Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul Warns The West About Islam & Western Islamization

Amel Nona

Amel Nona

By Andrew Bostom:

Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values ​​are not their values.

Amel Nona, the 47 year-old Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, who fled to the Sunni “re-awakening,” IS-led jihad in northern Iraq, to Erbil, Kurdistan, made the following statements to Corriere Della Serra, published August 10, 2014:

“Our sufferings today are a prelude to what even European and Western Christians will incur in the near future. Your liberal and democratic principles here [in the Middle East] are not worth anything. You need to rethink our reality in the Middle East because you are receiving in your countries, an increasing number of Muslims. You too are at risk. You have to take strong and courageous decisions, at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think that men are all the same. It is not true. Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values ​​are not their values. If you do not understand in time, you will become victims of the enemy that you welcomed into your home.”

US Terrorism Database Has Doubled

terrorists_among_us_By Rachel Molschky:

In just a few short years, the US terrorism database has doubled. In March 2010, there were about 550,000 people on the list according to the National Counterterrorism Center, but by the end of 2013, that number had grown to 1.1 million. Those on the list are known or suspected terrorists and people associated with terrorists in one form or another.

This is remarkably consistent with Muslim immigration to the US, which had doubled over the past ten years. While 25,000 of those on the list are US citizens or legal permanent residents, (which is 25,000 too many), the report does not mention how many may be asylum seekers who are not yet permanent residents or illegal aliens (not all undocumented immigrants are Mexican, contrary to popular belief), or people whose terrorist activities go undetected by authorities.

Of particular interest is Dearborn, a small city in Michigan dubbed by many as the Muslim Capital of America, which ranks second on the Terrorist Watch List. With the largest percentage of Arabs in the country and 40% of Dearborn’s population being Arab, Muslim“charities” in the city have been connected to both Hezbollah and Hamas. Dearborn is also the site of the annual Arab International Festival where only Muslims are allowed, and Christian missionaries have been assaulted, with the police booting out the Christians but leaving the violent, rock and other debris-throwing Muslims alone.

The top five American cities on the terrorism database are (in descending order): New York, Dearborn, Houston, San Diego and Chicago. New York City is the largest city in the US with a population of over 8 million. Houston is the fourth most populated city. San Diego ranks eighth, and Chicago is third. All of these cities have populations in the millions. Dearborn has a mere 96,000, but that small city has a concentration of Muslims and links to terrorism. Coincidence?

As Muslim immigration increases, the terrorism watchlist grows, as does the workload of the FBI. And now it’s worse. 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 was approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, and would allow some individuals who provided “limited material support” to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.

At the same time, and despite the abundance of thwarted terrorism plots due to the vigilance of authorities like the FBI and NYPD, the government has been stepping away from counter-terror training, and 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.” Additionally, on the anniversary of the Boston Marathon Bombing, the New York Police Department announced the end to the Muslim surveillance program which had been instrumental in collecting data and catching would-be terrorists.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Islam: Is Integration Working? Part II of III

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, June 18, 2014:

Some motives of the members of the British Law Society might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

What seems unpardonable is that our Western governments and institutions, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are reinforcing these abuses.

Pressure to incorporate Shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

Another apparent obstacle to integration seems to be the simple act, within circumscribed communities, of questioning. Questioning — as well as free speech and free thought — often seems to appear disrespectful and discouraged. A new effort to criminalize free speech internationally has in the past few years been promoted by, of all countries, the United States — led by then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in three closed-door conferences between 2010 and 2012. Clinton not only dusted off — but co-sponsored and actively promoted — the all-but-dead Pakistani resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 16/18, misleadingly named “Defamation of Religion.” The resolution is, bluntly, an attempt legally to internationalize Islam’s repressive “blasphemy laws.” Anyone who might wish to question or discuss Islam can be accused of “blasphemy” and possibly sentenced to death. Since the beginning of Islam, anyone who might take steps to leave Islam can be accused of “apostasy,” and sentenced to death. As Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said at the end of January 2013, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

What seems unpardonable is that it is our Western governments and institutions that are reinforcing these abuses.

 

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)

Moreover, in March 2014, the British Law Society set out guidelines for solicitors (roughly, U.S. lawyers) to help draw up “Shari’a compliant” wills, in defiance of the fact that Islamic rules on inheritance are deeply discriminatory. Muslim women will not be given an equal share of an inheritance. Non-Muslims, illegitimate children, divorced spouses, people who have not had Muslim marriages, and anyone outside the kinship-based set of recognized heirs, may not inherit. The ruling tells solicitors (and from them, the courts) to make exclusions from an 1837 law, which allows gifts to pass to the offspring of an heir who has died. This has been done to provide Muslims with separate laws that do not apply to other British citizens. These separate laws also relegate British law to an inferior position in such matters. The ruling has been done knowingly and for poorly thought-out motives by people who should know better. Some motives might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, giving them rights that others do not have, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

If this ruling is followed by others affecting marriage, divorce, the custody of children and much else, Britain will become a two-tier society in which Muslim men may marry four wives, keep concubines or, for the Shi’a, contract temporary (mut’a) marriages, while non-Muslim polygamists will be sent to jail. Needless to say, protests are already underway.

Pressure to incorporate shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

In the U.S., in 2011, President Obama appointed Professor Azizah al-Hibri to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Hibri, a professor at Richmond University, has a record of involvement in matters concerning the rights of Muslim women and human rights in Islam. But she is on record as saying that Islamic Law “is deeper and better than Western codes of law,” that the Qur’an inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Hibri has also argued that Islam is fully compatible with women’s rights, human rights, and democracy, something many in the West would strongly contest. Moreover, to appoint an Islamist to a post as commissioner on a body dedicated to religious freedom, a body that spends much of its time protesting the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries seems at the very least indecent. The very idea of religious freedom does not exist in the Qur’an, the hadith literature, or in any book of Islamic law. It is not enough to cite the famous line from the Qur’an 2:256, “la ikraha fi’l-din” [there is no compulsion in religion]. It has to be modified by the laws that enforce belief by threatening death to apostates, or by the conditions imposed on Jews, Christians, Hindus, pagans and other non-Muslims. They are given a choice to convert, die, or live as dhimmis: lower-class, “tolerated” persons, who pay a tribute, or tax, called a jizya, or “reward,” for not being killed. The Qur’an itself is explicit: “Fight those who believe not in Allah… [even] people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

 

Islam: Is Integration Working? Part I of III

by Denis MacEoin:

Taken together, these tenets indicate that, for Muslims who take their religion seriously, there can be no question of integration at any level.

If integration is the goal, something appears to be going remarkably wrong.

Why the issue of the Islamic veil? It rests at the center of the clash between Islam and the West.

The veil seems to be used to keep the “wrong” men — those who are not close male relatives or guardians — at a distance. Relations between the sexes, apparently, must be controlled, the more rigorously the better. There is also the assumption that women are worth less than men [Qur'an 4:3; 4:34; 4:11]. They inherit less; they often cannot travel, even to see a doctor or pick up their children at school, without the permission of a male relative or guardian, and they may be beaten or divorced without recourse. They are subject to a different set of the laws: men may, under certain circumstances, marry up to four women — not only as if they are men’s property, but property that contains one’s honor in a way that, say, one’s chair does not.

 

Muslim women wearing the niqab full-face veil. (Image source: Darrell J. Rohl/Flickr)

Men and women are kept segregated. It appears concluded that if a man and woman are left alone in a room together, there might be passionate sexual activity at some alarming point. Marriage laws are also restrictive[1]; this alone is a blow to our hopes for social integration.

Western societies, in contrast, make it possible for us to choose. In freedom to choose: to be conformist or non-conformist, to wear the clothes we prefer or read the books we select. Western democracies have come a long way since my early student days in Dublin, when a literature student could not buy novels such as Lolita, The Catcher in the Rye or Lady Chatterley’s Lover. We take for granted freedoms that many people living in Muslim states today can only dream of, or behold goggle-eyed from afar.

What kind of moral imperatives have led to the insistence that women cover their faces, or considering an interest in wine or chess or even cricket as mortal sins deserving punishment? This austerity is not unique to Islam; it has parallels in many religions. In Islam, much originates in social custom rather than in the Qur’an or the Hadithliterature [deeds and sayings of Mohammad]. Although the hijab does not appear in the Qur’an, which tellingly insists only on women’s chests being covered [Qur'an 24:31], the headscarf has now become a symbol of a woman’s identity as a Muslim. Many of these rules and regulations, however, have moved to the West and have created conflict where none was before.

Some Muslims, it seems, refuse to integrate for reasons of religion, through the communal doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara — fear of losing one’s attachment to one’s primary community. Other Muslims might refuse to integrate from the fear of challenges that life in the West entail, such as deciding whom to date or marry, what books to read, what religion to believe in or not believe in — things we do every day and probably do not even think about.

Al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ has often been translated as “loyalty and enmity,” although it is more nuanced than that. Wala’means something like “friendship” or “benevolence,” as well as “fidelity.” Bara’ should be bara’a, meaning “being free” or “disavowal” or “withdrawal.” The idea is that Muslims should stick close to those who are near, to their friends — who should be only Muslims — and to everything associated with Islam. And that they should withdraw from, and consider themselves free of, non-Muslims. As the Qur’an (Surat al-Ma’ida, 5:51) puts it:

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Muslims apparently also consider themselves free from our books, our art, our democracy (made by man rather than by Allah), our open debates — in short, our civilization, which is probably perceived as tempting, but impure, dissolute — with its promise of torment in hellfire mentioned frequently in the Qur’an. [2]

A list of what is disapproved of in relations with non-believers, from the book al-Wala’ wa’l-Bara’ by Shaykh Muhammad Saeed al-Qahtani, includes:

CHAPTER SEVEN: TYPES OF ALLIANCE WITH NON-MUSLIMS

Twenty Forms of Alliance with the Disbelievers

1. Contentment with the disbelievers
2. Reliance on the disbelievers
3. Agreement with Points of Disbelief
4. Seeking the affection of the disbelievers
5. Inclining towards the disbelievers
6. Flattery of the Disbeliever’s faith
7. Taking of Disbelievers as Friends
8. Obedience to the Disbelievers
9. To Sit with Disbelievers who Ridicule the Qur’an
10. To Give the Disbelievers Authority over Muslims
11. Trusting the Disbelievers
12. To Express Pleasure with the Actions of the Disbelievers
13. To Draw Near to the Disbelievers
14. To Aid the Disbelievers in Wrongdoing
15. To Seek the Advice of Disbelievers
16. To Honour the Disbelievers
17. To Live amongst the Disbelievers
18. To Collude with the Disbelievers
19. To Revile the Muslims and Love the Disbelievers
20. To Support the Ideologies of the Disbelievers

Taken together, these tenets indicate that, for Muslims who take their religion seriously, there can be no question of integration at any level.

The rejection of Western values by strict Muslims, as opposed, say, to the Amish, is that it has often been accompanied by extremist opinions and actions. The Amish do not say they plan to bring down Western society or to impose their will on non-Amish. Extreme Muslims do.

Although political correctness will tell us to accept everything other cultures do, there comes a time — not just for Westerners but for Western Muslims, too — when, if there is no evaluation of what is accepted, our societies risk becoming hollowed out from within.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Gang Raping, “I Love Al-Qaeda” and Who Is Advancing Islam?

Before and After: Left, German rapper Denis Cuspert in 2005, then known as "Deso Dogg". Right, Cuspert as jihadist in Syria, in 2013, operating under the alias "Abu Talha Al-Almani" [Abu Talha the German]. (Image sources: Wikimedia Commons, ISIS)

Before and After: Left, German rapper Denis Cuspert in 2005, then known as “Deso Dogg”. Right, Cuspert as jihadist in Syria, in 2013, operating under the alias “Abu Talha Al-Almani” [Abu Talha the German]. (Image sources: Wikimedia Commons, ISIS)

by Soeren Kern:

The American Embassy in Prague is financing a new project aimed at promoting Islam in public elementary and secondary schools across the Czech Republic.

The new law removes the requirement that there must be a special reason to sue for defamation or insult. Swedish thought police will be able to prosecute anyone who expresses an opinion about Muslim immigration and much else if that opinion is deemed to be defamation or slander. The Swedish government is also spending 60 million krona ($9 million) to boost voter turnout in Muslim neighborhoods.

“The influx of immigrants is reaching biblical proportions. Italy is fighting a losing battle.” — Admiral Giuseppe De Giorgi, Head of the Italian Navy

In Austria, police say they believe that two teenage girls who vanished from their homes in the capital of Vienna on April 10 may be in Turkey, and that whoever helped them get there is using them as pin-up girls to boost recruitment efforts for the “holy war” in Syria.

Friends of Samra Kesinovic, 16, and Sabina Selimovic, 15, said the girls had become radicalized after attending a local mosque run by a Salafist preacher, Ebu Tejma, and learning about the duty of every Muslim to participate in jihad. The girls were expelled from school after inscribing “I Love Al-Qaeda” on tables and walls.

But the girls’ parents—originally Bosnian refugees who settled in Austria after the ethnic conflicts of the 1990s—say that messages and photographs posted on social media networks which claim that the girls are on the front line and fighting with their new husbands are fake.

In a possible break in the case, Austrian police say they traced a phone call Samra made to her sister in late April to a landline based in Turkey. The search for the girls continues.

At least 100 Austrian citizens or residents have participated in the fighting in Syria, according to Austrian media. Approximately 40 of them are currently on the front lines, 44 have already returned to Austria and 19 have been killed in action.

Also in April, the most senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood living in exile in Britain, Ibrahim Munir, denied claims that the group was moving its international headquarters from London to the Austrian city of Graz. The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, reported on April 12 that the Muslim Brotherhood was preparing to move its headquarters to Austria in an “apparent attempt to avoid an inquiry into its activities set up by the Prime Minister.”

The group was expelled from Egypt after a counter-revolution there in July 2013, and recently opened a new headquarters above a kebab shop in London. On April 1, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced an investigation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in Britain.

A full summary of Islam in Britain during the month of April can be found here.

In the Czech Republic, police on April 25 raided the headquarters of Prague’s Islamic Foundation in the center of the capital and a mosque on the outskirts of the city. Police arrested 20 people, including the Czech translator and publisher of a book about Islamic theology that security officials said promotes hate speech and incites hatred toward Jews.

The book—”The Fundamentals of Tawheed” [Islamic monotheism] by Bilal Philips, a Jamaican-born, Qatar-based Muslim extremist who has been banned from entering Britain and Germany—was being used, police said, to spread Salafist ideology in the Czech Republic.

Also in April, it emerged that the American embassy in Prague is financing a new project aimed at promoting Islam in public elementary and secondary schools across the Czech Republic.

In Denmark, police in Copenhagen on April 25 said the man they believe tried to assassinate the Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard in February 2013 was arrested in Istanbul’s Atatürk airport as he tried to enter Turkey on a false passport. The man, identified only by the initials B.H., is awaiting extradition—a process that could take three months—in a high-security prison in the city’s Maltepe district.

Danish police say the suspect is a 26-year-old Danish citizen of Lebanese—possibly Palestinian—origin. At the time of his arrest, he was in possession of a fake passport. He left Denmark on the same day of the assassination attempt, police said, and has been traveling between Syria, Lebanon and Turkey ever since.

In Finland, the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee on April 4 ruled that the long-standing tradition of singing a summer hymn known as the “Suvivirsi” at end-of-school ceremonies can continue. In March, Deputy Chancellor of Justice Mikko Puumalainen had called on the Board of Education to look into the matter because the song has Christian overtones and could be offensive to the country’s growing Muslim community.

“It’s curious that the minority can so strongly influence the activities of the majority,” said Education Chancellor Pekka Iivonen. “Laws concerning religious freedom work both ways: in addition to having the right not practice religion, we also have the right to practice religion in Finland, where the majority of people belong to the Lutheran church.”

In France, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve on April 23 presented a new anti-radicalization plan aimed at preventing French citizens or residents from waging jihad in Syria and other Muslim conflict zones. The strategy includes more than 20 measures aimed not only at preventing French citizens from joining the war in Syria, but also at combatting the radicalization of young French Muslims during the earliest stages of indoctrination.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Sweden goes insane

Leading the suicidal “progressive” war on free speech.

How Muslim Immigration Affects Our Schools

By: Rachel Molschky

Muslim immigration is transforming Western society. Our native cultures are dismissed as irrelevant and our religions unimportant. Values like “freedom of religion” are taken to the extreme, while our freedom of speech, which used to be regarded as sacred, is stolen from us because it is not “fair” to the immigrants, who take precedence over the native population. We are being re-taught, our children brainwashed from an early age.

An entire chapter dedicated to Islam in a Florida school textbook with no chapters on any other religion. Image source: dailycaller.com.

As restrictions are eased and our borders inundated with angry foreigners who have an axe to grind, one hand holding the Qur’an, the other a fist in the air, we are letting our own values slip away in lieu of immigrant demands. Political correctness overtakes us , a sense of guilt for wanting to adhere to our own culture and moral values, and we give the upper hand to the visitors in the name of acceptance and equality. But we cannot afford to lose ourselves for the sake of equality, and unfortunately, that is just exactly what is happening. It all begins with our educational system and the indoctrination of our very own children in our own schools and in our own countries.

There are too many examples to list. Here are but a few:

At a high school in Tennessee, the 10 Commandments were replaced with the 5 Pillars of Islam, (though the 5th pillar of charity was not listed while the 6th pillar of jihad took its place.) If religious doctrine should not be present in the public school system, what place does Islam have there?

But it is there. One of the common themes in Muslim countries, a tool which is used to delegitimize the existence of Israel, is Holocaust denial. This propaganda is rampant in the Muslim world with prominent leaders like former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas either altogether denying or minimizing the atrocities and their school textbooks doing the same.

A Muslim man was allowed to hand out fliers proselytizing Islam to every teacher in an Indian school. Source: barenakedislam.com

Muslims in the West are no different. In California, the Rialto school district has decided to revise an eighth-grade assignment which encouraged students to deny the Holocaust. Originally, the assignment called for students to write a paper explaining “whether or not you believe this was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth.”

Instructions for the assignment even provided the reference materials the students were to use. One of those cherry-picked sources stated that “gassings in concentration camps were a ‘hoax’ and that no evidence has shown Jews died in gas chambers.

“‘With all this money at stake for Israel, it is easy to comprehend why this Holocaust hoax is so secretly guarded,’ states the source. ‘In whatever way you can, please help shatter this profitable myth. It is time we stop sacrificing America’s welfare for the sake of Israel and spend our hard-earned dollars on Americans.’”

Now the school has backtracked after initially defending the assignment. District spokeswoman Syeda Jafri explained that no one had complained, and the coursework was designed by school officials.

In an unrelated case, one parent who did complain about the Islamization of our schools wrote a letter to Pamela Geller, which was published on WND. In the letter, the parent wrote of a highly rated charter school in the US which was essentially proselytizing Islam to the children:

“Last December, I picked up my daughter, who is in fourth grade, from school. As soon as she got in the car, she proclaimed, ‘Allah is great,’ and then said it in Arabic. I was so taken back, I am not sure how I drove home in one piece. My daughter told me that in their social studies class, they had begun a new unit on Islam. Their previous unit was the Middle Ages, in which they were learning about castles, kings and queens, and even about the Plague. That unit was completely fine, but when I learned they were learning about Islam and were being told that Allah is great and that Muhammad was his prophet sent to Earth, I got really angry…”

More examples:

So how could our children be indoctrinated by immigrant beliefs? Simple. First, we let the floodgates open to immigrants whose culture is hostile to our society, i.e. Muslim refugees from war-torn nations or from former colonies. Whereas our previous immigration policies kept the demographics of our nations virtually intact, now people from various religious backgrounds come in along with their families. They settle, have children, and rather than integrate as immigrants had done in the past, Muslim immigrants live in parallel societies and are taught the “evils” of the West in their mosques. Subsequently, the second and third generation immigrants become more radicalized, more “religious,” and are attracted to jihad. We are seeing this with both homegrown terrorism and with the Muslim citizens of our nations who are running off to join the jihadists in Syria.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

ACT! for America meeting in Orlando, Florida on May 15, 2014

ESW-start-smallBy Vlad Tepes:

A brief post on the events in Orlando the past day or so. More to come shortly, but in the meantime, here is the text of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s speech and some photos from the day.

ESW Islamization of Europe 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you greetings from Austria.

I congratulate Brigitte Gabriel, and you, Mike, and all the various chapters of ACT! For America for their tireless efforts to expose the ongoing stealth Islamization of the United States and Canada. As a native European, I can testify personally that the Islamization of my country and my continent is hardly a matter of stealth — it is occurring quite openly. Radical Islamic preachers declare the supremacy of Islam during Friday prayers in mosques in major cities all across Western Europe. Muslim demonstrators frequently take to the streets carrying signs that read “Islam Will Dominate” and “Sharia is the Answer”.

Under the direction of the EU bureaucrats in Brussels — whom we did not elect and cannot remove — we Europeans are required to admit more and more third-world immigrants, most of them Muslims. Our public institutions must change to accommodate them. Our schools become centers of Islamic propaganda and serve halal food to all their students, Muslim or otherwise. More and more mega-mosques are being built in our cities. Multicultural “tolerance” requires that we permit fully-veiled women as employees in all occupations, public or private. And, most ominously, any criticism of Islam — or even factual accounts of Islamic history and practices — are punished by lawsuits or state prosecution.

Most of you have already heard about my own legal case, so I won’t spend a lot of time going over the gory details. The short version is that I was prosecuted by the Austrian government for what I said in one of my seminars about Islam. My description of Islamic law and its basis in the Koran and the hadith was considered “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” I was tried, convicted, and fined. I appealed all the way to the highest court in Austria, but my conviction was upheld at all levels. I am in the process of appealing the decision to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Because of my conviction, I can no longer use a certain word in my descriptions of Islam and Mohammed, because the use of that word was judged a denigration of Islamic beliefs. If I were to use it in reference to Islam, I could be prosecuted again, and the sentence might be harsher the second time. They would probably throw the book at me.

ESW_End-small-300x200However, I am not in Austria at the moment. I am here, in the United States of America, where my right to use that word in any context I please is protected by nothing less than the First Amendment to the Constitution.

So it gives me a special pleasure, ladies and gentlemen, to tell you what got me in such hot water with the judicial authorities in Austria: it was the word pedophilia.

In my seminar I explained that, according to the authentic hadith, Mohammed married his wife Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. In reference to those facts, I described a conversation with a friend about an Austrian politician named Susanne Winter, who had previously been convicted and fined for referring to Mohammed as a pedophile. It was my friend’s opinion that one is simply not allowed to say such a thing. I responded by saying, “What do we call that, if it isn’t pedophilia?”

Now that I’m here in Florida, and it’s safe for me to say it, I can repeat my point: Mohammed is considered the perfect man, an example to be emulated by all Muslims. He had sex with a nine-year-old girl. What do we call that, if it isn’t pedophilia?

Does this perhaps explain the epidemic of child sex slavery by gangs of young Muslim men, which is currently underway in Britain, the Netherlands, and other Western European countries?

Britain is actually the worst offender when it comes to the repression of free speech and open debate about Islam. Almost every day, cases at least as outrageous as mine are brought before magistrates or judges. People who criticize Islam or speak negatively about Muslims are routinely charged with “racially aggravated public order offenses”. Many of them are given a stiff fine when convicted, or even sent to prison.

The most egregious example in recent memory was the arrest of my good friend Paul Weston in Winchester. Paul is a candidate for the European Parliament for the LibertyGB party, and on April 26 he was making a campaign speech over a bullhorn from the steps of the Winchester guildhall. His listeners didn’t realize it, but what he was saying was actually a quote from a book called The River War, which was written in 1899 by a man named Winston Churchill:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

A woman who heard him say these words called the police and complained that he was engaging in “hate speech” that was offensive to her. When the police arrived, they told him to stop. When he refused, he was arrested, searched, and taken away in a police van.

Paul was initially charged with “breach of the Section 27 Dispersal Notice”, that is, for refusing to obey a police order to move on. At the police station that charge was dropped, however, and he was given a more serious charge: a “racially aggravated crime under Section 4 of the Public Order Act.” If he is convicted of it, he may be sentenced to up to two years in prison. He will return to the police station next week, on May 24 — two days after the election. At that point he will learn whether the judicial authorities will proceed with a prosecution.

As far as Paul could tell, neither his audience nor the police had any idea that he was quoting Churchill, so they may well have been unaware how bad they would look when the news got out about what happened. And the news certainly did get out — within a few days the story moved out of the blogs and into the mainstream media on  both sides of the Atlantic, and even in Australia. Normally, such Section 4 cases never make it into the media. They are routine and humdrum. Someone complains about the Religion of Peace, and gets charged with racism. It’s no big deal; it happens all the time.

Paul’s case was different, however. Despite the reign of political correctness that smothers all public discourse in Britain, Winston Churchill is still revered by the British public as a great national hero. To arrest and charge someone for quoting Sir Winston’s writings in public is a bridge too far. The police had no idea that they were biting down on a scorpion when they arrested Paul Weston.

Sir Winston Churchill was not only a Prime Minister of Great Britain, he was also an accomplished writer who won the Nobel Prize in Literature for his historical writings. What in the world has happened to the UK when an English citizen cannot quote a respected historian and the greatest war leader in British history without fear of being arrested?

In 1899 Winston Churchill was free to observe what Islam did to its adherents. He could evaluate what he saw, draw conclusions, and publish them in a book, all the while receiving accolades for his work. Today, in the second decade of the 21st century, the same topic cannot even be publicly discussed, and the conclusions drawn by Sir Winston are absolutely forbidden. How the country has changed in just over a century! If nothing else, this incident plainly illustrates the extent to which Britain has been Islamized.

The process by which the nations of Europe became Islamized varies from country to country. My own country, Austria, left a “back door” open for Islam due to the infamous Law on Islam of 1912. This law gave Islam the status of a recognized state religion, and was considered politically necessary after Bosnia-Herzegovina was incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian Empire. More and more Bosnians were joining the Austrian army, and the law was passed to ensure “cohesion” in the ranks.

Sound familiar? In Britain, the greatest excesses of Politically Correct Multiculturalism are justified in the name of “community cohesion” — that is, to prevent Muslims from rioting in the streets.

The mass importation of Muslim immigrants into Britain began more than thirty years ago, but it has accelerated in the last fifteen years as the Labour Party deliberately increased the annual rate of entry in order to import more Labour voters and damage the Conservative Party.

Other countries have implemented similar policies. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, and Austria have all increased the numbers of immigrants they allow to enter. Some of these policies are simply the mandate of the European Union, which insists that individual member states have no right to control their borders. But in other cases, the Social Democrats, the Greens, and other left-wing parties find it expedient to import third-world immigrants and grant them the vote as quickly as possible, because they will reliably vote as a bloc for the left-socialist parties.

Read more at Gates of Vienna

Who is in More Trouble: Wilders or The Netherlands?

by Timon Dias:

“Freedom of speech is a great thing and we have said nothing that is not allowed.” — Geert Wilders, MP and leader of the Party of Freedom.

Now, the police have apparently decided to become part of the prosecution. They have drafted pre-filled “Wilders forms” to press charges and have offered to come to people’s homes to help them fill out the paperwork.

Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders again made international headlinesNazi comparisons are rampant, self-proclaimed victims are lining up to sue and now more than ever there is a chance that Wilders actually might be convicted of hate speech.

In an interview on the Dutch Public News Service [NOS] on March 12, Wilders said (10:10): “[People] will now be voting for a safer, a more social, and… in any case a city with fewer costs, and, if at all possible, with fewer Moroccans.”

 

Geert Wilders is interviewed while campaigning, March 12, 2014. (Image source: Video screenshot from Dutch Public News)

Wilders has the numbers to support his concern. Statistics show that 65% of all Moroccan youths have been arrested by police, and that one third of that group have been arrested more than five times.

Wilders emphasizes the inordinate costs associated with the disproportionately high number of Dutch Moroccans registered as social welfare beneficiaries and who are implicated in welfare fraud.

Based on those numbers, Wilders seems to imply that if there were not such a large number of Moroccans, Dutch crime rates and social welfare costs would significantly drop.

Wilder proposes that Dutch Moroccans who are habitual criminal offenders should be deprived of their Dutch passports and sent back to Morocco, an act that is possible as all Moroccans and their descendants are, by Moroccan law, prohibited from relinquishing their Moroccan passports.

Dutch Moroccan criminals are known to be highly indifferent to sentences in Dutch prisons, which are known for their comfort. In a majority, Dutch prisons are populated by Dutch Moroccans.

Moroccans also apparently derive status from prison sentences. Evidently, upon their release, many gloat. Apparently it is only the thought of having to trade the luxury of the Netherlands — even prison — for Morocco that strikes terror into the hearts of potential offenders. In Italy, the same threat is already in effect and acts as a successful deterrent. It seems as if it is only the threat of deportation, more than any other measure, that is likely to deter young Moroccans from a life of crime.

Although the proposal is being used by Wilders’s opponents as either a laughing stock or beating stick, the merits of the proposal are rarely elaborated on, including even by Wilders. A recent poll showed 76% of Dutch voters to be in favor of the measure.

The NOS, interviewing Wilders again on March 14, asked him if he actually meant what he had said regarding Moroccans in general, possibly expecting him to say that he had only been referring to Dutch Moroccan criminals. But Wilders stood firm. He emphasized that his concern lay with the number of Moroccans currently flooding the crime statistics, and repeatedly stated, “The fewer Moroccans, the better.”

“Can you imagine that people are startled by your remarks?” he was asked.

“It is unfortunate if people are startled by the truth,” he said.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

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