[W]hat if Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were never “radicalized”? What if neither of them “influenced” the other? What if both were exactly what they appear to be, devout Muslims who hated America and believed that it was their religious duty to kill Americans? What if this attitude did not show up last week or last year? What if it was the way that their culture and religion taught them to live?
**************************
After Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook killed 14 Americans in their corner of the Jihad over in San Bernardino, the media began its long laborious search for their moment of “radicalization”.
The assumption that the intersection of terrorism and Islam can only be an aberration lead to the conviction that there was some moment in time at which Malik and Farook became “radical extremists”. Initial reports pegged that moment of “radicalization” as having happened at some point during the twenty minutes after Farook left the party. When the amount of firepower and preparation made the idea of a twenty minute radicalization massacre seem silly, the media tried to stretch it back for weeks.
Now they’ve had to give in and pull back that dreadful moment of radicalization for years.
But what if Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were never “radicalized”? What if neither of them “influenced” the other? What if both were exactly what they appear to be, devout Muslims who hated America and believed that it was their religious duty to kill Americans? What if this attitude did not show up last week or last year? What if it was the way that their culture and religion taught them to live?
There are some easy ways to test that theory.
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were Pakistani Muslims. Farook was a second-generation Pakistani immigrant who was born here, but when it came time for him to marry, he picked a Pakistani Muslim girl who shared his commitment to Islam and contempt for America. And that’s not unusual.
A fifth of Pakistanis want to leave their country, but they don’t like America. In a Gallup poll three years ago, 92% of Pakistanis disapproved of us. More significantly, 55% believed that more interaction between Muslim countries and the West posed a threat. In a Gallup poll, 62% of Pakistanis disliked us.
While officially Pakistan is our ally, it’s a fairly thin line between ISIS and the ordinary Pakistani.
83% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers, 80% support cutting the hands off thieves and 78% want to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Looking at numbers like these, we have to ask when the 4 out of 5 Pakistanis, or 144 million people were radicalized? That’s certainly a huge tiny minority of extremists.
A majority of Pakistanis grieved for Osama bin Laden and 44% believed that the dead terrorist leader was a martyr.
Pakistan carefully hid Osama bin Laden. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been accused of meeting with the Al Qaeda leader by former officers of its ISI intelligence agency. Documents show that his brother attempted to negotiate with Al Qaeda and “reestablish normal relations” with the terror group.
The politics of Pakistan might seem far away to us, but Tashfeen Malik’s uncle is an important political figure with Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz party. The family is described as having connections to “militant Islam”, but then again so does the entire Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz party.
Its antecedents were in the Muslim League which committed horrifying atrocities in India to carve out an Islamic State. The atrocities committed by the Muslim League’s Islamic butchers might have even turned the stomach of ISIS. Long before ISIS, the Muslim League created its “impossible dream” of a Muslim Pakistan through mass murder, mass rape and terror aimed at Hindus, Sikhs and other non-Muslims. Horrors such as the Noakhali genocide and Direct Action Day were worse than ISIS.
They are also the reason why Pakistan exists. The current ruling party in Pakistan is the political stepchild of those abominations and atrocities. It’s also a quite popular political party.
Was it really Tashfeen Malik who was “radicalized” or was it Pakistan?
Around a quarter of Pakistanis support terrorist attacks on civilians in the United States. Under a third support attacks on American civilians working in Muslim countries. Around half supported attacks on American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That’s a minority, but it still means that as many as 45 million Pakistanis support Muslim terrorist attacks in the United States. And Pakistani Muslims are one of the fastest growing groups in the United States.
The problem is obvious and we can’t make it go away with gun control and wishful thinking.
Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook weren’t radical, they were mainstream. Most Pakistanis don’t run around killing people. But their country was made possible by genocide and it exists because of its repression of non-Muslim minorities at home and its sponsorship of terror against Hindus in India.
Over 40% of Pakistanis support Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Islamic terror group responsible for the Mumbai Massacre. It’s a Jihadist organization which declares that, “Jihad will continue until the Jews and Hindus throughout the globe meet their worst end”. Throughout the globe is a lot more expansive than India.
One of the worst Muslim terror plots in North America was a plan to kill thousands of Hindus in Toronto by Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani terror group of black converts to Islam. It’s also responsible for a number of other attacks in the United States.
The ugly truth is that Malik and Farook weren’t radicals or extremists. Their attitudes and beliefs are mainstream in Pakistan. It’s only compared to the beliefs and attitudes of the average American that they appear deranged. But that’s a moral and cultural difference. It doesn’t mean that Farook and Malik were aberrant by Pakistani Muslim standards, only that they appear aberrant by our higher standards.
And attacking our standards is a big part of what Islamic terrorism is about.
We are not fighting radicals or extremists, but people who have a fundamentally different view of the world than we do. In their world, Muslims should rule over non-Muslims, leaving Islam should be met with murder and free speech should be illegal. These are values that the vast majority of Pakistani Muslims agree on.
Not all of them have considered how these values must be imposed, but most Germans didn’t think too hard about how Hitler would keep his promises and most Russians didn’t ponder too closely just how Lenin intended to fulfill his plans. Historically people who want a totalitarian result end up accepting the totalitarian means of bringing it about. The “radicals” just think harder about the means. The “moderates” accept the ends and don’t want to think about the means of achieving those ends.
But when the moderates are forced to choose whether they are willing to accept the means to preserve the ends, they shout “Heil Hitler”, they inform on their neighbors and dispatch them to gulags, they shout “Allahu Akbar” and celebrate the murder of Americans by the “radical extremists”.
Malik and Farook wanted an Islamic State where infidels would be kept down, Islam would be the law of the land and brutal Islamic punishments would be dispensed. That is what most Pakistani Muslims want.
The San Bernardino terrorist attack wasn’t caused by some phantom virus of “internet radicalization”, but by the toxic attitudes and values that permeate Pakistani Muslim society and have made it such a warm and willing host for Islamic terrorist groups. It’s not the internet that is a threat. It’s immigration.
High numbers of Pakistani Muslims support many of the same ideas and beliefs as ISIS. As the size of the Pakistani Muslim population in the United States grew, it was only a matter of time until a successful attack on this scale would happen. We may be able to stop the next attack, but only if we are willing to accept the hard truths about who are our enemies are and what they believe.
They aren’t radicals. They aren’t extremists. They’re the enemy.
The group was caught patrolling the streets of Wuppertal in western Germany telling those walking by not to engage in activities forbidden by sharia (Islamic) law. The group also handed out notices to passersby announcing that the area was a “Sharia Controlled Zone” which meant that alcohol, drugs, gambling, music and concerts, pornography and prostitution were prohibited.
Despite the fact that the group was dressed in in bright orange vests labelled “Sharia Patrol,” the court announced that the group had not violated Germany’s laws on uniforms and public gathering.
German prosecutors have filed an appeal, as well they should, as the court seems to have missed the point. German politicians, in contrast, understood full well what the Sharia patrols were designed to do.
“These people’s intention is to provoke and intimidate and force their ideology [upon others],” said Peter Jung, the mayor of Wuppertal.
Christian Democrat party whip Volker Kauder proclaimed, “Under absolutely no circumstances can we tolerate self-styled Sharia police officers patrolling our streets and dictating what people should or should not do.”
“Sharia law is not tolerated on German soil,” Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told the German daily Bild.
In the UK, a similar case ended quite differently when three members of a similar patrol were sent to jail for trying to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London.
In that case, prosecutor Alex Chalk argued to the court, “This is a case about religious vigilantism. These men were members of a self-styled Muslim Patrol who threatened, intimidated and even assaulted members of the public who they perceived to be behaving in an un-Islamic manner.”
Chalk added, “The men accosted members of the public in neighborhoods of East London which they claimed were Muslim areas, and where according to them different law applied.”
Although the German group, made up of Salafists (ultra-conservative Muslims), did not assault its victims as the group did in London, their intentions to intimidate and impose their religious beliefs on the wider public is objectionable enough.
The naivete of the German courts in allowing such activity on the country’s streets is further concerning considering the “real” purpose of the patrols, as stated by their leader, Sven Lau, a 34-year-old German convert to Islam.
Lau has admitted to designing the Sharia patrol to spark a debate on Salafism and thereby attract converts to Islam. It’s a great recruiting tool for him.
“We knew that this would raise attention,” he said.
Lau, who is described as a fiery preacher, has been accused of recruiting jihadis for the Islamic State after being photographed in Syria in 2013 on top of a tank sporting a Kalashnikov rifle. After claiming to be in Syria on a humanitarian mission, the charges were dropped (with his passport taken away).
As Lau told him, “The press? They help us. People love bad boys. Women love bad boys. In the last month I think 10 women wanted to marry me…from models to women who are totally covered.”
This is one “bad boy” that should be taken off the streets.
In Sweden, only the people who say they are not applying for asylum are checked.
To avoid having to show any papers, a terrorist going to Sweden to commit acts of terror only has to tell the border police that he is seeking asylum. He will immediately be driven to the closest Immigration Service facility. And while the Immigration Service tries to figure out who he is, he can plan his attacks in the peace and quiet of the Swedish countryside.
“The truth is that persons with evil intent know exactly what to do when they come here. That information spreads like wildfire. These new border controls are there for the sole purpose of reassuring the public. They have absolutely no effect on the influx of migrants.” — Border policeman at the Öresund Bridge (between Denmark and Sweden).
Despite many Swedes drawing a sigh of relief when the government announced that immigration was to be limited, the new policy does not really entail any difference at all.
In spite of the supposedly tighter asylum rules announced November 24, chaos rules in Sweden. So far, in 2015, 150,000 asylum seekers have been registered; but as there is nowhere to house them, people are sleeping in tents, on cardboard boxes in exhibition halls, and even on the street. Many run away from the Immigration Service facilities. More than 22,000 people are supposed to be deported but refuse to leave. Swedes are understandably terrified that terrorists might be hiding among the refugees. The police are busy with pointless border controls and cannot attend to their normal work. It is not an exaggeration to say that in this situation, Sweden has lost track of pretty much everything.
Some homeless migrants now sleep on the street in Sweden. (Image source: Expressen video screenshot)
Even the asylum seekers are complaining. On a Swedish public television program, Uppdrag Granskning, aired on December 2, Salwa, a mother of young children, told the reporter how she is forced to live in an asylum house along with men she called “bad people.” When the reporter explained to Salwa that 10,000 new asylum seekers arrive every week, and this was why everything was topsy-turvy, she replied: “Then close the borders. Stop taking in more people. If you have ten guests in your house and there is not enough room, would you still take in ten more?”
Sweden’s Social Democrat Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, said in an interview last April with the daily Sydsvenskan,
“There is no limit [to the number of refugees Sweden can accept]. We will accept refugees according to the conventions that bind us. We have done it before. In the early 1990s, many came from the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Today, they are a natural part of the Swedish society. They contribute a lot.”
So, when Prime Minister Löfven and Vice Prime Minister, Åsa Romson (Green Party) presented their new, tougher immigration policy on November 24, it sent shockwaves through the Swedish establishment. Journalists, who never asked the governing politicians a single critical question about their affinity for open borders, now appeared stunned — despite one authority after another, during the last few months, having warned of an imminent systemic collapse. When Romson started crying during the live press conference because, she said, she was “forced” to be a part of the tightening of the world’s most generous immigration policy, everyone believed that these new immigration rules must be for real.
The message conveyed to the Swedish people on November 24 was that the borders were now essentially being shut; that Löfven had discovered there was a limit. The political party most critical of immigration policy, the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), declared victory. Its party leader, Jimmie Åkesson, immediately reached out to the Conservatives (Moderaterna) and the Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna), offering to bring down the government and form a new one together with them. This invitation was immediately declined. The reply should probably be viewed in the light of all seven parties in Parliament having vowed never to co-operate with the “xenophobic” Sweden Democrats.
It does not matter, therefore, that the other parties have now adopted much of the Sweden Democrats’ policies, or that many Conservatives actually want to take them even further and could easily get them through Parliament by forming a government with the Sweden Democrats.
An outsider may get the impression that every party in Sweden is now competing over who can suggest harsher austerity measures. The Conservatives say they want, among other things, to stop people who are coming from other EU countries from applying for asylum in Sweden. The Conservatives also say they want new measures for deporting those who have had their application rejected. The government is already negotiating with Afghanistan to try to persuade it to take back some of the many Afghans (36,261 in total; 20,947 supposedly “children”) who applied for asylum in Sweden this year.
So far, no journalist in the mainstream media seems to have discovered that the new border controls — implemented because the government evidently decided there is “a serious threat to public order and safety in the country” — have had no discernible effect. The media still give the public the impression that asylum seekers are actually stopped at the border, and that, as the Minister for Justice and Migration, Morgan Johansson, announced, all border crossings will be controlled before Christmas.
As noted last month, however, to avoid having to show any papers, a terrorist going to Sweden to commit acts of terror only has to tell the border police he is seeking asylum. He will immediately be driven to the closest Immigration Service facility. While the Immigration Service tries to figure out who he is, he can plan his attacks in the peace and quiet of the Swedish countryside. And as it takes the Immigration Service 222 days, on average, to establish a plausible identity, he need not be in any hurry.
One person who has grown tired of this whole charade is actually one of the Border Police at the Öresund Bridge (between Denmark and Sweden). He told Gatestone Institute that every day, the new controls cause a number of people — many of whom had planned on passing through Sweden to seek asylum in Finland or Norway — to return to Denmark of their own volition. But, he said, it is rare that someone refuses to show identification or apply for asylum, and thus be turned down.
“The truth is that persons with evil intent know exactly what to do when they come here,” he said.
“That information spreads like wildfire. These new border controls are there for the sole purpose of reassuring the public. They have absolutely no effect on the influx of migrants. The public is given a completely erroneous picture of what we are doing. They do not understand that we spend enormous amounts of time checking Swedish and Danish commuters. If we do not, the press goes crazy and starts screaming about discrimination.
“It seems as if those in power do not want the people who are here illegally to be deported. They give them free health care, free dental care, and schooling for their children. It is mixed messages all the time. I think they need to make up their minds about what they want. These controls mean nothing. They are just a formality to make everything look good and avoid discriminating against anyone. We should put our time and effort where they are needed.”
When asked by Gatestone why the police were allocating enormous resources to border controls that in fact do not amount to anything, the Press Officer at the Swedish National Police Agency (Rikspolisstyrelsen), Stephan Ray, stated that he did not have time to discuss it because he needed to go to the bathroom; then hung up the phone.
An expert on international law, who asked to remain anonymous, told Gatestone that he could no longer understand what the government was thinking by allowing potentially dangerous people into Sweden. Nowhere in any international conventions, he said, does it say that the right of asylum takes precedence over the security of a country’s own population. The most reasonable thing to do, he said, would be to establish fenced-in refugee camps near the borders and not let the asylum seekers out until it was determined that they were not terrorists or war criminals: “According to the Refugee Convention of 1951,” he said, even if people are war criminals and risk facing the death penalty at home, a country has the right to send them back.”
Even so, convicted murderers and war criminals — happily for them — get to stay in Sweden. The rule is that no one risking the death penalty or persecution in their home country will be sent back. This includes even people who have committed capital crimes in Sweden and been sentenced to deportation. It is uncertain that the IKEA-murderer, Abraham Ukbagabir, can be deported to Eritrea after serving his time in prison. There are, apparently, “hindrances” to enforcing deportations to Eritrea. Recently, the alternative-media site, Nyheter Idag, revealedthat, as there are “hindrances” to deporting people to Syria, terrorists discovered to be Islamic State combatants seeking asylum will get to stay in Sweden.
When Gatestone asked the Immigration Service why it was more concerned about the safety of foreign citizens than the lives of Swedish citizens, Matilda Niang of the Immigration Service press office replied that it would be inhumane to lock up asylum seekers until their identity had been established. “A lock-up,” she said, “would also affect asylum seekers who did not commit any crimes.”
So, despite many Swedes drawing a sigh of relief when the government announced that immigration was to be limited, the new policy does not really entail any difference at all.
No sitting politician has yet expressed doubt about the wisdom of turning Sweden from a Swedish country into a multicultural one, and none has yet said the policy of importing migrants needs to stop.
It may well be that the government’s measures are only a facade, designed to soothe the Swedish people, in the hope of relieving some of the pressure.
Among these new measures are:
A moratorium on permanent residency status. From now on, a residency status is valid for three years, with an option for a one-year extension. Permanent residency is given only to persons who, after this time, are able to support themselves financially.
Stricter limits on bringing in relatives.
Tightening demands on self-sufficiency and the ability to support financially one’s own family.
Identity checks on all public transport: everyone on a ferry, train, or bus to Sweden must show a passport or a driver’s license.
The temporary residency is a message that will reach migrants quickly. Whether or not this means that fewer people will get to stay is doubtful. Nothing prevents the government from transforming the temporary residencies into permanent ones after the four years expire. There will also be the problem of what to do with migrants who do not leave at that point. Medically determining the age of the many Afghans who claim to be under 18, in order to get a fast track on their asylum application, might have some effect. Sweden’s failure to age-test asylum seekers has led to an avalanche of “bearded children.” Each week, over 1,000 “children” arrive, of whom 80% come from Afghanistan. In Denmark, where age-testing has been routine, it turned out that at least 50% of these so-called children were in fact adults; and in Norway and Finland, this number was 66%.
About 75% of all the “children” who apply, are granted asylum in Sweden. It is therefore extremely popular, when seeking asylum, to claim to be under 18. In 2013, 4,000 arrived. In 2014, the number was 7,000; and during the first eleven months of 2015, a staggering 32,180“unaccompanied refugee children” sought asylum in Sweden. More than half were from Afghanistan; the second largest group was from Syria, followed by Eritrea and Somalia. About 2,000 were girls.
A few days after the announcement of Sweden’s new asylum rules, the influx of migrants slowed significantly. On November 28 and 29, from a peak of about 1,500 a day, only 392 and 375 people, respectively, were registered. Most were from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. The next day, however, the number of applications once again jumped to more than 1,000.
An intelligence analyst at the Immigration Service, Anders Westerlund, told the daily Aftonbladetthat the decline was most likely due to fewer refugees arriving on the Greek isles from Turkey. “We also see that tougher border controls in the Balkans, and the cold weather, are keeping people from coming to Europe,” he said. “Winter is coming, and that makes the journey riskier.”
Meanwhile, police are swamped with pointless border controls and cannot do their usual work, and criminals roam the streets.
District Attorneys [DAs] apparently have so little to do, that they recently promised to supply the Immigration Service with 30 underemployed DAs. The Immigration Service, despite having recently hired another 1,200 employees, is, of course, struggling to cope with the current situation. In total, Immigration Service staff wages cost the Swedish taxpayers 250 million kronor (about $29,000,000) a month, or about 3 billion kroner (about $350,000,000) a year.
“We can lend them 30 DAs and clerks,” chief prosecutor Solveig Wollstad said in an interview with Gatestone, “because our influx of cases has gone down. The police are busy doing other things, such as fighting terrorism and taking care of migrants.”
When asked if the situation was possibly due to crime going down, Wollstad said, “No, no, no. The decrease is due to the police working so much with other things, such as preventing terror and dealing with the refugee flow. More police are needed at the borders now. Sweden is in crisis. It is not just us who are lending out staff: it is also the National Courts Administration, the Enforcement Authority, the Prison and Probation Service and a number of other authorities.”
In short, the only discernible effect of the “humanitarian superpower’s” new asylum rules is that the Swedish police are busy checking the identities of people who do not want to seek asylum in Sweden, and therefore lack the resources to apprehend criminals.
“As long as the ingrained rhetoric in Sweden is viewed as a manifestation of divinity and goodness,” writes Associate Professor of Business Administration and author Jan Tullberg in a recent article, “political ineptness will continue paralyzing the country.”
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
The recent focus, to the extent that there has been one, has been on Islamist terrorists. Terrorists kill people; fortunately, they themselves often die in the process.
The cancer of Islamisation brings terrorists to western countries. Worse, it also destroys host civilizations from within. Terrorism is not a necessary component of that process and merely keeping terrorists out will not halt it. European supporters of the tumor have caused it to metastasize and thereby to weaken their civilizations. They are working hard to finish the job; if the process is not stopped, it will eventually kill those civilizations.
How about America? Will Europe show the way?
In this short Clarion Project video, a Sunni Muslim woman relates the levels of Muslim support for terror and for changing western law and culture to conform to Islamic (Sharia) law. Many Americans will find the numbers of Muslims involved to be surprisingly high. It’s very well worth watching.
In multiple Muslim nations, overwhelming majorities of Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy. Collectively, this means that hundreds of millions of men and women support capital punishment for the exercise of the basic human rights of freedom of expression and free exercise of religion:
Terrorism vs. the Islamisation Cancer
Few terrorists are needed to kill many people and to frighten more. Preventing the entry of additional Muslims into America would diminish the threat of terror but would not eliminate it: Muslim terrorists are often second or later generation citizens and the Muslim fertility rate is quite high.
Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population. Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman. Hindu fertility (2.4) is similar to the global average (2.5). Worldwide, Jewish fertility (2.3 children per woman) also is above replacement level.
To the extent that Muslim males impregnate multiple women, the male Muslim fertility rate is doubtless higher than for females. If each of three wives, made pregnant by the same husband, has three children that’s nine for that one man. Of course, not all Muslim men have three wives and some Muslim wives may use effective methods of birth control.
Compared to much of Europe, the Muslim population of the United States as a whole remains small and Islamisation has only begun. Preventing the entry of additional Muslims can significantly reduce the likelihood that our civilization will succumb to the cancer of Islamisation, but only if the threats are understood and acted upon. Otherwise, the cancer will metastasize, the pace will accelerate and a painful death will ensue.
Europe’s welcome to Muslims
Germany
It has been estimated that Germany’s Muslim population will quadruple within the next five years, rising to approximately twenty million. That estimate presumably takes into account the high Muslim fertility rate. The current population of Germany has been estimated at 82,544,395.
Here’s a video of a Green Party legislator who looks forward to the day when Germans will be a minority in their own cities.
And here are some happy new arrivals, responding to the kindness Europe has shown them.
Germany is already experiencing significant problems brought by its increasing Muslim population. Here are a few examples taken from the linked articles.
Asylum seekers are driving a surge in violent crime in cities and towns across Germany. German authorities, however, are downplaying the lawlessness, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiment. [Emphasis added.]
A confidential police report leaked to a German newspaper reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 a day — is only the tip of the iceberg, as many crimes are either not resolved or not reported.
The current spike in crime — including rapes, sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking — comes amid a record-breaking influx of refugees from Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Western Balkans.
According to a classified document obtained by the German newspaper, Bild, the government now estimates that Germany will receive as many as 1.5 million asylum seekers in 2015, including 920,000 in the last quarter of 2015 alone. This figure is nearly double the previous estimate, from August, which was 800,000 for all of 2015. By comparison, Germany received 202,000 asylum seekers in all of 2014.
The document warns that with family reunifications, the actual number of asylum seekers could swell to more than seven million, based on the assumption that individuals whose applications are approved will bring between four and eight additional family members to Germany.
A growing number of women and young girls housed in refugee shelters in Germany are being raped, sexually assaulted and even forced into prostitution by male asylum seekers, according to German social work organizations with first-hand knowledge of the situation.
Many of the rapes are occurring in mixed-gender shelters, where, due to a lack of space, German authorities are forcing thousands of male and female migrants to share the same sleeping areas and restroom facilities.
Conditions for women and girls at some shelters are so perilous that females are being described as “wild game” fighting off Muslim male predators. But many victims, fearing reprisals, are keeping silent, social workers say.
At the same time, growing numbers of German women in towns and cities across the country are being raped by asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Many of the crimes are being downplayed by German authorities and the national media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments. [Emphasis added.]
On August 18, a coalition of four social work organizations and women’s rights groups sent a two-page letter to the leaders of the political parties in the regional parliament in Hesse, a state in west-central Germany, warning them of the worsening situation for women and children in the refugee shelters.
[Please see a copy of the letter at the link]
After several blogs (here, here and here) drew attention to the letter, the LandesFrauenRat (LFR) Hessen, a women’s lobbying group that originally uploaded the politically incorrect document to its website, abruptly removed it on September 14, without explanation.
. . . .
Meanwhile, the raping of German women by asylum seekers is becoming commonplace. Following are a few select cases just from 2015:
[Please see the fifteen “select cases” at the link.]
. . . .
Meanwhile, parents are being warned to look after their daughters. Police in the Bavarian town of Mering, where a 16-year-old-girl was raped on September 11, have issued a warning to parents not to allow their children to go outside unaccompanied. They have also advised women not to walk to or from the train station alone because of its proximity to a refugee shelter.
In the Bavarian town of Pocking, administrators of the Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium have warned parents not to let their daughters wear revealing clothing in order to avoid “misunderstandings” with the 200 Muslim refugees housed in emergency accommodations in a building next to the school.
Aside from the letter which removed, where are the feminists? Have they no concerns or are they too self-centered or too afraid of being called “racists” or “Islamophobes” to speak?
As Muslim migration is being set to change German, and possibly European, demographics forever, Germany is gearing up for the new challenge — not by integrating and assimilating young Muslims in a free and democratic Western society, but by handing over the religious education of the next generation of German Muslims to Islamist radicals. [Emphasis added.]
Worse yet, German authorities see no problem in doing that. [Emphasis added.]
With Germany predicted to receive 800,000 migrants — mostly Muslims — this year alone, and millions more waiting to cross Europe’s unguarded borders, the Muslim population in Germany is seeing a historic rise from the current figure of nearly 6 million. Several German states including Bavaria, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia have introduced Islamic Studies in their public schools. The state of Hesse has become the first in Germany to offer Islamic education in public schools, with religious instruction starting as early as the first grade.
Giving young children religious and moral instruction might sound like a good idea, if not for the content of the newly written Islamic curriculum and the influence of Islamist elements over the recruitment of teachers. [Emphasis added.]
The writing of textbooks is being overseen by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB). In an agreement reached between the State of Hesse and DITIB, the organization will play a key role in setting the curriculum, selecting the teachers and monitoring the Islamic religious instruction. The organization is apparently assuming a similar role in several other key German states.
DITIB is the largest Muslim organization in Germany and controls several prominent mosques. The group depends heavily on the Turkish government for its funding, and maintains close ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist party, the AKP. [Emphasis added.]
The newly compiled Islamic curriculum for public schools in Hesse has come under great scrutiny. An independent report conducted by Abdel-Hakim Ourghi, who heads of the Faculty for Islamic Theology and Religious Studiesat the Freiburg University of Education, has sharply criticized the curriculum.
According to an article in Die Welt, Ourghi, a prominent Muslim scholar, has been raising concern about the activities of DITIB and other conservative Muslim organizations operating in Germany. “No one knows exactly what actually happens in Islamic classes in German primary schools,” he says. In his assessment, conservative Islam, the one dominant in Germany, is incapable of thinking critically about its past. [Emphasis added.]
According to Ourghi’s report, the textbooks fail to “confront the problematic verses of Koran.” The report also says that the curriculum fails in its most important purpose — integrating Muslims into the German society — as it fails to reconcile the “Islamic faith of the students with the reality of the western society” they are living in. [Emphasis added.]
Confronted with the damning report, Hesse’s Minister of Education and Culture, Alexander Lorz, dismissed the allegations and called the Hesse’s Islamic education a “success.”
The number of radical Salafists in Germany has more than doubled over the past five years, according to a new estimate by German intelligence officials. [Emphasis added.]
Salafists disguised as aid workers are also canvassing German refugee shelters in search of new recruits from among the nearly one million asylum seekers who have arrived in Germany this year from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
. . . .
Salafists — who follow what they say was the original Islam practiced in the 7th and 8th centuries — openly state that they want to replace democracy in Germany (and the rest of the world) with an Islamic government based on Sharia law. [Emphasis added]
Muslim radicals have begun enforcing Islamic Sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, the state with the largest Muslim population in Germany. [Emphasis added.]
In what government officials say is a blatant challenge to the rule of law and the democratic order in Germany, groups of young bearded Islamists — some wearing orange traffic safety vests emblazoned with the words “Sharia Police” — have declared parts of downtown Wuppertal to be a “Sharia Controlled Zone.”
The self-appointed guardians of public morals have been distributing yellow leaflets that explain the Islamist code of conduct in the city’s Sharia zones. They have urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to listen to Salafist sermons and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, listening to music, pornography or prostitution.
A seven-minute propaganda video in German, entitled “Sharia Police: Coming Soon to Your City,” shows a group of men led by a German convert to Islam, Sven Lau, roaming the streets of Wuppertal at night and pressing wayward youth to embrace radical Islam. In some instances, the men physically attempted to prevent young people from entering bars, casinos and discotheques; those who resisted were pursued and intimidated.
The influx of more than one million asylum seekers from Africa,Asia and the Middle East is placing unprecedented strain on Germany’s healthcare system.
Hospitals, clinics and emergency rooms across Germany are being filled to capacity with migrants suffering maladies of all kinds, and medical personnel, including thousands of volunteers, are increasingly complaining of burnout.
Diseases are also reappearing that have not been seen in Germany for years. German public health officials are now on the lookout for Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever, diphtheria, Ebola, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, malaria, measles, meningitis, mumps, polio, scabies, tetanus, tuberculosis, typhus and whooping cough. As refugee shelters fill to overflowing, doctors are also on high alert for mass outbreaks of influenza and Norovirus.
Compounding the challenge, tens of thousands of migrants arriving in Germany — particularly migrant children — have not been immunized, and German doctors are finding that needed vaccines are not readily available due to a lack of supply. Some German parents are panicking that there are not enough vaccines to immunize their own children.
Many migrants are also suffering from a host of traumas and mental illnesses. According to the Chamber of German Psychotherapists (Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer), at least half of all migrants arriving in Germany have psychological problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and roughly 40% have contemplated suicide.
German hospitals are also being forced to hire a virtual army of interpreters so that doctors can communicate with asylum seekers, who speak dozens of languages, dialects and variants.
At the same time, German hospitals are increasing security to protect doctors and nurses from violent attacks by migrants who are unhappy with the medical treatment they are receiving. [Emphasis added.]
Muslim asylum seekers are enforcing Islamic Sharia law in German refugee shelters, according to police, who warn that Christians, Kurds and Yazidis in the shelters are being attacked by Muslims with increasing frequency and ferocity. [Emphasis added.]
Muslim migrants from different sects, clans, ethnicities and nationalities are also attacking each other. Violent brawls — sometimes involving hundreds of migrants — are now a daily occurrence.
Police say the shelters, where thousands of migrants are housed together in cramped spaces for months at a time, are seething cauldrons ready to explode. The police are urgently calling for migrants of different faiths to be housed in separate facilities.
Some politicians counter that such segregation would go against Germany’s multicultural values, while others say that separating hundreds of thousands of migrants by religion and nationality would be a logistical impossibility. [Enphasis added.]
As the consequences of unrestrained migration become apparent, the tide of public opinion is turning against the government’s open-door policy. Observers say that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the so-called most powerful woman in the world, may have met her Waterloo.
Christian migrants in German asylum centres are living under persistent threat, with many fearing for their lives as the hardline Sunni majority within the migrant population attempts to enforce Sharia law in their new host nation. The situation is so bad that Christians claim they live like “prisoners” in Germany, and some have even returned to Middle East. [Emphasis added.]
In the German state of Thuringia, Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow, one of the multiculturalists driving and celebrating the migrant crisis, has been forced to initiate a policy of separating and segregating different cultures as soon as they arrive in Europe.
“In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards have arrested my brother in a house church. I fled the Iranian intelligence, because I thought in Germany I can finally live freely according to my religion,” says Said, a Christian who fled persecution in his native country.
“But I can not openly admit that I am a Christian in my home for asylum seekers. I will be threatened,” he told Germany language paper Die Welt.
This year Germany prepares to absorb a million people in just twelve months – one per cent of its entire population – from numerous, diverse and alien cultures.
“We must rid ourselves of the illusion that all those who arrive here are human rights activists,” says Max Klingberg of the International Society for Human Rights (ISHR), who has worked with refugees for 15 years. “Among the new arrivals is not a small amount of religious intensity, it is at least at the level of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.
Said is living in an asylum centre in southern Brandenburg, near the border with Saxony. “They wake me before dawn during Ramadan and say I should eat before the sun comes up. If I refuse, they say I’m a kuffar, an unbeliever. They spit at me… They treat me like an animal. And threaten to kill me.”
“… They are also all Muslims,” he adds.
But be of good cheer. Frau Merkel, a principal architect of Germany’s new wave of multiculturalism, was recently honored by Time Magazine as its person of the year.
In late summer, Merkel’s government threw open Germany’s doors to a pressing throng of refugees and migrants; a total of 1 million asylum seekers are expected in the country by the end of December. It was an audacious act that, in a single motion, threatened both to redeem Europe and endanger it, testing the resilience of an alliance formed to avoid repeating the kind of violence tearing asunder the Middle East by working together. That arrangement had worked well enough that it raised an existential question of its own, now being asked by the richest country in Europe: What does it mean to live well?
Merkel had her answer: “In many regions war and terror prevail. States disintegrate. For many years we have read about this. We have heard about it. We have seen it on TV. But we had not yet sufficiently understood that what happens in Aleppo and Mosul can affect Essen or Stuttgart. We have to face that now.” For her, the refugee decision was a galvanizing moment in a career that was until then defined by caution and avoidance of anything resembling drama. Analysts called it a jarring departure from form. But it may also have been inevitable, given how Angela Merkel feels about walls.
What was not inevitable but merely astounding was that the most generous, openhearted gesture of recent history blossomed from Germany, the country that within living memory (and beyond, as long as there’s a History Channel) blew apart the European continent, and then the world, by taking to gruesome extremes all the forces its Chancellor strives to hold in check: nationalism, nativism, self-righteousness, reversion to arms. No one in Europe has held office longer—or to greater effect—in a world defined by steadily receding barriers. That, after all, is the story of the E.U. and the story of globalization, both terms as colorless as the corridor of a Brussels office building. The worlds Merkel has mastered carry not a hint of the forces that have shaped Europe’s history, the primal sort a child senses, listening to a story, safe in bed. [Emphasis added.]
Once upon a time, there was a safe welfare state called Sweden, where people rarely locked their doors.
Now, this country is a night-watchman state — each man is on his own. When the Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson, encourages breaking the law, it means opening the gates to anarchy. Mr. and Mrs. Swede have every reason to be worried, with the influx of 190,000 unskilled and unemployed migrants expected this year — equivalent to 2% of Sweden’s current population. The number is as if 6.4 million penniless migrants who did not speak English arrived in U.S. in one year, or 1.3 million in Britain.
And the Swedes are preparing: demand for firearms licenses is increasing; more and more Swedes are joining shooting clubs and starting vigilante groups. After a slight dip in 2014, the number of new gun permits has gone up significantly again this year. According to police statistics, there are 1,901,325 licensed guns, owned by 567,733 people, in Sweden. Add to this an unknown number of illegal weapons. To get a gun permit in Sweden, you need to be at least 18 years old; law-abiding; well-behaved, and have a hunting license or be a member of an approved shooting club. In 2014, 11,000 people got a hunting license: 10% more than the year before. One out of five was a woman.
. . . .
Even before the massive influx of migrants in the fall of 2015, Swedes felt a need to protect themselves — and with good reason. Since the Parliament decided in 1975 that Sweden should be multicultural and not Swedish, crime has exploded. Violent crime has increased by more than 300%, and rapes have increased by an unbelievable 1,472%. [Emphasis added.]
The politicians, however, ignore the people’s fear completely. It is never discussed. Instead, the people who express concern about what kind of country Sweden has become are accused of xenophobia and racism. Most likely, that is the reason more and more people are taking matters into their own hands, and protecting themselves and their families to the best of their ability. [Emphasis added.]
Sweden is fast approaching a complete collapse. More and more municipalities are raising the alarm that if the migrants keep coming at this pace, the government can no longer guarantee normal service to its citizens. In addition, ominous statements from government officials have left Swedes in fear of what tomorrow may bring. If the migrant wave keeps coming, in 10-15 years, Swedes will be a minority in their own country.
The Muslim population of Britain reached 3.4 million in 2014 to become around 5.3% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France and Germany. [Emphasis added.]
Islam and Islam-related issues were omnipresent in Britain during 2014, and can be categorized into four broad themes: 1) Islamic extremism and the security implications of British jihadists in Syria; 2) the continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain; 3) the sexual exploitation of British children by Muslim gangs; and 4) Muslim integration into British society.
The article linked above next provides “a chronological review of some of the main stories involving the rise of Islam in Britain during 2014.”
Living in a madhouse:
Getting ready for Christmas?
Conclusions
Will Obama’s America be next? That would make Obama’s friends in Iran very happy.
In an article titled Paradigms lost: the U.S. Bruce Thornton remarks that the Europeanization of America must be reversed. We have the tools, but that is not enough. We need to use them.
We have to reject the failed paradigm of Brussels and restore the still vibrant paradigm of Philadelphia. Battered by a century of progressive assaults, the Constitution still gives us the means for turning back the erosion of [its] commitment to ordered liberty and citizen autonomy. The Bill of Rights, a federalism comprising sovereign state governments, a structure of divided and balanced government, and most important the regular federal elections in which we the people have the opportunity to hold our leaders and party accountable––all provide the mechanisms for changing course and initiate a revolution in the original sense of the word, a “rolling back” to the most consequential “paradigm shift” in political history––the Constitution. [Emphasis added.]
Finally, Geert Wilders’ November 15, 2014 address at the Heritage Foundation’s Restoration Weekend – a powerful close to this article.
(What would be the utility of a congressional declaration of war against Islamic Terror while Obama — who would disparage and otherwise ignore it — remains the Commander in Chief? Please see also, ‘By the Numbers’: Watch Clarion’s New Short Film. — DM)
“By the Numbers” is an honest and open discussion about Muslim opinions and demographics. Narrated by Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, this short film is about the acceptance that radical Islam is a bigger problem than most politically correct governments and individuals are ready to admit.
The film addresses the questions: Is ISIS, the Islamic State, trying to penetrate the US with the refugee influx? Are Muslims radicalised on U.S. soil? Are organizations such as CAIR, who purport to represent American Muslims, accepting and liberal or radicalized with links to terror organizations?
(This is one of the best articles I have read on the subject. — DM)
Donald Trump, U.S. presidential candidate. Photo taken Dec. 3, 2015.
With the country, and now, slowly parts of the rest of the world, in a state of outrage over presidential candidate Donald Trump’s controversial statement to cut off immigration and visits by foreign Muslims to the U.S., it is worth noting that Trump is not the first major figure to suggest that a certain class of humans be barred from entry into a country.
Of the following examples, however, there are two significant differences between Trump’s call and that of all the others. See if you can come up with the two differences by the end of this article.
First, what did Trump actually call for? Did he, as some claim, call for all Muslim Americans to leave? No. What he did call for was a halt to Muslim immigration and tourists into the U.S.
TRUMP’S CALL FOR A BAN
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” a campaign press release said.
The ban Trump is seeking is based on what he called “the hatred [which] is beyond comprehension.” It is his view that his proposed ban should remain in place “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Trump called for the ban on Muslim entry into the U.S. in the wake of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino last week by two previously unknown radicalized Muslims who entered the U.S., Syed Farook and his wife, Nashfeen Malik. While few Americans ever met Malik, Farook was accepted as a “normal,” “average American,” and the two were understood to be “living the American dream,” until the moment they began blasting Farook’s co-workers and associates to death in a bloody rampage which claimed the lives of 14 and injured many more on Dec. 2, 2105.
Trump made what has become known as his “No Muslim” speech on Dec. 7, first in a written statement, which was followed up by a press conference, a video of which is at the end of this article.
REACTION TO TRUMP’S CALL FOR A BAN
Trump has been excoriated – or at least held at a distance with disgust – by leadership in the Democratic and Republican parties, by worldwide media, by colleagues and competitors. An aide to U.S. President Obama suggested Trump is “not qualified” to run for president. He has been attacked by Americans, by a Nobel Prize winner (Egypt’s El Baradei), by hundreds of thousands of Brits, and even by Israelis.
As reported earlier in the JewishPress.com, several Opposition Knesset Members and at least one coalition MK signed a letter demanding that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cancel a scheduled Dec. 28 meeting with Donald Trump during the Republican presidential candidate’s planned visit. Zionist Union MK Omer Bar Lev called Trump a racist, and Arab member of Knesset Ahmed Tibi called the presidential contender a Nazi.
Another Arab MK who is a member of the Meretz party, Esawi Frej, said “Trump is not just a racist; he is a man who poses a threat to the free world. A man who through racist incitement tries to gain the post of US president. A man whose presence in the public sphere is based on racism.”
EXAMPLES OF OTHER NATIONAL OR RELIGIOUS BANS
Daniel Greenfield immediately recalled and posted an article in FrontPage, reminding Americans that then-President Jimmy Carter, during the Iranian Hostage crisis banned the entry of Iranians into the United States. On April 7, 1980, Carter announced U.S. sanctions against Iran, which included the invalidation of
all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.
Imagine that. Arguably one of the most liberal U.S. Presidents ever issued a blanket ban on an entire class of people, because some of them had brutalized Americans.
And guess what? There was no huge outcry over Carter’s ban. No demands that Carter be banned from entry into, say, Britain. Nor did any subsequent American administration ever issue a censure deeming Carter having been unworthy of holding the office of President of the United States, something that the Obama administration has said about Trump because of his proposed ban. QUOTE
So, there is a fairly recent precedent for banning an entire class of people in the United States.
Greenfield isn’t the only one on the ball, and America isn’t the only place where national/religious bans are accepted without much pushback, let alone hysteria.
Yair Rosenberg, an American journalist, pointed out on Twitter what should already be an obvious fact, and one for which there has been little public criticism, at least none that has risen to the level of eliciting the ire of major political parties, religious groups or public figures.
Rosenberg pointed out that there are currently 16 countries in the world which completely ban the entry of Israelis. No one is permitted to enter the following nations with an Israeli passport: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
Please, choke back any response that consists of something along the lines of: “well, those are Arab or Muslim countries, we expect more of a U.S. presidential candidate.” Anyone who considers acceptable because “to be expected” the blanket banning of Israelis by any nation, yet is outraged to action by The Donald must be prepared to be called a hypocrite.
And just to point out the extent of the mass hypocrisy regarding national or religious entry bans Rosenberg also pointed out that five of these 16 Arab/Muslim nations which bar Israelis from entering are currently “members of the United Nations Human Rights Council. No Punchline.” *Drop mic.*
UNBORN NATION FOR WHICH US, UK AND OTHERS SEEK TO BE MIDWIFE CATEGORICALLY REJECTS JEWS
But there is yet another, even more straightforward way to reveal the hypocrisy of those hysterically denouncing Trump’s suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslim entry into the United States.
This is the already declared position of Mahmoud Abbas, the acting president of the Palestinian Authority, who has unequivocally announced that there will be no Jews – not one, not ever – in the nation he hopes will arise: Palestine.
The precondition of a Judenrein nation has never been rejected as racist, xenophobic, undemocratic, discriminatory or anything else at all either by this American administration which has struggled for the past seven years to help birth Palestine, nor any previous ones. Nor has any other nation or national leader or self-declared human rights activist, civil rights activist or other do-gooders challenged that precondition to statehood.
This point was made first by Israeli Kay Wilson. Wilson tweetedearly Wednesday morning, in response to the Trump brouhaha, that she hoped the next will be “when the whole world” is “outraged by Abbas” who has said there will be “no Jews in Palestine.”
Wilson is particularly attuned to the hatefulness and incitement of the Palestinian Authority. In late 2010, she and a friend were stabbed repeatedly and left to die by two Palestinian Arabs who tried to murder them both, just because they were Jews. As it turned out, Wilson’s friend, Kristine Luken, who died from the assault, was a Christian. Wilson was stabbed with a machete 13 times. She was stabbed with such ferocity, that 30 of Wilson’s bones were shattered in the attack.
When asked by the JewishPress.com why she was claiming the Trump detractors were being hypocritical, Wilson, who, despite her trauma is a funny and loving person, laid out her response.
Wilson said that Jews being upset by Trump’s statement was not particularly surprising because “speaking up for our neighbour is both a calling and a conviction – born out of our task as Jews – to be ‘our brothers keeper.’”
What outraged Wilson, however, was what she described as planted “amongst this ruckus of goodwill” was “a concoction of hypocrisy and double standards of the international community towards the Jewish people.”
This is because although the PA’s Abbas has always made it clear, openly and repeatedly, that any future Palestinian state will be“Jew-free.”
From the time Abbas took over as leader of the Palestinian Authority, Wilson pointed out, “he made it clear that ANY future state under his jurisdiction will be “Jew-free.” But, she bemoans, “there has not been one politician, one spokesman, one foreign dignitary or one non-Jewish community that has EVER had the courage, the moral fortitude or just the plain common decency to speak out.
“There have been no op-eds, 24/7 news coverage, street protests or even tweets about this form of racism. And there have never been any public protests from the Muslim community to ‘be my brothers keeper,’” said Wilson.
So what are the two differences between Trump’s ban and all the others? The first is obvious, the lack of outrage. The utter lack of concern by the entire world that Israelis are barred from entry into other countries simply because they are from the only Jewish State in the world. The other? Trump is a businessman, he is not in any position of power, at least not yet. The other bans were all made by people who were or are in positions of leadership, equipped to, or already enforcing such a ban.
The San Bernardino attackers Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook (Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection)
In his speech to the nation following the San Bernardino terror attack, U.S. President Barack Obama made a rightful plea to Muslims: “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities.” Making his case, Obama again rightly stated that “extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities” and “it’s a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse.”
The president then insisted that Muslim leaders in American as well as around the world work with the U.S. to “root out” the problem, reject violence and ideological supremacism and promote “mutual respect and human dignity.”
It is telling in the fight against Islamist extremism who is rallying with the president on these points and who is fighting against him.
Linda Sarsour, executive director of the taxpayer-funded Arab American Association and co-founder of the Muslim Democratic Club of New York, had this to say about Obama’s request: “We would never ask any other faith community to stand up and condemn acts of violence committed by people within their groups.”
Really? If Christians worldwide were committing terrorist rampages across the globe citing sources that it is sanctioned or even required by their religion, we wouldn’t ask for American Christians to condemn them and make sure their children did not get swayed by them?
Sarsour and her fellow apologists understand this well. What Sarsour’s remarks are meant to accomplish is a complete sidestep of the entire issue, ironically facilitated by Obama himself. Obama’s refusal to tie “extremist ideology” to Islam makes it is possible for Sarsour and those who share her sentiments to claim “Islamophobia” and call it a day.
Further commenting on Obama’s request, Sarsour said, “The fact that this is only directed at the Muslim community is something that I personally can’t accept.”
(It could be that Sarsour doesn’t feel the same way about violence as does the president. One of her recent tweets featured a Palestinian child with a rock in each of his hands approaching Israeli soldiers. Sarsour wrote underneath: “The definition of courage.”)
Muslims who are truly interested in rooting out the extremism in their midst would not bristle at Obama’s request. Indeed, many are already active in the fight against those who they believe are perverting their religion. They acknowledge the problem and don’t think it’s “Islamophobic” to talk about it.
“What we need to do now — rather than giving a forum to self-appointed spokespeople like CAIR who have not led the fight against extremism — is listen to those who have actually been taking on this very struggle the president referenced,” says Karima Bennoune, a University of Davis law professor, author of Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here: Untold Stories from the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism. “Our conversation should be why and what is it in our theology that has been so bastardized to give people permission to kill? Until we honestly root this out, we will by default be blamed,” she said.
Nidal Alsayyed, an imam who heads the Islamic Center of Triplex of Beaumont, Texas went one step further, saying that he agrees with presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposal to halt Muslim immigration into the U.S. until the country’s “representatives can figure out what is going on.”
“I certainly see it to be wise (to) stop temporarily accepting any new Muslim immigrants (refugees and non-refugees) into the United States,” said Alsayyed. “We American Muslims need to be sincere in our religion and to the country we are living in. Peace comes before religion. We need to be truthful and transparent when we express a viewpoint or feedback. It does not matter whether Trump said it or anyone else,” he added.
Democratic president candidate Hillary Clinton has refused to use the words “radical Islam,” saying, “It doesn’t do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people.”
On the contrary. “Not saying it, when it represents a reality, is much worse,” says Bennoune. And certainly, not saying it will not make the problem go away.
Donald Trump’s great contribution is saying the unsayable; putting things on the table that would otherwise be buried; calling a spade a spade in a time when political correctness has made us unable to discuss things that have to do with our basic national survival. This is the crux of the issue. Every time he creates a controversy like this he also tells this country that its emperors, Republican and Democrat, have no clothes. That they prefer propriety over defending the country. That they are dedicated only to keeping the lid on a cauldron of threat and challenge they have allowed to boil over.
***********************
Presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we can figure out why Islamic terrorists have been able to enter our country and devised ways to protect ourselves. This has caused the left and right establishments to dogpile on Trump. Echoing the sentiments of virtually all Democrats and many Republicans, aWashington Post editorial has declared that Trump’s proposal disqualifies him as a candidate because in the Post’s view what he recommends is unconstitutional and therefore un-American. But President Obama has issued executive orders – as it happens orders that sabotage our borders – that he himself has called unconstitutional (“I don’t have the authority to stop deportations”). Has the Post editorialized that this is un-American and disqualifies him for the presidency? Has it called for Obama to be impeached? Have Democrats ridiculed Obama for his un-American prescriptions?
Consider the nature of the threat. A 2009 “World Opinion” survey by the University of Maryland showed that between 30 and 50% of Muslims in Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic countries approved of the terrorist attacks on America and that only a minority of Muslims “entirely disapproved” of them. ISIS has acknowledged its plans to use refugee programs to infiltrate its terrorists into the United States and other infidel countries. In Minneapolis we have a Somali refugee community many of whose members have returned to Syria to fight for ISIS. Other Muslim immigrants like Major Hassan and Tashfeen Malik have carried out barbaric acts of terror here at home. Today Muslim terrorists are using assault rifles and pipe bombs, but we know they have Sarin gas and other chemical weapons which they might use tomorrow. The terrorists inexorably arrive along with the other immigrants, no one in authority apparently knowing who’s who. Who, then, in his right mind does not think that Muslim immigration poses a serious security threat to us?
The outrage against Trump should properly have been directed at our president who refuses to identify the enemy as Islamic terrorism, who has opened the door to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to the Islamic America-haters in Iran, whose policies have created the vacuums that ISIS has filled, and who even after Paris and San Bernardino is determined to bring 100,000 immigrants from Syrian war zones to our unprotected shores. This outrage is missing and it is precisely because it is missing that Trump’s unconstitutional proposal resonates with so many rightly concerned Americans. When the man in charge of our security is by general consensus out to lunch in regard to fighting the war on Islamic terror, or protecting us at home, a proposal like Trump’s, which at least recognizes the threat, is going to resonate with the public.
In middle of a crisis of national security, the Democratic Party seems to think that climate change and especially gun ownership are greater threats to our survival than the one that comes from hundreds of millions of Muslims who think America should be attacked and who believe the whole world should be put under medieval Islamic law. In the face of this threat, the Democratic Party and its leaders seem to have no problem with the fact that we have more than 350 “Sanctuary Cities” that are dedicated to sabotaging our immigration laws; that we have no southern border and as a result have 179,000 illegal alien criminals and who knows how many terrorists in our country today.
Once again we have Trump to thank for changing the surreal conversation about whether having a border at all is compatible with American values, and forcing people to focus on the dangers we face. Republicans are generally defenders of this country, but not in this controversy over Donald Trump. Would that they would use the same ridicule and outrage over the Democrats’ many betrayals of our country and its citizens through proposals to expose us to our enemies as they do over a proposal to protect us from them. Trump’s idea may be unconstitutional and unworkable, but it springs from a desire that is honorable and patriotic. The appropriate response would be to propose alternatives that recognize the same dangers and serve the same ends but do so within constitutional limits.
Donald Trump’s great contribution is saying the unsayable; putting things on the table that would otherwise be buried; calling a spade a spade in a time when political correctness has made us unable to discuss things that have to do with our basic national survival. This is the crux of the issue. Every time he creates a controversy like this he also tells this country that its emperors, Republican and Democrat, have no clothes. That they prefer propriety over defending the country. That they are dedicated only to keeping the lid on a cauldron of threat and challenge they have allowed to boil over.
The 2016 election will be a referendum on the defense of this country and its survival. Let’s see who answers the call.
San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik (left) and founder of the Al-Huda network of schools Farhat Hashmi.
The Al-Huda Institute in Mississauga, Ontario is one of a chain of 200 Al-Huda schools in the U.S., Canada and Pakistan. Founded in 1994 by an ultra-conservative female Islamic scholar, Farhat Hashmi, its ideology is said to have spread like a social movement in North America and around the world.
***************************
A Canadian Islamic school that was linked to the California shooter as well as four students who travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State closed for the day on Tuesday, citing “safety concerns.”
Staff at the Al-Huda Institute said the media’s focus on the school had put the staff and students at risk. Media focus on the school began this week when it emerged that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino terrorists, had attended a branch of the school in Pakistan.
Last year, the school was in the headlines as four of its students, aged 15-18, had attempted to travel to Syria to join jihadi organizations. Travelling from Canada through Cairo to Istanbul, three of the girls were stopped by the Turks after the girls’ parents alerted Canadian authorities. The oldest girl made it to Syria and has been living there since 2014.
The Al-Huda Institute in Mississauga, Ontario is one of a chain of 200 Al-Huda schools in the U.S., Canada and Pakistan. Founded in 1994 by an ultra-conservative female Islamic scholar, Farhat Hashmi, its ideology is said to have spread like a social movement in North America and around the world.
The self-declared “Islamic feminist,” Hashmi wears a burka, advocates total obedience of a woman to her husband and promotes Saudi Wahhabist ideology. When she opened a new center in London – in a former police station — she was accused of teaching a “medieval view of human rights and women’s place in society” as well as advocating jihad.
Her teachings were so controversial and offensive she was asked to leave Canada in 2006. Canadian reports say she has not been in the country for the last three years.
“Women gravitate towards her because they are either disillusioned with their life in the West, or they want their daughters to be protected from what they perceive to be the moral laxity of the West,”Muslim human rights activist Farzana Hassan said, speaking to theInternational Business Times. “Her network is large and growing because her graduates then go out and spread the word to other recruits.”
As for Malik, after she began studying at an Al-Huda Institute in Pakistan (before she married fellow San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook), a close friend said she noticed a big change in her former schoolmate. “We were like, ‘What happened to Malik?’” said Abida Rani. “She became so religious, so serious, and so focused on Islamic teachings, and she lost her interest in her studies.”
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments