What Bobby Jindal Gets about Islam — and Most People Still Don’t

pic_giant_012415_SM_Muslims-France

We need a great deal more honesty about the religion, as the “no-go zone” debate reveals.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 24, 2015

Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos. With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.

In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.

With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”

And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”

The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely. It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere

is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.

It cannot credibly be denied that this is so, as I have documented — using not only notorious examples of how sharia is applied in countries like Saudi Arabia (where it is the law of the land), but also Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual certified as accurate by prominent Islamic scholars, including at both al-AzharUniversity (the seat of Sunni jurisprudence since the tenth century) and at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (an influential Muslim Brotherhood think tank).

Still, Governor Jindal has been pilloried since his courageous speech by tendentious critics across the spectrum, from the usual Islamist grievance chorus to Fox News commentators and British prime minister David Cameron.

Why? Because he dared notice what ought to be an inarguable fact: The non-assimilationist Muslim campaign has resulted in the rise throughout Western Europe of what Jindal described as “unofficial” “so-called” “no-go zones.”

Jindal was clearly right about this. His timing, however, was wrong: He had the misfortune to dilate on “no-go zones” at the same time that Steven Emerson, the usually astute terrorism analyst, made a no-go gaffe. Steve erroneously claimed that the entire British city of Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and has become a “no-go zone” where “non-Muslims simply don’t go in.”

Emerson has since apologized profusely. The damage, however, was done. Fox News is evidently so embarrassed at having been the forum for his faux pas (and at having been threatened with legal action by the city of Paris, which was the main target of Steve’s commentary), that the network is over-correcting. This helps stoke the Islamist meme that no-go zones are a hysterical figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination.

That is absurd, but follows naturally from two things: a common misunderstanding about sharia, and a misrepresentation that describing the incontestable fact thatsharia is being applied de facto in Europe is the same as falsely claiming that sharia is now the de jure writ of Europe.

Dreamy Islamophiles like Mr. Cameron and many of his like-minded progressives in bipartisan Beltway circles have a sputtering snit anytime a commentator associates Islam with anything other than “peace.” Consequently, the doctrine of Islam (which actually means submission) remains taboo and poorly understood in the West. One major misconception is that Islamists (i.e., Islamic supremacists or Muslims who want sharia implemented) demand that all non-Muslims convert to Islam. A no-go zone is thus incorrectly assumed by many to be a place that Muslims forbid non-Muslims to enter.

In reality, sharia explicitly invites the presence of non-Muslims provided that they submit to the authority of Islamic rule. Indeed historically, as I related in The Grand Jihad, my book about the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology, because sharia calls on these submissive non-Muslims (dhimmis) to pay a poll tax (jizya), their continued presence was of economic importance in lands conquered by Islamic rulers.

It is therefore easy for Islamists and their apologists to knock down their strawman depiction of no-go zones as places where non-Muslims are not allowed. That is not what no-go zones are — neither as they exist in fact nor as they are contemplated by sharia. The point of imposing sharia — the reason it is the necessary precondition for building an Islamic society — is to make Islam the dominant social system, not the exclusive faith. The idea is that once sharia’s systematic discrimination against non-Muslims is in place, non-Muslims will see the good sense of becoming Muslims. Over time, every one will convert “without coercion.” The game is to set up an extortionate incentive for conversion while maintaining the smiley-face assurance that no one is being forced to convert at the point of a sword.

So radical Muslims will be welcoming to any ordinary non-Muslims who are willing to defer to their mores. What they are hostile to are officials of the host state: police, firefighters, building inspectors, emergency medical personnel, and anything associated with the armed forces. That is because the presence of those forces symbolizes the authority — the non-submission — of the state.

Notice, however, that no sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

There is a reason that Governor Jindal qualified his invocation of the term no-go zones, modifying it with “so-called” and noting that the term is used “unofficially.” His speech was about reality, particularly where it stressed the need for truthfulness in forming policy. If our premise is reality, it is not no-go zones that are imaginary; it is the suggestion that no-go zones do not exist simply because non-Muslim entry is not literally prohibited by law. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern painstakingly demonstrates, “Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.” It has been amply acknowledged not only in press reports and academicanalyses but by governments that must deal with them.

Have a look, for example, at the French government’s official listing of 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibiles­ — “sensitive urban zones.” France’s “ZUS” designation is significant. As the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes recounted in a column at NRO this week, when he coined the term “no-go zone” in 2006 it was intended as “a non-euphemistic equivalent” of ZUS. If that is how the term “no-go zone” is understood — as an enclave deferential to Islamic sensibilities rather than exclusionary of non-Muslims — the contention that no-go zones do not exist is plainly frivolous. This is so even if, as Pipes maintains, the term “no-go zone” itself was an overstatement. The term “semi-autonomous sectors,” he says, would more accurately convey the historical anomaly the West has created: “a majority population [that] accepts the customs and even the criminality or a poorer and weaker community,” and in a manner that involves far more than control over physical territory.

Nevertheless, the problem with all this semantic nattering is its intimation that we can only infer the existence of no-go zones, and of the Islamist subversion they signal, by drawing inferences from what we see happening on the ground.

Nonsense. The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.

As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, the strategy is often referred to as “voluntary apartheid.” One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood icon who is probably the world’s most revered sharia jurist. Sheikh Qaradawi, who vows that Islam will conquer America and Europe, and who has beencrystal clear on the incompatibility of sharia and Western democracy, elaborates:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

Translation: To establish Islamic domination in the West, we do not need to resort to terrorism or to force non-Muslims to convert; we need merely a recognized right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict, as they do in fundamental ways.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) — warned in a 2010 report on“Islamophobia” that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” (Here, at p. 30.) It is why Recep TayyipErdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate “is a crime against humanity.”

At Oxford, Bobby Jindal bluntly asserted that the ideology of our enemy, radical Islam,

holds the view that it is wrong to expect assimilation, that assimilation is colonialist, assimilation is backward, and assimilation is in fact evidence of cultural bigotry and insensitivity. They think it is wrong to expect that people who chose to immigrate to your country should be expected to endorse and abide by your laws. They think it is unenlightened, discriminatory, and even racist to expect immigrants to endorse and assimilate into the culture in their new country. This is complete rubbish.

That is the truth. The United States will not get national-security policy right, nor reestablish our credentials as leader of the free world, until we accept that truth. Accept it and resolve, as Governor Jindal has resolved, to tell it boldly.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Does Europe Have No-go Zones?

by Daniel Pipes
The Blaze
January 20, 2015

Comments by Steven Emerson on Fox News have prompted a heated debate over whether predominantly Muslim “no-go” zones exist in Europe. On Jan. 11, Emerson said they “exist throughout Europe … they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. .. you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.”

Steven Emerson spoke on Fox News Channel on Jan. 11 about Muslim-dominated areas of Europe.

Steven Emerson spoke on Fox News Channel on Jan. 11 about Muslim-dominated areas of Europe.

Although Emerson, whom I admire for his moral courage and investigative skills, immediately apologized for his “terrible error” of saying that cities like Birmingham, England, “are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go,” he did not address the larger question of whether no-go zones, in fact, do “exist throughout Europe” and are places where governments “don’t exercise any sovereignty.”

Is he right about this?

In a 2006 weblog entry, I called Muslim enclaves in Europe no-go zones as a non-euphemistic equivalent for the French phrase Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones. No-go zones subsequently became standard in English to describe Muslim-majority areas in West Europe.

After spending time in the banlieues (suburbs) of Paris in January 2013, as well as in their counterparts in Athens, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, Malmö, and Stockholm, however, I have had second thoughts. I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No war lords dominate; Shari’a is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

A travel agency in Berlin in October 2010.

A travel agency in Berlin in October 2010.

So, what are these places? A unique and as-yet un-named mix.

On the one hand, West European states can intervene anywhere and at any time in their sovereign territory. As the shoot-out in Verviers and the subsequent raids in Belgium suggest, their overwhelming advantage in force – including military, intelligence, and police – means they have not ceded control.

After a terrorist attack in May 2014, police were out in force in the Jewish area of Antwerp, Belgium.

After a terrorist attack in May 2014, police were out in force in the Jewish area of Antwerp, Belgium.

On the other hand, governments often choose not to impose their will on Muslim-majority areas, allowing them considerable autonomy, including in some cases the Shariah courts that Emerson mentioned. Alcohol and pork are effectively banned in these districts, polygamy and burqas commonplace, police enter only warily and in force, and Muslims get away with offences illegal for the rest of population.

The Rotherham, England, child sex scandal offers a powerful example. An official inquiry found that for sixteen years, 1997-2013, a ring of Muslim men sexually exploited – through abduction, rape, gang rape, trafficking, prostitution, torture – at least 1,400 non-Muslim girls as young as 11. The police received voluminous complaints from the girls’ parents but did nothing; they could have acted, but chose not to.

According to the inquiry, “the Police gave no priority to CSE [child sexual exploitation], regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime.” Even more alarming, in some cases, “fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene.” Worse, the girls “were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.”

Another example, also British, was the so-called Operation Trojan Horse that flourished from 2007 until 2014, in which (again, according to an official inquiry), a group of school functionaries developed “a strategy to take over a number of schools in Birmingham and run them on strict Islamic principles.”

What does one call Rotherham and Birmingham? They are not no-go zones, neither in terms of geography or sovereignty. This is where we – Emerson, others (such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal), and I stumbled. The English language lacks a readily-available term for this. And for good reason: I know of no historical parallel, in which a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker immigrant community. The world has never seen anything comparable to the contemporary West’s blend of achievement, timidity, and guilt, of hugely superior power matched by a deep reluctance to use it.

Instead of no-go zones, I propose semi-autonomous sectors, a term that emphasizes their indistinct and non-geographic nature – thus permitting a more accurate discussion of what is, arguably, West Europe’s most acute problem.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2015 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Yes, there ARE ‘no-go’ zones in Europe

muslims-franceBy ART MOORE:

In the wake of the Fox News apology for a guest expert’s on-air claims regarding Muslim “no-go zones” in Europe, an international clamor has ensued with condemnation of Fox, claims that Muslim immigrants really do want to assimilate, and a threat by the mayor of Paris to sue the cable network for “insulting” the great city.

There’s only one problem: Europe is full of Muslim “no-go” zones, which have been documented, lamented, reported on and openly discussed for years.

In fact, the governments of France and other European nations have identified specific enclaves, where Muslim immigrants have chosen not to assimilate, as areas in which law enforcement has lost some degree of control.

The French government lists on its website 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, that the state does not fully control, notes Middle East foreign policy expert Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum.

The French zones, which have specific street demarcations, were first identified by the government in 1996. An estimate that is now 10 years old found 5 million people living in the zones, Pipes noted.

Nevertheless, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo declared Tuesday in a CNN interview the city will sue Fox News after the network’s coverage “insulted” them.

“When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed,” Hidalgo said. “The image of Paris has been prejudiced, and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced.”

On Saturday, “Fox Report” host Julie Banderas told viewers that in the previous week, “We have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France.”

“Now, this applies especially to discussions of so-called ‘no-go zones,’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.

“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country … and no credible information to support the assertion that there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion,” Banderas said. “There are certainly areas of high crime in Europe as there are in the United States and other countries – where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense including the people of France and England.”

The New York Times declared in a headline: “Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France” while the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blared, “Fox News admits ‘no-go zones’ are fantasy.”

Not so fast, says Robert Spencer, a long-time monitor of the conflict between Islam and Western civilization as editor of Jihad Watch.

He wrote in a Front Page Magazine column that the “only problem with all the cork popping around Fox’s apology was that there is a problem with Muslim areas in Europe – and the Fox apology didn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t.”

Spencer acknowledged inaccurate statements were made by Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. In a Fox News interview Jan. 11, Emerson said “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

“That is false, and Emerson has acknowledged that and apologized,” Spencer wrote.

But Emerson was not guilty of fabrication, Spencer quickly asserted, only of overstatement.

A zone in nearly every city

Pipes, who was one of the first to use the term “no-go zone” in reference to Muslims in Europe, noted in 2006 that France’s Sensitive Urban Zones ranged from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassonne to 12 in the heavily Muslim city of Marseilles, with hardly a town in the country lacking one.

Pipes has continuously updated his original 2006 post, citing references by politicians, civil leaders and journalists to “no-go zones” in Britain, Germany and Sweden, as well as France.

Since 2007, Pipes has visited largely Muslim areas of Paris, Copenhagen, Malmö, Stockholm, Berlin and Athens to find out for himself what is happening. He explained that for “a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull.”

“We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails,” Pipes said.

“These are not full-fledged no-go zones,” he explained, “but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, ‘sensitive urban zones.’ In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.”

Britain’s chief inspector of constabulary, Tom Winsor, told the Times of London in an interview that parts of the U.K. are becoming no-go areas for police because minority communities are operating their own justice systems.

“There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all. I am reluctant to name the communities in question, but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves,” said Winsor, who is responsible for the inspection of police forces in England and Wales.

“There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own.”

Read more at WND

After Paris attacks, E.U. leaders call for more sharing of information, intelligence

34By Michael Birnbaum:

In the wake of this month’s terrorist attacks in Paris, European leaders are calling for significant changes to what has long been a paradox of their borderless continent: Their citizens can move freely, but information about them does not.

There is no European no-fly list, because there is no European data­base of air travelers. People inside a 26-nation zone can speed from the tip of Portugal to the border with Russia without once having their passports scrutinized. Many E.U. citizens enter and exit Europe without ever being checked against police databases.

The gaps can lead to delayed security responses at best and flawed ones at worst, critics say, and attackers have sometimes exploited the issues to their advantage. Now, after the bloody assaults that claimed 17 victims in Paris and after dozens of suspected Islamist militants were rounded up around Europe, European leaders are pushing to fix what they say are flaws in the system.

E.U. nations plan “to share information, intelligence, not only with the European Union but also with other countries around us,” E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Monday after a meeting on counterterrorism with E.U. foreign ministers and top diplomats from several Middle Eastern nations.

Even as officials have stripped away barriers to free travel among European countries, individual nations have continued to hold sway over their intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and there are relatively few E.U.-wide databases in which information about people is stored. In Belgium, for example, police rely on the honor code when they ask new residents with E.U. citizenship whether they have criminal records in other countries.

The Paris attackers were able to use these gaps to their advantage, counterterrorism officials say. One of them, Amedy Coulibaly, drove his common-law wife and others to the Madrid airport before he embarked on his deadly attacks, allowing them to flee to Turkey without immediately drawing the attention of French authorities, who had been monitoring them domestically.

At least one of the brothers who attacked the offices of a satirical Paris newsweekly had traveled to Yemen for training, authorities say. But without a European database that might have helped track their movements, French officials weren’t easily able to watch their air travel, database advocates say.

Gilles de Kerchove, the E.U.’s counterterrorism coordinator, said he is seeking to require that all passports be checked by computer, which would enable agents to run them against databases and track who enters and exits Europe.

Read more at Washington Post

***

Ryan Mauro on Fox: International Anti-Islamism Alliance Needed

Impressions of PEGIDA in Dresden

pegidadresden20150112-2Gates of Vienna, by Fjordman, Jan. 19, 2015:

Starting in 2014, the German movement PEGIDA (Patriotische Europäer Gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes, or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) has created headlines. It has gradually spread to other cities and even beyond Germany, but the first PEGIDA rallies began in Dresden. Some Scandinavian friends of mine wanted to go there. I decided to join them, to see this new phenomenon for myself.

On January 12 2015, the PEGIDA rally in Dresden in which I participated turned out to be even more significant than expected. In Paris just a few days earlier, staffers from the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo were massacred by Islamic Jihadist terrorists. Their crime? Among cartoons mocking many people and religions, they had also made some cartoons making fun of Islam’s founder Mohammed.

In solidarity, the PEGIDA demonstrators in Dresden carried banners showing the names and photos of the Charlie Hebdo staff who were murdered by militant Muslims. Next to German national and regional flags, the French flag was the most prominent one in the rally. I did see at least one Israeli flag, one English flag, a couple of Swedish flags, several Danish flags, plus one or two Norwegian flags, among others.

The lowest estimate for the number of people who participated in the rally this day was 25,000 people. The highest estimate was 40,000 people. It was apparently the biggest crowd so far. The number of people was so large that if you lost sight of your friends, you might not see them again for several hours.

The largest number of participants were undoubtedly local residents of Dresden or Saxony. However, there were also visitors from other parts of Germany and a few international visitors who came specifically to take part in the PEGIDA rally. I was one of them.

I talked to some friends from Denmark afterwards. It is noteworthy that so many people displayed the German national flag, openly and with pride. This would have been taboo some years earlier. Germans were then still too weighed down by guilt from the Second World War. For historical reasons, neighboring countries which have been invaded by Germany in the past view their large neighbor with some suspicion. Despite this, my Danish friends concluded that they were fine with what they had seen in Dresden.

PEGIDA is not about aggressive German nationalism. It is about the normalization of Germany. Germans should not invade Poland or other countries for Lebensraum. However, they have the perfect right to reject Arabs, Turks or others from expanding their own Lebensraum in Germany.

I had a good look at thousands of people. There were hardly any skinheads present. I saw more grandmothers. The people who participated in this peaceful demo were simply normal, concerned citizens, many of them well-dressed. The only tensions I registered were triggered by some rather few left-wing counter-demonstrators who shouted senseless slogans.

While looking at the different slogans and banners, many of them were indeed related to Islam and Islamization. However, some people in the PEGIDA demo carried posters denouncing biased mass media or the EU. PEGIDA is anti-Islamic, but it is also anti-totalitarian, anti-establishment and in favor of traditional European culture.

Read more 

Also see:

Too afraid to face facts? UK and France deny existence of Muslim no-go zones

shariah_control-300x180AllenBWest.com, by Angela Graham-West on January 18, 2015

As USA Today reports, “On Monday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, will give a speech in London addressing what has been a disputed claim that Muslim immigrants have created “no-go zones” in Europe where non-Muslims are not welcome.”

This claim is being denied by the governments of England and France and declared to be ludicrous at best and amusing in the worst-case scenario. In fact, when hearing of a similar claim by terror analyst Steve Emerson on Fox News, British Prime Minister David Cameron responded: “When I heard this frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot.”

David Cameron may “choke on his porridge,” bacon, become disoriented about the time of year, or resort to name-calling, but I commend Governor Jindal for pressing on.

There is a problem and “porridge choking” won’t solve the problem that a disturbing number of European youth are becoming either radicalized or disenfranchised enough to consider fighting against their own country and their own way of life.

The prevailing method of ignoring the problem, or any problem that doesn’t conform to a specified manner of thinking, and shutting down dissent by name-calling has never and will never work.

France was not so vehement in their denial of the existence of these “no-go” zones. Rather they referred to the areas as 751 “sensitive urban zones” where you might find disadvantaged youths who appear to be unhappy with their position in society.

The French claim these areas have low home ownership rates, low income and low education levels. I’ve traveled extensively through Europe and many of my relatives and friends are residents of these types of areas in Germany, France and England.

USA Today says “former State Department official John Bolton’s Gatestone Foundation states “the “no-go” areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.”

So what happens when immigrants refuse to assimilate into their host society and instead set up parallel societies that reflect their own culture, mores and values of their native countries? Well, you get the problem we’re witnessing in Europe.

Also see:

Changing the Rules of the Democracy Game in Europe: Change the rules in Europe and change them now!

The situation in Europe is intolerable. At any given moment one of the thousands of Jihadists living in Europe can be annoyed by a movie, article or caricature published in a newspaper, grab the closest Kalashnikov and spread death and destruction in editorial offices, shops, museums, schools and on the streets.

He can hurl bombs – homemade or imported – into restaurants, movie houses, theaters, railroad stations, pour oil on highways and perpetrate other terrorist acts which will not be enumerated here so as not to give him any ideas.

There are various factors that indicate the potential for a major explosion:

  1. The enormous number – tens of millions – of Muslims in Europe, a large number to take into account even if only a small fraction of them turn radical.  Look at it this way: if, of the fifty million Muslims in Europe, only one in a thousand becomes a Jihadist, that means there are still fifty thousand Jihadists like the ones who turned Paris into an urban battleground last week.
  2. The fact is that many Muslims did not integrate into European culture. Many of them live in areas where they constitute the vast majority, where the language heard on the street is not French, schools are locally run even if they are called public schools, the mosque is the center of the neighborhood and the Imam is the spiritual leader who guides the perplexed (and there are many) and sustains the stumbling, especially economically. Many Muslims have really remained in their land of origin, both psychologically and mentally, and Islamic Sharia – anti-democratic by definition – is more important to them than the laws of the land in which they reside.
  3. Europe places almost no limitations on Muslim immigration. There is no proper guarding of the coastline and when illegal infiltrators arrive, they receive fair treatment, work permits, financial support, public housing, medical care and education without any linkage to their contribution to the society and economic system that absorbs them. The good reception the immigrants receive is sure to bring the rest of the family tomorrow, the day after that and next week.
  4. European security forces are not using sufficient surveillance forces to keep track of the Jihadists and their fellow travelers as well as their support systems. There is almost no one listening to what is being said in mosques, not enough tracking of Syrian and Iraqi war veterans, very little supervision of what is going on in the public sector. In France there are Muslim neighborhoods closed to police. In Germany there are already Islamist “modesty enforcing officers”  who force the locals to fall into step with behavioral requirements.

As a result of these factors, many Muslims feel that Europe is theirs. They pray on the streets and block traffic, including ambulances, force supermarkets to stop selling pork and alcoholic beverages, demand that churches cease to ring their bells and force women to dress according to Islamic law when outside the home. Europe’s economy – especially the financial market – is increasingly accepting Sharia requirements. European young women are seen as legitimate prey to satisfy the lusts of some of the immigrants, and the percentage of Muslims among those in jail is much higher than their percentage of the general population. This fact reflects the derision the immigrants and their sons feel for European law.

An Algerian colleague who fled his country thirty years ago once told me: “Algerians do not move from Algeria to France; they move Algeria to France”. The problem is worse when considering Muslims from Central Africa – Chad, Mali, Niger – because they suffer discrimination based on their skin color and not only their religion, a fact which explains why south Sahara Muslims are involved in terror acts: the terrorist that attacked the Hyper Casher store and the terrorist who tortured Ilan Halimi to death in 2006 were of African origin.

Europe’s reality today is a continent that is adopting another culture at a rapid pace. Dreams of cultural diversity have been shown to be unfounded delusions, as the immigrant culture is sure of itself and easily subjugates the fragile indigent culture which has divested itself of all values and has no desire to defend itself from the external threat it faces.

European nations have lost their immune system and are falling prey to new ideas, post modern in nature, that have broken Europe’s spirit and destroyed Europe’s ability to defend itself and its culture. Europe is sacrificing its values and cultural and physical existence on the altar of human rights, of which nothing will survive when Europe ceases to be Europe.

Is there anything to be done?

First, let me point out as clearly as possible: what is written below is not a recommendation or call to any specific action. It is a list of possible measures with which every person and every country can either agree or disagree. Second, in Europe there are millions of Muslims who arrived there in order to become Europeans, adopt European culture and live with and live within Europe as citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.

They contribute to European society, to Europe’s economy and to the country in which they live a normative lifestyle. They are not terrorists, do not support terrorists and are wholeheartedly against terror. One of them hid Jews in the freezer room of HyperCasher in Paris after shutting the motor. May he be blessed. No one has the right to minimize by an iota the good deeds of these Muslims.

That is why the question at hand is what European nations can do in order to guard against Jihadists. And the answer is made up of a long list of procedures and steps whose goal is to turn the immigrant population into a European one. Of course, any Muslim who does not like these steps can leave Europe and find a home that is more suited to his cultural preferences.

The countries of Europe must own up to the fact that they are in a state of cultural emergency, change the rules of the democracy game and modify existing laws. The peoples of Europe must understand that any nation that does not know how to defend itself is doomed to disappear, a culture that is unable to preserve its values is marching proudly into the window case of a museum exhibit and a society that does not bring the next generation into the world is not going to exist in that next generation.

Future legal systems must reflect Europe’s desire to preserve its civilization, heritage and culture:

Every Muslim suspected of inciting to violence, possessing an unregistered weapon, of attending weapons training or operating in Syria and Iraq must be kept from entering or remaining in Europe by governmental order.

Areas into which law enforcement forces dare not enter must be opened before them.

Every mosque must contain a recording system and cameras that allow local security organizations to ensure that no subversive or anti-governmental activity is taking place within its confines.

Imam’s speeches are to be read from a written page that is submitted to local security organizations. Imams will not be allowed to speak unless their words are recorded and documented. They must speak in the language of the host country and not in that of the country of origin.

A Muslim who visits his country of origin will have to prove the reason for his trip and what he did while there. Anyone who arouses suspicions that while in his country of origin he acted or prepared to act against his host country or against armies in other parts of the world will lose the right to return to Europe.

Imams caught inciting to violence will be returned to their country of origin forthwith.

Along with the leaders of street gangs, organizations that advance the rule of Sharia law will be closed and their members sent back to their countries of origin.

Charity fund managers will have to prove what the source of every eurocent is and where it is going.

Every immigrant will be given a year to learn a trade or choose a vocation and find his place in a normative place of work, begin paying taxes and saving for his pension fund. Anyone who does not fulfill these conditions will not be eligible for financial help and be returned to his country of origin.

Every Muslim must take part in a course to learn the local language, the history and anthem of the host country. He will have to pass a vocational course and pledge allegiance to his new country, its laws and values.

Bigamy and polygamy will be strictly outlawed and defined as a crime against women. Family violence and especially honor killings will be sufficient reason to return the entire family to its country of origin.

Female circumcision will be outlawed and anyone participating in this practice, whether parent of circumcisor, will be thrown out of Europe immediately.

Covering one’s face will be forbidden and any woman caught with her face covered in the street will be sent back to her country of origin with her entire family. Selling face coverings will be against the law.

Public schools in which children of immigrants are enrolled will be under constant supervision to ensure that they are not educating in ways that cannot coexist with the values of the host country.

Newspapers, radio and television will be forums for free debate and open to discussions of religion and tradition, free of censorship of their written and spoken content, including caricatures.

The standard punishment for immigrant criminals will be a return to their land of origin.

The rules of political correctness will be abandoned and criticism of religions, all religions, will become legitimate and accepted.

An official body will be formed to check the purpose of organizations, their ideologies, their goals and the way they intend to try to reach them.

Only flags of the host country, the EU or organizations recognized by the government will be allowed.

Any opinion on social media that is in favor of Jihad will get the writer of said opinion a free ticket on a flight back to his country of origin.

Every organization connected to Islamic terror, the Muslim Brotherhood and the like will be illegal.

Each country will encourage births by providing economic support to couples who show they identify with the ethos of the country in which they live.

Any immigrant who criticizes the above measures will be sent elsewhere, preferably to his country of origin, where he will feel more at home.

At the same time, the countries of Europe must begin investing in unemployment-ridden Islamic countries so that their citizens will be less motivated to emigrate to Europe.

The above measures may seem severe and anti-democratic, but it is simply hypocrisy to believe that a democracy must protect those who are against the very idea of democracy for ideological and religious reasons. Democracies must defend themselves and their citizens or they will simply disappear.  No democracy should turn into a prescription for cultural suicide, every democracy must express itself in such a way that the culture of those who created it can survive.

It will take only a short while for these measures to seem absolutely crucial to preserve European culture. Preventing the application of these measures will only increase the hatred of Europe’s traditional societies for the immigrants, a hatred whose signs we can already see at the “Pagida” organization protests in Germany. The present situation is leading Europe to an explosion between Muslim immigrants and European society, an explosion which may destroy Europe. If determined steps are not taken to absorb the Muslim immigrants into European society the results may be destructive to the society, regimes and economies of the European countries.

A question that rises naturally is what is going on n the USA. There are those who claim that it has already embarked on a track similar to that of Europe, but that it lags 15 years behind Europe, so that if there is no change in the USA’s attitude to Islamization, in another 15 years America will look just like Europe today.  Take this as a warning.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

New research charts Europe’s inexorable slide toward Islam

AP photo

AP photo

Breitbart, by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. Jan.16 2015

A recent article by the Pew Research Center highlights five important facts about Europe’s Muslim population in light of the recent Islamist attacks in France and anti-Islamist protest marches in Germany. The data reveals that Europe is becoming more and more Muslim.

Though the greatest sufferers of Islamist violence continue to be the populations of Iraq and Syria under siege by the Islamic State, along with Nigeria facing the virtually unchecked onslaught of Boko Haram, Europe has its own causes for concern. The Muslim population in many European nations has been growing steadily, leading some countries, such as Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands, to call for restrictions on immigration.

Recent Islamist violence in Paris has brought Europe’s concerns to the fore, but it represents only the tip of the iceberg. On Thursday, Belgian counterterrorism police interrupted another jihadist terrorist plot, killing two suspected Islamist militants and severely wounding a third, and additional raids were carried out in the capital, Brussels. Similar anti-terrorist operations are being carried out throughout Europe, and counterterrorism officials are warning that their top security threat is the risk of attacks by their own citizens.

Fact no. 1: Europe’s largest Muslim populations are in Germany and France, followed by the UK and Italy.

According to the most recent available statistics, both Germany and France have Muslim populations around 5 million, which represents about six percent of Germany’s population and 7.5% of France’s. Going beyond the borders of the European Union, Russia’s population of 14 million Muslims is the largest on the continent.

The anti-Islamist PEGIDA movement, which stands for “Patriotic Europeans against Islamization of the West,” rallied a record 25,000 supporters in Dresden on Monday, and there are to be more PEGIDA marches in Cologne. Though Chancellor Angela Merkel has dismissed PEGIDA as a movement followed by those with “hatred in their hearts,” other European countries are following Germany’s lead; PEGIDA chapters have been founded in Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Spain, and the UK.

Fact no. 2: Europe’s total population is becoming increasingly Muslim.

The Muslim share of Europe’s population has grown about 1 percentage point a decade for the last 25 years, moving from 4% in 1990 to 6% in 2010. The number of Muslims in Europe has grown from 29.6 million in 1990 to 44.1 million in 2010.

Europe’s Muslim population is expected to exceed 58 million by 2030. While Muslims today account for about 6% of Europe’s total population, by 2030, Muslims are expected to make up 8% of Europe’s population, or double what it was in 1990.

Percentagewise, the European Union’s most Muslim country is Cyprus, at more than a quarter of the total population (25.3%), followed by Bulgaria at 13.7% of the population. The country with the highest projected growth of its Muslim population is the United Kingdom, expected to have a Muslim population of 5.5 million by 2030.

Fact no. 3: Muslims are younger than other Europeans.

Data for 2010 reveals that the average age of Muslims in Europe was 32, while the median age of Europeans generally was 40, an eight-year gap. The median age of Christians in Europe was ten years higher than that of Muslims, or 42.

The age gap also affects population increase. Muslims’ fertility rates are generally higher than those of non-Muslims in Europe, which along with immigration helps explain why the Muslim population of Europe is projected to rise, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population.

The Pew Study analyzed current trends in the 25 European countries for which data are available and found that Muslim women today will have an average of 2.2 children each, compared with an estimated average of 1.5 children each for non-Muslim women in Europe.

Fact no. 4: European countries vary widely in their views of Muslims.

Majorities in Germany, France, and the UK have generally favorable views of Muslims, according to a Pew Research survey conducted last spring. More than half the population in Italy, Greece, and Poland expressed negative views of Muslims, while in Spain opinion was roughly divided.

Among EU countries, the Italian population is the most critical of Muslims, with 63% expressing an unfavorable view and only 28% voicing a favorable opinion.

Views about Muslims are tied both to age and to where one stands on the political spectrum, with youth and those on the left being generally more favorable to Muslims. In Spain, just over half of those age 50 and older view Muslims unfavorably, while only a third of people under age 30 say the same. While 47% of Germans on the political right see Muslims unfavorably, just 20% on the left do so.

Fact no. 5: The European Union is home to some 13 million Muslim immigrants.

As of 2010, an estimated 13 million Muslim immigrants (27% of the foreign-born population) live in the 27 countries of the European Union. When internal migration within the European Union is excluded, the percentage of Muslim immigrants among the foreign-born population rises to 39%.

The immigrant Muslim population in Germany is primarily from Turkey, whereas the roughly 3 million foreign-born Muslims in France are largely from France’s former colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter @tdwilliamsrome.

Immigration and Islam: Europe’s Crisis of Faith

The terrorist assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7 may have been organized by al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. But the attack, along with another at a Paris kosher market days later, was carried out by French Muslims descended from recent waves of North African and West African immigration. Well before the attacks, which left 17 dead, the French were discussing the possibility that tensions with the country’s own Muslim community were leading France toward some kind of armed confrontation.

Consider Éric Zemmour, a slashing television debater and a gifted polemicist. His history of the collapse of France’s postwar political order, “Le suicide français,” was No. 1 on the best-seller lists for several weeks this fall. “Today, our elites think it’s France that needs to change to suit Islam, and not the other way around,” Mr. Zemmour said on a late-night talk show in October, “and I think that with this system, we’re headed toward civil war.”

More recently, Michel Houellebecq published “Submission,” a novel set in the near future. In it, the re-election of France’s current president, François Hollande, has drawn recruits to a shadowy group proclaiming its European identity. “Sooner or later, civil war between Muslims and the rest of the population is inevitable,” a sympathizer explains. “They draw the conclusion that the sooner this war begins, the better chance they’ll have of winning it.” Published, as it happened, on the morning of the attacks, Mr. Houellebecq’s novel replaced Mr. Zemmour’s at the top of the best-seller list, where it remains.

Two days after the Charlie Hebdo killings, there was a disturbing indication on Le Monde’s website of how French people were thinking. One item about the killing vastly outpaced all others in popularity. The reactions of Europe’s leaders was shared about 5,000 times, tales of Muslim schoolchildren with mixed feelings about 6,000, a detailed account of the Charlie Hebdo editorial meeting ended by the attack, 9,000. Topping them all, shared 28,000 times, was a story about reprisals: “Mosques become targets, French Muslims uneasy.” Those clicks are the sound of French fear that something larger may be under way.

Marine Le Pen of France’s Front National acknowledges supporters on Nov. 30. Populist parties are rising across Europe as voters feel abandoned by the mainstream political class. GETTY IMAGES

Marine Le Pen of France’s Front National acknowledges supporters on Nov. 30. Populist parties are rising across Europe as voters feel abandoned by the mainstream political class. GETTY IMAGES

France’s problem has elements of a military threat, a religious conflict and a violent civil-rights movement. It is not unique. Every country of Western Europe has a version. For a half-century, millions of immigrants from North and sub-Saharan Africa have arrived, lured by work, welfare, marriage and a refuge from war. There are about 20 million Muslims in Europe, with some 5 million of them in France, according to the demographer Michèle Tribalat. That amounts to roughly 8% of the population of France, compared with about 5% of both the U.K. and Germany.

Read more at WSJ

****

via Gates of Vienna:

The Surge of the Anti-Islamization Movement in Europe

Jerry Gordon sends this useful graph from The Wall Street Journal showing the latest poll results for various immigration-skeptical parties in Western Europe:

eunationalistsNotice that the WSJ, like the rest of the MSM, can’t restrain itself from editorializing that the parties “are using fear of terrorism and unease about Islam” — as if these weren’t urgent, important issues, but simply irrational fears of the lumpenproletariat to be exploited for electoral gain.

The graph captures an extraordinary moment in recent European history: Three anti-Islamization parties in three major countries poll at #1 among their respective voters. We can all celebrate this unprecedented situation.

But the static nature of the result misses some aspects of current political trends, such as the recent tremendous surge by UKIP in the run-up to the general election in May.

It will be interesting to see what this graph looks like in six months’ time.

NEXT TERROR TARGET NAMED

amsterdamWND, by Aaron Klein, Jan. 14, 2015:

TEL AVIV – Chatter within jihadist groups combined with intelligence information collected by European and Arab countries indicates the next major terrorist attack could target the Netherlands, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND.

The security officials said a joint effort between European and Arab security services has resulted in the drafting of a list of hundreds of names of potential jihadists, mostly European residents, who could be a part of a series of sleeper cells in Europe. There is an effort to track down the locations of the suspects.

The officials said the list also includes more than 100 suspects who are originally from Chechnya as well as foreign suspects from Palestinian camps in Syria and Lebanon, some of whom may currently be in Europe.

The officials said they fear an upcoming publication by Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine that was targeted in last week’s terrorist massacre, will feature a depiction of Islam’s founder, Muhammad.

The officials said they believe the jihadists will use the depiction as a pretense to carry out further attacks.

Yesterday, the U.K. Guardian quoted a lawyer for Charlie Hebdo stating the memorial edition of the magazine, slated for Wednesday, would “naturally” feature cartoons of Muhammad along with jokes about other religions.

On Tuesday, WND reported Algeria’s intelligence services passed information to several European countries indicating there are at least 20 sleeper cells with a combined total of 120 to 180 jihadists ready to act in France, Germany and Belgium.

Many members of the cells were trained in Tunisia, according to an Algerian intelligence report that was shared with WND by a European official. The report was provided to European interior ministers.

The document also deals with the issue of European citizens traveling to Iraq and Syria to join Islamic terrorist organizations. The Algerian report fingers Saudi-financed mosques in Europe as helping to lead the recruitment of European jihadists to fight in Syria and Iraq.

The Algerians identified by name more than 100 clerics in Western Europe as leaders of the recruitment campaign, which the Algerian report says is coordinated with Salafists mostly located in Tunisia, Yemen and Libya.

Yesterday, French law enforcement officers were directed to carry their weapons at all times “because terror sleeper cells have been activated over the last 24 hours in the country,” according to a French police source who attended a briefing Saturday and spoke to CNN terror analyst Samuel Laurent.

Amedy Coulibaly, the terrorist suspect killed on Friday after holding citizens hostage in a kosher market, made phone calls about targeting police officers in France, the source told CNN.

Hostages inside the market also reported hearing Coulibaly speaking on the phone about the targeting of police officers in France.

According to reports, the hostages said Coulibaly told them “militants are going to come – there are going to be more and more.”

According to reports, the hostages said Coulibaly told them that “militants are going to come. There are going to be more and more.”

Also see:

John Robson on PEGIDA and similar European movements

Published on Jan 9, 2015 by AlohaSnackbar01

“The whole dynamic is now escaping the control of European political elites because they won’t take security or culture seriously.”

– John Robson

GERMAN CHANCELLOR MERKEL UNFAIR ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ANTI-ISLAM RALLIES IN GERMANY

Sataya’s Blog, Jan. 6, 2015:

In her new year speech German Chancellor Merkel criticized the ever growing anti-Islam rallies in Germany by organization by name PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the Occident) as ‘their hearts are cold and often full of prejudice, and even hate’ and appealed Germans not to participate in the rallies.  She quoted when PEGIDA says ‘we are the people’, ‘What they really mean is: You are not one of us, because of your skin color or your religion’.

Participants in a Pegida demonstration of an estimated 17,000 people in Dresden, Germany. Photograph: Imago/Barcroft Media (pic from theguardian)

Participants in a Pegida demonstration of an estimated 17,000 people in Dresden, Germany. Photograph: Imago/Barcroft Media (pic from theguardian)

Let us see what are the position statements of PEGIDA:
1) affirms the right of asylum for war refugees and politically persecuted people.
2)  advocates to include a duty to integrate into the German Basic Law.
3) advocates for decentralized housing of refugees,
4) suggests creation of a central refugee agency for a fair allocation of immigrants among countries of the European Union (Germany takes maximum of 5% of refugees compared to all other countries).
5) demands a decrease in ratio of social worker to asylum seeker from currently 200:1.
6) suggests to model German immigration policies after those of the Netherlands and Switzerland and demands an increased budget for the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees to speed up processing of applications.
7) demands an increase in funding for the police,
8) implementation of all asylum laws including expulsion.
9) zero tolerance towards criminal refugees and immigrants.
10) PEGIDA opposes a misogynic and violent political ideology, but does not oppose assimilated and politically moderate Muslims.[13]
11) supports immigration as in Switzerland, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
12) PEGIDA supports sexual self-determination (opposing “early sexualization of children”).[14]
13) protection of Germany’s Judeo-Christian culture.
14) supports the introduction of referenda as in Switzerland.
15) opposes weapon export to radical and non-permitted groups, such as the PKK.
16) opposes parallel societies/parallel jurisdictions, for example Sharia courts, Sharia police and peace judges.
12) PEGIDA opposes gender mainstreaming, and political correctness.
18) PEGIDA opposes any radicalism whether religious or politically motivated.
19) PEGIDA opposes hate speech, regardless of religion.[15]
Let us see where Germany is going.  Within 2 decades of opening doors, Germany Muslim population increased from small percentage to more than 5%.  (Their Christian population is only about 60%).  9.1% of new borns have both Muslim parents.   What are the Muslim attitudes towards Germany, per Wiki “According to 2013 study by Social Science Research Center Berlin, two thirds of the Muslims interviewed say that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live, almost 60 percent of the Muslim respondents reject homosexuals as friends; 45 percent think that Jews cannot be trusted; and an equally large group believes that the West is out to destroy Islam (Christian respondents’ answers for comparison: As many as 9 percent are openly anti-Semitic; 13 percent do not want to have homosexuals as friends; and 23 percent think that Muslims aim to destroy Western culture).”. According to a 2012 poll, 72% of the Turks in Germany believe that Islam is the only true religion and 46% wish that one day more Muslims live in Germany than Christians.[16][17
Is Merkel sleeping or living in another world?   What does she think once Muslim population increases?   Are they going to elect a person like her as President of Germany?   Will they support equal rights and tolerance she is espousing PEGIDA should follow.   Is there one country where Muslims have given equal rights to non-Muslims? If she is so keen of teaching human rights to Germans, why cannot she ask Muslim countries to open up and accept the Muslims as refugees?      When she calls PEGIDA as cold, has she opened her mouth against policies of Saudi Arabia where one can not even practice their religion even at ones home?   Malaysia declared Islamic with 49% of Muslim population and destroyed hundreds of thousands of temples and gives special rights to Muslims in every field to the point of leaving non-Muslims under developed.    In France, Muslim concentrated areas are no-go zones, particularly for women because they cannot come out without getting raped.   It is not just Boko Haram captures minor Christian girls in Africa, but in Rotterdam, UK, a Muslim elected city council protected Muslims goons who have raped, gang raped, threatened to douse with fire more than 1400 minor girls (as young as 11) for more than two decades.  Not only the elected Muslim council supported the goons, they went after the minor girls that they are lying!!!!   Why do you think they do this?  Not that they are born mentally sick people.  They do this because Islam teaches every infidel women belongs to them, as sex slaves.  Merkel’s children, and grand children are their property and they will claim it when the right time comes, at least according to their religious books.    As news media reported on Rotterdam, while they cover their women, they are encouraged to seek the uncovered women of infidels and convert them.  Not just that, their prophet encourages to seek minor girls,  as young as nine.
Merkel criticizes organizers of PEGIDA  says Muslims are not one of them because of their religion.  Where are you Merkel, all this time.   Did she ever raise with Islamic countries that just as Europe is multi-cultural, Islamic countries have responsibility to respect and give equal rights to all religions.   Have she ever read Islamic scriptures (Koran, Sira and Hadith) or looked into the history to recognize what is going on today is nothing more than what happened in the past for last 1400 years. Does she have the will to engage an honest debate on the teachings of the Islam and true read of the history of Islam, just as Germany studied Nazis. Germany, more than any other country knows what happens if facism is appeased.  Wafa Sultan, who considers her a Muslim, listed among 100 most influential people by Time in 2006, noted the root cause of terrorism is the brainwashing machine called, ‘Islam’, not political Islam, not radical Islam, just Islam.  Where does she think are the most recruits to ISIS are coming?  They are coming from free democratic countries because the young absorb the violent, fascist and misogynist philosophy of the religion in a free democratic environments.   The writing is on the wall, what ISIS is doing is what will happen if Islam grows in power.   One Muslims grow in number, they will follow every thing she alleges unfairly against PEGIDA.  While most Muslims may not commit the heinous acts written in the books normally, when the times comes, they will be goaded that it is their religious duty to kill and rape infidels, just as it happened in Pakistan in 1947 or it happened with Yazidi population in Iraq where Arab neighbors who lived for generations together joined about killing innocent Yazidis. Once Muslims grow in number they will most likely support Sharia Law and take away centuries of civilization rights and development to brutal and misogynistic medieval period.    Look at any discussion of so called moderate Muslims on the net, you hear the same excuses that world is against them, rather than any honest debate of the issues in their philosophy in the name of religion.
Just look around to see what is store in for Europe.  In Pakistan, Hindus/Sikhs was reduced from 25% to less than 1%, mostly in just few months, killed, raped and converted.   In Bangla Desh, 30% reduced to less than 10%.   Every day minor girls are kidnapped, whether it is Hindus or Christians in Pakistan or until recently Coptic Christians in Egypt.  Bangla Desh mosques are known to encourage the rape of Hindu women saying Hindu women pubic hair smells pleasant and many examples of rape of mother and daughter in front of the family is known to occur.  During 1971 war, literally hundreds of thousands of mainly Hindu women taken away from their home to become their sex concubines.   In India, where ever Muslims number increase they engage in ethnic cleansing like in State of Kashmir where half million Hindus are living as refugees in their own country for last 25 years in squalid camps and most Muslim majority areas are no-go zones.  Love jihad of seeking innocent Hindu and Christian girls and converting them is rampant where Mosques pay perks to young Muslims boys to marry and convert them.  Most respected US historian Will Durant writes from Islamic own chronicles the brutal history of Islam during last 1400 years which puts Nazi’s to shame. It is estimated 80 million butchered and raped in just Indian subcontinent and 220 million around the world.  Just since 9/11, Islam killed more than 200,000 people and injured many times more in more than 30 countries.   In US, Muslim organizations care hijab and bringing in Sharia law subverting US constitution but not the atrocities of Islam around the world.   Muslims are deliberately producing more children to thwart the democracy.  With 5% Muslims producing 10% newborns, where does she think this is going?  Does she has the will to impose limitation on the number of children Muslims have and control this womb jihad?   Does she think Europe has any chance to be what it is today as Muslim population increases?  
Merkel invokes that those who were given refugee status are facing life and death situation.  Would it not be better to give refugee status those who facing life and death situation like Yazidis, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and Sikhs who are facing every day life and death situation across the world from Muslim countries and who will not be welcome in any Muslim country?   For those from outside watching Europe wonder if Europe is in need of cheap labor, can they not find it among the non-Muslim population of the world which does not carry any of these  challenges and has shown that they will integrate and assimilate much easily.
PEGIDA clearly states that they are not against assimilated Muslims and whose outlook is open such as educated Iranians or Ahamaddiya Muslims.  What they are asking is not against religion, but against fascism, against misogyny, against intolerance.  Most of Islam is a very dehumanizing and degrading political philosophy of conquest with more than 90% about violent jihad and rape of infidels and it encourages pedophilia by asking to emulate the prophet.  It calls infidels as equivalent to urine, feces, dead persons etc and drills that to young Muslims.
 
In unjustly countering PEGIDA legitimate positions,  she will encourage the real fascism she would like to avoid.  This is not Islamo-phobia, this is Islamo-realism.
References:
Merkel comments during New Year on PEGIDA:
Islam since 9/11 (from 2001 to 2006, Islamic atrocities around the world)
Verses of intolerance
Rotterdam, UK rape of 1400 minor girls over 2 decades by Muslim goons and supported by Muslim city councillors
Statistical Islam shows after considering for repetition most of Islamic scriptures is about violent jihad and rape of  infidel women, along with Pedophilia

 

Emerson on Fox’s Hannity: “No Go Zones and Sharia Courts…Europe is Finished.”

IPT, by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
January 7, 2015

 

Sean Hannity: Welcome back to “Hannity.” So France is on high alert at this hour following today’s deadly terrorist attack that left 12 people dead. Investigators working around the clock to put the pieces together. So could a similar terrorist attack happen here at home? Joining me now terrorism expert Steve Emerson. Steve, I want to talk about the growth in population of people moving to France from Muslim countries. You have these no-go zones. You have sharia courts that they’ve allowed. I assume the French, they wanted to be accepting and accommodating and have not insisted on assimilation. Has that played a part in this and is that something we’ve got to be on alert for now?

Steve Emerson: Well certainly throughout Europe, Sean, you have “no-go zones.” When I was in Brussels a year ago when I asked the police to take me to the Islamic zone or the Islamic community area they refused. They said we don’t go there. This goes on in Belgium, this goes on in Sweden, in the Netherlands, in France, it goes on in Italy. It goes on throughout Europe. So there are no-go zones.

Sean Hannity: Hang on. “No-go zone” means no non-Muslims, no police, no fire, their own court system. So basically these countries have allowed Muslims to take over parts of their country, entire portions, towns.

Steve Emerson: These are semiautonomous countries within countries in which the federal governments there have basically given up, surrendered their autonomy, surrendered their authority and goes against the entire grain of what social democracy was after World War II, was to integrate everybody into a socialist democracy, which is really a pluralistic experiment which worked. And everybody was supposed to be egalitarian; at least everyone was supposed to be equal in a pluralist society. What has happened however with migration of Muslims – and [although the problem] not all Muslims, the problem is the domination of Muslims [communities] within European countries, particularly in France…by radical Islamic groups. The mosques and Islamic centers… infuse the Islamic population with a militant strain of Islam that teaches them the infidel has to be killed and that the Crusaders like the French, Jews and Americans have to be killed or punished like [we saw] today. And this goes on and on and on. And the reaction unfortunately as we saw this morning from the President or from the President [Hollande]… of France or from [Prime Minister] Cameron of Britain is this has nothing to do with Islam, this is just a simple act of [non-religious] violence and that Islam is a religion of peace. And when they say those things they exonerate the leaders of Islamic communities throughout Europe and the militants themselves are given a free pass.

Sean Hannity: The next logical question then, Steve, is, okay, what about visas for people coming from Muslim countries? What about people that come to America that are Muslim? I’m sure the average American believes in freedom of religion, they don’t want to discriminate, they don’t want to be called Islamophobic, all of these things. How do you balance the two if people are coming from Muslim countries, how do you determine if they hold radical views, if they want sharia implemented in America like this guy Chaudary that I talked about?

Steve Emerson: Well you raise a very good question because that’s the role – you know there are DHS officers planted, placed overseas in US embassies in certain countries that have produced disproportionate numbers of terrorists like in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. Their role is to collect the intelligence on the visa applicants coming to the United States. The problem has been under this administration is that DHS has specifically instructed DHS agents overseas to basically not do their job, to not collect this intelligence. And when the intelligence has been collected, to show that the applicants coming to the United States with the visas in hand have radical backgrounds are either connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, connected to the Taliban, connected even [tangentially] to ISIS, they’ve been told to look away. I can tell you that personally. having had discussions with DHS officials and other agents from DHS who operate in an environment that’s Orwellian. And so you’re right, there’s a real problem here and our national security being violated.

Sean Hannity: Do you think France can get control of their country again and take over these no-go zones, stop sharia courts? I know prayer rugs are in just about every hotel if you go to Paris, according to a friend of mine who travels there quite often. Do they have the ability now to stop this, to say no you either assimilate or you have to go?

Steve Emerson: That’s a great question. I think they’ve reached critical mass, frankly. I’ve said this before, I think Europe is finished.

Sean Hannity: You think it’s finished? Well there’s a poll out there. One in six people in France actually support ISIS. Over 1,000 French have gone to join ISIS. So you’re saying you don’t think they can recover, that’s there’s too many radical Islamists that have taken over this portion of that country and it would be a war to take it back?

Steve Emerson: They [the European governments] wouldn’t take it back. They refuse to take it back. Sweden just engineered this artificial political coalition designed to stop any type of immigration prohibitions until the year 2022. So we’re talking about a situation throughout Europe where there’s a refusal to acknowledge the problem. And two, even if they did acknowledge the problem, what are they going to do if six to seven to eight to nine percent constitute a serious radical threat, not every single person but within that percentage, [there exist] no-go zones with sharia courts? Who are they hurting the most? They’re hurting Muslim women the most. They’re the ones who get subject to beatings, to death, to honor crimes.

Sean Hannity: So women who live in France are subject to sharia. They’re not subject to the laws of the country.

Steve Emerson: Not all Muslim women.

Sean Hannity: If they live in the no-go zone.

Steve Emerson: Absolutely. You’re 100% right. That’s the problem.

Sean Hannity: All right. That’s a big problem, and a warning I think.

The Future Belongs to Charlie Hebdo

resize
CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 7, 2015:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” were the words of President Barack Obama, before the United Nations. And for twelve people at the office of satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, massacred by gunmen today in Paris, there will indeed be no future.

The two gunmen reportedly forced their way into the magazine offices, yelling “allahu akbar” (God is Greater),and opened fire. There are reports coming in that the gunmen instructed survivors, “You say to the media that it was al-Qaeda in Yemen.” If this is true, it would be a realization of a threat made against the newspaper’s editor by a 2013 edition of the AQAP produced “Inspire Magazine.”

PARIS-wanted_poste_3157269cEach gunmen wore a black ski mask, and were armed with kalashnikov rifles. A video shot by a nearby bystander shows  two gunmen emerge from the building and engaged a French police officer with more gunfire. After the policeman fell, a gunmen executed him with an additional round at close range, before the two attackers fled in a stolen vehicle.

The same White House which is now condemning the attack, had previously gone out of its way to condemn the cartoons published by the magazine back in 2012:

“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” [Then White House Spokesman Jay] Carney told reporters during a midday press briefing at the White House. “We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential be be inflammatory,” Carney said in a prepared statement. Putting satirical cartoons on the same level as terrorist murder is exactly the problem.

Unfortunately, this is not merely a matter of spinelessness, but spinelessness as official policy.

The Obama administration has been deeply involved in pursuing an agenda, promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which equates speech which offends with direct incitement to murder. That effort, known as Resolution 16/18, after the joint U.S.-Egyptian resolution which introduced it, or the “Istanbul Process,” by the series of  high-level meetings held between the State Department and OIC members, is explicitly intended by Islamic states to prohibit what they describe as “defamation of religion” including insulting Islam’s prophet.

White House officials were already uttering the standard reassurances that despite the clear effort by the gunmen to enforce Sharia strictures on Blasphemy, this attack may not be terrorism, and of course, taking the submissive posture that Islam is an inherently and indisputably a peaceful religion (which is not the same thing as recognizing that many individual Muslims are themselves peaceful people.)

The attack on Charlie Hebdo is only one front in the war on free expression perpetuated in the name of enforcing Sharia blasphemy laws. The staff of Charlie Hebdo are martyrs to free speech, but they are not alone. Over 35 Christians in Pakistan were lynched last year over the mere rumor of possible blasphemy, including a couple which was burned alive. In 2012, a Saudi blogger tweeted a comments questioning his own commitment to belief in Mohammed’s prophethood. Death threats followed. He fled to Malaysia, but was deported under an Interpol Red notice to Saudi Arabia, where he faced execution for blasphemy (he was eventually freed after almost two years in prison.)

But it is not only in the Middle East. In The United Kingdom, an 85-year old woman was charged by police after yelling outside a Chatham-area mosque,  expressing anger regarding the brutal massacre of British Army Drummer Lee Rigby.  Here in the United States, Terry Jones (whose face adorns the Al Qaeda hit list), was directly castigated by President Obama and General David Petraeus in an attempt to prevent the Pastor from conducting a public burning of the koran in an act of protest (a perhaps distasteful but legally permissible act of free expression.) In 2012, following the attack on the Benghazi consulate where four Americans were killed, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told one victim’s father that the maker of a film mocking Mohammed would be jailed as a result. As indeed, it turned out that the man, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, was indeed jailed. Molly Norris, a cartoonist was forced into hiding, after she  attempted to establish “Every One Draw Mohammed Day” in defense of the creators of the TV Show South Park being censored for attempting to do so. In 2010, Christians were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan for “breach of peace” during a peaceful attempt to preach to Muslims at an Arab Festival. (They were eventually released and the city apologized following a lawsuit.) And there remains, of course, the infamous, Danish Cartoons, whose authors have repeatedly and continuously faced assaults and threats ever since.

Whichever jihadist group was responsible for the attack of Charlie Hebdo bears the ultimate responsibility. But there is a culpability also for those who have hinted that violence and threats of violence will encourage us to abandon our commitment to free expression, or established a policy which says that the West is amendable to surrendering cherished freedom rather than risk “offense.” That culpability remains until political and media leaders can say unapologetically, “The Future belongs to Charlie Hebdo.”

charlie-hebdo-no1163-011014-276x350

Also see:

Europe’s Year of the Jihadist

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
December 29, 2014

1107Among the trends of 2014 – “Gone, Girl,” Lena Dunham, and$55,000 potato salad – was another the list-makers seem to have missed: it was also a very good year for Islamic jihad. And while this was true on the battlefields of Syria and the cities and villages of Pakistan, it was true, too, in more subtle ways throughout the West – and especially in Europe. It was, for instance, the year of Mehdi Nemmouche’s slaughter of four Jews at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

It was the year that Belgium itself was named a “terrorist recruiting hub” by the Wall Street Journal. And in Germany, France, England, and the Netherlands, pro-Islamic State demonstrations laid bare the growing support of terrorism and Islamic jihad among Europe’s expanding Muslim population – all while politicians either stood back or even contributed to the praise.

Throughout 2014, Europeans faced pro-IS, anti-Jew demonstrations in Paris, Hamburg, Amsterdam, London and The Hague, and the establishment of “sharia zones” in London, Wupperthal, and elsewhere. True, such zones do not necessarily delineate areas in which sharia law, rather than state law, applies. But the term helps them define those largely-Muslim neighborhoods whose residents tend to be radical and who often support jihadist movements both at home and abroad.

Combined, these events signal the increasing success of Islamists who are working to change Europe from within – sometimes through violence, but more often through strategies known as “stealth jihad” – a way of applying social and political pressures to transform the current culture.

Take, for instance, the response of Josias van Aartsen, mayor of The Hague, to radical Muslims who called for the death of Dutch non-Muslims and Jews during pro-IS rallies in August: then on holiday, Van Aartsen declined to return home, ignoring even the throwing of stones at non-Muslims and the police. Only when a counter demonstration against IS was planned in the same, Muslim-majority neighborhood did Van Aartsen take action: he forbade it. “Too provocative,” he said.

Or there are the recently-leaked intelligence briefs in France, as reported by the Gatestone Institute, that “Muslim students are effectively establishing an Islamic parallel society completely cut off from non-Muslim students,” while “more than 1000 French supermarkets, including major chains such as Carrefour, have been selling Islamic books that openly call for jihad and the killing of non-Muslims.”

In England, an “Operation Trojan Horse” outlined plans to Islamize schools in Muslim neighborhoods. According to the Guardian, a government investigation of the program last summer found a “‘sustained, coordinated agenda to impose segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline, politicised strain of Sunni Islam’ on children in a number of Birmingham schools.” Among those responsible for the “Operation” were the Association of Muslim Schools – UK and the Muslim Council of Britain – the same organization that, in 2011, declared that women who do not veil their faces “could be guilty of rejecting Islam.”

Ironically, it seems to have been England’s own culture that allowed the rise of Islamist teachings in its schools to begin with. Even Britain’s education secretary Nicky Morgan admitted to the New York Times that much of the operation’s success could be attributed to public “fear of being accused of racism and anti-Islamic views.” Not for nothing did former Obama advisor Lawrence Krauss declare the British “too polite” and “scared of offending ‘vocal and aggressive Muslims.'”

The government’s discovery of “Operation Trojan Horse” and immediate efforts to dismantle it are commendable, but it is difficult to assess the damage already done to Muslim children in the British schools. By some accounts, as many as 2,000 Britons have joined the (Sunni-led) jihad in Syria and Iraq. That includes the man known as “Jihadi John,” who beheaded U.S. journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. And, experts warn, the number of so-called “junior jihadis” – children under 10 who have become radicalized – is on the rise.

Not that such warnings are likely to do much good: The UK has, until recently, spent tremendous resources on programs aimed at preventing Muslim youth from joining militant groups, which have for the most part failed. “Having undertaken the ‘most significant domestic program by any Western country to foster a moderate version of Islam and prevent radicalization, the UK has effectively given up trying to stop jihadists from being created,” James Brandon, the former research director at one such program, told Reuters.

Despite such developments, European lawmakers have had a hard time figuring out how to deal with Muslim radicals, especially with returnees from Syria and Iraq. England is hardly the only place where politicians fear “offending” the sensibilities of Muslim groups. Although an estimated 450 Germans have joined the jihad in Syria, German Green Party domestic policy expert Irene Mihalic told the magazine Der Spiegel in September that tougher counterterrorism laws were unnecessary because “there are already ‘sufficient levers available to impose bans and limitations’ on terrorists and their supporters.” Majority parties apparently disagreed. Later that month, Germany became the first country to fully outlaw IS, along with all expressions of support for the terrorist group, from banners and graffiti to public demonstrations and endorsements by local mosques.

Such has hardly been the case in Denmark, though, where unwillingness to “offend” or “provoke” the country’s Muslim community has translated into a program that seeks to rehabilitate returning jihadists, rather than imprison them. In the country that boasts the second-largest number (per capita) of Muslims to join jihadist groups, returnees receive generous handouts in the form of government assistance in finding homes and jobs, or tuition aid in order to continue their education. In addition, the rehab program “does not try to change the fundamentalist beliefs of the returning fighters – as long as they don’t advocate violence,” CNN reports.

Evidently pampering jihadists isn’t working very well: Danish intelligence recently warned that returnees from IS and Al Nusra camps now pose a “significant” threat to the country. One jihadist profiled by CNN said that he plans to return to Syria to rejoin the caliphate once he completes his Danish government-funded education.

Other European governments have been reluctant to prosecute those recruiting for ISIS and other terrorist groups – groups that are in effect encouraging people to commit murder. In December, Dutch courts declared a 20-year-old woman “not guilty” of recruiting women to join the jihad in Syria on the grounds that women in IS are not permitted to fight – and hence cannot be considered terrorists. In another case, 23-year-old “Imad al-O” was found guilty of helping a 16-year-old girl travel to Syria via Egypt. His sentence? Three months prison time and 240 hours of community service.

Through it all, “lone wolf” radicals continue their attacks in European cities, such as the Dec. 21 attack in Dijon by a man who drove a car into a crowd of pedestrians, claiming he was “acting for the children of Palestine.”

The attack “for the children of Palestine” occurred just as French officials determined to join Sweden in recognizing a Palestinian state – a kind of international version, you might say, of England’s decision to stop trying to keep Muslim youth from radicalizing and becoming warriors for Islam. Unlike Kickstarter potato salads, it’s a trend we can well leave behind as we move into the new year.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.