Islamophobia | WarSclerotic | Page 16

Posted tagged ‘Islamophobia’

Sweden: Is Islam Compatible with Democracy?

May 28, 2016

Sweden: Is Islam Compatible with Democracy? Gatestone Institute, Ingrid Carlqvist, May 28, 2016

♦ It is not a secret that democracy can be used to abolish democracy.

♦ It may have finally begun to dawn on the people that Swedish Sweden will soon be lost forever, and in many areas replaced by a Middle Eastern state of affairs, where different immigrant groups (mainly Muslims) make war on each other as well as on the Swedes.

♦ According to Dr. Peter Hammond, in his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, the goal of Islam is not to convert the whole world, but rather, to establish sharia law all over the world.

♦ There is no country where Islam is dominant that can be considered a democracy with freedom of speech and equal justice under law.

In Sweden’s last census in which citizens were asked about their religious beliefs, in 1930, fifteen people said that they were Muslims. Since 1975, when Sweden started its transformation from a homogenous, Swedish country into a multicultural and multi-religious one, the number of Muslims has exploded. Now, approximately one million Muslims live here — Sunni, Shia and Ahmadiyya from all the corners of the world — and Mosques are built and planned all over the country.

No one, however, seems to have asked the crucial question upon which Sweden’s future depends: Is Islam compatible with democracy?

The Swedish establishment has not grasped that Islam is more than a private religion, and therefore it dismisses all questions about Islam with the argument that Sweden has freedom of religion.

Two facts point to Islam not being compatible with democracy. First, there is no country where Islam is dominant that can be considered a democracy with freedom of speech and equal justice under law. Some point to Malaysia and Indonesia — two countries where flogging and other corporal punishments are meted out, for example, to women showing too much hair or skin, as well as to anyone who makes fun of, questions or criticizes Islam. Others point to Turkey as an example of an “Islamic democracy” — a country which routinely imprisons journalists, political dissidents and random people thought to have “offended” President Erdogan, “Islam” or “the nation.”

Second, Muslims in Europe vote collectively. In France, 93% of Muslims voted for the current president, François Hollande, in 2012. In Sweden, the Social Democrats reported that 75% of Swedish Muslims voted for them in the general election of 2006; and studies show that the “red-green” bloc gets 80-90% of the Muslim vote.

It is no secret that democracy can be used to abolish democracy — yet, this crucial issue is completely taboo in Sweden. Politicians, authorities and journalists all see Islam as just another religion. They seem to have no clue that Islam is also a political ideology, a justice system (sharia) and a specific culture that has rules for virtually everything in a person’s life: how to dress; who your friends should be; which foot should go first when you enter the bathroom. Granted, not all Muslims follow all these rules, but that does not change the fact that Islam aspires to control every aspect of human life — the very definition of a totalitarian ideology.

While the establishment closes its eyes to the problems that come with a rapidly growing Muslim population in Sweden, ordinary Swedes seem to be growing increasingly upset. Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, however, appears to be at a complete loss as to why this is. He recently told the British newspaper, Financial Times:

“But the more surreal thing is that all the numbers are going in the right direction, but the picture the public have is that the country is now going in the wrong direction. It’s not only a question about if they are afraid of the refugee crisis; it’s as if everything is going in the wrong direction.”

This comment says a lot about how disconnected Prime Minister Löfven is from the reality that ordinary Swedes are facing. The mainstream media withhold information about most of the violence that goes on in, and around, the asylum houses in the country, and it is not very likely that Stefan Löfven reads the alternative media sites; he and others in power have, in unison, dubbed them “hate sites.” He obviously has no idea about the anger and despair many Swedes are now feeling. It may have finally begun to dawn on them that Swedish Sweden will soon be lost forever, and in many areas replaced by a Middle Eastern state of affairs where different immigrant groups (mainly Muslims) make war on each other as well as on the Swedes.

1625

While the establishment closes its eyes to the problems that come with a rapidly growing Muslim population in Sweden, ordinary Swedes seem to be growing increasingly upset. Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (right), however, appears to be at a complete loss as to why this is. Pictured at left: The results of rioting in a Stockholm suburb, December 2014.

The people suffering most cruelly in the “New Sweden” are the elderly. The costs of immigration borne by the welfare state have led to a quarter of a million retirees living below the EU poverty line. Meanwhile, the government recently added another 30 billion kronor (about $3.6 billion) to the migration budget. The 70 billion kronor ($8.4 billion) Sweden will spend on asylum seekers in 2016 is more than what the entire police force and justice system cost, more than national defense costs, and twice the amount of child benefits.

Sweden’s 9.5 million residents are thus forced to spend 70 billion kronor on letting citizens of other countries come in. In comparison, the United States, with its 320 million residents, spent $1.56 billion on refugees in 2015. The editorial columnist PM Nilsson commented in the business paper, Dagens Industri:

“To understand the scope of the increase in spending, a historic look back can be worthwhile. When the right bloc came to power in 2006, the cost was 8 billion [kronor] a year. In 2014, it had gone up to 24 billion. That summer, then Minister of Finance Anders Borg talked about the increase being the most dramatic shift in the state budget he had ever seen. The year after, 2015, the cost rose to 35 billion, and in 2016, it is projected to rise to 70 billion.”

For many years, the politicians managed to fool the Swedish people into thinking that even if immigration presented an initial cost, the immigrants would soon enable the country to turn a profit. Now, more and more research indicates that the asylum seeker immigrants rarely or never find work. The daily newspaper Sydsvenskan reported in February, for example, that 64% of Malmö’s immigrants are still unemployed after living in Sweden for ten years. The government openly calculates in its budget that in four years, 980,000 people will be living on either sickness benefits, disability pensions, unemployment benefits, “introduction benefits” or social welfare.

Swedes, who for many years have paid the highest taxes in the world without whining, are now taking to social media to express their anger that their money is going to citizens of other countries. More and more Swedes are choosing to emigrate from Sweden, mainly to the other Nordic countries, but also to Spain, Portugal and Great Britain, where taxes on pensions are considerably less.

But there are worse problems than the economic aspect. A sense of insecurity and fear has gripped the many Swedes who live close to asylum houses. On some level, the government seems to have grasped that danger: in a recent decision to continue maintaining border controls, Interior Minister Anders Ygeman wrote:

“The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap), MSB, makes the assessment that the flow of migrants still brings challenges to upholding security in society, when it comes to the ability to maintain certain important public functions, among other things. Several of these challenges are expected to persist over time. The Police Authority’s assessment is still that a serious threat to public order and internal security exists. The Immigration Service still advocates border controls.”

Despite these ominous words, politicians still do not seem to understand that many Swedes are already experiencing “a serious threat to public order and internal security.” New asylum houses are opening at an alarming pace, against the will of the people living near them. In the Stockholm suburb of Spånga-Tensta, on April 15, local authorities held a public meeting, the purpose of which was to allow local residents to ask the politicians and officials questions about planned housing for 600 migrants — next to a school. The meeting, which was filmed, showed a riotous mood among those gathered there, many shouting that they were going to fight “until their last breath” to keep the plans from materializing.

Some of the comments and questions were:

“We have seen how many problems there have been at other asylum houses – stabbings, rapes and harassment. How can you guarantee the safety for us citizens? This is going to create a sense of us against them, it’s going to create hate! Why these large houses, why not small ones with ten people in each? Why haven’t you asked us, the people who live here, if we want this? How will you make this safe for us?”
“We already have problems at the existing asylum houses. It’s irresponsible of you to create a situation where we put our own and our children’s health in jeopardy, with people who are not feeling well and are in the wrong environment. Why is this house right next to a school? What is your analysis?”
“Will Swedes be allowed to live in these houses? Our young people have nowhere to live. You politicians should solve the housing issue for the people already living here, not for all the people in the world.”

When the chairman of the meeting, Green Party representative Awad Hersi, of Somali descent, thanked the audience for the questions without giving any answers, the mood approached that of a lynch mob. People shouted: “Answer! Answer our questions! We demand answers!”

Everything points to the so far docile Swedes now having had enough of the irresponsible immigration policy that has been going on for many years, under socialist and conservative governments alike.

People are furious at the wave of rapes that have given Sweden the second-highest rate of rape in the world, after only Lesotho, and that recently forced the Östersund police to issue a warning to women and girls not to go outside alone after dark. People are scared: the number of murders and manslaughters has soared. During the first three months of this year alone, there have been 40 murders and 57 attempted murders, according to statistics compiled by the journalist Elisabeth Höglund.

The authorities have long claimed that lethal violence in Sweden is on the decline, but that is compared to a record-breaking year, 1989, when mass immigration to Sweden was already in full swing. If one instead were to compare the present to the 1950s and 1960s, when Sweden was still a homogenous country, the number of murders and manslaughters has doubled. Recently, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet), BRÅ, had toadmit that lethal violence did, in fact, increase in 2015, when 112 people were killed — 25 more than the year before. It was also revealed that the kind of lethal violence that has gone down was run-of-the-mill drunken homicides committed by Swedes, while the number of gangster-style hits carried out by immigrants has gone up dramatically. Improved trauma care for wounded victims also helps keep the number of murders and manslaughters down.

A recent poll showed that 53% of Swedes now think immigration is the most important issue facing the country. The change from 2015 is dramatic — last year, only 27% said that immigration was most important. Another poll showed that 70% of Swedes feel that the amount of immigration to Sweden is too high. This is the fourth year in a row that skepticism about the magnitude of immigration has increased.

More and more people also seem to worry about the future of Sweden as a democracy with an increasing number of Muslims — through continued immigration as well as Muslim women having significantly more children than Swedish women do.

As statistics on religious beliefs are no longer kept, no one knows exactly how many Muslims are in Sweden. Last year, a poll showed that Swedes believe 17% of the population is Muslim, while the actual number, according to the polling institute Ipsos Mori, may be more like 5%. The company does not account for how it arrived at this number, and it is in all likelihood much too low. Ipsos Mori probably counted how many members Muslim congregations and organizations have, but as Islam is also a culture, and the country is equally affected by the Muslims who do not actively practice their faith, yet live according to Islamic culture.

In 2012, the Swedish alternative newspaper, Dispatch International, calculated how many Muslims were registered residents of Sweden at that time, based on the Swedish name registry. The number the paper arrived at was 574,000, plus or minus 20,000. For obvious reasons, illegals and asylum seekers were not included. The actual number may therefore have been much higher.

Since then, close to 300,000 people have sought asylum in Sweden. Not all of them have had their applications approved, but despite that, very few actually leave Sweden. The Immigration Service told Gatestone Institute that only 9,700 people were deported last year. Most asylum seekers are Muslim, which means that the number of Muslims in Sweden is fast approaching one million, or 10% of the population.

In his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, published in 2005, Dr. Peter Hammond describes what has always happened throughout history when the number of Muslims in a country increases. Admittedly generalities, Hammond outlines the following:

As long as the Muslims make up about 1%, they are generally considered a peace-loving minority who do not bother anyone.
At 2-3%, some start proselytizing to other minorities and disgruntled groups, especially in prison and among street gangs.
At 5%, Muslims have an unreasonably large influence relative to their share of the population. Many demand halal slaughtered meat, and have been pushing the food industry to produce and sell it. They have also started to work toward the government giving them autonomy under sharia law. Hammond writes that the goal of Islam is not to convert the whole world, but rather, to establish sharia law all over the world.
When Muslims reach 10%, historically, lawlessness increases. Some start to complain about their situation, start riots and car fires, and threaten people they feel insult Islam.
At 20%, violent riots erupt, jihadi militia groups are formed, people are murdered, and churches and synagogues are set ablaze.
When the Muslims reach 40% of the population, there are widespread massacres, constant terror attacks and militia warfare.
At 60%, there is the possibility of uninhibited persecution of non-Muslims, sporadic ethnic cleansing, possible genocide, implementation of sharia law and jizya (the tax for “protection” that unbelievers must pay).
When there are 80% Muslims in the country, they have taken control of the government apparatus and are, as in, for instance, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, committing violence in the name of Islam or political power.
When 100% are Muslims, the peace in the house of Islam is supposed to come — hence the claim that Islam is the “religion of peace.”

Hammond also writes that in many countries, such as France, Belgium, Great Britain and Sweden, most of the Muslim population lives in Islamic enclaves — and apparently prefer not to be assimilated into a Western society. This detachment strengthens the group internally, allowing them to exercise greater power than their share of the population might indicate.

Hammond’s description of the 10%-limit accurately describes Sweden. In the so-called exclusion areas, there are car torchings every day, and riots occur in the cities. (To name but a few examples, there were serious riots in Malmö 2008, Gothenburg 2009, Stockholm 2013, and Norrköping and Växjö 2015.) Sometimes, the unrest starts after a local Muslim has been arrested or shot by the police. Muslim leaders then immediately say they sympathize with their people’s reaction. During the Husby riots in 2013, Rami Al-Khamisi of the youth organization “Megafonen”wrote: “We can see why people are reacting this way.”

The artist Lars Vilks, who drew the Muslim prophet Muhammed as a roundabout dog, has been the target of several assassination attempts, and now lives under round-the-clock police protection.

Yet, almost no one in Sweden is willing to speak of these problems and how it all fits together. For months, Gatestone Institute has called politicians, civil servants, organizations and various minority groups, to ask how they feel about Islam in Sweden. Do they think Islam is compatible with democracy, freedom of speech and legal equality — and if so, in what way or what way not?

The questions seemed to provoke anger as well as fear. Some of the people we called said they were angry at the mere questions, but assured the callers that Islam poses no problem whatsoever for Sweden. Others appeared frightened and refused to answer altogether. In the hopes of getting at least some honest answers, we presented ourselves as ordinary, concerned Swedes. Countless people hung up the phone, and in general, many answers pointed to an abysmal ignorance about what Islam is, what consequences the Islamization of a country might have, or how much trouble Sweden really is in. The country appears totally unprepared for what lies ahead.

Categories: Democracy, Islam, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamophobia, Sweden
Tags: Democracy, Islam, Islamic integration, Islamic invasin, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamophobia, Sweden

Comments: 2 Comments

Muslim reformers vs. Islamists

May 26, 2016

Muslim reformers vs. Islamists, Dan Miller’s Blog, May 26, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Whether Islam will eventually be reformed is an open question. The topic is much discussed by Muslims, a few of whom favor reformation and more of whom oppose it. The issue is important for America, and indeed the free world in general. There is little that non-Muslims can do to assist a reformation beyond recognizing the substantial differences between moderate and radical (mainstream) Muslims, supporting the former and purging the latter. Please don’t conflate the cops with the killers.

Reformation of Islam

Here’s are comments by an American Muslim reformer, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser

In the following December 2015 video, the Fox News host misrepresented Donald Trump’s position as banning “all” Muslims, apparently permanently. Trump’s proposal was to ban Muslims until we can vet them adequately. Dr. Jasser agreed that Muslims advocating Islamist political ideology should be banned and that we should temporarily ban them all until we can distinguish moderate Muslims from “radical” Muslims. His suggestions for vetting Muslims included cessation of reliance on the Council on American – Islamic Relations (CAIR), et al, which are on the side of the Islamists.

An article by Raymond Ibrahim delves into Muslim perceptions of moderate vs. “radical” (i.e., mainstream) Islam and posts these views, as articulated by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr, an Islamist. Dr. Khadr stated,

“Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘moderate Muslims’ is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘radical Islam’ has no basis in Islam — neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Among the major distinctions (translated verbatim) made in Khadr’s article are:

Radicals want the caliphate to return; moderates reject the caliphate.

Radicals want to apply Sharia (Islamic law); moderates reject the application of Sharia.

Radicals reject the idea of renewal and reform, seeing it as a way to conform Islam to Western culture; moderates accept it.

Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.

Radicals reject any criticism whatsoever of Islam; moderates welcome it on the basis of freedom of speech.

Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.

Radicals respond to any insult against Islam or the prophet Muhammad — peace and blessing upon him — with great violence and anger; moderates respond calmly and peacefully on the basis of freedom of expression.

Radicals respect and revere every deed and every word of the prophet — peace be upon him — in the hadith; moderates do not.

Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.

Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis[barely tolerated subjects]; moderates oppose this [view].

Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.

Radicals reject the idea that men and women are equal; moderates accept it, according to Western views.

Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.

Radicals desire to see Islam reign supreme; moderates oppose this.

Radicals place the Koran over the constitution; moderates reject this [assumption].

Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.

Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.

Radicals accept killing young girls who commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family’s honor; moderates reject this [response].

Radicals reject the status of women today and think that the status of women today should be like the status of women in the time of the prophet; moderates oppose that women should be as in the time of the prophet.

Radicals vehemently reject that women should have the freedom to choose partners; moderates accept that she can choose a boyfriend without marriage.

Radicals agree to clitorectomies; moderates reject them.

Radicals reject the so-called war on terror and see it as a war on Islam; moderates accept it.

Radicals support jihadi groups; moderates reject them.

Radicals reject the terms “Islamic terrorism” or “Islamic fascism”; moderates accept them.

Radicals reject universal human rights, including the right to be homosexual; moderates accept them.

Radicals reject the idea of allying with the West; moderates support it.

Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it. [Emphasis added.]

Dr. Jasser’s views on what American Islam should be are remarkably similar to the perceptions of moderate Islam set forth by Dr. Khadr, albeit with contempt as “a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them.” Mr. Ibrahim concludes his article by suggesting that “the West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.” I agree. What is being done now is actually furthering “radical” Islam.

The former president of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University called, rather amorphously, for reform in the Islamic religious discourse.

Here’s an address to the Canadian Parliament by a moderate Muslim journalist. Please watch the whole thing, because it sets forth quite well the differences between Islamists who want to overpower us and moderate Muslims who support freedom and want to eliminate Islamism.

Moderate Islam is not mainstream Islam

Germany’s largest Muslim organization recently had a moderate Muslim theologian fired from the University of Munster.

Islamic apologists routinely claim that violent Qur’an verses have no validity beyond Muhammad’s time, but this story illustrates that this is not the mainstream view in Islam. The persecution of Mouhanad Khorchide also shows the uphill battle that genuine Muslim reformers face: branded as heretics and/or apostates, they’re often shunned (or worse) by the very community that needs their ideas the most. [Emphasis added.]

The author, Robert Spencer, quotes a May 23rd article by Susanne Schröter in a German periodical:

When the theologian Mouhanad Khorchide, who teaches at the University of Münster, published “Islam Is Compassion” in 2012, he received a variety of diverse reactions. Many non-Muslims celebrated the work as the revelation of a humanistic Islam: an Islam that no one needs to fear. This feeling arose in part because the author created a picture of God that is not “interested in the labels of Muslim or Christian or Jewish, believer or nonbeliever.”

Korchide threw out the idea that Koran verses that appear violent or hostile toward women or non-Muslims may be valid for all eternity. He wanted them to be viewed as the words of a bygone era.

It seemed that the professor, with the swoop of his pen, managed to brush aside all those reservations that made people wonder whether Islam really “belonged to Germany,” as former President Christian Wulff said famously in a 2010. One might even have thought that Muslims would offer Khorchide a pat on the back.

On the website for DITIB, Germany’s Turkish Islamic union and the country’s largest Muslim organization, one can read that Khorchide’s statements were a “rejection of the teachings of classical Islam” and an “insult to Muslim identity.” For this reason, the professor was removed from his post at the university.

Canadian journalist Tarek Fatah, the moderate Muslim in a video provided above, wrote

In November 2014, while testifying before the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, I raised the issue of Islamic clerics using mosque sermons to attack the foundational principles of Western civilization and liberal secular democracy.

The Senate Committee session referred to is the one presented in the video referenced above.

Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell was outraged by my testimony that at most Canadian mosques, the Friday congregation includes a ritual prayer asking, “Allah to give victory to Muslims over the ‘Kufaar’ (non-Muslims).” In a heated exchange with me, the senator suggested I wasn’t telling the truth, implying I was motivated by Islamophobia. Sadly, Sen. Mitchell is not alone in such views.

But neither is there any let-up in the attacks on Canadian values emanating from many mosque pulpits and Islamic conferences hosted by radical Islamist groups.

For example, in a sermon on Friday, May 6, delivered at a mosque in Edmonton, an imam invoked the memory of Prophet Muhammad to whip up hatred against Israel. He declared peace accords with Israel are “useless garbage” and vowed that Jerusalem will be conquered “through blood.”

In February, the same cleric predicted Islam would soon conquer Rome, “the heart of the Christian state.”

The Edmonton mosque diatribe was not isolated.

On May 13, just north of Toronto, an Islamic society hosted a celebration of Iranian mass murderer, Ayatollah Khomeini. The poster promoting the event described Khomeini as a, “Liberator and Reformer of the Masses.”

On Saturday, the Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, banned in some countries, hosted a conference to discuss the re-establishment of a global Islamic caliphate.

Here are excerpts from an article about the Hizb-ut-Tahrir meeting referenced by Mr. Fatah.

The first speaker was Brother Mostafa, of Arabic roots. Mostafa started by calling nationalism and sectarian conflict the main reasons for division in the Ummah (Islamic nation). He reminded Muslims that they are obligated to implement Allah’s demands that fulfill the Islamic State. It is “not permissible for us to choose, ” he said. He cited the verse: [Emphasis added]

“It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.” — Surat-Al-Ahzab (33), verse 36. ]Emphasis added.]

. . . .

As the event started late, Naeema [a woman in the audience] began a conversation. We talked about our origins and how long we had been in Canada. She said she had been here 40 years, so I asked about the disconnect between enjoying 40 years of democracy, yet trying to end it. I mentioned a book published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir:

“Democracy is Infidelity: its use, application and promotion are prohibited.”

“الديمقراطية نظام كفر، يحرم أخذها أو تطبيقها أو الدعوة إليها”

Naeema said she was not qualified to debate the topic, but that democracy had done nothing good for people, so she and other believers would follow the rule of Allah. [Emphasis added]

The meeting participants are comparable to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood – Hamas affiliated organization which, along with similar groups, provides Obama and His “fighting violent extremism” cohorts their marching orders on fighting, not Islamist jihad or Islamisation , but “Islamophobia.”

Conclusions

America would fare better in fighting “violent extremism” if the principal enemy were named: it is political Islam — Islamism. Presently, naming it is forbidden and those engaged in “fighting” it — supposedly on our behalf — are Islamists dedicated to the Islamisation of America.

Suppose that, instead of relying on CAIR, et al, as representative of “peaceful” Islam, our government rejected CAIR and its Islamist colleagues favored by Obama and instead supported and relied upon Dr. Jasser’s moderate group, American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

A devout Muslim, Dr. Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States as an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. Dr. Jasser is a first generation American Muslim whose parents fled the oppressive Baath regime of Syria in the mid-1960’s for American freedom. He is leading the fight to shake the hold that the Muslim Brotherhood and their network of American Islamist organizations and mosques seek to exert on organized Islam in America. [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps, if our next president is neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders, we will do that. If we don’t, the Islamists will continue to win, the Islamisation of America will continue and American principles will go down the toilet. We cannot permit that to happen.

In an 1886 Fourth of July address to the citizens of the Dickinson Dakota Territory, Theodore Roosevelt said,

We only have the right to live on as free men, so long as we show ourselves worthy of the privileges we enjoy. We must remember that the republic can only be kept pure by the individual purity of its members, and that if it once becomes thoroughly corrupt it will surely cease to exist.

. . . .

All American citizens whether born here or elsewhere, whether of one creed or another, stand on the same footing; we welcome every honest immigrant, no matter from what country he comes, provided only that he leaves behind him his former nationality and remains neither Celt nor Saxon, neither Frenchman nor German, but becomes an American, desirous of fulfilling in good faith the duties of American citizenship. [Emphasis added]

When we thus rule ourselves we have the responsibilities of sovereigns not of subjects. We must never exercise our rights either wickedly or thoughtlessly; we can continue to preserve them in but one possible way – by making the proper use of them.

It has been my observation (and to a substantial extent that of the Canadian journalist and moderate Muslim in a video embedded above) that the principal loyalty of many Islamists is not geographical or to a state. Rather, it is to their version of Islam, be it Shiite, Sunni or some variation thereof. For example, Hezbollah members fight, not to help Lebanon or Syria, but to support the Iranian version of Shiite Islam — an apocalyptic vision in which the hidden iman will return and bring the world to an end. It is reasonable to assume that the principal loyalty of mainstream Muslims (Islamists) in America is, and will continue to be, to Islam, not to America.

American origins and views are very different and perhaps uniquely so.

This land was made, not for Islamists but for immigrants who leave behind their former nationalities and remain “neither Celt nor Saxon, neither Frenchman nor German, but become an American, desirous of fulfilling in good faith the duties of American citizenship.” How many of America’s current crop of immigrants do that?

We have had little of this thus far. How much do we want? It’s pretty much up to us.

Categories: CAIR, Canada, Free world, Islam - the religion of war, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamist moral values, Islamists in America, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama's America
Tags: CAIR, Canada, Free world, Islam - the religion of war, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamist moral values, Islamists in America, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama's America

Comments: 1 Comment

Islamic Extremism in France Part IV: Crime and Immigration

May 25, 2016

Islamic Extremism in France Part IV: Crime and Immigration, Clarion Project, Leslie Shaw, May 25, 2016

Hyper-Cacher-Policemen-France-IP_0

French policemen in front of the Hyper Cacher supermarket, the site of an Islamist attack by Amedy Coulibaly, who had pledged allegiance to ISIS. Coulibaly, the son of African immigrants from Mali, was a close friend of Saïd Kouachi and Chérif Kouachi (whom he had met in jail in 2005), the gunmen in the Charlie Hebdo attack. The Kouachi brothers were sons of Algerian immigrants.

French civil servants are forbidden by law from voicing opinions that are not in line with government policy and can only express their views anonymously. In October 2015, a group of senior civil servants known as Plessis published an op-ed in the Figaro newspaper attacking the impotence of government policy and pernicious media propaganda on the issue of illegal migrants.

“This impotence, coupled with a moralizing media discourse, is increasingly disconnected from the will of the French people, who have been subject for several decades to the disorder caused by uncontrolled immigration, are worried about the threat of terrorism and demand protection and security. It is striking to observe that the current non-stop media blitz, verging on moral bullying, has failed to convince the French people.”

The disorder referred to is an omnipresent reality in France, most notably in the legal system.

In March 2015, the Administrative Court building in Toulouse was ransacked by Islamic extremists who scrawled “The Prophet Will Judge You” on the walls. One third of the 6,000 cases currently being judged by the Toulouse Administrative Court relate to illegal aliens and 30% of those are challenges to deportation orders. The attack was not covered in the national media and local reports underplayed the fact that it was perpetrated by Islamists.

French Administrative Courts rule on litigation between French citizens and the state in areas such as taxation, social housing, building permits and civil service employment, but in recent years there has been an explosion in cases brought before the court by illegal aliens supported by NGOs and these now account for over one third of cases nationwide.

In 2011 there were 53,482 such cases, and the figure is no doubt much higher today. This means that a French taxpayer or civil servant in litigation with the state or an entrepreneur trying to get an invoice paid may have to wait three or four years for a judgement. Challenges to French law brought by illegal aliens have thus thrown the legal system into chaos and are costing the French taxpayer billions of euros.

Other areas of the French judicial system have been thrown out of joint as a result of immigration as well. One example is the Tribunal Pour Enfants, or juvenile court, which handles cases involving minors.

Although it is illegal in France to compile statistics based on ethnic origins, it is sufficient to take a stroll through the corridors of the juvenile section of courthouses around France to realize that the vast majority of cases involve minors of North African or African origin.

Sociologists will put this fact down to poverty and lack of opportunity, but the reasons go deeper and are linked to the differing codes of socialization in the countries of origin of the parents and the host country.

These children underperform at school because the parents are incapable of or unwilling to push them to study. Poor results and truancy are common, and many leave high school with no qualification. Those who obtain a diploma are automatically accepted into university but lack the drive and ability to succeed.

Putting this down to deprivation is an invalid argument because the children of over 120,000 boat people from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos who arrived in France in 1979 have succeeded in assimilating into French society and are renowned for their respectful attitude and hard work in the classroom.

Juvenile delinquency is not a problem in these communities and the reasons for this are cultural, not economic.

Another field where children of North African and African origin outnumber other ethnic groups is the Aide Sociale à l’Enfance, or child protection system. This public service deals with both juvenile delinquents and children who for various reasons have been removed from their parents.

Again, statistics are not available but one only has to go to the waiting rooms of the offices of the ASE in French cities or visit the hundreds of child care residences to realize that the vast majority of children there are from Muslim families.

I am personally familiar with the case of an 11-year old French girl who was temporarily placed in a home after being rescued from an abducting parent. Of the 35 child residents, 34 were from North African or African families. When the French child’s father sent her a miniature nativity set to decorate her room at Christmas, she was forbidden from setting it up so as not to offend the Muslim children.

The most striking disproportion is in the area of criminal justice and is reflected in the prison population, where Muslims, who represent 10% of the population, account for between 50% and 65% of inmates.

These are ballpark figures as the compilation of statistics is illegal, but again a visit to courtrooms and penitentiaries is sufficient to show the estimates are not far off the mark. Indirect methods used to calculate the number of Muslim prisoners are observation of Ramadan, first names, testimonials of imams, presence at Friday prayer and demands for halal food.

Sociologist and author Farhad Khosrokhavar puts the figure at between 50% and 80%. In his 2013 study Radicalization in Prison: The French Case, he reported that non-Muslim inmates complained they felt like they were living in a Muslim country due to the regular calls for prayer and the fact that over half the prisoners in the exercise yard were Muslim.

Whatever the real figures, the connection between juvenile delinquency, violent crime and jihadism is beyond any doubt. Most of the perpetrators of Islamic terrorism over the past 10 years had a criminal record and many were multiple offenders of a legal system that allowed them to roam freely throughout Europe.

Categories: France, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: France, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

REPORT: Migrants Committing Disproportionately High Crime In Germany While Media And Govt Focus on ‘Far Right’ Thought Crimes

May 24, 2016

REPORT: Migrants Committing Disproportionately High Crime In Germany While Media And Govt Focus on ‘Far Right’ Thought Crimes, Breitbart, Raheem Kassam and Chris Tomlinson, May 23, 2016

GettyImages-526912156-640x480

A massive, migrant crime wave is surging across Germany according to figures buried in a new report released by the country’s Interior Ministry. The data reveals that without migrants considered, crime rates in Germany would have remained roughly static since 2014. But, in fact, the country recorded an extra 402,741 crimes committed by migrants.

While much of this criminality concerned illegal border crossings, German authorities instead talked up a “record surge” in crimes by “right wing radicals”.

Concerning statistics from the 135-page report reveal that 70 per cent of pickpocketing, one of the crime types on the rise, was committed by non-Germans. Of this figure, 34 per cent was committed by recent asylum seekers, with the rest committed by “non-Germans”.

Foreign nationals are thought to account for around 11 or 12 per cent of the total population of Germany, but were over-represented in every area of crime.

Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers account for around 2.5 per cent of Germany’s population, but were also massively overrepresented.

Amongst total offences, non-Germans accounted for 27.6 percent while illegal immigrants and asylum seekers accounted for 5.7 percent. Of homicides, the figures are 29.3%/8.2%, and of sexual assaults, the figures were 20.5%/4.8%.

In all of these cases as well as those indicated in the chart below, non-Germans and illegal migrants outstripped their proportions of crime to their representation in German society.

Non-Germans accounted for 38 per cent of all robberies, 38 per cent of thefts, and 43 per cent of thefts that involved a level of aggravation such as assault or force.

They accounted for 40.2 per cent of burglaries, 43.5 per cent of shoplifting, and a whopping 75.7 of pick pocketing or purse snatching.

In the chart below, non-Germans are in light red while asylum seekers and illegal migrants are in deep red.

Screen-Shot-2016-05-23-at-16.13.08

And of migrant crimes specifically, Syrians top the list of migrant crimes that are not related to border controls, with a total of 10,348 individual offences in 2015. They also led assault cases among migrants, with 3,186 offences in 2015.

Thefts were most committed by Albanians, with 6,689 offences and Algerians coming close with 5,611. Algerians almost tie with Serbians when it comes to fraud. Balkan nationals were accountable for 2,834 cases, barely above North Africans’ 2,774.

Algerians top the list for smuggling goods (2,449) and also top the list for drug selling offences (976).

Even when border control breaches are exempted from the data, the situation is still stark. Male crime is stagnant amongst Germans, but when migrants are added, male crime goes up 12 per cent, with female crime rising just 6 per cent. This reflects the fact that most migrants into Europe in 2015 were young men.

Crime rates amongst “non-Germans” outside the residence act are up 13 per cent, whereas crimes committed by Germans are down 5 per cent.

And the report shows that offences against the Residence Act, the Asylum Procedures Act, and the Freedom of Movement Act are up by 157.5 per cent, with shopliftings up by 7.1 per cent, pickpocketing up by 7.0 per cent, burglary up by 9.9 per cent, and drug offences up by 2.1 per cent.

Presenting the report to journalists however, Mr. de Maiziere insisted in focusing on “politically-motivated crimes by the far-right” which he said had risen 35 percent in 2015 to nearly 23,000.

“The sharp increase in politically motivated crime points to a dangerous development in society,” de Maiziere told reporters at a news conference. “We are witnessing a growing and increasingly pronounced readiness to use violence, both by right- and left-wing extremists.”

But while attacks on refugee centre rose to 1,031 compared to 199 in the prior year, most of the offences committed appear to be what could be called “thought crime”, or what police describe as “evidence that they aimed to eliminate certain constitutional principles”.

Of a total of 38,981 political crimes committed in 2015, some 29,681 (76.1 per cent) were classed under this category.

Of real incidents, 1,031 were attacks on asylum centres, but just 177 of these were thought to be “violent”, with most of the rest believed to be “propaganda” offences or vandalism.

And according to the statistics, identified left wingers have had more confrontations with police (3,507 incidents), according to the statistics, than right wingers have (1,203 incidents). Left-wing activists have confronted more right wingers (4,276 incidents) than vice versa (1,406 incidents). These incidents include public protests like those of the PEGIDA movement.

Nonetheless, the reporting from Western news agencies has focused on a “right wing” wave of violence.

Earlier this month, when Republican Party presumptive nominee Donald Trump alleged “[L]ook at Germany, it’s crime-riddled right now”, organisations like Politifact were quick to crow about how immigrants accounted for fewer crimes than native Germans.

But today’s statistics reveal that as a percentage of the population, non-Germans and illegal immigrants account for a massively disproportionate amount of crime in Germany.

Categories: "Far right hate groups", Crime, Germany, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic refugees, Islamophobia, Thought crimes
Tags: Crime, Germany, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic refugees, Islamophobia, Thought crimes

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archbishop Outside Whose Cathedral Cologne Women were Raped, Defends Islam

May 23, 2016

Archbishop Outside Whose Cathedral Cologne Women were Raped, Defends Islam, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 23, 2016

archbishop-of-cologne

It’s important to remember that the Cologne sexual assaults took place outside its cathedral.

In a crowd of 1,000 men, hundreds of Muslim refugees prowled, assaulting and robbing any woman they could find. A police officer described seeing crying women stumble toward him after midnight. He managed to rescue one woman whose clothes had been torn off her body from a group of her attackers, but could not save her friends because the mob had begun hurling fireworks at him.

The provost of the Cologne Cathedral had warned anti-Islamist protesters, “You’re supporting people you really don’t want to support.” But it was the provost and pro-refugee activists who had supported people they really didn’t want to support. There is no way to know whether any of the smiling young people holding, “I Love Immigration” banners had fallen victim to those refugees they loved so much.

And the cathedral itself came under attack.

Barbara Schock-Werner, who served as cathedral architect between 1999 and 2012, was present at the well-attended religious service along with several thousand other worshippers. Shock-Werner told the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine, that the cathedral experienced an unprecedented and massive rocket and ‘banger’ fireworks barrage that lasted the whole service.

“Again and again the north window of the cathedral was lit up red, because rocket after rocket flew against it,” she said. “And because of the ‘bangers’, it was very loud. The visitors to the service sitting on the north side had difficulties hearing. I feared at times that panic would break out.”

Cardinal Rainer Woelki, who presided at the New Year’s mass, also complained about the “massive disruptions.”

“During my sermon loud ‘bangers’ could be heard,” Woelki said in the paper, Die Welt. “I was already annoyed beforehand about the loud noises that were penetrating into the cathedral.”

But Woelki is attacking anti-Islamists.

Rainer Woelki posted a video where he ridiculed the right-wing party’s claim that Islam is incompatible with the German constitution. The archbishop’s intervention comes after the anti-immigration party said it would press for bans on minarets and burqas.

“Anyone who denigrates Muslims as the AfD leadership does should realise prayer rooms and mosques are equally protected by our constitution as our churches and chapels,” he said.

“Whoever says ‘yes’ to church towers must also say ‘yes’ to minarets.”

And then they have to say “yes” to sexual assaults and “no” to women walking the streets.

Categories: "Far right hate groups", Cologne, Germany, Hijrah, Islam and Christianity, Islam and colonialism, Islam and girls, Islam and women, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic tolerance, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Leftist perspectives
Tags: Cologne, Germany, Hijrah, Islam and Christianity, Islam and colonialism, Islam and girls, Islam and women, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamic tolerance, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Leftist perspectives

Comments: 1 Comment

Matt Bracken: The Hybrid Vigor of the Coming European Islamic State

May 23, 2016

Matt Bracken: The Hybrid Vigor of the Coming European Islamic State, Gates of Vienna, May 21, 2016

(Here’s the video referenced in the article. — DM)

— DM)

Gates of Vienna introduction

The following essay and meme by Matthew Bracken were prompted by a cell-phone video from Germany of a culture-enricher assaulting a German teenaged boy. I won’t embed the video; I find it almost too unbearable to watch. To see a young man so unable to defend himself, so unwilling to stand up and be a man, is disheartening and dismaying.

Below are Matt Bracken’s thoughts on what all of this means.

Bracken article

bracken-dhimmi

This is heartbreaking to see, but very important.

This is how a dhimmi is created in a gun-free country, where armed self-defense is an alien concept. This is prison yard rules, and the young German is just fresh meat. This German kid will probably convert to Islam just to stop the pain and “gain the respect” of his new masters.

Note how the bully threatens to beat him every day just to harden him up and make him a man. A similar psychological process occurs in military boot camp with new recruits. He doesn’t know it yet, but his mother and sisters are now Moslem chattel property. He won’t lift a finger to defend German women; he is a dhimmi at best. Most likely he will just convert as a matter of bare survival, but he will always be a “second-class Muslim”, even if he submits. These IslamoNazi bullies will have him reciting the Shahada in less than a month, and after that, his sister is toast. Just fresh meat for the hijra jihadis.

This is how Islam has spread for 1,400 years: brute force, threats, intimidation, and using terror as an example of how far they are willing to go to force the spread.

Smug Americans who own firearms might laugh at the current plight of the Europeans, but they should not. The Europeans have been brainwashed by the “multi-kulti-uber-alles” Left to simply submit when the planned hijra invasion happened, which is happening now. The ordinary Euros were betrayed by Quisling traitors in high offices. From the Muslim point of view, the hijra invasion is moving from the dawah (preaching) phase to the jihad phase, using violence and threats of even greater violence to force a complete Muslim takeover. That German boy now understands who are the alpha males, and who are not: The Moslems are, and he isn’t.

But there is the long-term danger in this process even to America. If Islam wins in Europe, a well-known social/genetic dynamic will kick in. All of the German girls and women (even the man-hating radical feminists and lesbians) will be raped, enslaved, or “married” by force, but one way or the other, there will be a rising generation of Muslims in Europe who are half-German.

People should understand a genetic process called “hybrid vigor.” There is a reason the Ottoman Turks collected European boys to be raised as Janissaries. The Arab desert Muslims have terrible DNA after 1,400 years of first-cousin inbreeding, but when they impregnate their German conquest victims they will create generations of 100% full Muslims who are half German. Of course, this will happen in every European country, not only Germany.

Americans should not be smug about the collapse and Muslim conquest of Europe. Half-German “Super Muslims” will be a tough adversary. Remember the Ottoman Janissaries from history. They were fearsome fanatics, but also big, strong and smart.

Another crop of “Super Muslims” were the Berbers of Morocco, who provided most of the brains and muscle used for the invasion of Spain in 711 AD. The “desert Arabs” were a scrawny and pitiful bunch. Man for man, they were weaklings compared to the hearty Berber mountain folk. But the Berbers were divided, tribe against tribe, from one Atlas Mountains valley to another. The invading Arab armies picked off one tribe at a time, and forced them all to convert. These newly united Berber Super Muslims were imbued with ”convert zeal,” and ready to invade new worlds to spread the banner of Islam.

United for the first time in history, the Muslim Berbers of Morocco (under mostly Arab leadership) turned their natural war-lust against the Christians of Spain. Like the pre-Muslim Berber tribes had been before them, each Spanish Christian principality was divided from the others across the mountains of Spain. The united and newly converted Muslim Berber armies swept over the separate Spanish fiefdoms one after the other.

The point is that Muslim invasions have often succeeded against divided foes who were, man for man, much stronger and even smarter. A generation later, this invigorated hybrid population can be very dangerous, because after the consolidation phase where the invaded region is brought under united Islamic control, they will be straining to burst their borders and conquer new worlds, like the Super Muslim Berbers did in Spain. Think also of Iran in this context. United Arab Muslim armies conquered Persia, creating another brand of hybridized “Super Muslims.”

I shudder to think of what German Super Muslims will be capable of in thirty years, if Islam is triumphant in Europe. They would make the Earth shake

Categories: Caliphate, Europe, Fertility, genetics, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islam and girls, Islam and women, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism
Tags: Caliphate, Europe, Fertility, genetics, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islam and girls, Islam and women, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Islamic Words and Concepts that Americans Must Understand. Now.

May 22, 2016

Islamic Words and Concepts that Americans Must Understand. Now, Dan Miller’s Blog, May 22, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Ten Islamic words and concepts — well understood by Islamic jihadists and others who strive to impose Sharia law on us — define and articulate the Islamic quest for world domination. However, few charged with “countering violent extremism” understand their meanings and none are permitted to consider such “islamophobic” Islamic concepts when doing their jobs. Thank you, Obama, CAIR and related Muslim Brotherhood – linked Quislings.

Imagine that while learning to “counter violent extremism” on behalf of the Obama-CAIR collective, you encounter a ravenous lion intent upon eating you for dinner. You have been assured, repeatedly, that it, like adherents to “the religion of peace and tolerance,” is only a falsely-maligned, tame and starving kitten in need of food and that you must act accordingly. Don’t succumb to catophobia! What would you do? Become dinner? Run away? Shoot the lion?

A non-fiction article by Matthew Bracken, author of three novels about traitors, foreign and domestic, was recently published by Gates of Viena. The article focuses on these Islamic words and the concepts they embody: dawah, dhimmi, hijra, jizya, kafir, shaheed, shariah, takfir, taqiyya and ummah.

Bracken wrote,

[I]f you are a national security professional, senior military officer or political leader involved in any aspect of the “Global War On Terror,” AKA “Countering Violent Extremism,” these are ten words that should already be a part of your working vocabulary. If you can’t readily discuss their meaning, significance, and relationships, then you are worse than a fool, you are a disgrace to your office and a danger to your country.

He’s right. Obama, Kerry and their many followers are, indeed, dangers to our country as well as to Western Civilization in general. Rather than learn about Islam, they pretend that it is what they have been told, falsely, that it is. Those who understand Islam and want to prevent what it seeks for America from happening are disparaged as “Islamophobes.” Parallels could perhaps be drawn to “idealists” drawn to Communism as a peaceful and tolerant ideology, without bothering to learn about “Uncle Joe” Stalin and what he was doing. Uncle Joe knew what he was doing and thought it was good. Representatives of the fifty-seven Islamist Member nations of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) know the meanings of the words highlighted by Bracken and the purpose of Islam: to make Islam dominant throughout the world. They consider that good and act accordingly.

Mr. Bracken’s important Arabic words are used in context in the following quotations from his article.

[I]f you are an Army general or Navy admiral who, right here and now, without looking at your smart phone, cannot discuss how a kafir becomes a dhimmi, and what a dhimmi’s rights and options (if any) are under shariah, then you are as ignorant of your job as an European-theater Army general circa 1942 who did not know a panzer from a pancake, or a schutzstaffel from a schnitzel. A person as ignorant as you should be kept away from any responsibility for protecting our nation. You are incompetent, and you are a fool.

If you don’t know how to determine when a Muslim suicide bomber is a shaheed and when he is a terrorist according to the shariah, then you are as dangerous to our national safety as a North Atlantic ship captain who believes that icebergs are a fairy tale concocted by conspiracy theorists. Full speed ahead, Captain Smith!

If you don’t know takfir from taqiyya, and can’t discuss the meaning and importance of both, you are as useless as a WW2 intelligence officer who didn’t know the Kriegsmarine from the Luftwaffe, (but who thought that one of them was a private flying club, based on conversations that he overheard among his ever-helpful German cleaning staff).

If you cannot, right now, intelligently discuss the global ummah and its relationship to the OIC in the context of the GWOT, then you should be working for the Department of Parks and Recreation, and not the Department of Homeland Security. If you don’t know what the OIC refers to in this context, put on a dunce cap, and go stand in the corner. And if you don’t know whether your office is in the Dar al Islam or the Dar al Harb, please jump out of an upper-story window, and when you hit the sidewalk, ask any immigrant who is engaged in hijra. He’ll know the answer, even if you do not.

If you don’t know how dawah relates to jihad when faithful Muslims are engaged in long-term hijra, you should turn in your official credentials and take early retirement. You are as oblivious as a WW2 U.S. Army general who thought that the Geheime Staatspolizei were German motorcycle policemen much like our American state troopers, because a helpful German passer-by told him so.

If you don’t know what the three options are for a kafir who violates the shariah when living in the dar al Islam, then please get out of the national security business. If you don’t know why a dhimmi would care about jizya, please retire, and hand your duties over to someone who has the natural curiosity and personal integrity to conduct his own study of our actual enemies and their actual strategies. But in the meantime, you must immediately stop lapping up the false narrative being spoon-fed to you by hostile foreign agents, domestic traitors, useful idiots, and cowards who know better—but who won’t make waves while their pensions are beckoning.

If your job is national security, and you didn’t score at least an eighty on the ten-word quiz, then you have obviously swallowed the big lie that we can safely delegate the understanding of our Islamist enemies to the WW2 equivalent of “moderate Nazis.” Sounds insane, doesn’t it? But under President Obama, this is indeed our national policy for fighting the GWOT: allow a range of Muslim Brotherhood front groups to conduct America’s narrowly limited analysis of so-called “radicalized Islam,” and thereafter guide our policies toward Islam and Muslims in general.

Here is an important example straight from current events. Please tell us, oh national security professional, whom has the United Nations delegated the critical task of selecting and “screening” the Muslim “refugees” who are currently arriving in the USA at the rate of thousands per month? Any guesses? It is the same organization that the Obama administration has also optimistically granted the authority to choose our new Muslim “refugee” immigrants. If you don’t know the answer, please get out of the national security business.

So who is it? It’s the fifty-seven-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, headquartered in Saudi Arabia, which I referenced above. The mission of the OIC is to promote the spread of Islam across the globe until there is no more dar al harb, and all of the kafirs have either been converted to Islam, killed, or forced into submission as dhimmis. If you didn’t know, dhimmis are formally and legally subjugated second-class citizens who must pay the special jizya tax as the price of their being allowed to live under shariah in the ummah.

But this special offer is only extended to Christians and Jews: all others must choose between conversion to Islam, and the sword. That is, if their Muslim conquerors grant them the option of conversion. According to the Shariah, the defeated kafirs may also be killed or enslaved, if either of these two outcomes would be considered more beneficial to the ummah, based on local conditions and needs. (Of course, the captured women and girls may be taken as sex-slaves.) Mohammed did all of the above, and he commanded that these practices be continued in perpetuity, and they are.

The charter of the OIC puts Islamic shariah law ahead of secular law. This means, for example, that the official position of the OIC is that Muslims who leave the faith should be killed, and that any faithful Muslim who kills an apostate ex-Muslim has done no sin, but instead should be thanked and congratulated for the deed. It’s the same with adulterers: they should die, and killing an adulterer is no crime.

Yes, that really is their position, and they really do believe it, and much more than that. The OIC is made up of fifty-seven Muslim nations, united by a common belief in the supremacy of Islam, and their mutual obligation to conduct both dawah and jihad until the Dar al Islam covers the globe, and Allah’s eternal and immutable shariah has supplanted godless democracy and all manmade laws. This dawah includes the practice of using taqiyya when making arrangements or having negotiations with as-yet unsubmitted kafirs in the dar al harb.

So it’s no wonder that ninety-nine percent of the “refugees” being “screened” by the OIC and transported into the USA are Muslim, even though the Christians and other non-Muslims (who until recently made up over ten percent of the populations of Syria and Iraq) are suffering a brutal genocide and holocaust at the hands of Islamic State kidnappers, mass-rapists and mass-executioners.

. . . .

Let me offer you another simple test that you may apply to your own national security work space and mission. If you have been ordered to purge the ten listed Arabic words (and others) from your official GWOT lexicon, and instead to hand over the task of analyzing “Islamic radicalism” to alleged “moderate Muslims,” then you are being played for a fool by our nation’s most implacable and devious enemies, both foreign and domestic.

. . . .

Today, we are literally outsourcing our intelligence analysis in the GWOT to the OIC and various Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Simply do a search for “Holy Land Foundation, Hamas, CAIR, and FBI” to begin your overdue education. Is it any wonder that the official “Countering Violent Extremism” narrative holds that there is utterly no connection between Islamic terrorism and Islam? That the Islamic State, which quotes chapter and verse of the Koran as justification for its every decision, is not Islamic? That Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph of ISIS, who holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad, knows less about Islam than President Obama and his American-trained national security staff? [Emphasis added.]

In 2016, ignorance of the reality of the Islamist threat is no longer an excuse. Many resources are readily available if you are willing to look unblinkingly at the light of truth. I would suggest the online video lectures given by Stephen Coughlin and Dr. Bill Warner as starting points. Those who need or desire to read an exhaustively researched (over a thousand footnotes) academic treatise on the present Islamist threat should carefully study Coughlin’s “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.”

After 9-11, Mr. Coughlin was an acclaimed subject matter expert and frequent high-level lecturer at the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon, until 2008 when he was made persona-non-grata on federal property as an unwelcome “Islamophobe.” And who made the determination of Mr. Coughlin’s “Islamophobia?” The same Muslim Brotherhood front groups that our intelligence agencies now rely upon for their understanding of “violent extremism,” which, of course, we are assured has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

We know this must be true, because President Obama has told us so. Unless, of course, he is practicing taqiyya on behalf of the ummah. Taqiyya is a bedrock principle of Islamic shariah, a ready tool for Muslims to use when they are dealing with kafirs. And not only radical Muslims, but ordinary, everyday, “moderate” Muslims. According to the shariah, it’s not a sin when a Muslim lies to a kafir in order to promote Islam. In that case, taqiyya is just a very clever form of dawah, helping to prepare the kafirs for the final Islamic jihad victory.

Conclusions

Obama, et al, complicit with CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups, require “our” Countering Violent Terrorism forces to assist, rather than fight against, Islamic terrorism. That’s perverse and some (I am one of them) consider it treason.

As I observed here, Islamic terrorists torture and murder — quite legitimately under Islamic doctrine — thousands of people. That’s deplorable. What Islamists and their modern-day Quislings have done even without chopping off heads, and continue to do to European nations, is even worse. They have moved in and have done a great job of Islamising entire nations. With the help of Allah, Obama and His band of Quislings, that’s what they are doing and hope to do more of to America.

“Our betters” lie to us, repeatedly.

Hillary Clinton lies even when it’s inevitable that her lies will be discovered. Many of her supporters are attracted, or at best not repelled, by her lying. At least she is consistent: the truth simply is not in her.

Islamists and their fellow travelers who are taking over Europe must be prevented from doing the same to our “land of the free and home of the brave.”

Obama and His followers seek to have us forget all about that as well as those who fought and died to create and then to preserve America. Shall we, must we, become dhimmis and yield to the OIC, Iran, CAIR and Obama’s other Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood friends by electing Obama’s soul mate, Hillary Clinton, as our next Commander in Chief?

Not on my watch, not on Trump’s watch and, I hope, not on your watch. Isn’t it time to make up your mind? The Muslims in the following video have already decided to support Hillary and have contributed funds accordingly.

According to this source, Ms. Clinton managed to collect “half-a-million dollars, making it one of the top five private fundraisers Clinton has had in this country.” She did not get Muslim money because of her charming personality.

Many of the Pakistanis at the event were pleased with Clinton’s vocal support of the Muslim religion.

Aisha Zahid said, “Talking about Muslims and favoring Muslims, so I really appreciate her whatever effort she is making against Islamaphobia, so I really think she needs to be the next President of the United States.”

If you haven’t already watched the following video, please do so. If you have, please watch it again. It makes more sense about “Republican principles” and why we need to honor them today than any other video I have watched.

If we want to continue to affirm these Republican principles, we need to keep a country in which to do it. America still is, and must remain, our country.

Although America remains our country, she is slipping away. How long do we have to stop and reverse the process of Islamisation which is, thus far slowly but inexorably, leading to America becoming part of the ummah? We the people must save her from Islamists, dhimmis and their fellow travelers.

Categories: 2016 elections, CAIR, Clash of civilizations, Donald Trump, Europe, Free world, Hillary Clinton, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, OIC
Tags: CAIR, Clash of civilizations, Donald Trump, Europe, Free world, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic Jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic supremacy, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, OIC

Comments: 1 Comment

‘Islamophobia Studies’ Are Coming To A College Near You, And There Won’t Be Any Debate About It

May 20, 2016

‘Islamophobia Studies’ Are Coming To A College Near You, And There Won’t Be Any Debate About It, Jihad Watch, Cinnamon Stillwell, May 20, 2016

Rabab-Abdulhadi

“Before I get started, I just wanted to say that we are meeting on stolen indigenous people’s land. That’s really important to acknowledge.” So declared San Francisco State University race and resistance studies professor Rabab Abdulhadi, at the University of California, Berkeley’s Seventh Annual International Islamophobia Conference in April.

Abdulhadi’s seemingly disjointed declaration was typical of the post-colonial, “intersectionality”-driven jargon of the entire conference, which sought to link the mythical plight of America’s prosperous, content Muslim population, with the struggles of every oppressed minority known to man. It was also an opportunity for two academic centers at opposite ends of the country to join forces and promote what was euphemistically referred to at the 2015 UC Berkeley conference as “Islamophobia studies.”

While UC Berkeley Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP) director and conference convener Hatem Bazian gave the opening remarks, John Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) and project director of ACMCU’s Bridge Initiative, “a multi-year research project that connects the academic study of Islamophobia with the public square,” was the undisputed star.

Esposito was introduced by Munir Jiwa, director of the Center for Islamic Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, who, after noting that one of the scheduled speakers on the same panel was unable to attend, added with a smile, “I’m sure Dr. Esposito will be happy to take up the time.” Esposito did not disappoint, delivering a long, rambling talk filled with humorous asides and one-liners to which the audience responded with hearty laughter. He clearly reveled in being the center of attention and joked at the outset about his family, “They think I’m a humble person; my wife will tell you that I’m faking it.”

Musing on his experiences in academe regarding Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, Esposito claimed that prior to that, “there was no Islam unit in the American academy” and thus, “no jobs when I finished my degree.” He later returned to the subject: “The first half of my career, people treated me like an academic, which means they ignore you. You’re in the Ivory Tower, who cares? The Iranian revolution changed that.”

Esposito lamented that the “lens through which Islam and Muslims came to be seen was people chanting, ‘Death to America,’” and, blaming the U.S. instead of Iran’s bellicose theocracy, concluded, “The danger was that we’re looking for a new global threat” and “Islam was the only global ideology.”

Presenting “Islamophobia” as an empirical fact, Esposito wondered aloud that there are “still those who want to say it does not exist.” He criticized “the mainstream media” for promulgating this alleged bigotry beginning with the Ground Zero Mosque controversy and, after announcing that “media coverage of Islam hit an all-time high” in 2015, conceded that “the causes are fairly obvious and some of them are good reasons to be concerned: international terrorist attacks.” Yet, he accused the media of “hyping the threat in America and Europe” and insisted, referencing the April 19 anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, that the “main terrorist threat is from white, anti-government, also often Christian-identity type movements. That has to come out.”

Turning to the “anti-Islamophobia” movement, Esposito praised reports from biased, complicit sources such as the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR)—a conference cosponsor—and the Center for American Progress for exposing a “cottage industry” and funding “for these kinds of things,” before directing the audience to the Bridge Initiative website. He said nothing about the conflict of interest in Bridge’s substantial Saudi funding, instead focusing on the initiative’s efforts to “set up alternative narratives,” “penetrate social media,” and achieve “search engine optimization,” before deducing, “It’s the storytelling.”

Clearly, that “storytelling” has had its intended effect in Western academe, for, in a revealing statement, Esposito pointed out that, “As someone who speaks at a lot of conference and universities, the last few years, ninety percent of my invitations [in the U.S. and UK] have to do with Islamophobia.”

It’s little wonder that “Islamophobia studies” appears to be proliferating. IRDP is certainly doing its part with its politicized bi-annual publication, the Islamophobia Studies Journal, and by linking this year’s conference with the Bridge Initiative and by extension, the East Coast with the West.

“Islamophobia studies” may be in its infancy, but the growing number of national and international conferences devoted to the subject indicate a disturbingly bright future for this anti-intellectual endeavor. And why not? Given the politicized, pro-Islamist nature of Middle East studies and victimology’s pride of place in contemporary academe, it’s a Faustian bargain for our time.

Categories: Academia, CAIR, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Saudi Arabia, Victimology
Tags: Academia, CAIR, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Saudi Arabia, Victimology

Comments: 1 Comment

Islamophobia Forum Features Panelists Linked to Terror and Bigotry

May 20, 2016

Islamophobia Forum Features Panelists Linked to Terror and Bigotry, Front Page Magazine, Joe Kaufman, May 20, 2016

>address>

This month, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) will be sponsoring a panel discussion about Islamophobia. Islamophobia is a modern-day term used mainly by Islamists to describe an unwarranted fear or hatred of Islam and/or Muslims and a term also used by the like to, more appropriately, shut down any conversation about the radical element found within the Muslim community. Not surprisingly, the majority of the event’s panel is made up of those linked to terrorism and bigotry, themselves.

The title of the forum, which is scheduled to take place at FAU in Boca Raton, on May 23rd, is ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA, Voices from the Muslim Community.’ The flyer for the event displays the photos of five panelists, at least three of which have known ties to terrorism. They are Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, the imam of the Darul Uloom mosque, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida; Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, the legal counsel for the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); and Bassem Abdo Alhalabi (al-Halabi), an Associate Professor at FAU.

Shafayat Mohamed is the imam at Darul Uloom. He founded it in October 1994. Since then, it has become a haven for al-Qaeda associates. “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student at Darul Uloom. Now-deceased al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief Adnan el-Shukrijumah was a prayer leader there. And Darul Uloom Arabic teacher Imran Mandhai, Hakki Aksoy and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan hatched an operation at the mosque to blow up different structures, including area power stations, Jewish businesses, and a National Guard armory.

Shafayat Mohamed, himself, has been thrown off a number of boards in Broward County due to his outspokenness against homosexuals. In February 2005, an article written by him was published on the Darul Uloom website, entitled ‘Tsunami: Wrath of God.’ In it, he claims that gay sex caused the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. Shafayat Mohamed’s article doesn’t just target homosexuals. It also attacks Jews and Christians. In the piece, he claims that most Jews and Christians, whom he refers to as “People of the Book,” are “perverted transgressors.”

Another of the Islamophobia forum participants is Wilfredo Ruiz. Ruiz is the attorney for CAIR-Florida.

CAIR was established in June 1994 as part of a terrorist umbrella group headed by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. In 2007 and 2008, CAIR was named by the US Justice Department a co-conspirator for two federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. Since its founding, a number of CAIR representatives have served jail time and/or have been deported from the United States for terrorist-related crimes. In November 2014, CAIR, itself, was designated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government.

CAIR-Florida reflects the extremism of its parent organization. In August 2010, CAIR-Florida Executive Director Hassan Shibly, who has denied that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, wrote, “Israel and its supporters are enemies of God…” In July 2014, CAIR-Florida co-sponsored a pro-Hamas rally in Downtown Miami, where rally goers shouted, “We are Hamas”and “Let’s go Hamas.” Following the rally, the event organizer, Sofian Zakkout, wrote, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!”

Ruiz is also the legal advisor for Zakkout’s group, the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA). AMANA regularly promotes white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. In fact, the latest posting on AMANA’s Facebook page is an anti-Jewish David Duke video. In July 2010, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned AMANA for posting onto its website homepage another anti-Semitic Duke video. The ADL described the video as being “venomous.” The video was posted right above an expose about Ruiz.

A third participant at the Islamophobia forum is Bassem Abdo Alhalabi.

Bassem Alhalabi has been an Associate Professor at FAU’s Department of Computer Science and Engineering, since August 2002. Prior to arriving at FAU, Alhalabi was located in Tampa at the University of South Florida (USF), working as an assistant to USF Professor Sami al-Arian, while al-Arian was a leader in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Alhalabi co-authored publications with al-Arian and, when applying to FAU, he used al-Arian as a reference. In May 2006, al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months in prison, after pleading guilty to providing services to PIJ.

Alhalabi has been in trouble with the law, himself. In March 2010, Alhalabi was arrested for physically assaulting two individuals during a Muslim Capitol Day function in Tallahassee, Florida. The assaults took place an hour apart from one another. And in June 2003, the US Department of Commerce charged Alhalabi with illegally shipping a $13,000 military-grade thermal imaging device to Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism.

Alhalabi is a Director and co-founder of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton (ICBR). During his leadership, for three years, the ICBR website had an essay prominently posted on it, stating, “Jews are people of treachery and betrayal… As the Muslims and Jews are enemies residing in opposing religious and doctrinal camps, it is not possible for them to be brought together unless one is made to submit to the other by force… [Muhammad] said, ‘You will fight the Jews and will prevail over them, so that a rock will say, O Muslim! There is Jew behind me, kill him!’”

The contact for the FAU event is Abdur Rahman al-Ghani (aka Samuel Pittman), Events Coordinator for the Islamic Foundation of South Florida (IFSF). Al-Ghani’s Facebook is littered with anti-American, anti-Jewish and Islamic supremacist language and images. In December 2012, he wrote, “Zionist/Israelis are not holy people. They are demonic and the most evil on earth.” In March 2012, he posted a graphic stating, “ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD.” And in February 2012, he posted a bloodied CIA logo with the caption, “Wiping out the CIA.”

While the FAU event wishes to portray Muslims as having suffered from the prejudice of others (‘Islamophobia’), it seems that those involved in the event are immersed in bigotry, themselves, where homosexuality is professed to cause natural disasters, where white supremacist David Duke is placed on a pedestal, where Christians are cursed, and where Jews are labeled “demonic” and okay to murder.

‘Islamophobia,’ in the eyes of those behind the FAU forum, in reality, is not a way for people to learn about the suffering within the Muslim community – not at all. Instead, Muslim victimhood is being used as a vehicle to silence those who look to expose their and their terror supporting compatriots’ sinister words and deeds.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Categories: CAIR, Hamas, Islam and homosexuality, Islam and Jews, Islam and terrorism, Islamic charities, Islamic indoctrination, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Union
Tags: CAIR, Hamas, Islam and homosexuality, Islam and Jews, Islam and terrorism, Islamic charities, Islamic indoctrination, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Association

Comments: Be the first to comment

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims

May 17, 2016

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims, PJ Media, Robert Spencer, May 17, 2016

Petrayus

David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and former commander of CENTCOM, published a piece in the Washington Post last Friday entitled “Anti-Muslim Bigotry Aids Islamist Terrorists.”

Wrote Petraeus:

[I am] increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.

Petraeus’s target isn’t just Donald Trump’s proposed temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration. He is referring to all speech that some Muslims might find offensive, and this has sweeping and ominous implications.

Petraeus doesn’t just oppose what Trump now characterizes as “just a suggestion“ solely as a policy measure. Petraeus is saying that such proposals shouldn’t even be made; that just to speak them is damaging:

[T]he ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.

He feels simply speaking such thoughts may:

… compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.

How will these words do that? Well, you see:

[T]hose who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.

Petraeus doesn’t offer any alternative suggestion as to how jihad terrorists can be prevented from entering the United States. He just doesn’t like Trump’s former proposal, and what he terms “hate speech against Muslims” in general, because he says it will enrage Muslims and make more of them join the jihad against America. So the upshot of Petraeus’ argument is that we must not say things to which Muslims might object, because this will just make more of them become jihadis.

His prescription for minimizing the jihad against the West is for the West to practice self-censorship in order to avoid offending Muslims.

Petraeus has done this before. When he headed up the international coalition in Afghanistan, he said this of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Qur’an:

[It] was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible.

He warned that the Qur’an-burning would endanger American troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He issued a statement saying that he hoped:

… the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.

I opposed the Qur’an-burning, but not for the reasons Petraeus did.

I don’t like the burning of books. And I’d rather that the contents of the Qur’an, and the ways that jihadists use those contents to justify violence, be known.

However, Jones was free to do what he wanted to do. Petraeus would have done better to have told the Afghans that in America we have freedom of speech and expression, and that we put up with speech and expression that we dislike without trying to kill the speaker.

He would have done better to tell them that their murderous rage over any burning of the Qur’an was an outrageous overreaction, and that bloodshed over such burnings was a heinous crime, far dwarfing any crime they thought Jones was committing.

The idea that in wartime one should be careful not to do anything that the enemy is likely to respond to with irrational and even murderous anger may seem tactically wise at first glance, but ultimately it is a recipe for surrender. One is already accepting the enemy’s worldview and perspective and working to accommodate it, instead of working on various fronts — not just the military one — to show why it is wrong and should be opposed.

Of course, to that Petraeus and his ilk would likely respond: “Well, we are not at war with Islam or the Qur’an, and so to burn the book is a needless provocation.”

This ignores, however, the war that the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other Muslim groups are waging today against the freedom of expression. This also ignores the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the Qur’an to justify violence and win recruits.

Without approving of the burning, Petraeus should have defended Jones’ freedom of expression, and used the burning as a teaching moment in Afghanistan. Petraeus should have said:

We are going to defend our vision of society no matter what you bring against us. The U.S. will always defend American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional freedoms.

The OIC’s effort to compel the West into censoring itself regarding criticism of Islam is going very well.

In the wake of the jihad attack on our free speech event in Garland, Texas last year, there were widespread condemnations of our event for daring to “provoke” Muslims. After the Danish Muhammad cartoon riots and the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoonists, mainstream media outlets all over the West refused to publish the cartoons in solidarity with the victims and in defense of the freedom of speech. Instead, they opted to publish transparently hypocritical explanations of how they were declining to publish the cartoons out of “respect” for Muslims and Islam.

The lesson of all this is one that no less a figure than General Petraeus has imbibed and is now propagating himself: Muslims don’t like when we say we should stop Muslim immigration for awhile, and they join the jihad. So we must stop saying it so that they won’t join the jihad.

In reality, this argument will only encourage them to tell us they’re joining the jihad because of other things we do, because they now have proof this tactic works. They are in fact already doing this. In the wake of violent intimidation by Muslims, Petraeus is saying that the West’s proper response is to give those violent Muslims what they want. Conform our speech to suit them.

If we take Petraeus’ advice, it will not result in less jihad, as he claims, but more. More aggressive Muslim demands on the U.S., more rage, and more “revenge.” Petraeus is giving the West a recipe for setting the world on fire even more than it is now.

Categories: Apologists for Islamism, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Freedom of speech, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, Petraeus
Tags: Apologists for Islamism, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, freedom of speech, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, Petraeus

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives