe, Turkish immigrants

Comments: Be the first to comment

Fearing reprisal from Muslims, French publisher reverses decision to publish book critical of Islam

July 31, 2016

Fearing reprisal from Muslims, French publisher reverses decision to publish book critical of Islam, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, July 31, 2016

This is the way the West dies
This is the way the West dies
This is the way the West dies
Not with a bang but a whimper.

This is nothing new, however. Way back in 2002, a French edition of my book Islam Unveiled was canceled for fear of offending Muslims.

Hamed-Abdel-Samad

“Fearing Islamist reprisal, French publisher revises decision to publish book critical of Islam,” by Vijeta Uniyal, Legal Insurrection, July 28, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A Paris-based publishing house has revised its decision to publish a French version of the German bestseller “Der Islamische Faschismus” (The Islamic Fascism). Written by German-Egyptian author Hamed Abdel-Samad, the book was due to hit the French bookstores in September. Piranha Edition reportedly changed its mind after this month’s ISIS-inspired terror attack in Nice that killed 84 people and injured more than 300.

If the objective of Islamist violence in Europe had been to force the continent into submission, it is well on its way to achieving them.

Piranha Edition justified the decision of not going ahead with the publication by citing the threat of Radical Islam as well its desire of not wanting to strengthen the right-wing French groups critical of Islam. Interestingly, the head office of the Piranha Edition is just within a few minutes of walk from Bataclan, the theatre where 89 people were murdered by Islamic terrorists in November 2016.

Earlier this week, Hamed Abdel-Samad revealed the details of the failed book deal in a German-language blog Die Achse des Guten:

First the publisher changed the title from “The Islamic Fascism” to “Is Islam a form of Fascism?” — in order to avoid unnecessary polarisation. But after the attack in Nice, the publishing house decided not to publish the book at all, as it fearful of the consequence — as stated in [their] email — which could have been deadly. There could be another attack like the one at Charlie Hebdo.

Had the publisher ended the email just there, I could understand, as it is a matter of life and death, and I cannot ask everyone to take the risk that I take with my book.

But then came the second argument why the publication was not possible at this point. The book could benefit the right wing [parties]. [Author’s translation]

Whenever Islamic terrorism strikes somewhere in the West, media commentators and politicians always love to talk about the ‘moderate Muslims’ living among us. We are endlessly reminded of the “voices” of moderation, reason and peace within Islam. Hamed Abdel-Samad is just such one such genuine voice being stifled in the West. And he is not alone; Somali-born women’s rights advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pakistani writer Ibn Warraq, Bangladeshi novelist Taslima Nasrin are just some of the true Muslim voices of reason and sanity of our times.

These few, but brave women and men are not only forced to live like hunted fugitives in the West by Islamists determined to enforce Fatwa placed on their heads, but driven into silence by leftists enforcing accepted speech codes on college campuses and public arena.

Given the almost omnipresent threat of violence inside the Muslim majority countries, we can give up on our hopes of hearing any substantial criticism of Islamist theology from within the Muslim World. But what is happening to Muslim dissenters in the West is no less sinister. The violent campaign to shut down any opposition in the Muslim World is complimented in the West by the activism of the Left.

On the other hand, the mainstream media is more interested in talking to the representatives of Islam who are eager to talk about ‘Islamophobia’, or the Western guilt, but not about the theology behind the ongoing worldwide Jihad….

Categories: Censorship, Europe, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: Censorship, Europe, Islam - submission, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supemacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

Will Europe Refuse to Kneel like the Heroic French Priest?

July 30, 2016

Will Europe Refuse to Kneel like the Heroic French Priest? Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, July 30, 2016

♦ Go around Europe these days: you will find not a single rally to protest the murder of Father Jacques Hamel. The day an 85-year-old priest was killed in a French church, nobody said “We are all Catholics”.

♦ Even Pope Francis, in front of the most important anti-Christian event on Europe’s soil since the Second World War, stood silent and said that Islamists look “for money”. The entire Vatican clergy refused to say the word “Islam”.

♦ Ritually, after each massacre, Europe’s media and politicians repeat the story of “intelligence failures” — a fig leaf to avoid mentioning Islam and its project of the conquest of Europe. It is the conventional code of conduct after any Islamist attack.

♦ Europe looks condemned to a permanent state of siege. But what if, one day, after more bloodshed and attacks in Europe, Europe’s governments begin negotiating, with the mainstream Islamic organizations, the terms of submission of democracies to Islamic sharia law? Cartoons about Mohammed have already disappeared from the European media, and the scapegoating of Israel and the Jews started long time ago. After the attack at the church, the French media decided even to stop publishing photos of the terrorists. This is the brave response to jihad by our mainstream media

Imagine the scene: the morning Catholic mass in the northern French town of Etienne du Rouvray, an almost empty church, three parishioners, two nuns and a very old priest. Knife-wielding ISIS terrorists interrupt the service and slit the throat of Father Jacques Hamel. This heartbreaking scene illuminates the state of Christianity in Europe.

1734

Father Jacques Hamel was murdered this week, in the church of St. Étienne-du-Rouvray, by Islamic jihadists.

It happened before. In 1996 seven French monks were slaughtered in Algeria. In 2006, a priest was beheaded in Iraq. In 2016, this horrible Islamic ritual took place in the heart of European Christianity: the Normandy town where Father Hamel was murdered is the location of the trial of Joan of Arc, the heroine of French Christianity.

France had been repeatedly warned: Europe’s Christians will meet the same fate of their Eastern brethren. But France refused to protect either Europe’s Christians or Eastern ones. When, a year ago, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, suggested transforming empty French churches (like that one in Etienne du Rouvray) into mosques, only a few French intellectuals, led by Alain Finkielkraut and Pascal Bruckner, signed the appeal entitled, “Do not touch my church” (“Touche pas à mon église“) in defense of France’s Christian heritage. Laurent Joffrin, director of the daily newspaper Libération, led a left-wing campaign against the appeal, describing the signers as “decrepit and fascist“.

For years, French socialist mayors have approved, in fact, the demolition of churches or their conversion into mosques (the same goal as ISIS but by different, “peaceful” means). Except in the Saint-Germain-des-Prés quarter of Paris, and in some beautiful areas such as the Avignon Festival, France is experiencing a dramatic crisis of identity.

While the appeal to save France’s churches was being demonized or ignored, the same fate was suffered by endangered Eastern Christian being exterminated by ISIS. “It is no longer possible to ignore this ethnic and cultural cleansing”, reads an appeal signed by the usual combative “Islamophobic” intellectuals, such as Elisabeth Badinter, Jacques Julliard and Michel Onfray. In March, the newspaper Le Figaro accused the government of Manuel Valls of abandoning the Christians threatened with death by ISIS by refusing to grant them visas.

Go around Europe these days: you will find not a single rally to protest the killing of Father Hamel. In January 2015, after the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo, the French took to the streets to say “Je suis Charlie”. After July 26, 2016, the day an 85-year-old priest was murdered in a church, nobody said “We are all Catholics”. Even Pope Francis, in the face of the most important anti-Christian event on Europe’s soil since the Second World War, stood silent and said that Islamists look “for money“. The entire Vatican clergy refused to write or say the word “Islam”.

Truth is coming from very few writers. “Religions overcome other religions; police can help little if one is not afraid of death.” With these words, six months after the massacre at the magazine Charlie Hebdo, the writer Michel Houellebecq spoke with the Revue des Deux Mondes. Our elite should read it after every massacre before filling up pages on “intelligence failures.”

It is not as if one more French gendarmerie vehicle could have stopped the Islamist who slaughtered 84 people in Nice. Perhaps. Maybe. But that is not the point. Ritually, after each massacre, Europe’s media and politicians repeat the story of “intelligence failures”. In the case of the attack in Etienne du Rouvray, the story is about a terrorist who was placed under surveillance.

The “intelligence failure” theory is a fig leaf to avoid mentioning Islam and its project of the conquest of Europe. It is the conventional code of conduct after any Islamist attack. Then they add: “Retaliation” creates a spiral of violence; you have to work for peace and show good intentions. Then, in two or three weeks, comes the fatal “we deserve it”. For what? For having a religion different from them?

We always hear the same voices, as in some great game of dissimulation and collective disorientation in which no one even knows which enemy to beat. But, after all, is it not much more comforting to talk about “intelligence” instead of the Islamists who try, by terror and sharia, to force the submission of us poor Europeans?

Europe looks condemned to a permanent state of siege. But what if, one day, after more bloodshed and attacks in Europe, Europe’s governments begin negotiating, with the mainstream Islamic organizations, the terms of submission of democracies to Islamic sharia law? Cartoons about Mohammed and the “crime” of blasphemy have already disappeared from the European media, and the scapegoating of Israel and the Jews started long time ago.

After the attack at the church, the French media decided even to stop publishing photos of the terrorists. This is the brave response to jihad by our mainstream media, who also showed lethal signs of cowardice during the Charlie Hebdo crisis.

The only hope today comes from an 85-year-old French priest, who was murdered by Islamists after a simple, noble gesture: he refused to kneel in front of them. Will humiliated and indolent Europe do the same?

Categories: Censorship, Christians, Clash of civilizations, Cover-up, Europe, France, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and terrorism, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Jews, Sharia law
Tags: Censorship, Christians, Clash of civilizations, Cover-up, Europe, France, Islam - submission, Islam and Christianity, Islam and terrorism, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Jews, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Creeping Sharia in Health Care

July 28, 2016

Creeping Sharia in Health Care, American Thinker, Carol Brown, July 28, 2016

(If Islamists are to be our masters, we had best make them healthy, wealthy ~~and wise~~. — DM)

Islamic supremacy is arriving in medical settings using stealth means, or what is often referred to as creeping sharia. Common themes include Muslim health care workers refusing to uphold infection control protocols, Muslim medical students refusing to study topics they deem forbidden according to Islamic law, Muslim visitors in hospitals ignoring hygiene guidelines to protect patients, and hospitals bending over backwards (or is it forwards?) to accommodate Muslim demands above and beyond anything done for members of any other religious or demographic group. Also covered are outright acts of violence perpetrated by Muslim men who attack hospital personnel.

Islamic supremacy + dhimmitude = the end of civilized societies. Before I begin the (by no means exhaustive) list of how this equation is playing out in health care settings throughout the West, I’d like to share a personal story.

Shortly after the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks I had occasion to speak with a Muslim doctor who lived down the street from me. At that point in time I was completely ignorant about Islam and was, in fact, still a leftist (though wouldn’t be for much longer).

The doctor, a meticulously groomed, soft-spoken, modern-appearing man made it clear that, among other things, he believed that Muslim females become “mature” when they turned nine and therefore can be married at that age. I ignored the alarm bell that went off in my head when he made that statement. Of course I’ve long since realized that this highly educated doctor who worked at a prestigious hospital had sanctioned, at the very least, child rape (in keeping with the teachings of his prophet, the king of all pedophiles, Mohammed).

And therein lies the rub with Muslim doctors, as with all Muslims. If they are good Muslims and follow the teachings of the Quran, their values will necessarily be in direct conflict with our own.

So with that in mind, let me begin our tour through Islamic supremacy in medial settings right here in the United States.

An Islamic medical association operating in this country was identified by the Muslim Brotherhood as one among several “organizations of our friends” — friends that could help the MB advance their goal of destroying America from within. Part of the association’s oath includes: “We serve no other God besides [Allah] and regard idolatry as an abominable injustice.”

Islamic supremacy also asserts itself through lawfare as when a Muslim medical student who was dismissed due to poor academic performance sued the medical school on grounds of discrimination. Another case involved a Muslim health care worker who was fired because she refused to get a flu vaccine (required in hospital settings to protect patients) claiming the vaccine violated her Islamic faith because it contained a pork by product and that the entire affair violated her civil rights.

In addition to lawfare there are many other ways Muslims push for special accommodations such as Muslim doctors and advocacy organizations calling on health care personnel to be more knowledgeable about Muslim traditions so they can better meet the needs of their Muslim patients.

And so hospitals across the country are implementing an array of services for Muslim patients, including halal meals, alternatives to medications that contain alcohol and/or pork derivatives, gowns for women designed to protect their modesty, early morning and late night appointments during the month of Ramadan, hiring more Muslim chaplains, handing out Qurans to the parents of Muslim children after they’re born, providing prayer rugs, hosting Iftar events, and setting up prayers rooms exclusively for Muslims who often find existing multi-faith prayers rooms offensive and/or inconvenient.

One town in Illinois proposed a “Muslim-centric” medical facility replete with many of the features noted above as well as Arabic-speaking staff, private rooms to ensure a Muslim standard of modesty, and space for ritual foot baths. The state rejected the plan but it was resubmitted without any references to sharia law.

There has also been a proliferation of medical outreach programs for the Muslim community along with “sensitivity training” for medical staff who are expected to become so well versed in the array of Muslim patients’ needs that they can discern differences between the needs of a Muslim from Pakistan compared to a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.

The Muslim-as-victim meme rears its head as well, such as the idea that Muslims “don’t have access” to healthcare, as was recently asserted by the vice president of cultural competence at a medical center in Brooklyn, NY.

And when Muslims do access health care, special demands may be made as when a Muslima in New Jersey went to an emergency room complaining of chest pain and insisted on a male technician after she was told she’d need an electrocardiogram. No male technician was available and she was informed of her options. She decided to sit and wait. After several hours her husband requested she be transferred to a different hospital. The couple then sued, claiming the Patient’s Bill of Rights entitled the Muslima to her demands.

The issue of Muslima patients demanding same-sex health care professionals in emergency situations is one I expect to escalate, as is happening in Europe. But first, let’s take a quick detour to Canada where medical professionals banned virginity tests and the issuance of “chastity certificates” (popular in the Muslim culture) after the discovery of four dead Afghan women who were victims of “honor killings.” Elsewhere in Canada on a maternity ward where shared rooms arranged four beds with privacy curtains in between, a Muslim couple received greater levels of privacy than were afforded to others when their demands ejected at least one non-Muslim couple out of the ward and into a much more costly private room that the couple had to pay for.

In Europe the situation is even more dire. And pervasive.

In the UK, an 87-year-old Alzheimer’s patient was forced to wait for care after she fell because the Muslim charge nurse withheld assistance until he finished his prayers. This delay in care lasted five to ten minutes. The patient died shortly thereafter.

Meanwhile, in at least one British hospital, staff were turning the beds of Muslim patients up to five times a day so patients could face Mecca while they pray. Then staff turned them back when the patients were finished. Staff were also expected to provide Muslim patients with running water so they can wash their feet before prayer.

And then there is the issue of traditional Muslim attire, much of which doesn’t meet standards for infection control. The National Health Service requires staff providing direct care to patients to be in short sleeves to reduce the risk of transmitting increasingly deadly pathogens from one patient to another. Since many Muslim women consider it immodest to expose their forearms, some have refused to do so for proper hand-washing or scrubbing in prior to surgery. So the NHS developed disposable sleeves for Muslim health care workers who have direct patient contact.

Naturally the tale above would not be complete without the Muslim-claiming-discrimination story as when a British radiographer who was faced with having to choose between losing her job or complying with the dress code, chose Islam over her job, then complained about having to make the choice. Meanwhile, the Islamic Medical Association in the UK upheld the Islamic tenet that Muslim women out in public must be covered, stating: “No practicing Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse, or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow.”

But it doesn’t stop there. (It never stops when it comes to Islamic supremacism.) Some Muslimas working in hospitals in the UK also want sterile hijabs to wear in the operating room and a private place to scrub in so their modesty can be protected. Some Muslim health care workers also refuse to use alcohol-based hand sanitizer because they claim it is forbidden according to Islamic law.

And what of British Muslims studying to work in health care? Well, some have refused to attend classes or learn about anything that conflicts with the teachings of the Quran, such as material on evolution and health issues related sexual promiscuity and/or alcohol consumption. The commitment to avoid all things alcohol-related also impacts patient safety when Muslim visitors to hospitals refuse to use anti-bacterial gel before entering patient wards, ignoring signs posted throughout British hospitals asking visitors to use the gel in order to reduce the spread of infection. (Of note, there is nothing in Islamic law that would suggest Muslims cannot use alcohol-based sanitary gels and it appears that some Muslims are using this as a point of leverage to assert supremacy. See here, here, and here.)

The final exhibit of the UK tour is a Muslim dentist who insisted his female patients wear hijabs, keeping a stash of head scarves in his office to give them. He abandoned at least two patients in acute pain who refused to don the hijab and on at least one occasion provided lesser quality care to a patient’s son when the mother agreed to wear the hijab but apparently didn’t answer a question about her son’s prayer habits in a way that pleased the dentist. Of note, the dentist’s younger brother is an Islamic extremist who stated that the 9/11 terror attack served “the pleasure of Allah.”

Throughout Europe it has also become increasingly common for Muslim men to physically attack male doctors. In some cases, women are denied urgently needed medical care because their spouses are adamant that they be attended to by a female, or not be attended to at all.

In France, a newborn’s father called the midwife a “rapist” then broke into the locked delivery room after seeing a nurse remove his wife’s burqa so she could give birth, hit the nurse in the face, and demanded she put the burqa back on his wife. In another case a Muslim male physically attacked a gynecologist who stepped in to assist with his wife’s complicated delivery. A few months prior to that, another doctor was attacked by a knife-wielding Islamist.

In Belgium, when a Muslim woman needed an emergency c-section, her husband blocked the door to the operating room because the anesthesiologist was a male. After being told no female anesthesiologists were available a two-hour stand-off ensued after which time an imam was called upon who allowed the doctor to administer an epidural through a tiny opening in the woman’s burqa. A female nurse performed the surgery while the anesthesiologist remained outside the room shouting instructions to another nurse who was monitoring the anesthesia. An organization of anesthesiologists stated there have been other such incidents involving Muslim patients and their families.

In Sweden, it’s more of the same. When a male doctor answered an urgent call to assist with a mother who was bleeding heavily after giving birth, the woman’s husband screamed at him to leave the room immediately. When the doctor refused, the husband and the brother-in-law physically attacked him.

In addition to Muslim males becoming enraged if a male health care provider attends to their wife, there other things that may set them off. (Like just about everything.) And so a Turkish Muslim went on a violent rampage in a Catholic hospital in Germany because there were too many crosses on the walls.

Barbarism meets the West. (And I haven’t even touched upon the abject madness that has unfolded in hospitals across Europe as invaders invade en masse, here, here, and here.)

As the Muslim population in a society increases, expressions of Islamic supremacy become more and more aggressive. How it manifests in health care settings is just one of many ways in which the West is slowly and steadily being taken down by those who embrace an ideology that mandates nothing less than world domination.

Hat tips: Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, Islam in Europe, Fox News, NY Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Boston Herald, Front Page Magazine, Discover the Networks, BBC, Daily Mail, Metro UK, Telegraph, The Guardian, Nursing Times, Modern Health Care, Middle East Forum, Islam in Europe, Islamist Watch, The Whig, The Age, Religion News, Europe1, Lancet, Society for Human Resource Management, Wikipedia, and Daniel Pipes whose 2007 comprehensive overview of the subject matter provided a wealth of material.

Categories: Islam in America, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic medical care, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: Islam in America, Islam in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic medical care, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Islamism Rises from Europe’s Secularism

July 24, 2016

Islamism Rises from Europe’s Secularism, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, July 24, 2016

♦ In France, the Socialist government imposed a “secularism charter” in every school, banning Christianity from the educational system. Municipalities have already changed the enrollment form for schoolchildren by eliminating the words “father” and “mother”, replacing them with “legal manager 1” and “legal manager 2”. It is George Orwell’s “Newspeak”.

♦ After two major terror attacks in 2015, France, instead of promoting a cultural “jihad” based on Western values, responded to Islamic fundamentalism with a ridiculous “Day of Secularism” to be celebrated every 9th of December.

♦ This narrow secularism has also prevented France from openly supporting Eastern Christians under Islamist oppression.

♦ The empty 13th century Oude Kerk church in Amsterdam is now used for exhibitions and can be rented for gala dinners. In front of it there is “Sexyland”, offering “Live F*ck Shows”, a coffee shop for drugs and an “Erotic Supermarket” for dildos. For seven euros one can also visit the church.

On October 2000, in the sunny French city of Nice, the 105-member European Convention drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Drawn up by the committee of former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the document only referred to the “cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe”. The European Parliament had rejected a proposal from Christian Democrat MEPs and Pope John Paul II, to include in the text Europe’s “Judaeo-Christian roots”.

In the 75,000-word Charter there is not a single mention of Christianity. Since then, a wind of aggressive secularism has pervaded all EU policies. The European Court of Human Rights, for example, asked to remove crucifixes from classrooms: they were allegedly a threat to democracy.

The city of Nice — where exactly sixteen years ago Europe’s rulers decided to eliminate the Judeo-Christian roots from the (never approved) EU Constitution — has just witnessed the bloody manifestation of another religion: radical Islam. “Nature abhors a vacuum”: This is the truth to which our élites do not want to listen; Islamism rises from what William McGurn, George W. Bush’s speechwriter, called “Europe’s feckless secularism“.

You can see it not only in Europe’s churches, three-quarters empty, and the boom of Europeans converting to Islam, but also from what is happening in Europe’s schools. The trends do not support Viktor Orbán‘s vision for a Christian Europe.

A few days ago, Belgium, which was recently targeted in terror attacks, decided that religion classes in French-speaking primary and secondary schools will be cut in half starting in October 2016, and replaced with an hour of “citizenship classes“: lessons in secularism. In Brussels, half the children in public schools already choose to take classes in Islam.

In France, the Socialist government imposed a “secularism charter” in every school, banning Christianity from the educational system. That charter is the manifesto of the “révolution douce” (“soft revolution”), France’s extreme secularism. It is an attempt to eliminate any claim of identity. A Jewish yarmulke, a Christian cross and an Islamic veil are treated the same way. This secularism is what has been rightly defined “the Left’s blind spot with Islam“.

It is a secularism that has also gone mad. The Yves Codou elementary school in the village of La Môle, for example, celebrated “Parents’ Day” instead of Mother’s Day, in order not to upset gay couples. Municipalities have already changed the enrollment form for schoolchildren by eliminating the words “father” and “mother”, replacing them with “legal manager 1” and “legal manager 2”. It is George Orwell’s “Newspeak”.

After two major terror attacks in 2015, France, instead of promoting a cultural “jihad” based on Western values, responded to Islamic fundamentalism with a ridiculous “Day of Secularism” to be celebrated every 9th of December.

It is not that this secularism “exacerbated” cultural tensions, as many liberals say. It is that this secularism severed French culture from the very ideals that created the West. Severing it made this culture blind to the incompatibility of Islamism with secular-minded values. A French teacher,Isabelle Rey, after the massacre at the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, wrote that

“many of our students do not share our dismay at the events. We can pretend to have a consensus, but it is a fact that a significant portion of our population believes that the journalists deserved their fate or that the Kouachi brothers [the murderers] died as heroes”.

This narrow secularism has also prevented France from openly supporting Eastern Christians under Islamist oppression. The music group “The Priests” had planned to advertise an upcoming concert in Paris with a banner on a poster that said proceeds would go towards the cause of Christians persecuted in Iraq and Syria — but the company operating the Paris subway system initially banned the ad, saying it considered the banner as a violation of secularism.

Sweden, one of the European countries more infiltrated by radical Islam, is listed as “the least religious” nation in the West. According to Statistics Sweden, just 5% of Swedes are regular churchgoers, and one in three couples that get married chooses a civil ceremony. How did Sweden get there? Many years ago, the Swedish government banned any religious activities in schools except for those directly related to religion classes.

Not only has secularism no answers for terrorism; it also leaves Europeans unsure about what is worth fighting, killing, and dying for. If you believe, as the secularists do, that our values are mere accidents of history and that the highest good is comfort, then you will care nothing for the future of civilization.

The symbol of this Euro-Secularism is the Oude Kerk, dating from the 13th century, and one of the most famous churches in Amsterdam. The empty church is now used for exhibitions and can be rented for gala dinners. In front of it there is “Sexyland”, offering “Live F*ck Shows”, a coffee shop for drugs and an “Erotic Supermarket” for dildos. For seven euros one can also visit the church.

1707

The symbol of Euro-Secularism is the 13th century Oude Kerk in Amsterdam. The empty church is now used for exhibitions and can be rented for gala dinners. In front of it there is “Sexyland”, offering “Live F*ck Shows”, a coffee shop for drugs and an “Erotic Supermarket” for dildos. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Welcome to Amsterdam, where the most practised religion is Islam.

Categories: Christianity, Europe, Islam in Europe, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Judaism, Secularism
Tags: Christianity, Europe, Islam in Europe, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Judaism, Secularism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Germans Debate Use of Force against Jihadists

July 24, 2016

Germans Debate Use of Force against Jihadists, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, July 24, 2016

♦ “I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany. … I have lived among you, lived in your homes. I planned this in your own land. And I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets. … I will slaughter you with this knife and sever your necks with an axe, if Allah permits. ” – Germany’s axe-attacker, in an Islamic State video.

♦ “Künast should not be watching so many bad movies. Who would believe that if someone attacks the police with an axe and a knife, the police are supposed to shoot the axe out of the attacker’s hands? That is really clueless and stupid. If police officers are attacked in this manner, they will not engage in Kung Fu. Unfortunately, it sometimes ends in the death of the perpetrator. This will not change.” – Rainer Wendt, Chairman of the German Police Union.

♦ The Bavarian Criminal Police Office has now launched an internal investigation to determine if police were justified in shooting a jihadist.

A 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker brandishing an axe and shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the greatest”) seriously injured five people on a train in Würzburg, Bavaria. The assailant was shot dead by police after he charged at them with the axe.

The teenager, who had claimed asylum after arriving in Germany in June 2015 as an unaccompanied minor, had been placed with a foster family just two weeks before the attack as a reward for being “well integrated.”

Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said police had found a hand-painted Islamic State flag in his room at his foster home in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt. They also found a farewell letter to his father which read: “Now pray for me so that I can take revenge on these infidels. Pray for me that I can get to paradise.”

Shortly after the attack, the Islamic State released a video purporting to show an Afghan asylum seeker holding a knife and making threats against Germany:

“In the name of Allah, I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany.

“Here I am. I have lived among you, lived in your homes. I planned this in your own land. And I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets.

“I will make you forget about the spectacular attacks in France, if Allah permits.

“I will fight to the death, if Allah permits. I will slaughter you with this knife and sever your necks with an axe, if Allah permits.”

In the video, the Islamic State identified the attacker as Muhammad Riyad, who can be heard speaking Pashto, a language spoken in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. But German media identified the attacker as Riaz Khan Ahmadzai. The discrepancy raised questions about the teenager’s true identity.

Police found a Pakistani document in the teenager’s room, leading some to believe he may have lied about being from Afghanistan in order to improve his chances of securing asylum. German authorities generally classify migrants from Pakistan as economic migrants and those from Afghanistan as refugees. But Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said there is no reason to doubt that the attacker was indeed from Afghanistan.

There are also unresolved questions about the teenager’s ties to the Islamic State. Herrmann, the Bavarian interior minister, said the video is authentic: “The man in the video is the Würzburg attacker.” The federal prosecutor’s office in Karlsruhe said it believed “the attacker committed the offense as a member of the Islamic State.”

1708

Left: The 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker who seriously injured five people on a train in Germany, while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” is shown in an Islamic State video saying, “In the name of Allah, I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany… I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets.” Right: The attacker’s body is removed from the place where police shot him, after he charged at them with the axe.

By contrast, De Maizière said the attacker was a self-radicalized “lone wolf” who had been incited by Islamic State propaganda. The public prosecutor in Bamberg, Erik Ohlenschlager, said “We have no evidence that he was in direct contact with the Islamic State.”

After the blood-filled train — an eyewitness said it “looked like a slaughterhouse” — came to a stop at a station in Heidingsfeld near Würzburg, the teenager jumped off and tried to escape. Surrounded by police, he lunged at them with an axe. Police shot the attacker dead because “there was no other option.”

Green Party MP Renate Künast criticized the police for using lethal force. In a tweet, she wrote: “Why could the attacker not have been incapacitated without killing him???? Questions!”

Künast’s comments provoked a furious backlash, with many accusing her of showing more sympathy for the perpetrator than for the victims. The outpouring of anger against Künast indicates that Germans have had enough of their politically correct politicians.

The chairman of the German police union, Rainer Wendt, said:

“The final rescue shot is clearly regulated by law. The policemen were attacked and used their firearm to defend against an immediate danger to life and limb. That is their statutory duty. The Green MP Renate Künast has absolutely no idea about reality of dangerous police actions.”

Speaking on N24 television, Wendt added:

“Künast should not be watching so many bad movies. Who would believe that if someone attacks the police with an axe and a knife, the police are supposed to shoot the axe out of the attacker’s hands? That is really clueless and stupid.

“If police officers are attacked in this manner, they will not engage in Kung Fu. Unfortunately, it sometimes ends in the death of the perpetrator. This will not change.”

The head of the police union in Bavaria, Peter Schall, said: “If a police officer is not allowed to shoot in such situations, he might as well stop carrying a weapon.”

Mike Mohring, a politician with the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), called for stiffer penalties for those who attack police officers. He said attacks against police are on the rise across Germany and “the only effective deterrent is that the law provides an appropriate penalty.” He also said German police should be outfitted with body cameras to protect both the police and the public.

Bavarian Justice Minister Winfried Bausback called on Künast to resign: “Anyone who publicly suspects police in such a situation without any knowledge of the matter — as Künast has done in her tweet — is unacceptable as chairman of the parliamentary legal committee.”

Green leader Cem Özdemir distanced himself from Künast:

“I did not understand what she wrote there. It is always a good idea to think about what you are writing before you send a tweet. What are police officers supposed to do if they are attacked? They protected others and they protected themselves. Her view is not the position of my party.”

Andreas Scheuer, the general secretary of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, said Künast’s comments were “perverse.” He added: “The CSU’s policy is: protection of victims takes priority over protection of perpetrators.”

German commentator Klaus Kelle wrote:

“Our police in Germany do an excellent job and are hardly ever thanked for it. They are poorly paid … and repeatedly are whipping boys for errors of policy. Endless overtime, violent attacks, even in harmless situations such as illegal parking, is part of everyday life for our sons and daughters, who serve all of us.

“Where are the politicians who support our policemen, rather than those who mindlessly criticize them, as now? Ms. Künast, does the presumption of innocence apply to police officers in this country?”

The Bavarian Criminal Police Office has now launched an internal investigation to determine if police were justified in shooting a jihadist.

Categories: Germany, Islamic integration, Islamic refugees, Islamic terrorism, Law enforcement
Tags: Germany, Islamic integration, Islamic refugees, Islamic terrorism, Law enforcement

Comments: 1 Comment

When It Comes to Islam, Western Leaders Are Liars or Idiots

July 23, 2016

When It Comes to Islam, Western Leaders Are Liars or Idiots, PJ Media, Raymond Ibrahim, July 22, 2016

Idiots

Most politicians — practically every Democrat but also a majority of Republicans, with the notable exception of Donald Trump — make the same claims.

************************

When it comes to the connection between Islam and violence against non-Muslims, one fact must be understood: the majority of those in positions of leadership and authority in the West are either liars or fools, or both.

No other alternative exists.

The reason for this uncharitable assertion is simple: If Islam was once a faraway, exotic religion, today we hear calls for, and see acts of, violence committed in its name every day. And many of us still have “ears that hear and eyes that see,” so it’s no secret: Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life — not just “terrorists” or “ISIS” — unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to hate, subjugate, and kill all who resist it, including all non-Muslims.

This is the official position of several Muslim governments, including America’s closest “friends and allies” like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

It’s the official position of Islamic institutions of lower and higher learning: from Bangladeshi high schools to Egypt’s Al Azhar, the world’s most prestigious Islamic university.

It’s the official position broadcast in numerous languages on Islamic satellite stations that air in Muslim homes around the world.

In short, there’s no excuse today for anyone to still be ignorant about Islam, and especially for those in positions of leadership or authority. Yet it is precisely this group that most vehemently denies any connection between Islam and violence.

Why?

On July 18 in Germany, an axe-waving Muslim refugee attacked a number of train passengers and critically injured three. Although an ISIS flag was found in his room, although he called for the slaughter of any Muslim who dares leave Islam, although he yelled “Allahu Akbar” — Islam’s unequivocal war cry — authorities claimed “it was too early to speculate about the motives of the attacker.”

Catholic Bishop Friedhelm Hofmann of Wuerzburg, where the axe attack took place, was bewildered: “One is speechless at such a moment. This fact can not be understood.”

Instead of being vigilant around Muslim migrants, he said: “Maybe we need to help the unaccompanied young refugees even more and help them to overcome their own traumas.”

About a month earlier in Germany, this same scene played out. While screaming “Allahu Akbar” and “infidels must die,” another Muslim man in another train station stabbed to death one man and injured three others. Still, German authorities “found no evidence of Islamist motive.”

In neighboring France — which has “Europe’s largest Muslim minority” and is also (coincidentally?) the “most threatened country” — this sequence of events (a Muslim attacks in the name of Islam, authorities claim difficulty in finding “motive”) is becoming endemic.

On July 19, a Muslim man vacationing with his pregnant wife and children stabbed a neighboring woman and her three daughters for being “scantily dressed.” The youngest girl, 8, was in critical condition with a punctured lung.

Although this is a common occurrence throughout the Muslim world — many Muslim women wear the hijab because they know the consequences of not in public — and although French television was brave enough to say that the man, named Mohamed B, 37, “may have acted out of religious motives,” Mayor Edmond Francou said he preferred “not to speculate about the motive of the attack.”

A few days earlier, another “Allahu Akbar”-screaming Muslim killed 84 people in Nice.

Yet according to French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, the killer’s “motives [were] not yet established.” Asked if he could at least confirm the attacker’s motives were linked to jihadism, he said, “No.”

Reuters went so far as to write an article blaming France for its own terrorization.

Turning to the United States, one finds the same pattern. Most recently, a Muslim man entered a gay nightclub in Orlando and killed 49. Despite the fact that ISIS regularly kills homosexuals and that the killer — who “recited prayers to Allah during the attack” — pledged his allegiance to ISIS, “Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that the investigation is still ongoing, and a motive has yet to be established,” while “the FBI was confused about [his] motive.”

Earlier this year, Edward Archer — a convert to Islam — shot and wounded Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett. He later explained his motive: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.”

Yet after showing a surveillance video of Archer in Islamic dress shooting at Hartnett, Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney emphatically declared:

In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen.…

It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.

One can go on and on. From California alone:

Despite the evidence that the Muslim couple that massacred 14 people in San Bernardino was motivated by Islamic teachings of jihad against the hated “infidel,” Obama claimed: “We do not know their motivations.” Chris Hayes and MSNBC were also “baffled” in their search for a motive.

Despite the many indicators that the Muslim student who went on a stabbing spree in UC Merced was described as a “devout Muslim,” had an ISIS flag, and praised Allah in his manifesto — “local and federal authorities continue to insist that Faisal Mohammad, 18, carried out the vicious attack because he’d been banished from a study group.”

Despite the fact that a man named “Jihad” went to an El Monte police station, where he “used the word ‘jihad’ several times” while making a bomb threat, police “so far don’t have a motive.”

Most politicians — practically every Democrat but also a majority of Republicans, with the notable exception of Donald Trump — make the same claims.

The claims begin with President Barack Obama, who insists that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.” He calls for the “rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.” He classified the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence,” despite the overwhelming evidence that it was jihad.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton admonished us to bear in mind that “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Republican leaders like John McCain gush about how “unequivocally, without a doubt, the religion of Islam is an honorable and reasonable religion. ISIS has nothing to do with the reality of Islam.”

“Conservative” talking heads like Bill O’Reilly flippantly dismiss jihad as “a perversion of Islam, we all know that.”

What is to be made of all these claims from our “leaders” that fly in the face of reality?

Only immensely deranged or immensely deceitful people can claim that a Muslim who cites the Koran and calls on Allah is not acting in the name of Islam. Take your pick, but there are no other alternatives.

Regardless of the cause behind the lies that defend Islam — stupidity or deceitfulness — the same damage is done. Remember, Islam is not threatening the West due to its own innate capabilities, but because the West allows Islam to threaten the West.

The real battle revolves around getting the West to see reality, a battle which involves rooting out the liars and fools from government, media, education, and other positions of influence. This is an admittedly herculean task, considering that the lie is the narrative and the truth is considered evil.

Categories: Blindness epidemic, Islam - the religion of war, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Western leaders
Tags: Blindness epidemic, Islam - the religion of war, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Western leaders

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives