How Modernity ‘Radicalizes’ Western Muslims

sharia-450x277By Raymond Ibrahim:

A new Danish statistical study finds that “Muslims [are] 218 percent more criminal in second generation than first.”  While some of these crimes are clearly related to Islam—such as attacks on Muslim apostates to Christianity—others, such as rampant theft of non-Muslims, would appear banal, until one realizes that even robbery and plunder isjustified by Islamic doctrine—as one UK Muslim cleric once clearly said.

The interesting question here is why are second generation Muslims, who are presumably more Westernized than their Muslim parents, also more “radical”?  Lest one dismiss this phenomenon as a product of economics or some other “grievance” against European host nations, the fact is, even in America, where Muslims are much better assimilated than in Europe, they too are turning to “radicalism.”

For example, some time back, Attorney General Eric Holder said that “the threat [of terrorism] has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens—raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.”

Around the same time, Sue Myrick, then a member of Congress, wrote a particularly candid letter on “radicalization” to President Obama:

For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalization was not happening inside the United Sates. We believed American Muslims were immune to radicalization because, unlike the European counterparts, they are socially and economically well-integrated into society. There had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we paid them no mind. Today there is no doubt that radicalization is taking place inside America. The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident.

Myrick named several American Muslims as examples of those who, while “embodying the American dream, at least socio-economically,” were still “radicalized,” astutely adding, “The truth is that if grievances were the sole cause of terrorism, we would see daily acts by Americans who have lost their jobs and homes in this economic downturn.”

Quite so. Yet, though Myrick’s observations were limited to the domestic scene, they beg the following, more cosmic, question: If American Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits—including democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression—are still being radicalized, why then do we insist that the importation of these same Western benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more indigenous or authentic form of “radicalization”?

After all, the mainstream position evoked by most politicians maintains that all U.S. sacrifices in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) will pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and happily slough off their “Islamist” veneer, which, as the theory goes, is a product of—you guessed it—a lack of democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression.

Yet here are American and European Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West, and still do they turn to violent jihad. Why think their counterparts, who are born and raised in the Muslim world, where Islam permeates every aspect of life, will respond differently?

In fact, far from eliminating “radicalization,” Western values can actually exacerbate Islamic tendencies—hence why second generation, “Westernized” Muslims are also becoming more “radicalized” than their parents.

Some already known that Western concessions to Islam—in the guise of multiculturalism, “cultural sensitivity,” political correctness, and self-censorship—only bring out the worst of Islam’s “schoolyard bully.” Yet even some of the most prized aspects of Western civilization—personal freedom, rule of law, human dignity—when articulated through an Islamic framework, have the capacity to “radicalize” Muslims.

Read more at Front Page

UK: Child Sex Slavery, Multiculturalism and Islam

by Soeren Kern:

“[T]he agencies responsible for child-protection have almost entirely failed in their job to protect vulnerable children. From a fear of being called ‘racist,’ police forces across the country have buried the evidence…. Political correctness would be used to make sure that people did not speak about this phenomenon.” — from Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

“[A] 2010 document by the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board stated that, ‘great care will be taken in drafting…this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity. It is imperative that discussions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.’” — from Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

British authorities enforcing political correctness have allowed Muslim paedophile gangs to sexually abuse children with impunity for more than two decades, according to a comprehensive new study that examines the harrowing epidemic of child grooming in towns and cities across Britain.

The meticulously documented report, entitled, “Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery,” shows how officials in England and Wales were aware of rampant child grooming—the process by which sexual predators befriend and build trust with children in order to prepare them for abuse—by Muslim gangs since at least 1988.

Rather than taking steps to protect British children, however, police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media deliberately downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated by the grooming gangs in order to avoid being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism.

The conspiracy of silence was not broken until November 2010, when it was leaked that police in Derbyshire had carried out an undercover investigation—dubbed Operation Retriever—and arrested 13 members of a Muslim gang for grooming up to 100 underage girls for sex.

 

Seven members of a child sex grooming gang in Oxford who were found guilty in 2013 (clockwise from top left): Kamar Jamil, Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar, and Zeeshan Ahmed.
They were sentenced to a combined 95 years in prison for raping, torturing and trafficking British girls as young as 11.

Shortly thereafter, the Times of London published the results of a groundbreaking investigation into the sexual exploitation and internal trafficking of girls in the Midlands and the north of England. In January 2011, the newspaper reported that in 17 court cases since 1997 in which groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls, 53 of the 56 men found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, and just three were white.

In September 2012, the Times published another exposé that revealed the hidden truth about the sale and extensive use of British children for sex. The article showed that organized groups of Muslim men were able to groom, pimp and traffic girls across the country with virtual impunity. Although offenders were identified to police, they were not prosecuted. A child welfare expert interviewed by the newspaper said the government’s reluctance to tackle such street grooming networks represented “the biggest child protection scandal of our time.”

********

But this is “just the tip of the iceberg,” according to a document published by the House of Commons, which estimates that at least 20,000 British children are at risk of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs.

Meanwhile, prosecutions are few and far between. The report calculates that for every man convicted of such crimes, there are between two to ten other men who were directly implicated, but for whom there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. “If this is true,” the authors write, “it means that with this crime there are very many perpetrators getting away with it.”

Finally, the authors of the report examine the links between Islamic culture and doctrine and the crime of child grooming. They note:

“There is not one case where it was non-Muslim men grooming Muslim girls, and that despite the fact that 95% of the men in Britain are not Muslims…There is no evidence at all that non-Muslim men are grooming Muslim children, but ample evidence that Muslim men are directing their grooming at non-Muslim schoolgirls.”

At the same time, “the notion that Islam could be the basis for this criminality is always ruled out of the question, with no investigation of Islamic theology, the history of Islam, or the rulings of Sharia law.”

The authors then provide a thorough examination of Islamic sacred texts (pp. 222-268) and conclude, among other observations:

1) “The laws in various Islamic states show that they think that Aisha [who was married to Mohammad at the age of six] was under 10 when Mohammed had sex with her. And to Muslims, Mohammed is regarded as the perfect man; it is part of their religion that they should emulate his behavior.”

2) “Muslim men are taught in mosques that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority.”

3) “The Koran makes a distinction between legal wives and slaves, and instructs Muslim men that they can have sex with either their wives or their slaves.”

4) “Not only are Muslim men permitted legally and morally to rape their slaves, but they are also forgiven if they turn a slave girl into a prostitute.”

5) “There are also features of Islam which are supremacist and which look with contempt at non-Muslims.”

6) “The Hadiths also permit Muslims to rape women who are captured after a battle (whereupon they become the property of Muslims, that is, they become slaves).”

At the same time, British judges are increasingly using Islamic Sharia law to justify light sentences for Muslims who rape underage girls:

“As late as May 2013, the media were reporting that a Muslim man in Nottingham who had ‘raped’ an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law; besides, his education had taught him to believe that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground.’”

The report is emphatic in blaming the doctrine of multiculturalism for Britain’s lack of resolve in confronting the grooming gangs:

“Multiculturalism is a fundamentally incoherent doctrine, invented to conceal the serious conflicts which have arisen when peoples from vastly different cultures, with different values, are forced to live together.”

“Political correctness and the doctrine of multiculturalism meant that the professionals whose job it was to help the vulnerable were consciously commanding that these diverse cultural values could not be discussed.”

“Multiculturalism came about in order to deny that there is any significance to cultures having different values and to conceal that there will be conflict when these incompatible values come together. Political correctness is the means by which such denial is enforced.”

“Those who propound and defend multiculturalism say that people from different cultural backgrounds have different values, and that we must all accept these values as being of equal validity. But when it comes to examining what those different values are, multiculturalists suddenly lose interest in the details of these differences and lose interest in the consequences that follow from these different values. Yet we have seen, that even those Muslims who are classified as liberal or moderate have views which would be considered extreme if those views were espoused by a non-Muslim in Britain. Are we really surprised that conflicts and problems arise when communities with different values are living side-by-side? These conflicts are just concealed by the advocates of multiculturalism. Proponents of multiculturalism dare not examine the views of Islamic fundamentalists, that (significant) minority of Muslims in Britain who want Sharia law.”

“Multiculturalists think that Muslims will embrace multiculturalism; yet Islam was established 1,300 years ago to destroy multiculturalism.”

“Islamic society is a totalitarian society, all other values are to be subordinated to Islamic values. But if anyone in Britain dares to criticize Islam, they will be denounced and told they live in a multicultural society, and must accept these totalitarian values.”

The report concludes: “Every decade, the Muslim population of Britain almost doubles in size, so there is every reason to believe that without some massive changes in our society, the activities of these gangs will grow and grow.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

 

Obama’s America: Safe Haven for Terrorists

Obamas-Friends2By Rachel Molschky:

Certain countries harbor criminals and are known to provide safety to those the rest of us consider less savory. Argentina became a safe haven to Nazis, and many countries in the Middle East harbor terrorists, which is no surprise being that some of these governments themselves are terrorist organizations. Now Obama has turned American into a safe haven for Muslim terrorists.

So intent on increasing Muslim immigration, the Obama Administration has eased restrictions on asylum seekers with terrorist ties. Apparently, if their terrorism is “minimal” it’s ok, and they will still be welcome in America.

“The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided ‘limited material support’ to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.”

In the same old, same old victimizing political correctness, those endorsing the change call the previous security measures unfair to deserving people seeking asylum. But if they aided and abetted terrorists, how can they be deserving?

Compare the situation to a regular murder case. In most states, there is a felony murder rule, which allows the police to arrest on murder charges all those involved in a premeditated commission of a felony which resulted in murder. For example, if five people came up with a plan to rob someone, but one of them kills the robbery victim, even if the other four protested this murder, all five can be arrested  on murder charges. This includes everyone involved, even people who played minor roles in the robbery. By law, they are all murderers. And rightly so. Laws like this act as deterrents. Maybe you’ll think twice before partaking in felony crimes if the consequences could ruin the rest of your life.

Take away the punishment and take away the deterrent. The Obama Administration is basically saying, “if you’re kind of a terrorist, no problem.” A “little bit of terror” is not enough to turn you away. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was disappointed with the changes. “We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further,” he said.

This loosening of restrictions means that discretion will be used for each case, but can we trust someone’s opinion? Whether or not the applicant is a threat will be debatable, and while it is better to err on the side of caution, this change will allow for mistakes to be made and is leaving the United States vulnerable.

In the past, as the US government welcomed more and more Muslim refugees, the FBI would be forced to worked doubly hard in order to keep track of those who posed a threat. But our national security is changing in this regard as well. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his quest to make everything equal and eliminate discrimination, has deemed such activity wrongful. The Justice Department is broadening its definition of racial profiling “to prohibit federal agents from considering religion, national origin, gender and sexual orientation in their investigations,”according to a New York Times article.

Civil rights groups say that Muslims are being unfairly targeted. While details of this change are still lacking, it is unclear whether or not this will affect cases of national security. However, it may be open to interpretation, and we may see a future case taken to court based on “discrimination,” because after all, “discriminating” against a terrorist because he is Muslim is more important than protecting our nation and innocent lives which could be lost.

Political correctness. Again. Without question, unjust discrimination is wrong, but when the world is under the constant threat of Islamic terrorism which is based on religion, whether Eric Holder likes it or not, religion is a factor.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

The Development of Home-Grown Jihadist Radicalisation in Italy

Barcelona muslimsBY LORENZO VIDINO, PH.D.

Theme:

The Muslim communities and jihadist networks in Italy and Spain present similar characteristics and it is therefore interesting to look at the recent development of home-grown jihadist radicalisation in Italy.[1]

Summary:

Over the last three years the demographic and operational features of jihadism in Italy have shown significant shifts. The first generation of foreign-born militants with ties to various jihadist groups outside Europe is still active, although less intensely than in the past. The Italian authorities, however, have increasingly noted forms of home-grown radicalisation similar to those recorded in other West European countries over the past 10 years.

The lag has been caused by a simple demographic factor. As in Spain, large-scale Muslim immigration to Italy began only in the late 1980s and early 1990s, some 20 (in some cases 30 or 40) years later than in economically more developed European countries like France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. The first, relatively large, second generation of Italian-born Muslims is therefore coming of age only now, as the sons of the first immigrants are becoming adults in their adoptive country. Of these hundreds of thousands of young men and women, a statistically insignificant yet security-relevant number is embracing radical ideas.

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

The characteristics of Italian home-grown jihadism

The current panorama of jihadism in Italy is extremely fragmented and diverse, marked by the presence of various actors with very different features. ‘Traditional’ networks, although weakened by the waves of arrests and expulsions carried out by the authorities over the past 15 years, are still active.[20] But cases like those of Jarmoune, El Abboubi and Delnevo indicate that a home-grown jihadism with characteristics similar to the phenomenon seen over the past few years throughout central and northern Europe has reached Italy. Three cases do not make a trend, but there are indications that these cases are not isolated incidents but, rather, the most visible manifestations of a bigger phenomenon. A 2012 intelligence report for the Italian Parliament, in fact, alerted to the presence of several individuals ‘belonging to the second generation of immigrants and Italian converts who are characterized by an uncompromising interpretation of Islam and attitudes of intolerance towards Western customs’.[21]

Home-grown jihadism in Italy is, so far, a substantially smaller phenomenon than in most central and northern European countries. Providing exact numbers is an impossible task, but, according to research conducted by the author and conversations with several senior Italian counterterrorism officials, it can be argued that the individuals actively involved in this new home-grown jihadist scene number around 40 to 50. Similarly, it can be argued that the number of those in various ways and in varying degrees sympathising with jihadism is somewhere in the lower hundreds. It is, in substance, a small milieu of individuals with varying sociological characteristics (age, sex, ethnic origin, education and social condition) who share a commitment to jihadist ideology. Most of them are scattered throughout northern Italy, from big cities like Milan and Bologna to tiny villages. A few are located in the centre or the south of the country.

It should be clarified that most of these individuals have not been involved in any violent activity. Most of them limit their commitment to jihadist ideology to an often frantic online activity aimed at publishing and disseminating material that ranges from the purely theological to the operational. While this activity at times represents a violation of the Italian penal code, most prospective home-grown Italian jihadists are just that –hopefuls– and do not resort to violence. Yet, as the cases of Jarmoune, El Abboubi and Delnevo show, some members of this country-wide informal scene occasionally make –or attempt to make– the leap from the keyboard to the real world. Why, when and how that leap from virtual to actual militancy happens is the subject of much debate and concern among counterterrorism officials and experts.

It is possible to identify some characteristics that are common to this new scenario. The first is their detachment from Italian mosques. In some cases home-grown militants do not frequent them of their own volition, either because they consider them not to be in tune with their interpretation of Islam or because they fear surveillance by the authorities. But, in most cases, it is mosque officials who make it clear to the militants that certain views and activities are not tolerated on their premises. Most Italian mosques have, in the words of Claudio Galzerano –one of the experts in Italian counterterrorism–, the ‘right antibodies’ and avoid ‘bad apples’.

The new scenario also seems to be unconnected with the ‘traditional’ jihadists and their mosques. There are various factors that might explain this. One appears to be the linguistic barrier between the two groups. While militants of the first generation are largely North Africans whose native language is Arabic and whose fluency in Italian is often limited, the home-grown activists have the opposite characteristics, often hampering communication between the two.

But arguably more important in explaining the disconnection between the two groups is the diffidence with which traditional structures view the new home-grown generation. The secretive and risk-averse traditional structures, in fact, appear unreceptive to the newcomers. It is likely that they might suspect some of the home-grown activists, particularly Italian converts, to be spies seeking to infiltrate them. Even if the veracity of the home-grown activists’ commitment is proved, in many cases their behaviour is deemed to be risky. Many of them, in fact, dress (long white robes, military fatigues, long beard…) or act in extremely conspicuous ways. They often openly express their radical views online or in various public venues. This sort of conduct, which inevitably attracts the attention of the authorities, makes the new home-grown activists extremely unattractive to the eyes of traditionalists.

Completely at odds with mainstream mosques and Islamic organisations, shunned by established jihadist networks and operating as individuals or small clusters throughout the national territory, Italian home-grown activists have created their own scene, which is mostly Internet-based. It is, in fact, on various blogs, Facebook and other online social media that this tiny community comes together.

A handful of individuals are the key connectors in this scene, being extremely active online (and, in some cases, also in the real world) and in constant communication with many other online users. Unlike most of the militants of the first generation, who were only passive consumers of online propaganda, this new generation of home-grown activists are also often active producers of their own jihadist material. Jarmoune, El Abboubi, Delnevo and many others, in fact, translated and posted various texts and produced their own videos –in some cases of a remarkable quality–.

A problem of integration?

Understanding the factors that make an individual become radicalised has been one of the most controversial subjects of the terrorism-related academic and policymaking debate of the past 15 years.[22] Theories explaining the phenomenon abound but most experts agree that every case is different and that in most cases it is a combination of factors, rather than just one, that radicalise an individual. One of the factors often mentioned in the debate on radicalisation among European Muslims is lack of integration. Particularly in the first part of the 2000s many argued that the root of the problem was the marginalisation, disenfranchisement and discrimination felt by many European Muslims. Unwilling to tolerate these miserable conditions, the theory argued that some of them chose jihadism as a way of challenging the system and taking their revenge.

Over the past few years this theory has been criticised by many experts who believe it has no empirical basis. First, an analysis of the cases of home-grown jihadists in both Europe and North America has shown that many, if not most, have not been subject to socio-economic disenfranchisement. Many are indeed drifters, individuals who have suffered problems ranging from substance abuse to chronic unemployment. But many are university students or relatively successful professionals, often faring much better than most of their peers. Moreover, the theory linking radicalisation to the lack of socio-economic integration is flawed because it does not explain why only a statistically insignificant minority of the many European Muslims that unquestionably live in condition of disenfranchisement become radicalised. It is obvious that other factors must determine the phenomenon.

While it is impossible to provide answers that are applicable to all cases, it can be argued that socio-economic disenfranchisement, while playing a role, is not a determining factor in the radicalisation of the vast majority of European Muslims. Perhaps the answers lies in another kind of integration, more difficult to assess but arguably more important. Integration in the sense of a sense of belonging to a certain society, irrespective of one’s socio-economic conditions, appears to be a more important factor. Many European Muslims who radicalise are individuals confused about their identity and that find a sense of belonging in a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam rather than in a European identity.

Moreover, traditionally, many young men of all socio-economic conditions have been attracted by radical ideas. Limiting the analysis just to Italy, many of the individuals that joined both left- and right-wing militant groups that bloodied the country’s streets in the 1970s and early 1980s were university students and scions of middle (and, in some cases, upper) class families. The personal desire for rebellion, meaning, camaraderie and adventure are factors that are not secondary when analysing radicalisation patterns.

The argument that the roots of radicalisation should be sought in an individual’s psychological profile and his search for a personal identity is supported by the analysis of the few cases seen so far of Italian home-grown jihadists. Neither Jarmoune nor El Abboubi can be considered to be poorly integrated from a socio-economic perspective. Both lived with their families in more than decent dwellings in small towns in the province of Brescia. Jarmoune worked for a company that installed electrical systems and had a permanent contract, a luxury lacked by many of his Italian peers.[23] El Abboubi studied at a local school. The families of both individuals are described by most as well integrated.[24]

This argument can be applied to Delnevo’s case with an even greater significance. Born in a middle-class Italian Catholic family, Delnevo had none of the integration problems attributed by some to European Muslims who become radicalised. It is obvious that in the Delnevo’s case –but no differently from Jarmoune and El Abboubi– the roots of his radicalisation are in his personal traits and his unwillingness, rather than his inability, to fit into Italian society. All three young men struggled to find an identity and flirted with various alternative ideologies (it is in this regard interesting that Delnevo had a fascination with fascism and El Abboubi with hip hop) before embracing jihadism. But this trajectory seems to be clearly dictated by an intellectual development determined by personal choices and not by any kind of socio-economic disenfranchisement.

Read more at Clarion Project

Lorenzo Vidino is a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies (CSS) and a lecturer at the University of Zurich. A native of Milan, Italy, he holds a law degree from the University of Milan Law School and a Doctorate in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Boston. This article originally appeared  in Real Instituto Elcano on February 14th 2014.

Switzerland Draws a Line on Immigration

-by :

Switzerland is a small, prosperous country which during World War II managed not to become part of the Nazi empire and during the postwar era has succeeded in staying out of the EU. Nonetheless, like other European countries whose citizens have voted to stay out of the EU, Switzerland – in exchange for participation in free trade with EU members – has signed treaties that subject its citizens to EU regulations. Among those treaties is a seven-year-old agreement that grants most EU citizens the right to live and work in Switzerland.

In a referendum on February 14, however, the Swiss electorate voted by a slim majority for a proposal by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) that will invalidate that treaty. The Washington Post‘s Anthony Faiola, in his report on the vote, provided a fine example of the way in which the left-wing media routinely reduce real-life concerns to obnoxious caricatures, all the while acting as if the people they’re condescendingly mocking are the ones purveying the caricatures: the Swiss vote, he wrote, was the result of the mischievous efforts of “right-wing populists” who worry that their “idyllic Swiss lifestyle” is “being trampled by hordes of foreign newcomers.” Faiola went on to compare Swiss voters to “the paramilitaries of the Golden Dawn” in Greece and the “anti-immigrant, anti-Roma and anti-Semitic” members of the radical-right Jobbik Party in Hungary. The New York Times took a similar approach: “Far-right parties with anti-immigrant platforms in France, the Netherlands and Norway have gained strength in recent years,” wrote Melissa Eddy and Stephen Castle (the Norway reference obviously being to the center-right Progress Party, which is closer to the American political center than any other party in Norway).

Never mind the reality: Switzerland – where about a quarter of the legal residents were born abroad and 37 percent of residents are foreign-born or have two foreign-born parents – is one of the two countries in the world with the highest percentage of immigrants. (The other is Austria.) The SVP – the same party that sponsored the 2009 law banning minarets – said during the run-up to the plebiscite that the 80,000 EU citizens who are now moving to Switzerland every year (a number equal to 1% of the country’s population) amounts to approximately “ten times the initial predictions back in 2007,”reported the Telegraph.

It doesn’t take much imagination to recognize what a massive burden this flood of immigrants represents – and what a social and culural transformation it entails. As the Telegraph itself seems to acknowledge, the schools, hospitals, public-transport system, and housing market in Switzerland have been “struggling to cope” with the influx. This sort of rapid, dramatic metamorphosis is enough to pose a risk to any country’s social, cultural, and economic stability. Add to this the fact that citizens of Romania and Bulgaria (including innumerable gypsies who, frankly, aren’t looking for honest work but for pockets to pick, houses to plunder, and public property to trash) are now free to settle anywhere they want in the EU – or in countries, like Switzerland and Norway, which have open-border arrangements with the EU. Under such circumstances, the action by Swiss voters isn’t just eminently understandable; it is, quite simply, the responsible thing to do.

Read more at Front Page

Jihad Migrating to Red States — With Obama’s Blessing

JIHAD1-381x350 (1)

To the savvy analyst of Muslim culture, Obama’s immigration policy is clearly supporting the Islamic jihad agenda and helping to transplant jihadists’ activities in a new unsuspecting land.

By Nonie Darwish:

President Obama has unilaterally changed the immigration law to allow asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists, to immigrate to the US. This is happening at a time when force is being used in Egypt — and elsewhere in the Middle East — against the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, terrorists and their sympathizers. This is a time when Islamists have few places to go to in the wide-open desert atmosphere of the Middle East, except perhaps to join the mess in Syria and Iraq, or otherwise reform and become ordinary citizens.

Obama could not have picked a worse time to ease immigration requirements for those linked to terror, and who have nowhere else to go and have suddenly found themselves, after the counter-revolution in Egypt, as targets for imprisonment, contempt, or even shooting.

Islamists are now undoubtedly celebrating Obama’s decision to ease the pressure on immigration of terror-linked individuals. Indeed, where else can they go to practice their fanaticism and find newly found respectability and hospitality? To America.

By weakening immigration laws that protect Americans from Islamic terror, Obama is now sending the wrong message both to his own citizens and to the Muslim world. He is basically saying that he does not mind taking in fleeing terrorists and their sympathizers. And he does not seem to care at all about appearances or if he this casts more suspicion on his reputation, despite the constant rumors we all know about, that he is a secret Muslim and that his brother Malik has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is also strange is the US State Department is not welcoming fleeing Christians in the Middle East as they should. Most of the visa applications submitted by the desperate and oppressed Egyptian Christians are denied. It was reported that only about 800 to 900 applications were approved by the US for Christian Egyptian immigrants out of 20,000 applications.

This also comes amidst accusations and rumors in Egypt that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are aiding terrorists and conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood. One would think that the US would be happy that the Egyptian government and others are clamping down on radical Muslim groups who are ruining the lives of the ordinary citizens in the Middle East. But instead, the Obama administration  changes immigration laws for their “eyes only” to welcome escaping Muslim troublemakers whose activities are now unwelcome in Egypt.

Obama is doing this not only amidst claims that he is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, but he also appears to the Muslim world as responding positively to the radical Sunni Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who recently called on the US government to wage jihad for Allah, to help support the “freedom fighters,” meaning terrorists, in Syria, and adding that “Allah willing, your [US] aid will increase.” This is the first time in history that a radical Muslim leader publicly asks America to join in the jihad for the sake of Allah.

Read more at Front Page

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

CJR: 

This is just another step in the ongoing efforts to legitimize what US policy has traditionally defined as terrorism. Remember the FBI Touchstone Document on Guiding principles for counter terrorism training?

mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s)

As Diana West and Clare Lopez have said, Uncle Sam has joined the jihad!

They are going after our most effective tools for fighting terrorism by changing the defintitions of terrorism and material support for terrorism. We’ve all seen Obama “defining down” al Qaeda and declaring the war on terror to be over. There are ongoing efforts to delegitimize the findings of the Holy Land Foundation trial and don’t be surprised when you see them take Hamas and Hezbollah off the designated terror list.

Please read Clare Lopez’ article from last June to understand the peril we are in:

Listen to Stephen Coughlin discuss this with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:

Aiding Terrorists May Not Disqualify Future Immigration Candidates

Muslim ‘Enrichment’ in Britain: One Week Snapshot

By Paul Wilkinson:

The celebrants of multiculturalism constantly remind us of never-ending invigorating cultural enrichment, so just for fun, I thought I would make a note of some stories involving Islam or Muslims in Britain over a one week period.

The week I happened to choose was between Thursday 23rd January and Wednesday 29th January 2014. There was nothing significant about those dates, and it was selected entirely at random.

To set the scene, just before the week in question commenced, the Home Office announced that high-risk terrorists will be released from prison and will not be monitored properly, to protect their human rights; a Muslima redefined British legal history as she stood trial in a full face veil; there were reports of a serial flasher (urinating) in the Blackburn/Accrington area; an Islamic teacher guilty of groping pupils; and reports of murders and rapes going unreported in no-go zones for police as minority communities (AKA ‘Muslim’) launch their own justice systems.

So what could happen in the week I chose? Having followed the exhilarating enrichment that Muslims bring to the rich tapestry of modern Britain for a few years now, I was certainly not counting anything either in or out, so here goes! It really was like having a blank canvas!

Thursday 23rd January

Friday 24th January

  • DittaSentencing of Lee Rigby’s killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, was expected today but was delayed due to an appeal over whether whole life sentences can be given.
  • Blackburn: ‘You’ve messed with the wrong Muslims!’ CCTV images show three women trying to kidnap and rob their sister’s lesbian lover during a row over arranged marriage. Seamless integration is awarded with a combined 30 years in prison for the six siblings (Pictured here).

Saturday 25th January

  • (Video) London: Islamists demonstrate in support of Al-Qaeda in Syria, against FSA. No sign of ‘anti-fascist’ protestors either. Of course that would be ‘Islamophobic’ of them!
  • ‘Brits’ returning to the UK from Syria will be ‘stopped at the border and face arrest’, with 16 arrests made so far this month.

Sunday 26th January

  • Mo_bday_parade-300x200Sunday is no longer a day of rest in today’s vibrant Britain as residents of Nelson discovered when an intimidating group of 5,000 Muslims stormed through the town to celebrate Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Pictured here is another show of force in Blackburn. I cannot see any females in the photo. Who knows, maybe the women are at the back?

Monday 27th January

  • Rochdale Councillor and Council Finance Chief, Farooq Ahmed, quizzed by police over ‘homophobic’ insult made at a fellow councillor in public.
  • News of child exploitation/grooming gang in Newcastle-upon-Tyne emerges today and by Wednesday a total of 25 arrests had been made. No news on the identity of the perpetrators at the time of writing, but this type of crime is dominated by Muslim men, and the focus of the investigation is in the west end of Newcastle, which is home to a large Muslim population.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Islam and David Cameron

cameronBy Paul Austin Murphy:

In a sense, David Cameron’s position on Islam is to be expected. As British Prime Minister, he is of course too busy to study Islam in detail. And even before becoming PM (in 2010), my guess is that he would have spent almost zero time studying Islam. Sure, he would have read about Islam, Islamic terrorism, and Islamism in the news. Nonetheless, I doubt that he gave such things much thought when out of power. He would have been far too busy planning his rise to power and, in a auxiliary manner, thinking about tax issues, the NHS, the structure of the Tory Party, competing with the Labour Party and whatnot.

It is of course true that Cameron should have studied Islam independently from the Conservative Muslim Forum, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi (the unelected Minister for Faith and Communities) and his advisers (i.e., the higher civil servants). After all, he was 35 years old when 9/11 occurred and 39 when 7/7 occurred in the city of London. He will now also know about the massive Muslim grooming of young non-Muslim girls in the UK. He knows about the 85 or more sharia courts in his country, the weekly political activism of Islamists on the streets of the UK, the 15 foiled Islamic terrorist attacks between only 2005 and 2008, etc. He also knows about the the Taliban, the Islamic civil wars in Iraq and Syria. He may even know about the Islamist slaughter of over one and a half million Sudanese Christians and black animists in the 1990s and 2000s.

In fact David Cameron is even on record as having criticized what he then called “Islamists”. That was in 2005. The “neoconservative” writer, Douglas Murray, at around about the same time, also suggested that things should be done to slow down the Islamization of Europe. What happened to him? The Conservative Party ostracized him. In addition, a Conservative Party MP by the name of Michael Gove wrote a book, in 2006, called Celsius 7/7. This book is about Islamism and the threat of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Michael Gove has been almost silent on these issues ever since. You may have heard of him: he’s now the Sectary of State for Education; working under David Cameron.

More relevantly, Cameron might have even read the Koran. However, what’s likely to have happened is that he has been fed various nice and innocuous extracts from that book by advisers and Tory Muslims (as well as by non-Tory Muslim individuals and Islamic groups). However, I doubt that he voluntarily picked it and read it before 2010. In mention this because Tony Blair, infamously, once claimed that he reads the Koran every night.

Since David Cameron became Prime Minister, he might have spent a few hours maximum independently studying Islam. But he most certainly won’t have chosen his own works to study. What will have happened, again, is that his civil servants, or perhaps certain Muslims within the party, will have supplied him with some Islam-friendly literature. He would have read all that and taken most of it at face value quite simply because he literally hasn’t got the time to study Islam in detail — let alone be critical. Besides which, Cameron will acquire the information he needs in order to be a successful politician. And being a critic of Islam, he may well think, will never pay him political dividends.

If the “Islam issue” were as pressing for him as debates about tax, the NHS, competition with the Labour Party, sustaining his own rule within the Tory Party, etc.; then he would indeed have studied it in detail. However, although the Islam issue is pressing for the UK and indeed for the world as a whole, it’s not pressing issue for David Cameron himself. Not in the least. In fact, from what he’s said recently, and indeed from what he’s recently done (e.g., making London the “Islamic finance capital of the world”), I would say that ingratiating himself with Islam and the Muslim community-of-votes (large parts of which tend to vote in blocks) has been (fairly) pressing for him.

Also see:

Are Muslim Immigrants Good for Your Country?

German_MuslimsBy Y.K. Cherson:

Some people have a deep animosity toward immigrants, but I am not one of them. I do not like nor dislike immigrants; for me they are just strangers who live in my country. And my attitude toward them is conditioned by just one simple criteria: if they make my life and my country better- or worse. On the other hand, immigrants who come to my country do not come out of some deep love for the nation or culture. They come for money and for a better life for themselves and their families. So we are even, and nobody owes anything to anyone else- which is, in most cases, the best pattern of any relationship.

Money and a better life are quite an incentive. Those who think immigrants, especially immigrants from Muslim countries, come because they admire Western democracy should take a look at the situation in Germany.

Data taken from: Citizen Times: “Turks in Germany 2012″:

According to the study of the Interior Ministry, in 2009, Germany was home to around 4.3 million Muslims, which equates to a population share of 5.2%. Of them, the largest group consists of just under 2.7 million people of Turkish descent. A recent poll by Information GmbH has investigated what these Turkish immigrants think about Germany and Germans.

Attitudes Toward Germany

Regarding the respondents’ attitudes toward Germany and Germans, at least in terms of the stated desire for integration, 95% of the Turks in Germany find it important to preserve their Turkish culture in Germany, and 87% (2010: 83%) think that Germans ought to be more considerate of the particular circumstances of the Turks. For crying out loud, why in the world should 80 million Germans who created Germany be “more considerate of the particular circumstances” of some 2.7 million Turks?

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Islam, Sport & Terrorism

2013-Olympic-Rings-Sochi-300x186By Paul Wilkinson:

The 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, will commence in early February. Instead of the usual pleasurable anticipation, the Russian authorities are rightly concerned as to what plans Islamic terrorists have in store. Terrorists from Dagestan in the Caucasus, where Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev intended to join the insurgency, are within striking distance of Sochi to launch an attack, as Rachel Molschky writes here.

Islamists see sport as ‘un-Islamic’ and therefore fair game to push their religious and political agenda by attacking spectators and participants alike. The brutal double Volgograd suicide bombings on consecutive days in late December by Muslims, and then the recent discovery of six men who had been fatally shot and left in cars booby-trapped with bombs in southern Russia, have sent a chilling reminder of the threat that Caucasus Emirate leader, Doku Umarov, made to Moscow last summer concerning the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics: “Call off the Games or hundreds of people die.”

There is a ready supply of female suicide bombers, and (as of August 2013), “in the last 12 years, 46 women have turned themselves into suicide bombs in Russia, committing 26 terrorist attacks (some attacks involved multiple women). Most of the bombers were from Chechnya and Dagestan.Anna Nemtsova explains further that these women, known as ‘Black Widows’, typically have life trauma that pushes them into a radical mindset. Some will marry an Islamist who gets killed and becomes a martyr for the cause, but the widows left behind become marginalised by society and their peer group, so begin their own journey to martyrdom.

Sport is seen as a way of bringing different countries, religions and cultures together, and gives pleasure to billions of people. Indeed many Muslims enjoy sport, especially cricket and football, but unsurprisingly, the fundamentalists find conflict because only sports mentioned during Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime by Hadith, (for example, archery, swimming, polo, etc.) are ‘permissible’. Only where Islam exists can such a potent mix occur and then pose a danger to sport.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

From US Helpers in Iraq to Sex Criminals in Colorado

iraqi rapistby DIANA WEST:

Two Iraqi men in their 20s have been convicted of a bloody sex crime in Colorado that left the victim, a woman in her 50s, in need of immediate surgery and a colostomy bag. Three other Iraqi men, also in their 20s,were convicted on lesser charges as accessories.

Four points set this case apart. First, there is its brutality: Law enforcement officers describe the July 2012 assault as “rare” and “horrific” and “one of the worst in Colorado history.” Second, all of these men once assisted U.S. military forces in Iraq as informants and interpreters. Third, every one of them received permanent residency status in the U.S., due in part to efforts made by U.S. military members on their behalf. Fourth, this extraordinary case and the ties that bind it to the U.S. military and the war in Iraq have received little coverage.

Most of what the public knows comes from The Colorado Springs Gazette. The Gazette has reported that one of Iraqi men used to live with a sergeant and his family on a North Dakota farm. Another received help with his visa from a U.S. colonel. Then there is the final defendant, whose case came to trial this month. His name is Jasim Ramadon, and he is the central character, known as “Steve-O,” in a war memoir published in 2009 by 1st Sgt. Daniel Hendrex. The book’s title is “A Soldier’s Promise: The Heroic True Story of an American Soldier and an Iraqi Boy.” Ramadon is that “Iraqi boy.” Forever young and smiling on the book’s cover and once a guest on “Oprah,” Ramadon, the Gazette reported, racked up a record of violent behavior in the U.S. He was convicted this week of multiple counts of sexual assault, and faces up to life in prison.

We don’t know what Hendrex, or that other sergeant, or that colonel, or the other unspecified military members who helped bring the Iraqis here now think of their proteges, but I wonder. I also wonder whether there are other veterans of Iraq (and Afghanistan) who are concerned about their own sponsorees.

Hendrex writes in his book that after Ramadon came to the U.S. in 2004, the teenager lived with Hendrex and his wife in Colorado Springs — a few years later the scene of this crime. But then Ramadon went on to live with another family. Had there been trouble?

In 2012, following Ramadon’s arrest, The Gazette sounded a note of disharmony: “At home, things weren’t going as well as the publicity indicated, Hendrex said in 2006, especially after he redeployed and the boy was left in his wife’s care. Because of cultural differences, Ramadon had difficulty being in a house run by a woman. A psychologist recommended that he live somewhere else, with a family without military connections, he told The Gazette. ‘You had this vision of how you want this to work out, and when I had to go back to Iraq, it really was tough to hear that things weren’t going well,’ Hendrex told The Gazette.”

It sounds as if young Ramadon had to leave the Hendrex house because he was unable to behave respectfully with the wife of his sponsor, his mentor, his lifesaver. Then again, maybe Ramadon was behaving himself — but according to Islamic teachings that relegate women to inferior status. The “difficulty” young Ramadon had in “a house run by a woman” very likely fell within the norms of Islamic-Iraqi society. Indeed, Ramadon could have adhered correctly to the dictates of sharia (Islamic law) and also appeared — to a Western man and woman, that is — to have “had difficulty” with Hendrex’s wife. It’s easy to imagine a hundred scenarios short of the crime Ramadon later committed that might have led to him and the Hendrexes parting ways. Call it “cultural differences” vs. “this vision.”

The problem, then, isn’t “cultural differences.” The problem is the “vision” that blinds a man like Hendrex to fundamental impasses between Islam and the West over the status of women, over freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Such “differences” should have scotched the de facto immigration policy Hendrex and the other unnamed military members made on the fly to launch these five Iraqis in U.S. society.

Read more at Town Hall

Also see:

 


The “Good” Muslim Immigrants

Tsarnaev_brosBy Rachel Molschky:

The cliché that there is only a “small fringe” of Islamic “extremists” is really getting old. Blame it on a supposed naiveté of the liberal media and politicians like Secretary of State John Kerry, who recently told Catholic Church officials that poverty,“in many cases is the root cause of terrorism or even the root cause of the disenfranchisement of millions of people on this planet.” Poverty, as Michelle Malkin points out in her article, “John Kerry, Jihad Coddler,” has nothing to do with terrorism. Many terrorists are at least middle class while others are affluent and highly educated. Can liberals really be so naive, or is something else going on?Why can’t anyone in the mainstream media be honest and simply explain that the Islamic doctrine itself is to blame? If the answer is political correctness, or fear, why is it that our ancestors did not have this fear and had no trouble at all telling the truth about the violent nature of Islam? (See my article “Islam Hasn’t Changed: We Have” for quotes from dignitaries from the past and present.)

We have various articles with examples of violent Quranic verses calling for the rape, subjugation and murder of non-Muslims and apostates, but to get an overview, The Religion of Peace website has many summaries like “Ten Obvious Reasons Why Islam is NOT a Religion of Peace” and categories like Women’s Rights, Human Rights, Islamic Terror, etc. for anyone in the dark about the violent teachings of a political system ironically named the “religion of peace.” Instead of condemning websites like these as “hate speech”, it would be highly beneficial for these politicians and journalists to actually read them. They might learn something.

Y.K. Cherson’s article, “The Goal of Muslim Immigration According to Muhammad’s Teachings,” is another eye-opener, as well as “Islam: Against All Mankind.” If anyone is still hanging onto the idea that Islam is just another religion, believing that everyone should have the right to freedom of religion, it would serve them well to read the truth instead of buying the politically correct sound bites brainwashing our society today.

“Oh, but it’s not right to stereotype, and there are many good people everywhere.” Well, this is true, but it brings me to something that recently happened in November 2013, when a terrible tragedy occurred in Afghanistan. Trusted Afghan policemen posed for pictures with British soldiers, who were there to help, before gunning them down in cold blood. The British soldiers were there to train them, so after getting trained, the Afghans turned the guns around on their trainers. The very same thing kept happening to American soldiers. There was a program in place to train police officers in Afghanistan, but the US was forced to temporarily shut down that program in 2012, after too many insurgent attacks left American and other soldiers dead. In fact, there were 34 insider attacks throughout that year, which killed a total of 45 international troops.

One serious problem in our society today is the unrealistic belief among many Westerners that Muslims behave one way in their own countries but are different once they come over here. That could possibly be true if only Islam were not so central to these people’s lives and if assimilation were a part of Muslim immigration. It is not. Muslim imams actually preach that they are not to assimilate and should live in their own communities, following their own laws in order to not be “corrupted” by the infidel natives who have been compared to cattle, pigs, apes, and so on. They in turn create their own little world, their own Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc., in our countries, bringing the same culture they “supposedly” wanted to escape with them. And they do not abandon their “religion” which calls for our demise.

The West has been bringing over many refugees from these war-torn nations, which are often pitting Muslim against Muslim, Sunni against Shia, or are tribal conflicts, rather than any liberal delusion that it is a fight for a Western-style democracy. Now these refugees arrive with a mentality no different than what it was back home.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Beheadings, Bombings and New York’s Little Bangladesh

article-throat-0108-427x350by :

Walk along Church Avenue and turn east onto McDonald Avenue and you will see where the old standards of working class Brooklyn, aging homes with faded American flags and loose siding, surly bars tucked into the shadows of street corners and the last video stores hanging on to a dying industry give way to mosques and grocery stores selling goat meat.

Mosques grow like mushrooms in basements, cell phone stores offer easy ways to wire money back to Bangladesh and old men glare at interlopers, especially if they are infidel women.

This is where Mohammed Siddiquee settled a dispute the old-fashioned way by beheading his landlord.

Mohammed wasn’t the first man in Brooklyn to use violence to settle a rental dispute, but beheadings are more traditional in his native Bangladesh than in Brooklyn, though over in neighboring Queens, Ashrafuzzaman Khan, Bangladesh’s most wanted war criminal, heads up the local Islamic Circle of North America, whose Islamist thugs beheaded poets and buried professors in mass graves.

Here in Kensington, where the alphabet streets that march across Brooklyn down to the ocean begin, the bars retreat along with the alphabet from those areas marked by the crescent and the angry glare. And there is another one like it at the other end of the alphabet where the Atlantic Ocean terminates the letters at Avenue Z bookending the Brooklyn alphabet with angry old men and phone cards for Bangladesh.

These spots aren’t no-go zones yet. There aren’t enough young men with too much welfare and time on their hands who have learned that the police will back off when they burn enough things and councilmen will visit to get their side of the story. That generation will grow up being neither one thing nor the other, ricocheting from American pop culture to the Koran, from parties with the infidels to mosque study sessions until they explode from the contradictions the way that the Tsarnaevs, who huffed pot and the Koran in equal proportions, did.

It isn’t the old men who plant bombs near 8-year-olds. It isn’t the young women laughing with their friends outside a pizza parlor, knowing that in a year or two they will have to go back home for an arranged marriage. It is the young men who call themselves Freddy or Mo at the local high school or community college, who drink and do drugs and who all their American friends swear aren’t serious about religion, until they suddenly become fatally serious.

For now the Bangladeshi settlements in Brooklyn are quiet places where the tenements and shops close off the streets into small private worlds with their own justice systems, feuds and secrets.

“I feel like I’m living in my own country,” the editor of one of the Bangladeshi newspapers in New York, said. “You don’t have to learn English to live here. That’s a great thing!”

Overhead may be the same sky, but Little Bangladesh has been cut off from Brooklyn and attached to a country thousands of miles away. Immigrants step off a plane from Bangladesh at JFK airport, get into a taxi driven by a Bangladeshi playing Bengali pop tapes and step out into a small slice of Bangladesh on McDonald Avenue.

And when the infidels of Brooklyn wander into their territory, they are glared at as the foreign intruders that they are.

After Mohammed beheaded his landlord Mahmud, he rushed to JFK to catch a flight. It was natural for him to think that having settled matters in the traditional fashion; he could fly away without considering what lay in the intervening spaces of the American Dar al-Harb between the Dar al-Islam of Avenue C and the Dar al-Islam of Bangladesh.

For the Mohammeds of Brooklyn, the infidels are the empty air between the rungs of a ladder that their foot passes through without noticing. They are little aware of the other Brooklyn that they are pushing aside, the great stretches of the working middle class, the little homes where police officers and firefighters once lived together with teachers and clerks, where plumbers walked to work and bus drivers got on, where the thousands of small businesses from diners to pharmacies turned the grassy stretches of land into neighborhoods.

Read more at Front Page

THE EFFECTS OF MASS MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

UK-Muslim-Prayer-ReutersBy Pamela Geller:

It was reported Monday that “almost 10 per cent of children under five years old in England and Wales come from a Muslim family, according to 2011 UK Government census information.”

The report continued, “Of the 3.5 million children aged less than five, 320,000 were listed as Muslim. By comparison, Christians make up 43 per cent of those aged under five.”

What is the problem with that? The enemedia would tell you that anyone who thinks this is something to be concerned about is a racist. But this is not really a question of race at all; it’s a question of assimilation. Hindus, Buddhists, South Asians, Africans–all kinds of people have come to the U.K. and the U.S. and had little trouble adapting to their new country. But Muslims are the first group to come as immigrants to the West determined to replace Western government and social structures with Islamic ones. Millions of Muslims come to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government (sharia) which they believe to be superior to what we have here, and they work to institute it.

What happens to a country when its imports a colonizer force or hostile invader? In Dr. Peter Hammond’s book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, he explains that as Muslim populations grow, so do demands for special accommodation to Sharia. When Muslims number less than two percent of the population, as they do in the U.S. now, they’re generally peaceful and tolerant. As the Muslim population grows, however, so do the demands (as we’re seeing now): for halal meat, Sharia courts, and more.

As the Muslim population grows, so does violent intimidation and lawlessness–an example being the Sharia-ruled areas all over Europe, where the governing authorities have essentially lost control. After Muslim populations reach 20%, we see rioting, jihad militias, church burnings, and worse–and once it reaches 40%, there are massacres and frequent jihad terror attacks, as we have seen in recent years in Bosnia, Chad, and Lebanon.

Read more at Breitbart

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of Atlas Shrugs and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

The Islamization of Germany in 2013

A screenshot from the video of "Abu Azzam the German", threatening attacks on Germany and Chancellor Merkel.

A screenshot from the video of “Abu Azzam the German”, threatening attacks on Germany and Chancellor Merkel.

by Soeren Kern:

In December, two new studies, one funded by the German government, found that the majority of Muslims believe that Islamic Sharia law should take precedence over the secular constitutions and laws of their European host countries.

“Critics of Islamic ideology and its organizations are constantly confronted with lawsuits and have to legally defend themselves against the accusations of blasphemy or incitement-to-hatred. Even if it does not come to a conviction, such processes cost a lot of time and money…Thus… we are experiencing a de facto application of Islamic law.” — Felix Strüning, Gustav Stresemann Foundation Report.

“[It] must be recognized: democracies must beware of those who believe a free society is something that needs to be vanquished.” — Die Welt.

What follows is a chronological review of some of the most important stories about the rise of Islam in Germany during 2013:

In January, the Turkish-run Kuba Camii Mosque in Eschweiler, a city situated along the German-Belgian-Dutch border and about 50 kilometers (30 miles) west of Cologne, for the first time began publicly calling Muslims to prayer.

The call to prayer was described as an “historical event” and was attended by numerous dignitaries, including the Turkish consul and the Turkish attaché.

The Turkish imam of the Kuba Camii Mosque, Bahri Ciftci, declared his hopes that “the public prayer call will be a symbol of a tolerant, intercultural and interreligious common coexistence.”

The mayor of Eschweiler, Rudi Bertram, said, “Tolerance must be practiced on a daily basis. We are all responsible for ensuring that there is a co-existence.”

The mosque is one of a growing number of Islamic institutions in Germany publicly calling the Muslim faithful to prayer—five times a day, seven days a week—with cries of Allahu Akbar! (“Allah is Greater!”).

The sonorous prayer calls (known in Arabic as adhan) can be heard from great distances when amplified through electric loudspeakers. Critics say some German towns and cities are beginning to evoke the sounds and images of the Islamic Middle East.

On January 14, the City-State of Bremen signed a so-called state treaty with city’s 40,000-strong Muslim community. The agreement guarantees the protection of Muslim community properties, the approval of the construction of mosques with minarets and domes, the allotment of land for Muslim cemeteries, the supplying of halal food at prisons and hospitals, the recognition of three Muslim holidays, Muslim representation in state institutions and several other rights and privileges.

According to Erol Pürlü, the spokesman of the Koordinationsrat der Muslime [Muslim Coordination Council], a Turkish-Muslim umbrella group, the treaty with Bremen “sends a clear signal that Islam belongs to Germany.”

Bremen is the second German state to sign a treaty with local Muslim communities. Hamburg, the second-largest city in Germany, concluded a “historic treaty” with the city’s 200,000-strong Muslim community in November 2012.

Critics say the agreements do little to encourage Muslim integration into German society and instead will boost the growing influence of Islam in the country by encouraging the perpetuation of a Muslim parallel society.

Also in January, a court in Berlin convicted two Islamists of being members of al-Qaeda and sentenced them to a combined 15 years in prison.

Yusuf Ocak, 27, from Lübeck, Germany, and Maqsood Lodin, 23, an Austrian of Afghan background, were assigned by al-Qaeda to collect money and recruit members for the terrorist group in Europe. Ocak was arrested in Vienna and Lodin in Berlin in May 2011.

At the time of their arrest, police uncovered a treasure trove of intelligence, including more than 100 al-Qaeda planning documents that described some of the terror group’s most audacious plots and a road map for future operations. Future plots include the seizing of cruise ships and carrying out other large-scale terrorist attacks in Europe.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

Excerpt of interview with German apostate on mosques in Germany:

Bonn imam tells boys to cut off heads of chicks in preparatiohn for decapitating Jews