A Muslim organization has placed a $15,000 bounty on the head of an Islamic scholar deemed guilty of spreading false teachings about the faith.
Specifically, the All-India Faisan-e-Madina Council has called for the beheading of scholar Tarek Fatah, seen as too “moderate,” and will pay $15,000 to anyone who can do it.
Moeen Siddique, the head of the All-India Faisan-e-Madina Council, which has announced a reward of Rs 10 lakh to behead Islamic scholar Tarek Fatah.
“‘Tarek Fatah is conspiring to disrupt harmony between Hindus and Muslims. He is as an agent of our enemies. He must be stopped at any cost and our organisation will pay Rs 10,00,786 to any person who will decapitate him,” said Moeen Siddique, head of the council.
“‘He and his programme are being funded by foreign enemies of our country and the government must initiate an inquiry against him,’ Siddique said.”
Fatah is a Canadian national who hails from Pakistan. He holds secular views of many principles of Islam. For instance, Fatah doesn’t believe the burka is required wear for women, the Hindustan Times reported.
“‘In his programme, he claims that it is not required to wear a burqa and terms triple talaq as haram. Muslims must not listen to his advice and come forward against him,’ said Siddique.”
Still, as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch notes, just because a Muslim group finds Fatah moderate doesn’t make it so.
“Tarek Fatah is a paradoxical figure; indeed, he personifies the paradoxes of most moderate Muslims. He speaks out strongly against Muslim Brotherhood organizations and Sharia encroachment in the West, but is extraordinarily concerned at the same to absolve Islam of all responsibility for the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings. Around ten years ago I spent a day with him and others in New York, where among other meetings, we met with Roger Ailes and other Fox News officials. Fatah was an amiable fellow, but I began to grow disenchanted when he replied exasperatedly to Nonie Darwish’s pointing out that the Qur’an was full of violent passages with the now-common dodge that the Bible contains violent passages as well — as if the world were as full of Christians screaming “Jesus is Lord” and opening fire on crowds of non-Christians as it is of Muslims screaming “Allahu akbar” as they take out Infidels.
“By the end of that long and eventful day I was extremely skeptical of Fatah’s sincerity. My suspicions were compounded when he attacked the courageous ex-Muslim truth-teller Wafa Sultan, in much the same terms that Leftists and Islamic supremacists use to smear and destroy those whom they fear and hate. He also engaged in sly apologetics to exonerate Islamic texts and teachings of any responsibility for jihad terror, rather than calling for and working for genuine reform. … Fatah soon thereafter began to denounce me as a racist and bigot, which I expect coming from Leftist Alinskyites and Islamic jihad enablers, but was sheer opportunism and jockeying for market share coming from him. …
“And now there is a bounty on his head from the All-India Faisan-e-Madina Council, which only shows that the All-India Faisan-e-Madina Council, in its hatred, bloodlust, and savagery, doesn’t realize who its true friends are. In any case, however, this just illustrates yet again the uphill battle that Islamic reformers, and even pseudo-reformers such as Tarek Fatah, face: when they speak out against Islamic practices that have a foundation in the Qur’an and Sunnah, they’re threatened with death as heretics or apostates. That’s why we don’t see more Islamic reformers, even insincere and opportunistic ones.”
The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic.”
This is a throwback to the politically correct lies and half-truths that deformed our response to the Islamic jihad threat during the Obama years. President Trump had vowed to correct this. Now he has appointed a national security adviser who is just as willfully ignorant as Obama and his team. This has to be sorted out, and quickly.
“H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam,” by Mark Landler and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, February 24, 2017:
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.
The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.
That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat.
It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Mr. Flynn, who was also a three-star Army general before retiring.
Wearing his Army uniform, General McMaster spoke to a group that has been rattled and deeply demoralized after weeks of upheaval, following a haphazard transition from the Obama administration and amid the questions about links to Russia, which swiftly engulfed Mr. Flynn.
General McMaster, several officials said, has been vocal about his views on dealing with Islamic militancy, including with Mr. Trump, who on Monday described him as “a man of tremendous talent, tremendous experience.” General McMaster got the job after Mr. Trump’s first choice, Robert S. Harward, a retired Navy vice admiral, turned it down.
Within a day of his appointment on Monday, General McMaster was popping into offices to introduce himself to the council’s professional staff members. The staff members, many of them holdovers from the Obama administration, felt viewed with suspicion by Mr. Trump’s team and shut out of the policy-making process, according to current and former officials.
In his language, General McMaster is closer to the positions of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both took pains to separate acts of terrorism from Islamic teaching, in part because they argued that the United States needed the help of Muslim allies to hunt down terrorists.
“This is very much a repudiation of his new boss’s lexicon and worldview,” said William McCants, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “The ISIS Apocalypse.”
“McMaster, like Obama, is someone who was in positions of leadership and thought the United States should not play into the jihadist propaganda that this is a religious war,” Mr. McCants said.
“There is a deep hunger for McMaster’s view in the interagency,” he added, referring to the process by which the State Department, Pentagon and other agencies funnel recommendations through the National Security Council. “The fact that he has made himself the champion of this view makes people realize they have an advocate to express dissenting opinions.”
But Mr. McCants and others cautioned that General McMaster’s views would not necessarily be the final word in a White House where Mr. Trump and several of his top advisers view Islam in deeply xenophobic terms. Some aides, including the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, have warned of a looming existential clash between Islam and the Judeo-Christian world….
“Selling the crucial manufacture of vaccines to an ideologically hostile country, which might – for whatever reason – suddenly decide to shut down production, does not sound like a good idea… Those who say that the Saudis are merely interested in profit, just like everybody else, should know better”. — Rachel Ehrenfeld, expert on financing terrorism
Virtually all political parties supported the Danish government’s sale of its vaccine manufacturing facility to the Saudi conglomerate.
After the publication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons in 2006, Saudis boycotted Danish goods. Do Danish politicians really have such short memories?
Vaccines are not an easy commodity to come by. It takes minimum six months for an order of vaccines to be delivered, but, according to the World Health Organization, delivery can also easily take up to two years.
How much trust are Danish consumers supposed to have in a Saudi owned conglomerate, which employs jihadists such as Usmani and donates heavily to jihadist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who want to bring about a caliphate? The potential for political exploitation is too evident to reject.
Would you want your vaccines produced by a Saudi company that supports jihad? Danes, it seems, may have no choice.
Denmark recently sold its state-owned vaccine manufacturing facility to a conglomerate owned by the Aljomaih Group, a Saudi family dynasty[1] led by Sheikh AbdulAziz Hamad Aljomaih. The sheikh is also the largest single stockholder and chairman of Arcapita Bank, (formerly First Islamic Investment Bank) headquartered in Bahrain. As an Islamic bank, it has a so-called Sharia Supervisory Board comprised of Islamic scholars, who ensure that the bank’s activities comply with sharia (Islamic law).
Former Islamic judge and leading Islamic scholar Taqi Usmani, who sits on the bank’s Sharia Board, in his book, “Islam and Modernism”, writes ruminations such as: “Aggressive Jihad is lawful even today… Its justification cannot be veiled…”
Usami had also, after Danish newspapers reprinted the Mohammad cartoons in 2008, co-signed an appeal to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), urging it to boycott Denmark:
“If the Danish government does not declare the [publication of] shameful and blasphemous cartoons as a criminal act, the OIC [should] appeal to all Islamic nations for a trade boycott of that bigoted country”.
Equally noteworthy is that the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yussuf al-Qaradawi, used to sit on Arcapita’s sharia board, until he eventually resigned. Qaradawi, already in 1995, told a Muslim Arab Youth Association convention in Toledo, Ohio, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America!” According to Qaradawi, sharia law should be introduced gradually, over a five-year period in a new country. Presumably, this gradually-introduced sharia legal system would include the end of free speech under “blasphemy laws”, the denigration and oppression of women, such as women worth half as much as men in court, polygamy, the persecution of Jews (Qaradawi advocates killing all of them), beating wives as a way of “disciplining” them and so on. Only after this transition phase, sharia laws such as killing apostates and homosexuals, as well as chopping off hands for theft, would be introduced.
Given Qaradawi’s former prominence in Arcapita, it hardly comes as a surprise that the bank has given financial support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Bahrain, known there as the Al Islah Society. According to a leaked report by former US Ambassador to Bahrain, Ambassador William T. Monroe:
“Arcapita reported giving a total $591,000 in 2003 and $583,000 in 2002 to a variety of charitable organizations… the Islamic Education Society (Al Tarbiya Al Islamiya – Sunni Salafi) and the Al Islah Society (Sunni Muslim Brotherhood) are the largest beneficiaries of Arcapita’s charitable giving… We are aware of concerns linking Arcapita advisors and staff to questionable organizations.”
In August 2016, the Danish government announced that it “…rejects any organization representing antidemocratic and radicalized environments” and considers the Muslim Brotherhood to be “deeply problematic” and something they “strongly reject”.
Clearly not strongly enough.
“Selling the crucial manufacture of vaccines to an ideologically hostile country, which might — for whatever reason — suddenly decide to shut down production, does not sound like a good idea. Those who say that the Saudis are merely interested in profit, just like everybody else, should know better”, Rachel Ehrenfeld, an expert on the financing of terrorism, toldEkstra Bladet.
Virtually all political parties supported the Danish government’s sale of its vaccine manufacturing facility to the Saudi conglomerate. This is strange, given the recent history of Danish-Saudi relations.
After the publication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons in 2006, Saudis boycotted Danish goods. Saudi Arabia’s religious leader, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheik, demanded that the Danish government hold Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that printed the Mohammad cartoons, to account and force the newspaper to give an apology: “The government should give [the newspaper] a fine as a deterrence. This is the least that Muslims should demand”, he said.
Do Danish politicians really have such short memories?
Vaccines are not an easy commodity to come by. It takes minimum of six months for an order of vaccines to be delivered, but, according to the World Health Organization, delivery can also easily take up to two years. Astonishingly, the Danish state has given the Aljomaih group an incredible start by promising to buy all its children’s vaccines from the sheikh for the first 30 months. Only after that will Danish authorities be able to buy their children’s vaccines elsewhere. The Danish government has also promised the Aljomaih group not to create new Danish state vaccine production for the first three years.
Should consumers not be able to trust a producer of something as critical as vaccines? How much trust are Danish consumers supposed to have in a Saudi owned conglomerate, which employs jihadists such as Usmani, which donates heavily to jihadist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which in turn wants to bring about a caliphate? The potential for political exploitation is too evident to reject. Ekstra Bladet ran a poll on its website asking whether Danes were in favor or against the sale: 95% were against it.
Even more remarkable is that the government claims not to have known about the connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and Aljomaih; all the information is easily accessible on the internet.
Health Minister Ellen Trane Nørby has defended the sale: “We did not have several buyers to choose from. We have the buyer we have and it has saved 600 Danish jobs, which would otherwise have been lost”.
Is she saying that the safety of Danish citizens is worth 600 jobs?
The sale of the Danish vaccine production facility to the Saudi conglomerate captures perfectly everything that is wrong with European politicians today: their apparent gullibility, their carelessness and their desire to sell out to places such as Saudi Arabia, seemingly without giving much thought to the long-term consequences.
Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
[1] The Group has been active in healthcare through its investment arm AJ Pharma Holding, and it is its Malaysian subsidiary, AJ Biologics, which will take over the vaccine production in the Danish facility in Copenhagen with its 100-year-old history and approximately 500 Danish employees. The deal was a steal for the Aljomaih group, which acquired the vaccine production company for what is believed to be a tenth of its actual value, a mere 15 million DKK.
In Sweden, comments that object to sexual violence against women in the Quran are prosecuted, but calling homosexuality a “virus” is fine.
Antisemitism has become so socially acceptable in Sweden that anti-Semites can get away with anything, and no one even notices, as Nima Gholam Ali Pour reports.
One of Sweden’s main news outlets, in fact, described anti-Semitism as simply a different opinion. Clearly, in the eyes of Swedish authorities, neither homosexuals nor Jews count for much.
Swedish authorities also give large sums of money to organizations that advocate violence and invite hate preachers who support terrorist organizations such as ISIS. One of the speakers SFM hired was Michael Skråmo, who has publicly called on his fellow Muslims to join ISIS and has appeared in propaganda videos, posing with assault rifles alongside his small children.
Are some individuals receiving preferential treatment under Sweden’s “hate speech” laws? It seems that way.
Under the Swedish Penal Code, a person can be held responsible for incitement if a statement or representation made “threatens or disrespects an ethnic group or other such group of persons with regards to race, color, national or ethnic origin, religious belief or sexual orientation”.
In 2015, the imam at Halmstad mosque, Abu Muadh, said that homosexuality was a “virus” from which parents were obliged to protect their children.
The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Rights (RFSL) filed a legal complaint in October 2015. “[M]any people are listening [to the imam] and there is a risk that the opinions and other expressions of homophobia will spread among believers, as they attach great importance to their representatives’ words”, said Ulrika Westerlund, chairman of RFSL.
The Swedish legal establishment however, seemed entirely unconcerned; the imam was not prosecuted.
“[F]or something to be incitement, it needs to reach a certain level and in this context, the assessment is that this statement does not reach that level”, said Martin Inglund, acting investigation officer at Halmstad police. He added that an assessment had been made based on freedom of religion, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. It took the police only one week to make the decision not to prosecute the imam.
“It is a strange decision, said Jonnié Jonsson, chairman of RFSL Halland, “I do not think anyone has the right to violate other people in the name of religion”.
Then there is the recent case of Stefan Vestling, a local politician from the Sweden Democrat Party. He was recently prosecuted and convicted for “incitement against an ethnic group”, when he wrote the following comment on the official Facebook page of the Sweden Democrats Party in Norberg in December 2014:
“Muslims who have ended up in the ‘diaspora’ are at war. A Muslim who lives in Sweden is thus living in a war zone, where it is allowed to rape a woman, as this is a Muslim right according to the Quran. [A Muslim] is allowed to have sex with women who have been conquered in war… that is to say the infidels’ women (Quran Sura 4:3, 4:24). Easiest for ‘Swedish’ horny Muslims is of course to join ISIS where they can have their sick, devilish desires fully satisfied”.
The prosecutor failed to convince the district court that Vestling had committed a crime. “Freedom of expression includes the right to convey such information and opinions and ideas that offend shock or disturb” the court wrote in its ruling. However, at the Court of Appeals in Svea, in December 2016, the court found that Vestling’s post had been offensive to Muslims. The appeals court seemingly had no problem with the first part of Vestling’s post. It was the last sentence, “Easiest for ‘Swedish’ horny Muslims is of course to join ISIS where they can have their sick, devilish desires fully satisfied”, which was considered to be in violation of the Penal Code. Vestling was handed a suspended jail sentence and a fine. He has appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court.
Both the statements made by Abu Muadh and the statements made by Stefan Vestling were offensive; yet the Swedish authorities ended up protecting the imam from legal repercussions, even though prosecuting him would send an important signal to other Muslim preachers who view homosexuality in a similar way. That they do has been documented by a Swedish-Muslim blogger, who wrote:
During my years as a Muslim, I have visited several Swedish mosques from north to south. In all the mosques, homophobia was the norm. I have heard worse things than “homosexuality is a virus.” In no mosque, I repeat not one, have I come across teachings that tolerate homosexuality… The fact that the media act as if they were astonished [at Abu Muadh’s statement] shows how little contact they have with Muslim environments in Sweden. For those who have been on the “inside”, who have visited mosques and spent time with Muslims who are active in the mosques, the imam’s views [sound] completely mainstream.
Swedish experts largely consider Abu Muadh a radical, who moves in Salafist circles and has encouraged jihad, glorifying martyrdom in the battle to spread Islam. In a video clip on YouTube, he urges people who have “sinned” to wage jihad to be forgiven by God. In an interview with Hallandsposten in June 2016, he said that Muslims should not befriend unbelievers. He has argued that Muslims must not emulate the dress and haircuts of “kuffars” (infidels) and has declared 95% of all TV programs “haram” (forbidden).
In Sweden, comments that object to sexual violence against women in the Quran are prosecuted, but calling homosexuality a “virus” is fine.
Homosexuals are not the only ones to find themselves among those groups that Swedish society apparently no longer count as minorities worthy of protection. Anti-Semitism has become so socially acceptable in Sweden that anti-Semites can get away with anything, and no one even notices, as Nima Gholam Ali Pour reports. One of Sweden’s main news outlets, in fact, described antisemitism as simply a different opinion. Clearly, neither homosexuals nor Jews count for much in the eyes of Swedish authorities.
In addition, Swedish authorities give large sums of money to organizations that invite hate preachers who support terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda.
The Gothenburg-based nonprofit organization, Swedish Federation of Muslims (SFM,) was handed a government subsidy of 535,200 SEK [$60,000] in 2016. This is in addition to 150,000 SEK [$17,000] that SFM received from the city of Gothenburg.
SFM applied for the money “to combat Islamophobia”, which the organization considers “one of the biggest problems in Sweden right now”. One of the speakers SFM hired was Michael Skråmo, who has publicly called on his fellow Muslims to join ISIS. Now, calling himself Abdul Samad al Swedi, he has appeared in propaganda videos, posing with Kalashnikov assault rifles alongside his small children, outside Kobane in Syria. Abu Muadh is also a regular speaker.
Michael Skråmo, a Swedish convert and ISIS jihadist, brought his family to Syria. He has also urged Muslims in Sweden to bomb their workplaces.
Terror researcher Magnus Ranstorp said that he was surprised that SFM had been awarded state grants. “I see lots of question marks. We’re talking about a group that invited hate preachers, whose Salafist orientation is in many ways the opposite of tolerance”, he said. The decision to award SFM government subsidies also runs counter to the government’s agreement with the four conservative Alliance parties that no public money should go to advocate violence.
What is the Swedish authorities’ response to the official granting of money to organizations that host extremists? “Of course this is serious, and it is our view that this must be factored into future contribution assessments”, said Daniel Norlander, chief secretary of the National Authority Against Violent Extremism. The authority apparently does not think that the money should be returned or that there should be any sanctions. After all, we are only talking about preachers of violent jihad.
From the perspective of a poor migrant, the cash Sweden gives to all who come seems a lot of money, without working a single day to get it. This makes Sweden a paradise for the migrants of the world who do not want to work. The Swedish taxpayer pays for this party.
Recently, the city of Malmö bought 268 apartments, so newly arrived migrants would have a roof over their head. But at the same time, Swedish citizens in Malmö have to wait more than three years in line to rent an apartment.
While Swedish taxpayers are forced to fund all these benefits for migrants, the migrants do not have to adapt to the Swedish way of living.
In 2015, the proportion of rapes where the police actually found the suspect was 14%. In 86% of the rapes, the rapist got away.
It needs to become clear that the responsibility for becoming integrated into Swedish society rests entirely on the newly-arrived migrants. Migrants who do not receive a residence permit must go home or somewhere else.
In 2016, Sweden received 28,939 asylum seekers. Sweden is a predominantly Christian country in northern Europe, and yet most asylum seekers to Sweden came from three Muslim countries in the Middle East: Syria (5,459), Afghanistan (2,969) and Iraq (2,758). Why is it that people from these three Muslim countries choose to cross Europe to come to Sweden? What is it that Sweden offers that attracts people from the other side of the world?
It is not the major metropolises in Sweden that attract these people. 56% of Sweden’s land area is covered by forest. Besides the Swedish capital Stockholm, there is no Swedish city with more than 1 million inhabitants. Sweden’s average annual temperature is around 3°C (37.4°F), so it is not the weather that attracts tens of thousands of people from Muslim countries to Sweden.
What Sweden provides is economic and social benefits for all who come. Sweden is a country where the state pays newly-arrived migrants to encourage them to enter the community and seek jobs. If you receive a residence permit as a refugee, quota refugee or person with “subsidiary protection,” you get up to $35 (308 SEK) a day, five days a week, if you participate in a so-called “establishment plan.” So, the newly arrived migrant does not even have to work to get this money; the only thing he or she needs to do is to accept the help that the Public Employment Service provides. The newly-arrived migrant receives an “establishment allowance” (etableringsersättning) during his first two years in Sweden. After two years, the migrant is still entitled to all the benefits of the Swedish welfare state.
The migrants who receive this kind of establishment allowance can also get a supplementary establishment allowance (etableringstillägg) if they have children. They will get $91 a month (800 SEK) for each child under the age of 11, and $170 (1500 SEK) for each child who has reached the age of 11. A newly-arrived immigrant can get this supplementary establishment allowance for three children at most. If a newly-arrived immigrant has more than three children, then only the three oldest children count. The newly arrived immigrant can receive a maximum of $509 dollars (4500 SEK) a month through this supplementary establishment allowance.
So, if somebody lives in poverty in an Arab country and has several children, there is every reason to try to get a residence permit in Sweden. From the perspective of a poor migrant, that seems a lot of money to cash in, and one does not have to work a single day to get it. This makes Sweden a paradise for the migrants of the world who do not want to work. The Swedish taxpayer pays for this party.
If you accept the help of the Public Employment Service and start looking for a job, as a newly arrived migrant, you will also get help to pay the rent. If a newly arrived migrant has a rent of $396 (3500 SEK), the state pays $192 (1700 SEK). This is called the housing allowance (bostadsersättning).
It is not, however, only newly-arrived migrants with residence permits that receive economic and social benefits. Migrants who do not have residence permits also receive economic and social benefits. Since July 2013, immigrant children who live illegally in Sweden have the right to go to school.
In addition, also since July 2013, illegal immigrants have the right to state-funded health care, dental care, contraception counseling, and maternity care, as well as care in case of abortion. The illegal immigrant is also entitled to transportation to and from health care facilities, and also an interpreter. All children, in fact, who are living illegally in Sweden are offered the same health care and dental care, and under the same conditions, as children who are Swedish citizens.
The strange thing is that illegal immigrants pay lower fees for their medical and dental care than Swedish citizens pay. This is something that has upset many Swedish senior citizens, as 355,000 Swedish senior citizens live below the European Union’s poverty line. It is not certain that these senior citizens can afford dental care at all, while at the same time, illegal immigrants receive dental care by paying a fee of $6 (50 SEK). In Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city, the children of illegal immigrants receive full income support, and illegal migrants who have children have their entire rent paid by the municipality.
Since January 1, 2016, Sweden also has a law that offers children free medication. This law also applies to children seeking asylum in Sweden and children in Sweden illegally.
Children who come to Sweden and receive a residence permit further have the right to a “survivor pension” (efterlevandepension) if their parents have died. If the parents have never worked or lived in Sweden, the child will receive $167 (1477 SEK) per month, or $335 (2954 SEK) per month, if both parents are deceased. This is paid by the Swedish Pension Agency (Pensionsmyndigheten).
These are just some of the economic and social benefits that both legal and illegal migrants receive as soon as they set foot on Swedish soil.
So, if you live in an African country and want your child to go to school, Sweden will provide free education for your children, whether you have permission to stay in Sweden or not. If you are sick and cannot afford to go to the hospital, Sweden will provide free health care, whether you have the right to be in Sweden or not.
Recently, the city of Malmö bought 268 apartments with the taxpayers’ money, so newly arrived migrants would have a roof over their heads. But at the same time, Swedish citizens have to wait more than three years in line to rent an apartment in Malmö. The reason that people from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq cross the entire European continent to come to Sweden is because Swedish politicians have given them every reason to come. From the day that a newly arrived migrant enters Sweden, the authorities at all levels of government throw money at him, with access to free health care and education. Why shouldn’t he come? Sweden’s current policies offer a free ticket to a better life for all poor migrants who come to Sweden, and the Swedish taxpayer foots the bill.
While migrants get all these benefits, there are not many obligations. Sweden is a multicultural society. This means that many of the migrants do not feel any loyalty to the Swedish culture, but retain their own culture within Swedish society. While Swedish taxpayers are forced to fund all these benefits for illegal and legal migrants, the migrants do not have to adapt to Swedish way of living. Instead, the Swedes not only have to pay for the migrants, but also seem required to adapt to them.
Screenshot from a government-sanctioned video propagating “new Swedes will claim their space, bringing their culture, language and habits, and it’s time to see this as a positive force” and “old [native] Swedes have to integrate as well” in this new reality.
Meanwhile, Sweden has a critical shortage of police officers, which means that it is easy to commit crimes and get away with them. If one would, against all expectations, get caught, the punishment in Sweden is not harsh. If someone is convicted of rape, he would be incarcerated from two to six years. In 2015, the proportion of rapes where the police actually found the suspect was 14%. This means that in 86% of the rapes, the rapist got away. The police could simply not do their job because lack of resources and poor leadership.
Many might say that it is racist to associate migrants with sexual crimes. The Swedish police published a report in June 2016 which gave a status report of sexual abuse. In the report, one can read the following quote:
“In cases where the crimes were carried out by offenders in a larger group in public places and in public swimming pools the perpetrators have been mainly youngsters who have applied for or have recently received asylum in Sweden.”
Although Sweden has a more restrictive immigration policy than the liberal migration policy it had before the migration crisis began, Sweden continues to have a welfare and integration policy towards newly arrived immigrants that functions as a magnet and draws less-educated immigrants to Sweden. Those who come to Sweden seem to be seeking a country that provides many entitlements but not many obligations. People seeking success go to the UK, Canada or the United States, while it often appears as if people who want to break the rules choose to come to Sweden.
As long as Sweden gives migrants all these benefits and demands so little back, Sweden will be the ideal country for the world’s opportunists and freeloaders. The benefits of immigration, such as a well-educated workforce, economic growth and increased entrepreneurship, will not contribute to Sweden, because through its welfare and integration policies Sweden is attracting migrants who are either unwilling or unable to make an effort.
According to Eurostat figures from 2015, the unemployment rate among foreign nationals in Sweden was 20.1 percent, while Swedish citizens had an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent. Only three other countries in the European Union — France, Spain and Greece — had a higher unemployment rates among their foreign nationals than Sweden.
Among foreign nationals who were citizens of a non-EU country, Sweden had an unemployment rate of 29.3 percent. Only two other countries in the European Union — Spain and Greece — had a higher figure than Sweden. If you look at the unemployment rate among Sweden’s own citizens, Sweden has EU’s second-lowest unemployment rate.
Many would say that this might indicate that there is discrimination in the Swedish labor market. A major investigation (Långtidsutredningen 2015) by the Swedish Ministry of Finance, published in 2015, made the assessment that the Swedish labor market mainly rewards individuals’ skills, and as a whole does not seem to be characterized by ethnic discrimination. The investigation also made the assessment that in many instances, persons who are born outside Sweden and have higher education from their countries of birth, need further education in Sweden to become established in the Swedish labor market.
The problem therefore is not discrimination; it is that migrants who come to Sweden lack the proper education to enter the Swedish labor market.
A restrictive immigration policy is not enough for Sweden. As long as Sweden has all these benefits for illegal immigrants and newly-arrived migrants, the most opportunistic and sometimes the most unmotivated migrants will make every effort to come.
Migrants who stay in Sweden even though they do not have permits should not be rewarded. Migrants should not get paid because they are accepting support from the government to find jobs. These kinds of benefits need to be phased out and eventually eliminated.
It needs to become clear that the responsibility for becoming integrated into the Swedish society rests entirely on the newly arrived migrants. Migrants who do not receive a residence permit should go home or somewhere else. If this does not happen, it could lead to a crisis for the Swedish welfare state and the social rights of the Swedish people. Many Swedes would say that this welfare crisis has already begun.
To understand the activity within any intelligence action any observer must do two things: #1 You must stay elevated. If you try to get into the weeds you will be lost because your insight will be …
To understand the activity within any intelligence action any observer must do two things:
#1 You must stay elevated. If you try to get into the weeds you will be lost because your insight will be lacking specificity briefs.
#2 You must always reflect upon the recent historic context of the engagement you are observing. Including, most importantly, the engagements of the parties therein.
The recent example of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Mike Pompeo traveling to Saudi Arabia last weekend, at the request of President Donald Trump, to personally present Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef with an award named after former CIA director George Tenet, is an example of the need for this approach.
If you want to understand what’s going on, you must understand the recent relationship of the parties. It begins with understanding modern political Islam.
Within “political Islam” there are various factions. However, again with the intent to remain elevated, let us just approach two larger congregations as: “Authentic supporters” and “Reform Agents”.
The modern extremist elements fall under the category of “Authentic Supporters” or Salafists (politically, The Muslim Brotherhood). The “Reform Agents” are represented by people like Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah III.
Within “Political Islam” these two elements (Authentic -vs- Reform) are fighting for the heart, soul, intellect and -in larger measures- the future of Islam in a modern world.
All the various Muslim factions fall along a continuum of authenticity to the principles of Islam. The more authentic the expression, the more violent and confrontational the group. The more moderate the expression, the reformers, the less violent… etc.
Over the course of the past decade each political side has surged and/or retreated during the larger struggle for the heart of those who adhere to the Muslim faith. The so-called “Arab Spring” was a surge of the Authentic group, and was empowered/emboldened by the foreign policy activity of exterior nations. In particular, the ideological sympathy of former President Barack Obama.
In the face of the growth of the various Authentic expressions, the Reform elements were in a retreating position attempting to contain the internal damage being carried out by the extremist groups. Reformers and more moderate voices were simply trying to hold on to the construct of a civil society amid the growing crisis created by emotional demands of extremists requiring adherence to Sharia, the authentic political law of Islam.
On January 19th 2015, three days before Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz died from a lung infection, Egypt’s President Fattah al-Sisi was urgently summoned to met with him.
It was only a few weeks earlier (New Years Day 2015) when al-Sisi delivered an impassioned speech to a scholarly audience in Al-Azhar University in Cairo comprised of Islam’s most important religious leaders.
As the most notable and visible reformer (<- important link) President Fattah al-Sisi made the case for “a religious revolution in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse“:
“The corpus of texts and ideas that we have made sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. You cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You must step outside yourselves and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.” –LINK–
President al-Sisi’s visit to Saudi Arabia to visit with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz was a meeting specifically requested by an aging 90-year-old Saudi King to recognize Sisi for his courage and leadership.
Saudi Arabia had been coping with the same internal conflict as all other Muslim nations who were caught between the internal struggle.
President Sisi left Saudi Arabia with the full support of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, and upon his death a few days later the new Saudi King Salman; who honored Sisi in a similar fashion as did his brother.
With the support of Saudi Arabia, the demands of al-Sisi to remove the extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood gained traction. The Gulf States finally, and collectively, pressured Qatar to stop aiding/financing extremism.
This was the origin of the turning tide, when the Reform Agents began to stabilize and reassert their politics and internal domestic economies – the underlying wedge issue used by The Brotherhood to stir turmoil.
Unstable Yemen is to Saudi Arabia -> as unstable Libya is to Egypt -> as unstable Syria is to Jordan… and so it goes.
Each unstable nation being stirred by the extremist voices of various agents operating under the umbrella of the destabilizing politics expressed by The Muslim Brotherhood.
Remove the destabilizing agents and the Reformers believe they will be able to stop the extremists. This is the longer-term objective of those within the fight inside political Islam.
Now look again at the nations of Trump’s visa restrictions and you’ll note the presence of the destabilizing agents: Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran [and Sudan, Somalia].
This is the necessary backdrop to understand events as they unfold and relate to President Donald Trump and his own foreign policy objectives and engagements.
It is not accidental that newly appointed CIA Director Mike Pompeo traveled to meet with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Muhammad bin Nayef, after a phone call between Saudi King Salman and President Trump took place.
Director Pompeo’s visit was to recognize the efforts of Saudi Arabia in the larger fight against Islamic extremism/terrorism. However, based on internal consumption, Pompeo could not be seen publicly in this regard with King Salman himself. The visible face of Saudi Reform is the crown prince.
Jan 20th – President Trump takes office.
Jan 26th – President Trump has a phone call with King Salman
Feb 1st – Secretary Rex Tillerson is confirmed by the Senate.
Feb 2nd – The three Muslim Awan brothers are terminated amid accusations they accessed congressional intelligence committee computers without permission.
Feb 11th – CIA Director Pompeo travels to Saudi Arabia to deliver thanks.
By all appearances it seems the Trump administration was given a head’s up of sorts as to specific [Muslim Brotherhood] agents within the U.S. State Department. And also with key Democrat staffers, in highly sensitive intelligence positions, amid Congress.
Additionally:
Feb 12th – Fattah el-Sisi has a meeting in Egypt with Dana Rohrabacher, senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Sisi requests that President Trump “not differentiate between terrorist groups and to follow the same approach against them all“.
To wit, Egyptian media announce that Fattah el-Sisi will be traveling to Washington DC to meet with President Trump:
[…] Informed sources said that the presidency is currently coordinating with the US to arrange a visit next month. The sources referred to the visit as the first official one for an Egyptian president to Washington since 2009, as the last visit since then was paid by former President Hosni Mubarak.
Meanwhile, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu will leave Washington next Monday going back to Tel Aviv. Israeli TV reported on Sunday that Netanyahu is planning to form the ‘Israeli-Saudi-Egyptian’ axis. (read more)
It is ironic, but not coincidental, that no official Egyptian delegation has visited the United States since President Obama traveled to Cairo and started “The Islamist Spring” which led to the uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood extremism in Egypt.
Irony, because now the Trump administration is facing the internal extremist purging of the Muslim Brotherhood embeds remaining within the U.S. government leftover from President Obama’s aftermath…. and now, President Fattah el-Sisi, the destroyer of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt comes to officially visit President Trump in Washington.
I hope everyone can clearly see what’s going on in the bigger picture.
After eight years of Obama’s intense political embedding of extremist sympathy in every aspect of governance, and culture – President Trump is now tasked with removing it, all of it; and finding allies amid those who have already mounted the same effort.
It is also important to remember the political enterprise of The Muslim Brotherhood not only employs congressional staffers, but also has key connections to elected officials within both parties. Representative Adam Kinzinger and John McCain are two of the more obvious sympathizers on the right side of the UniParty.
Again, reference the seven states of turmoil/concern and you’ll notice a pattern:
Senator John McCain and Senator John Kerry in Cairo, Egypt – 2011
What came next?… The installation of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Senator John McCain and Ambassador Christopher Stephens, Benghazi Libya 2012
What came next?…. The rise of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood
Senator John McCain travels to Syria in 2013
What came next? Yup, you guessed it – Muslim Brotherhood (via ISIS)
THE HAGUE – On Thursday in front of parliament building journalists Jan Roos and Thierry Baudet stopped by with a petition signed by over 150 thousand people. The petition is supposed to give the public a say on the ratification of the EU Ukraine association treaty signed by Brussels last year and approved by Dutch parliament in 2015. Mister Baudet and mister Roos aim to increase participation in EU wide matters as they are concerned the Brussels institution is becoming increasingly undemocratic. For a referendum to be able to take place the petition will need to signed by at least 300 thousand people. (Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto)
The leader of Dutch political party VNL (VoorNederland, a classically liberal party) is lashing out at “the multicultural dream forced upon us” by the establishment.
Yesterday, Dutch outlet De Dagelijkse Standaard (I serve as its editor-in-chief) reported that increasingly more teachers at primary and high schools refuse to talk about certain issues due to fear of Muslim students.
They mention a similar situation in Turkey, led by the increasingly authoritarian President Erdogan, where homosexuality and terrorism are issues better ignored. The teachers say that there’s a “cultural conflict” in Dutch classrooms, and although some of them initially tried to hang on to liberal Dutch values, many have now given up.
VNL leader Jan Roos (VNL currently has two seats in the Dutch Parliament) rose to fame by leading the No campaign in the Dutch referendum about the EU Treaty with the Ukraine, which resulted in a stunning victory for the eurosceptic movement. Roos says that, although the classroom situation is certainly ridiculous, it can’t possibly come as a surprise to anyone:
Considering that the Netherlands further opened its borders to mass migration in the intervening years:
… it’s not exactly shocking that this situation has deteriorated.
Roos has little sympathy for those who blame “a lack of integration or assimilation” for these problems. The real problem, he explains, is “the multicultural dream forced upon us” by the establishment.
This stance marks an incredibly important distinction between traditional influential parties and newcomers like VNL (which was created only a few years ago). The former pretend that the country would be able to deal with mass migration if only the rules for integration and assimilation were clearer. Roos rightfully believes this not to be so. After all, you can’t “force” anyone to assimilate — or even expect them to — if they’re coming into the Netherlands by the tens of thousands every single year. This while the Netherlands has a population of a mere 17 million souls.
Says Roos:
Because multiculturalism was forced upon us, we were asked to become tolerant towards intolerance. In such a scenario intolerance always wins, which means you’ll end up with an intolerant society. Our Western values will be wiped away in one fell swoop if these minorities [of intolerant people] decide what happens in our country.
That danger is increasing by the day. A new political party is run by Dutch Turks — or, as Roos calls them, “radical Turks” — who defend every outrage that occurs in Turkey while blasting Dutch culture and history at every occasion. This party currently has two seats in Parliament, just like VNL. The polls indicate they may very well hang on to those seats — and perhaps even win a few more — because of widespread support among the Turkish-Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch communities, who are far more observant of Islam than their counterparts in their countries of origin.
Because of our tolerant attitude towards oppressive cultures and our insane open-borders policy, Roos warns that “we are creating a ‘little Middle East’ in Europe.”
Another example of this development occurred at a ridiculous protest in the nation’s political capital of The Hague yesterday, where Parliament is seated (although Amsterdam is, of course, the Netherlands’ official capital).
Hamas was also present at that protest. But when, in a few years time, the intolerant people turn against their leftist protesters, they’ll come running to us, begging us to help them.
Those leftist protesters, who were waving their politically correct flags and shouting multicultural-loving slogans yesterday, “are cuddling their own downfall,” Roos continues:
The only end result of this can be that our Western values will be wiped out.
Of course, it’s great that teachers, who are generally rather progressive, have finally found the courage to speak out against these problems in their classrooms. But if we don’t act now, mass migration and our dreamy multicultural project will eventually result in the destruction of the free West and of every fundamental right — such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion — we hold dear.
Roos’ words sound remarkably like Geert Wilders’ views on this matter, but there are differences. Yes, he demands an end to mass migration and the grand multicultural project, but — unlike Wilders — he does not want to “ban the Quran”:
If people want to read that book, they are free to do so. The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion will continue to exist if VNL plays a role in the Dutch government, but they will be based on Dutch laws. Those who have trouble with the latter part of my statement — respect for Dutch laws and our values — our free to leave.
According to recent polls, VNL has a real shot at coming back in Parliament after the general election of March 15. Geert Wilders’ PVV, however, is leading with ease. It is followed by the VVD, the party currently at the head of government, which is blamed for the dreadful consequences of unlimited migration from the Middle East and for the slow recovery of the Dutch economy after the economic crisis of 2008.
“Officials said the main suspect arrested was a 26-year-old Tunisian man who has been wanted since August 2015 as a recruiter and people smuggler for Isis….They suspect the jihadi of involvement in the attack on the Bardo Museum in Tunisia in March 2015…German authorities said the man was freed from prison in September, and because Tunisia had not submitted the required extradition documents, he had to be released from temporary custody in November after the maximum period allowed under German law.”
Those sentences constitute a suitable epitaph for Germany.
Meanwhile, mosques were raided? You’d almost think jihad terrorism had something to do with Islam.
“Mass terror raids thwart ‘planned Isis attack’ in Germany as more than 50 mosques and buildings searched,” by Lizzie Dearden, Independent, February 1, 2017:
A new terror attack plot has been thwarted in Germany after mass police raids resulted in the arrest of a prolific Tunisian Isis recruiter.
Police stormed 54 homes, mosques and businesses in the state of Hesse in the early hours of the morning in an operation targeting extremists planning “serious state-threatening violence”.
“According to evidence gathered so far, attack plans were still in an early phase and had not selected a specific target,” said a spokesperson for the Hesse state criminal investigation office.
Officials said the main suspect arrested was a 26-year-old Tunisian man who has been wanted since August 2015 as a recruiter and people smuggler for Isis.
The unnamed suspect has allegedly established a network of supporters “with the aim, among other things, of committing a terrorist attack in Germany”.
He was present in Germany from 2003 to 2013, then returned during the refugee crisis of 2015 posing as an asylum seeker.
He was arrested shortly afterwards over a previous conviction for bodily harm in 2008, for which he needed to serve 43 days in prison, and Tunisian authorities had also requested his extradition.
They suspect the jihadi of involvement in the attack on the Bardo Museum in Tunisia in March 2015, which left 20 tourists dead, and an assault by Isis insurgents on the border town of Ben Guerdane last year.
German authorities said the man was freed from prison in September, and because Tunisia had not submitted the required extradition documents, he had to be released from temporary custody in November after the maximum period allowed under German law….
Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” — Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (2:140)…. For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright riddah [apostasy]….” — Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
We Muslims believe that Allah is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds…. If they do not [observe His injunctions and to judge according to them], then they commit kufr [unbelief], aggression, and transgression.” — Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
There have never been any effective democracies in the Islamic world.
The idea that human beings can replace God as legislators is obnoxious to classical Islamic thought and to modern Islamist convictions. Men and women do not choose how to live: God has been there first.
Several of the ECFR’s own pronouncements indicate an unwillingness to compromise with European norms.
“The Shari’ah is for all times to come, equally valid under all circumstances. The Muslim insistence on the immutability of the Shari’ah is highly puzzling to many people, but any other view would be inconsistent with its basic concept.” — Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
The European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) plays an important role in the Fiqh al-‘Aqalliyyat (“Jurisprudence for Minorities”) world. It is now based in Dublin, having been founded in London in 1999 by the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe. Apart from issuing fatwas (principally those of leading Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi), it aims to supervise the education in Europe of local imams, to bring together Muslim scholars living in Europe, to resolve issues that arise on the continent (and UK) while operating with strict respect for shari’a law (which implies there should be no compromise), and to establish itself as an approved authority wherever Muslims live as minorities. This latter aim would suggest that the ECFR might one day possess an authority that would override that of local and national shari’a councils, and its members would expect to be the first and perhaps only voice to which parliaments and parliamentary bodies would lend an ear in their deliberations on how to treat their Muslim minority communities.
Despite the claim of the ECFR and other bodies involved in guidance for Muslims living outside Islamic jurisdiction to work towards a modus vivendi with Western governments, laws and cultural norms, the members of the ECFR nevertheless tend to approach this challenge in a way that can make the rapprochement problematic. Two matters engage much of their attention, namely secularism and democracy. Al-Qaradawi has spoken and written clearly on these. In one of his books, he separates Christian and Muslim beliefs:
Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari’ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: “Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God” (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience….
The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (2:140)…. For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright riddah [apostasy]…. This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who “…takes account of every single thing” (72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr [unbelief], aggression, and transgression.” [1]
Al-Qaradawi considers himself to be a moderate, but that is not always obvious from the positions he takes. He originally rejected democracy, but later advanced the proposition that liberal democracy functions in majority Islamic countries as an alternative to dictatorship and tyranny. The problem with this should be obvious. There have never been any effective democracies in the Islamic world. Democracies require a secular approach that involves the separation of church and state even where religion is given an important role to play.
The idea that human beings can replace God as legislators is obnoxious to classical Islamic thought and to modern Islamist convictions. Men and women do not choose how to live: God has been there first. He has sent down his laws through the Qur’an, the utterances of the Prophet, or the deliberations of the law schools. Since shari’a is all-embracing, only the most emboldened reformers dare to limit it to devotional or personal issues, to go so far as to make observance of its rulings a matter for individual choice, or even to relegate the bulk of it to history.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)
Several of the ECFR’s own pronouncements indicate an unwillingness to compromise with European norms. One fatwa issued by al-Qaradawi tackles the question of challenges to the applicability of shari’a, in answer to which he says, among other things:
The Shari’ah is for all times to come, equally valid under all circumstances. The Muslim insistence on the immutability of the Shari’ah is highly puzzling to many people, but any other view would be inconsistent with its basic concept. Those who advise bringing it into line with current thinking recognize this difficulty. Hence they recommend to Muslims that the legal provisions in the Qur’an and the concept of the Prophet as law-giver and ruler should be “downgraded”.
But, as the manifestation of Allah’s infinite mercy, knowledge and wisdom, the Shari’ah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards, rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform; it is the frame to which they must be referred; it is the scale on which they must be weighed.
The ECFR is not the only body determined to insist on the immutability and absolutism of shari’a law. According to Soeren Kern:
“the Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF), a large Muslim umbrella group linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, has issued fatwas that encourage French Muslims to reject all authority (namely, secular) that does not have a basis in Sharia law.”
References to several other European Islamic bodies may be found in the remainder of Kern’s article.
Dr. Denis MacEoin is the author of Sharia Law or One Law for All as well as many academic books, reports, and hundreds of academic and popular articles about Islam in many dimensions. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
[1] For a wide discussion of this issue, see Gabriele Marranci (ed.), Muslim Societies and the Challenge of Secularization: An Interdisciplinary Approach, New York, 2010, 2012
Denmark’s Statens Serum Institut (State Serum Institute). Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Froztbyte.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments