Jim Harbaugh: ‘Michigan Football Will Watch American Sniper!’

harbaughTruth Revolt, by Bradford Thomas, April 9, 2015:

Newly-hired Michigan head football coach Jim Harbaugh reacted to the controversy over a (temporally) canceled campus screening of American Sniper Wednesday by announcing that the football team would be watching the film regardless of what the university decided:

coach tweet

As TruthRevolt reported Wednesday, a group of about 300 Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) and Muslim students issued a collective letter earlier this week accusing the university of creating an “unsafe space” for students and “tolerating dangerous anti-Muslim and anti-MENA propaganda” by showing a film that contributes to “a culture of Islamophobia in America.” In response, Michigan’s Center for Campus Involvement canceled the screening and apologized for “causing harm” to students.

After getting hammered in the press for caving to a protest, Michigan reversed its decision. Late Wednesday, Michigan’s vice president of student life E. Royster Harper issued a statement calling the temporary cancelation “not consistent” with the university’s “high value” on the freedom of expression and announcing that the screening of Chris Kyle film was back on:

It was a mistake to cancel the showing of the movie ‘American Sniper’ on campus as part of a social event for students.

The initial decision to cancel the movie was not consistent with the high value the University of Michigan places on freedom of expression and our respect for the right of students to make their own choices in such matters.

The movie will be shown at the originally scheduled time and location. We recognize, however, that some students are uncomfortable with the content of the movie, and appreciate that concern.

Therefore, the university also will show an alternative movie, “Paddington,” in another location on campus at that same time and date to provide our students with additional options that evening.

Muslim Group Accuses Government of Trying to ‘Criminalize’ Islam

muslim-lives-matter-AFP-640x480

Breitbart, by Andre Walker, March 12, 2015:

A group of “Imams, sheikhs, advocates, activists, community leaders, community organisations and student bodies of the Muslim community” have issued a joint statement claiming the government is trying to “criminalise” Islam.

The 128 signatories to the letter claim that Muslims are being unfairly accused of being a threat to national security, inorder to solicit votes at the General Election. The group make nine specific points on the website 5Pillars, they are printed below:

1) We reject the exploitation of Muslim issues and the ‘terror threat’ for political capital, in particular in the run up to a general election. Exploiting public fears about security is as dishonourable as exploiting public fears about immigration. Both deflect attention from crises in the economy and health service, but are crude and divisive tactics, where the big parties inevitably try to outdo each other in their nastiness.

2) We deplore the continued public targeting of Muslims through endless ‘anti-terror’ laws. There have been around ten pieces of legislation since the year 2000, all giving huge powers to the state, which have fuelled a media hysteria even though in most cases no crime was committed. This has created a distressing and harmful backlash towards Muslims, especially women and children.

3) We reject the portrayal of Muslims and the Muslim community as a security threat. The latest Act of Parliament, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, threatens to create a ‘McCarthyite’ witch-hunt against Muslims, with nursery workers, schoolteachers and Universities expected to look out for signs of increased Islamic practice as signs of ‘radicalisation’. Such a narrative will only further damage social cohesion as it incites suspicion and ill feeling in the broader community.

4) The expedient use of undefined and politically charged words like ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ is unacceptable as it criminalises legitimate political discourse and criticism of the stance of successive governments towards Muslims domestically and abroad. We strongly oppose political proposals to further ‘tackle’ and ‘crack down’ on such dissenting voices in the Muslim community despite their disavowal of violence and never having supported terrorist acts.

5) Similarly, it is unacceptable to label as ‘extremist’ numerous normative Islamic opinions on a variety of issues, founded on the Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), implying there is a link between them and violence, using such labels as an excuse to silence speakers.

6) We affirm our commitment to robust political and ideological debate and discourse for the betterment of humanity at large. The attempts by the state to undermine this bring into question its commitment to its very own purported values and liberal freedoms.

7) We affirm our concern about peace and security for all. We, however, refuse to be lectured on peace-building and harmony by a government that plays divisive politics and uses fear to elicit uncertainty in the general public, whilst maintaining support for dictators across the Muslim world, who continue to brutalise any legitimate political opposition to their tyranny.

8) We affirm our intention to hold on to our beliefs and values, to speak out for what is right and against what is wrong based on our principles, whether that be on matters such as the securitisation of society, corporate hegemony, war and peace, economic exploitation, social and moral issues in society, nationalism and racism. Not to do so would be dangerous and leave our community unguided.

9) We call on all fair minded people in Britain – including politicians, journalists, academics, bloggers and others concerned about fairness for all – to continue to scrutinise the scare tactics, fear-mongering and machinations of politicians, which do not bode well for societal harmony and only increase the alienation felt and experienced by Britain’s Muslim community.”

Amongst the signatories was the former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Moazzam Begg. Mr Begg now serves as the outreach Director for CAGE, the group that claimed Mohammed Emwazi was radicalised because he was harrassed by the British Inteligence Services.

There were also two signatories from the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the group that named Charlie Hebdo “International Islamophobe of the Year” despite the staff having been murdered.

Immigration and Islam: Europe’s Crisis of Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at WSJ

****

via Gates of Vienna:

The Surge of the Anti-Islamization Movement in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam

Asra Q. Nomani

Asra Q. Nomani

January 16 at 8:01 PM

Asra Q. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is the author of “Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam.”

“You have shamed the community,” a fellow Muslim in Morgantown, W.Va., said to me as we sat in a Panera Bread in 2004. “Stop writing.”

Then 38, I had just written an essay for The Washington Post’s Outlook section arguing that women should be allowed to pray in the main halls of mosques, rather than in segregated spaces, as most mosques in America are arranged. An American Muslim born in India, I grew up in a tolerant but conservative family. In my hometown mosque, I had disobeyed the rules and prayed in the men’s area, about 20 feet behind the men gathered for Ramadan prayers.

Later, an all-male tribunal tried to ban me. An elder suggested having men surround me at the mosque so that I would be “scared off.” Now the man across the table was telling me to shut up.

“I won’t stop writing,” I said.

It was the first time a fellow Muslim had pressed me to refrain from criticizing the way our faith was practiced. But in the past decade, such attempts at censorship have become more common. This is largely because of the rising power and influence of the “ghairat brigade,” an honor corps that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam. It meets even sound critiques with hideous, disproportionate responses.

The campaign began, at least in its modern form, 10 years ago in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a mini-United Nations comprising the world’s 56 countries with large Muslim populations, plus the Palestinian Authority — tasked then-Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu with combating Islamophobia and projecting the “true values of Islam.” During the past decade, a loose honor brigade has sprung up, in part funded and supported by the OIC through annual conferences, reports and communiques. It’s made up of politicians, diplomats, writers, academics, bloggers and activists.

In 2007, as part of this playbook, the OIC launched the Islamophobia Observatory, a watchdog group based in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, with the goal of documenting slights against the faith. Its first report, released the following year, complained that the artists and publishers of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were defiling “sacred symbols of Islam . . . in an insulting, offensive and contemptuous manner.” The honor brigade began calling out academics, writers and others, including former New York police commissioner Ray Kelly and administrators at a Catholic school in Britain that turned away a mother who wouldn’t remove her face veil.

“The OIC invented the anti-‘Islamophobia’ movement,” says Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a frequent target of the honor brigade. “These countries . . . think they own the Muslim community and all interpretations of Islam.”

Alongside the honor brigade’s official channel, a community of self-styled blasphemy police — from anonymous blogs such as LoonWatch.com andIkhras.com to a large and disparate cast of social-media activists — arose and began trying to control the debate on Islam. This wider corps throws the label of “Islamophobe” on pundits, journalists and others who dare to talk about extremist ideology in the religion. Their targets are as large as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and as small as me.

The official and unofficial channels work in tandem, harassing, threatening and battling introspective Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere. They bank on an important truth: Islam, as practiced from Malaysia to Morocco, is a shame-based, patriarchal culture that values honor and face-saving from the family to the public square. Which is why the bullying often works to silence critics of Islamic extremism.

“Honor brigades are wound collectors. They are couch jihadis,” Joe Navarro, a former supervisory special agent in the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit, tells me. “They sit around and collect the wounds and injustices inflicted against them to justify what they are doing. Tragedy unites for the moment, but hatred unites for longer.”

In an e-mail exchange, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations denied that the organization tries to silence discussion of problems in Muslim communities.

The attacks are everywhere. Soon after the Islamophobia Observatory took shape, Sheik Sabah Ahmed al-Sabah, the emir of Kuwait, grumbled about “defamatory caricatures of our Master and Prophet Muhammad” and films that smear Islam, according to the OIC’s first Islamophobia report.

The OIC helped give birth to a culture of victimization. In speeches, blogs, articles and interviews widely broadcast in the Muslim press, its honor brigade has targeted pundits, political leaders and writers — from TV host Bill Maher to atheist author Richard Dawkins — for insulting Islam. Writer Glenn Greenwald has supported the campaign to brand writers and thinkers, such as neuroscientist and atheist Sam Harris, as having “anti-Muslim animus” just for criticizing Islam.

“These fellow travelers have made it increasingly unpleasant — and even dangerous — to discuss the link between Muslim violence and specific religious ideas, like jihad, martyrdom and blasphemy,” Harris tells me.

Noticing the beginnings of this trend in December 2007, a U.S. diplomat in Istanbul dispatched a cable to the National Security Council, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and various State Department offices. The cable said the OIC’s chief called supporters of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad “extremists of freedom of expression” and equated them with al-Qaeda.

Most of the criticism takes place online, with anonymous bloggers targeting supposed Islamophobes. Not long after the cable, a network of bloggers launched LoonWatch, which goes after Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists and other Muslims. The bloggers have labeled Somali author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a born Muslim but now an atheist opponent of Islamic extremism, an “anti-Muslim crusader.” Robert Spencer, a critic of extremist Islam, has been called a “vicious hate preacher” and an “Internet sociopath.” The insults may look similar to Internet trolling and vitriolic comments you can find on any blog or news site. But they’re more coordinated, frightening and persistent.

Read more at Washington Post

Free Speech and Muslim Rage

Pakistan-demo-antiCharlieHebdoBy Justin O. Smith

In the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical Paris newspaper, and the kosher grocery in Porte de Vincennes (France) between January 7th and January 9th, in which seventeen innocent Parisians were murdered, approximately three million French people, four by some counts, and forty world leaders, without U.S. President Obama anywhere in sight, marched through the streets of Paris to show unity against Islamic terrorism and their support for freedom of expression. For this one day, they did not allow their liberty to be constrained, but the messages emanating from this “Cry for freedom” unity rally are mixed at best.

Shortly after the first attack, an estimated 35,000 people appeared in east Paris at Place de La Republique. Some chanted “Charlie, Charlie” or held signs reading “I am Charlie” __ the message posted on the newspaper’s website.

On Friday, January 9th, the iconic Arc de Triomphe on Champs-Elysees lighted with a banner reading “Paris is Charlie” in reference to Charlie Hebdo.

When Charlie Hebdo first published as L’Hebdo Hari Kari, its only mission was to be as “dumb and nasty” as possible (their words). And they succeeded, as millions from all faiths and all walks of life, including myself, found them to be beyond offensive.

Most notably, Charlie’s reprint of Jyllands-Posten’s (Dutch newspaper) cartoon that depicted the Prophet Mohammed negatively saw them prosecuted in 2005, for violating France’s “hate-speech” laws, representing a terrible assault on free speech. Ultimately they were acquitted through France’s freedom of expression laws. Even so, they never should have been charged, and their crime of “blasphemy” certainly did not warrant their death sentences.

Muslims, on a large scale, have raged against the U.S. and the West in their demands for justice. In their minds, justice entails the destruction of Israel and a blanket prohibition of any criticism of Islam (e.g. the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights and UN Resolution 16/18); and, despite Mahmoud Abbas’ recent statements that “human life is sacred” and the Grand Mosque of Paris’ condemnation of the Islamic terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, they reserve the right in their Sharia law to mock other religions, to repress and murder non-Muslims and to destroy objects of other faiths.

Historically, totalitarian movements, such as the Islamic ideology, have advanced by restricting free speech, and unbelievably, most of the European Union now enforce laws in line with UN Resolution 16/18, which criminalizes any criticism of Islam. The Obama administration has advocated its adoption in the U.S. since 2009.

In April 2013, Paul Weston, the leader of the LibertyGB party was wrongfully arrested under Britain’s “hate-speech” law, Section 4 of the Public Order Act. His “crime” was that he read a forthright description of the true nature of Islam, from ‘The River War’ (1899) by Winston Churchill, as he stood on the steps of the Winchester Guildhall.

Similarly, one of fifty-four people arrested for “condoning terrorism”, the comedian Dieudonne, an “anti-Zionist”, was arrested 48 hours after the Paris rally for free expression on the weight of one sentence: “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly”, a play of words on Charlie Hebdo and the terrorist Amedy Coulibaly.

Amedy Coulibaly, loyal to the Islamic State, was the terrorist who murdered four French Jews at the grocery in Portes d Vincennes, just hours before the Jewish Sabbath began. He died in the ensuing gun-battle with French security forces.

Dieudonne’s expression was certainly reprehensible and disgusting, but if anything, it should have simply targeted him for further scrutiny and investigation by the authorities. This same statement would not have warranted an arrest in the U.S., because it did not represent a “clear and present danger” to the public (Schenck vs U.S _ 1919), above making people feel afraid.

U.S. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. suggested that the basis of our First Amendment is not “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.”

However, this does not mean that a Muslim living in the U.S. can say anything without consequences, or that we must continue down this one-way road of tolerance. The U.S. must prosecute and deport anyone supporting Islamic terrorism and the implementation of Sharia law in the U.S., since advocating sedition and the destruction of our Constitutional Republic is an anathema to free speech.

Fear was precisely the entity these Muslims hoped to instill in people worldwide, by murdering Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier, Jean Cabut (Cabu), cartoonist Bernard Verlhac (known as Tignous), Georges Wolinski and thirteen more unfortunate souls. These Islamic terrorists, Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, who were born in France, wanted everyone to understand that criticizing Islam could result in a critic’s murder.

Fears of more attacks remain. Early Sunday, January 11th, Hamburger Morgenpost, a German newspaper that reprinted Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed, was a victim of arson, without any injuries. The Brussels offices of the Belgian newspaper Le Spir were also evacuated after receiving a threat. And at this writing, anti-terrorism raids are occurring all across Europe.

Cowering in fear behind their political correctness and multiculturalist nonsense, the New York Times was the only major newspaper that did not run the Charlie Hebdo images, which are central to the story. By refusing to publish them, they admitted their fear and allowed freedom of the press to be held hostage by murderers, an unequivocal win for the Islamic terrorists.

Acting in the manner of responsible news outlets and in defense of freedom of the press, the remaining top U.S. newspaper editors published images from Charlie Hebdo on their covers, soon after the Paris attacks. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, L.A. Times, the New York Post and the New York Daily News published them, taking a stand for liberty everywhere.

Liberty and our sacrosanct rights to freedom of speech and the press __ all we hold dear __ are under assault by Islamic terrorists, proponents for Sharia law, and this is a dangerous juncture for all free societies, in a real cultural battle between the Western civilization and Islam, with all its inherent evil. Americans must demand respect for our basic values and the right to criticize and even mock others, with or without Europe, and we must continue to speak the truth about the dark world of Islam, with its hate, intolerance, human rights violations and indiscriminate murder. And however we must defend it, through speech or force of arms, America must not allow Liberty to be held hostage by Islamic terrorists.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” __ Thomas Jefferson

Paris attacks prompt fears France’s Muslim ‘no-go’ zones incubating jihad

no go

Fox News, by Karl de Vries, Jan. 12, 2015

In hundreds of French “no-go” zones  — neighborhoods where neither tourists nor cops dare enter — poor and alienated Muslims have intimidated the government into largely ceding authority over them, prompting fears that the kind of jihad that gave rise to last week’s attack in Paris is festering unchecked.

In some ways, these 751 areas designated by the French government — officially called zones urbaines sensibles (sensitive urban zones), or ZUS, for short, but referred to as “no-go” zones by some observers — resemble poor sections of America’s cities where gangs rule, crime and drugs are rampant and police only enter with significant backup. But in the wake of last week’s massacre at Charlie Hebdo and the fact that hundreds of radicalized Muslims who went to train or fight in Syria and Iraq could return, some experts fear the next terror attack will be launched from inside one of France’s no-go zones.

“These ‘no-go’ zones are essentially breeding grounds for radicalism, and it’s a very big problem,” Soeren Kern, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, told FoxNews.com. “These are areas where essentially the French government has lost control.”

Created in 1996, the zones are sprinkled throughout cities and suburbs in rundown neighborhoods France sought to revitalize with tax breaks for businesses. Most of the zones are blocks of neighborhoods, with the average ZUS containing about 6,000 residents. An estimated 5 million people live the zones, and most of the residents are part of France’s 10 percent Muslim population. In some zones, Islamic law actually supersedes the French legal system on civil matters such as property disputes, adultery and divorce.

“Most of the time, these are quiet places with nothing going on,” said Daniel Pipes, the president of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank. “But they’re apt to flare up.”

Examples of flare-ups within the last decade include the infamous 2005 riots, when the accidental deaths of two teenagers in an impoverished Paris suburb during a police sweep touched off a national wave of unrest. For the next three weeks, violent clashes between immigrant youths and police took place in nearly 300 towns and suburbs, resulting in the torching of schools, community centers and thousands of cars, as well as nearly 3,000 arrests and an estimated 200 million euros in damage. Two years later, when two minority teenagers were killed after their motorscooter collided with a police car in a blue-collar town on Paris’ northern edge, rioting and arson ensued for several days. That time, however, the rioters — joined by what a police union official called “urban guerrillas” — fought police officers with shotguns and gasoline bombs, injuring dozens.

Part of the problem, say experts, has been an inability of France to assimilate its Muslim population. Unlike America, where each passing generation seems to become more integrated into the national identity, the opposite is true in France, experts say, with the relationship between the overwhelmingly white, Roman Catholic majority and dark-skinned, Muslim immigrant community becoming more estranged in the past decade.

In 2004, the government passed a controversial law prohibiting the wearing of religious apparel in France’s public schools, including Islamic head scarves. The move triggered demonstrations by Muslims around the world. Seven years later, France formally banned full-face veils in public places, ostensibly as a security measure but widely seen as an affront to Islamic custom and a way to make Muslim women feel unwelcome in French society.

As the divide grows, many second- and third-generation Muslim youths, seeking an identity and a sense of belonging, are becoming more religious than their parents and grandparents.

“These kids … have no relationship to Morocco or Algeria at all, but they’re not integrated into French society at all,” Kern said. “In a way, they’re stateless. They get drawn to radical Islam as a way to give them meaning in their life.”

Meanwhile, immigrants, particularly those from northern Africa, have difficulty landing good jobs or climbing in French society. A Newsweek correspondent estimated in August that 40 percent of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds are unemployed, and a 2010 Stanford University study found that a Christian of African heritage was two and a half times more likely to get called for a job interview in France than an equally qualified Muslim with the same ethnic background.

With much of the country’s Muslim population living in the downtrodden ZUS, they’re vulnerable to jihadist recruitment. A poll conducted last summer by Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya found that 15 percent of French citizens had a positive opinion of the Islamic State terror group, also known as ISIS, or ISIL, and last month, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve revealed that twice as many French nationals in 2014 had joined or were planning to join ISIS than in 2013.

“You see these disenfranchised people, and it’s a very good recruitment pool,” said Scott Stewart, the vice president of tactical analysis of Stratfor Global Intelligence. “(Jihadists) are looking for angry, underemployed guys. It’s a good target audience for them.”

Among that audience were the three men linked to last week’s rampage at Charlie Hebdo and the subsequent manhunt that ultimately claimed 17 victims. The brothers behind the attack, Said and Cherif Kouachi, were French citizens of Algerian descent who were known to authorities for years. Cherif, the 32-year-old younger brother, was part of a cell known as the 19th arrondissement network, a group located in northeast Paris that sent European Muslims to fight in Iraq after the U.S.-led 2003 invasion. Along with several others, he was convicted in 2008 on terror charges, but he did not serve any time after conviction because part of his sentence was suspended and he was credited for time served in his pre-trial detention.

It’s also emerged that Said Kouachi, 34, had traveled to Yemen in 2011 and had direct contact with an Al Qaeda training camp. And Amedy Coulibaly, 32, a French citizen of Senegalese descent who claimed to be a compatriot of the brothers and was gunned down Friday at a Kosher grocery store in east Paris after killing four hostages, had declared allegiance to ISIS in a video that emerged on Sunday.

But while authorities piece together the events and causes behind last week’s events, debate is underway on how French authorities should try to assert more oversight and better relations with those in the ZUS.

Kern wants to see European governments crack down on welfare benefits that he believes entice immigrants, particularly for those with polygamous families. Pipes believes the French government should impose more restrictive immigration policies while demanding newcomers embrace western culture and its freedoms of expression.

Michele Lamont, however, a Harvard professor of sociology of African and African-American studies who is an expert on racism in France, fears that a hard-line response would only inflame tensions further. She believes the majority of Muslims want to be integrated with the rest of the French society, and the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks will be a critical time during which the nation’s Muslim population will either be drawn closer to the rest of the country or face further estrangement.

“It pushes all Muslims to make choices about where they stand,” she said.

*******

The 751 No-Go Zones of France

by Daniel Pipes
Nov 14, 2006

updated Jan 11, 2015

They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count. They areconvienently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.

What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.

Comment: A more precise name for these zones would be Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule. (November 14, 2006)

Nov. 28, 2006 update: For an insight into how bad things are, the police in Lyons demonstrated on Nov. 9, denouncing “violence against the forces of order.” Things have reached a pretty sad state when the police have to demonstrate in the streets against the criminals.

Jan. 5, 2008 update: In a remarkable statement, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Pakistani-born bishop of Rochester, writes in the Daily Telegraph about the situation in Great Britain:

there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into “no-go” areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability. Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them.

Jan. 16, 2008 update: Paul Belien of Brussels Journal provides an update on the ZUS, connecting them to organized crime in a way that helps explain police reluctance to intervene:

In May [2007], the French voters elected Mr. [Nicolas] Sarkozy as president because he had promised to restore the authority of the Republic over France’s 751 no-go areas, the so-called zones urbaines sensibles (ZUS, sensitive urban areas), where 5 million people – 8 percent of the population – live. During his first months in office he has been too busy with other activities, such as selling nuclear plants to Libya and getting divorced. While the French media publish nude pictures of the future (third) Mrs. Sarkozy, the situation in the ZUS has remained as “sensitive” as before.

People get mugged, even murdered, in the ZUS, but the media prefer not to write about it. When large-scale rioting erupts and officers and firemen are attacked, the behavior of the thugs is condoned with references to their “poverty” and to the “racism” of the indigenous French. The French media never devote their attention to the bleak situation of intimidation and lawlessness in which 8 percent of the population, including many poor indigenous French, are forced to live. Muslim racism toward the “infidels” is never mentioned.

Xavier Raufer, a former French intelligence officer who heads the department on organized crime and terrorism at the Institute of Criminology of the University of Paris II, thinks that organized crime has a lot to do with the indifference of the French establishment.

The ZUS are centers of drug trafficking. According to a recent report of the French government’s Interdepartmental Commission to Combat Drug Traffic and Addiction (MILDT) 550,000 people in France consume cannabis on a daily basis and 1.2 million on a regular basis. The annual cannabis consumption amounts to 208 tons for a market value of 832 million euros ($1.2 billion in U.S. dollars). MILDT estimates that there are between 6,000 and 13,000 small “entrepreneurs” and between 700 and 1,400 wholesalers who make a living out of dealing cannabis. The wholesalers earn up to 550,000 euros ($820,000) per year. Since they operate from within the ZUS the drug dealers are beyond the reach of the French authorities.

The ZUS exist not only because Muslims wish to live in their own areas according to their own culture and their own Shariah laws, but also because organized crime wants to operate without the judicial and fiscal interference of the French state. In France, Shariah law and mafia rule have become almost identical.

Mar. 8, 2008 update: Britain has “ethnic” no-go areas for military personnel in uniform, the Times(London) reports today at “Military uniforms in public ‘risk offending minorities’.”

Certain areas in Britain will still have to remain off-limits for servicemen and women in military gear, despite the Government’s desire for a nationwide uniform free-for-all, senior RAF sources acknowledged yesterday. … one senior air force source said that military commanders had to be aware of potential problems of personnel wearing combat and other military clothes in the street. “We’re aware of the sensitivities, for example, in some ethnic minority communities which is why we need to have a dialogue with local authorities and police if we don’t want to cause a problem.”

Mar. 16, 2008 update: John Cornwell, a leading historian and commentator on religion, is generally skeptical of Nazir-Ali’s no-go areas but finds that if anyplace fits the profile, it’s Bury Parkin Luton:

Luton, like other enclaves, has experienced a spate of incidents that look all too like attempts to make Bury Park a no-go area to non-Muslims. Between November of last year and last month there were 18 attacks – all registered by the police – on five non-Muslim homes in the area. One couple, Mr and Mrs Harrop, white residents in their eighties, have had bricks hurled through their windows. The home of Mrs Palmer, a widow of West Indian origin, aged 70, has been attacked four times; on one occasion a metal beer keg crashed through her bay window while she was watching TV.

Such attacks are not typical of the activities of the sort of radicals who preach a global Islamic state, or potential terrorists, who, according to one of my MI5 informants, merge into a background of “innocent normalcy” till the last minute. DCI Ian Middleton of Bedfordshire police says: “It’s the perception of the victims that their Muslim neighbours are to blame, and we have to respect that. But we have our doubts.” Middleton suspects, as does Margaret Moran, MP for Luton South, that the attacks could be the work of small groups of white or Muslim extremists, stirring up racial and inter-religious hatred for its own sake.

I was to come across comparable “no-go” incidents in other parts of Britain, such as threats against Muslim converts to Christianity, and attacks on visiting social workers and Salvation Army facilities.

July 28, 2008 update: For information on the German case, see Kristian Frigelj, “Unter Feinden,”Die Welt. The teaser explains that “In many German urban areas, the police hardly dare enter because they are immediately assaulted.” July 29, 2008 update: For a translation of this article, see “In Enemy Territory.”

Jan. 12, 2009 update: I consider the potential political import of these no-go zones at “Muslim Autonomous Zones in the West?

July 19, 2010 update: Due to problems with Turkish delinquents, German police want their counterparts from Turkey to come in and patrol problem areas of North Rhine-Westphalia. Also today, Baron Bodissey discusses the general issue of no-go zones at “A Little Piece of Dar al-Islam.”

Aug. 22, 2011 update: Soeren Kern returns to this subject with an important overview at “European ‘No-Go’ Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating.”

Islamic extremists are stepping up the creation of “no-go” areas in European cities that are off-limits to non-Muslims. Many of the “no-go” zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.

The “no-go” areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.

He then surveys developments in the United Kingdom, france, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Aug. 4, 2012 update: The French Interior Ministry has created a new type of no-go zone, calledZones de Sécurité Prioritaires (ZSP), or Priority Security Zones. The first batch contains 15 of them, basically the Muslim-majority regions of major cities like Lille, Paris, Strasbourg, Lyons, and Marseilles, as well as in French Guyana. Aug. 24, 2012 update: Soeren Kern explains these new zones in “France Seeks to Reclaim ‘No-Go’ Zones.”

Nov. 11, 2013 update: Andrew Harrod discusses the problems in Bonn at “Germany’s Sharia No-Go Zones.”

Oct. 1, 2014 update: The Swedish police published a report on 55 areas of heightened criminal activity under the anodyne title of En nationell översikt av kriminella nätverk med stor påverkan i lokalsamhället (“A national survey of criminal networks with great influence in the local community”). No ethnicity is mentioned but many happen to be regions with Muslim majorities.

Jan. 10, 2015 update: The number of “zones urbaines sensibles” in France has now reached 976.

Jan. 18, 2015 9:09 a.m. UPDATE: The above version of Daniel Pipes article is as it appeared on his website on Jan. 13, 2015 at 9:45 am. Daniel Pipes continues to update his article on no go zones appearing to walk back his use of the term “no go zones”.  The update I have highlighted in red above stating that the number of no go zones in France has now reached 976 has since been removed.

This is the updated portion from later that day through Jan. 17, 2015:

Jan. 13, 2015 update: Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, says that most big French cities have “no-go zones” where non-Muslims, including police, cannot enter:

It’s happening right across Europe. We have got no-go zones in most of the big French cities. We’ve been turning a blind eye to preachers of hate that have been coming here from the Middle East and saying things for which the rest of us would be arrested. In parts of northern England we’ve seen the sexual grooming of under-age girls committed by Muslim men, in the majority, and for all of these things we are seeing the law not being applied equally, we’re seeing the police forces not doing their job because we’ve suffered from moral cowardice. We have through mass immigration and through not checking the details of those people who have come to our countries, we have allowed big ghettos to develop and when it comes to confronting tough issues we’re run a mile and that is why we’re in the mess we’re in, we’ve been led very badly. … So, wherever you look, wherever you look you see this blind eye being turned and you see the growth of ghettos where the police and all the normal agents of the law have withdrawn and that is where Sharia law has come in.”

He added that he is “hoping and praying” that similar no-go zones do not develop in British cities.

Jan. 14, 2015 update: Jack Sommers, a UK-based reporter for Huffington Post, posed this series of questions to me about the ZUS and their equivalents elsewhere in Europe:

Could you describe the places you visited in more detail? What were your impressions of these places before you visited them? Did you feel personally safe visiting them? Do you think there is any truth to the claims being made that police and non-Muslims fear to visit them?

My reply:

​I have visited predominantly immigrant (and largely Muslim) areas of Brussels, Copenhagen, Malmö, Stockholm, Berlin, Paris, and Athens.​ In the case of Paris, I spent time both in Belleville and in such suburbs as Sarcelles, Val d’Oise, and Seine Saint Denis.

Before my travels, I expected these areas to be similar to the worst areas of the United States, such as the Bronx or Detroit, where buildings are decrepit, streets menacing, and outsiders feel distinctly unwelcome.

My experiences starting in 2007 belied this expectation. All the immigrant areas turned out to be well maintained, with safe streets, and no sense of intimidation. I walked around, usually with camera in hand, and felt at ease. I encountered no difficulties at all.

That said, there is a reason why the French government calls these regions sensibles(sensitive, delicate). They contain many social pathologies (unemployment, drugs, political extremism), they seethe with antagonism toward the majority society, and are prone to outbreaks of violence.

So, from an American point of view, these areas are a bit confusing: potentially dangerous, yes, but in normal times very ordinary looking and with no sense of foreboding. Thus, the term no-go zone does not accurately reflect the situation.

Jan. 17, 2015 update: Research into the term no-go zones referring to Muslim habitations in Western Europe done by the pseudonymous Yoel Natan finds its earliest use to be on my website, DanielPipes.org: An Australia resident who calls himself “fed up” wrote on March 22, 2006, that “In Sydney, Australia, we have large areas of our city that are deemed no-go zones.”

The next use was by the Norwegian analyst who calls himself Fjordman, on July 13, 2006, who defined “Muslim no-go zones” as places “where anything representing a Western institution (post office truck, firemen, even mail order delivery firms) was routinely ambushed with Molotov cocktails.”

Then came my use of the term on November 14, 2006.

The Islamist Threat – Is Europe in Denial?

The UK, France Holland and many other European countries are suffering a tide of Islamic extremism unprecedented in living memory. Is Europe’s culture and way of life in danger? Will the governments wake up and act or continue to bury their heads in the sand, living in denial. Clarions Project’s film, The Third Jihad, predicted this tide of violence and extremism now gathering momentum as seen in France, the UK, Holland and across all of Europe.

NOTORIOUS MUSLIM WARNS U.S. MEDIA

anjem_choudaryWND, Jan. 8, 2015:

Britain’s most notorious Islamic cleric has taken to the U.S. airwaves to issue a warning to any American news outlet thinking about depicting Muhammad or mocking Islam.

Doing so will most likely result in a jihadist attack similar to the deadly massacre at the Paris office of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, declared radical British Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary.

Choudary warned Americans to take lessons from the case of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim in 2004 after making a film critical of Islam.

Choudary was speaking today to weekend talk radio host Aaron Klein of New York’s AM 970 The Answer, who this week launched a daily audio online feature.

Klein had referred to complaints in the wake of the Paris attack that Comedy Central had censored a 2010 “South Park” episode that originally was slated to depict Muhammad. In response to threats from Muslims, the episode was altered, and the Muhammad figure was obscured with the word “uncensored” in a black rectangle.

Klein stressed Comedy Central had not taking any move to air the episode uncensored. He asked Choudary whether or not such a move would result in attacks against the network.

“Yes, I think there is a very strong possibility of a very severe reaction if that were to take place,” Choudary said. “What I would say is that people have been hiding under these euphemisms of freedom of speech, the right to be satirical. There are sensibilities and emotions of people around the world which I’ve taken into consideration.”

Continued Choudary: “Perhaps we can have a moral relationship between the people of France and Muslims. But if they continue down this line of provocation, and if the Americans and ‘South Park’ as well go down that line, I think it can only have really one repercussion. We saw it in Paris. I think that people will come out. They will want to defend the honor of the prophet. Remember they consider the honor of the prophet even more dear to them than themselves, let alone their own parents or children.”

Choudary went on to warn that any American media outlet that depicted Muhammad or insulted the “honor” of Islam would face similar consequences to that of Van Gogh or the Charlie Hebdo staff.

Klein asked Choudary to clarify: “What you are saying is that if any American news agency or whatever it is, if any American news network depicts the prophet Muhammad, you do expect, to be clear, that they would face the same consequences as Charlie Hebdo? Meaning that they can be attacked?”

“I believe so,” replied Choudary. “I believe that that would have severe consequences. You know, I am not in charge of Muslims, for example, or how they would react. But one thing can be clear: that the divine text is not subject to change or amendment.”

He added: “What can be changed is man-made laws. People make up laws as they go along. They move the parameters of acceptable behavior. They put curtailments on freedom of expression. And I think in the current climate of insecurity and instability it was about time the honor of the prophet was defended and protected. And people need to take the lesson of what took place yesterday and that has taken place previously as we have already said with people like Theo Van Gogh.

“You know, people are willing to die to defend the honor of the prophet and the sanctity of the Quran. I mean, these are extremely serious values for Muslims. People fight for freedom and democracy. They fight for different things. Muslims fight to defend the prophet’s honor.”

Klein conducted the interview to air on his weekend radio show Sunday as well as for posting today on a new subscription service that offers daily audio updates for his listeners at ConnectPal.com, a recently launched online content marketplace.

In the wake of the Paris attack, as WND reported earlier Thursday, some in the media are recalling Comedy Central’s controversial decision to censor the 2010 episode that was slated to depict Muhammad.

Writing at IndieWire.com, blogger Sam Adams complained: “It doesn’t take fanatics with guns to suppress free speech, just media conglomerates with stockholders where their spines should be.”

Time Magazine media writer James Poniewozik said “the Charlie Hebdo attackers were attacking you too.” He wrote that “unless all of us reject the kowtowing and the playing-it-safe, it absolutely has worked and will work again,” referring to the “South Park” case.

Continued Poniewozik: “No one had to physically attack Comedy Central to make this happen; to this day, you can’t stream an authorized version of “201” online. Ironically, part of the program that was censored was making the point that suppressing speech with violent threats works.”

“The killers in Paris may have been lashing out at cartoons you never saw and would never have wanted to. But the same attack was also against something you would be interested in. You just may never know it, because you’ll never get to see it.”

The Glazov Gang-Dr. Mark Durie on “Our Fear of Islam.”

Front Page:

Mark discussed, “Our Fear of Islam,” analyzing the different psychological mechanisms the West is now engaged in its surrender to a totalitarian ideology, which includes the “Tend and Befriend” response.  The dialogue also involved a focus on Islamic female genital mutilation and the world’s denial about its Muslim theological foundations:

Muslims: Halal Lunches in School are a Constitutional Right

halal-slaughter1-450x300Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:

First Bill de Blasio provided special privileges to Muslims by adding Muslim, but not Hindu or Buddhist holidays, to the school calendar. During the Democratic primaries, he promised Muslims that he would bring Halal meals to city schools.

Now the Muslims are making their demands known. In a city with the largest Jewish population in the country, Kosher meals are not served in city schools. But as usual, Muslims are special and their sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

Marge Feinberg, another spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Education, added that the schools’ menus include vegetarian dishes. “Our kitchens and our kitchen staff are not equipped for specialty meat requirements,” she said. “We have a variety of non-meat options for children.”

But for labor leader Maf Misbha Uddin, the District Council 37 treasurer and founding president of Alliance of South Asian Association of Labor (ASAAL), halal food is not an issue of demand or will, but of religious freedom.

“I feel that serving halal food in school is our constitutional right since the constitution has ensured equal rights for all religious groups and ensured the observance of religion without any obstacle,” said Uddin, whose five children grew up in the city and never ate school lunches because halal menu choices were unavailable.

To no one’s surprise, Mustafa has no idea how Freedom of Religion works. It means freedom from government compulsion in areas of religion, a concept Muslims who push for theocracy everywhere they live simply refuse to understand.

It doesn’t mean a government entitlement to religious practice. That’s not freedom of religion, it’s theocracy.

All the stories about Muslim kids “going hungry” in school are nonsense. There are plenty of non-meat options for them. I went through school without having meat served. Having meat served is a luxury.

More problematically, many Halal certifying organizations are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or other terrorist and hate groups.

New Yorkers should not be forced to subsidize Muslim terrorism by Islamist pressure groups using their kids as human shields. Those kids aren’t starving in a corner somewhere as their lying parents would have you believe, they’re stuffing their faces with pizza and french fries.

“Islamic extremists” put a price on your head? That means you can’t give a speech in this American government building

Washington Post, BY EUGENE VOLOKH:

The discussion of the American flag case reminded me of a much less noticed decision from a few weeks ago, Agema v. City of Allegan (W.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2014).

David Agema (a Michigan state representative) and some other people organized a Jan. 26, 2012 event that included as a speaker Kamal Saleem. Saleem runs Koome Ministries, which aims to teach about what it sees as “radical Islam’s true agenda.” Plaintiffs say Saleem “has a unique perspective on the internal threat to America posed by Sharia law and radical Muslims as he was once a Muslim involved in terrorist activities who has since transformed himself and converted to Christianity.”

76326277_640To hold this event, plaintiffs rented a room at Alleghan High School for $90. They also asked the local police department to provide two officers as security. Then,

Shortly before the event was to take place, a woman approached the police officers at Allegan High School and “stated that Kamal Saleem had a $25 million dollar bounty on his head.” An Allegan police officer talked with Jones, Saleem’s bodyguard, who did not deny that a bounty existed. “Jones further stated that there had been death threats directed toward Kamal Saleem from Islamic extremists in the past.”

While the event was still in progress, Chief Hoyer ordered Plaintiffs to shut down the event. Other events were occurring simultaneously in other locations within the Allegan High School building while Saleem was speaking.

Plaintiffs argued that “comply[ing] with the demands of hecklers based on the viewpoint of the speaker and the content of the speech” unconstitutionally allows “the heckler’s veto” to trump the “Constitutional freedoms of Plaintiffs.” (“Hecklers” is used here broadly to refer not just to the person in the audience who shouts out immediate threats, but to anyone who threatens to attack a speaker.)

But the court concluded that the stopping of the event was constitutional. The high school classroom, the court concluded, wasn’t a “traditional public forum,” such as a street or a sidewalk, or a place that “the government has intentionally designated a place … as a public forum.” Rather, it was a “nonpublic forum” — government property that hasn’t been deliberately opened for speech:

Here, there are no allegations that the school was open for use by the general public; rather, permission to rent the school was secured from the building principal, and there is no allegation that permission was granted as a matter of course to all who sought it. “This type of selective access does not transform government property into a public forum.”

The First Amendment rule in nonpublic forums is that speech restrictions are constitutional if they are “reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” And, the court said, this restriction was reasonable:

Plaintiffs allege in their First Amended Complaint that the January 26, 2012 event was stopped due to “death threats” from “Islamic extremists” while other events were occurring at the high school …. [Whether or not] public officials mistakenly assessed the credibility of the risk or the imminence of danger, Plaintiffs’ allegations, taken together, do not support the conclusion that the decision to stop the event was nonetheless unreasonable. “[T]he government does not need to wait ‘until havoc is wreaked to restrict access to a nonpublic forum.’”

Now I sympathize with the high school principal, who is trying to prevent harm to the people visiting his school. And while the Supreme Court has held that the government generally may not suppress speech on sidewalks or parks in order to prevent attacks on the speaker, it’s possible that these cases don’t apply when it comes to speech in a “nonpublic forum,” such as a government building. (But see Robb v. Hungerbeeler (8th Cir. 2004) and Chicago Acorn v. Metropolitan Pier and Exposition (7th Cir. 1998), which suggest that the cases do indeed apply even to nonpublic forums.)

Nonetheless, consider what incentives this sort of decision creates. If you don’t like a speaker, make death threats against him. Then, if you can somehow let American government officials know about those threats, the officials will kick the speaker out of the places that it rented to him for his speech. (Nor is the principle in the case limited to high school buildings — school wasn’t in session, and the government could raise a similar security objection for any government building where other people are present, or perhaps even a building whether this is the only event taking place.)

The Rushdie Fatwa 25 Years Later

by Daniel Pipes
Feb 14, 2014
Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner

Twenty-five years ago today, Ayatollah Khomeini brought his edict down on Salman Rushdie. Iran’s revolutionary leader objected to the author’s magical-realist novel The Satanic Verses because of its insults to the Muslim prophet Muhammad and responded by calling for the execution of Rushdie and “all those involved in the publication who were aware of its contents.”

Salman Rushdie in 1989.

That Rushdie was born in India, lived in Britain, and had no significant connections to Iran made this an unprecedented act of aggression, one that resounded widely at the time and has subsequently had an enduring impact. Indeed, one could argue that the era of “creeping Shari’a” or “stealth jihad” or “lawful Islamism” began on February 14, 1989, with the issuance of that short edict.

If Rushdie, 66, is alive and well (if not exactly flourishing; his writings deteriorated after The Satanic Verses), many others lost their lives in the disturbances revolving around his book. Worse, the long-term impact of the edict has been to constrain the ability of Westerners freely to discuss Islam and topics related to it, what has come to be known as the Rushdie Rules. Long observation of this topic (including a book written in 1989), leads me to conclude that two processes are underway:

First, that the right of Westerners to discuss, criticize, and even ridicule Islam and Muslims has eroded over the years.

Second, that free speech is a minor part of the problem; at stake is something much deeper – indeed, a defining question of our time: will Westerners maintain their own historic civilization in the face of assault by Islamists, or will they cede to Islamic culture and law and submit to a form of second-class citizenship?

Most analyses of the Rushdie Rules focus exclusively on the growth of Islamism. But two other factors are even more important: Multiculturalism as practiced undercuts the will to sustain Western civilization against Islamist depredations while the Left’s making common political cause with Islamists gives the latter an entrée. In other words, the core of the problem lies not in Islam but in the West. (February 14, 2014)

Also see:

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 France in 2013

Marseille-450x270by Soeren Kern:

“Who has the right to say that France in thirty or forty years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?” — Marwan Muhammed, spokesman, Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), Paris.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said he was “shocked” by an RTL Radio report which estimated that more than 40,000 cars are burned in France every year.

The Muslim population of France reached an estimated 6.5 million in 2013. Although France is prohibited by law from collecting official statistics about the race or religion of its citizens, this estimate is based on the average of several recent studies that attempt to calculate the number of people in France whose origins are from Muslim majority countries.

This estimate would imply that the Muslim population of France is now approximately 10% of the country’s total population of around 66 million. In real terms, France has the largest Muslim population in the European Union.

Not surprisingly, Islam and the question of Muslim immigration were an ever-present topic in newspaper headlines during 2013. In practical terms, the debate over Islam in France centered mainly on questions about French identity, secularism and security-related issues.

What follows is a chronological review of some of the main stories about the rise of Islam in France during 2013:

On January 1, 2013, Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced that a total of 1,193 cars and trucks were torched across France on New Year’s Eve. He also said he was “shocked” by an RTL Radio report which estimated that more than 40,000 cars are burned in France every year.

Valls broke with recent tradition by publicly announcing the number of car burnings because “the French people should know the truth.” His predecessor, Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux, decided in 2010 to stop making public the number of car burnings because doing so had the effect of encouraging competition between rival gangs of Muslim youths, determined to see which of them could cause the most destruction.

Car burnings are increasingly commonplace in all French cities and are often attributed to shiftless young Muslims who reside in suburban slums known as banlieues. French authorities are especially eager to avoid a repetition of the riots in 2005, when the deaths of two Muslim teenagers in the banlieue of Clichy-sous-Bois near Paris sparked weeks of looting and car-burning, and led to the imposition of a state of emergency.

Meanwhile, jihadists in France and elsewhere debated how to respond to a comic book biography of the Prophet Mohammed published on January 2 by the French satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo.

According to the inestimable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which translated the Arabic twitter posts of several jihadists, the suggestions included: “killing France’s ambassadors, just as the ‘manly’ Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi; carrying out operations similar to 9/11, London’s July 7, 2005 bombings, and Madrid’s March 11, 2004 bombings, because only attacks of this kind would deter and defeat the ‘crusaders'; carrying out assassinations; conducting suicide bombings outside the French Information Ministry building; and holding demonstrations outside French embassies, especially in Egypt, because it has [allegedly] been proven that the Egyptian public can sway the entire Arab public.”

It was also suggested that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) kill the hostages it is holding, and that anyone who can kill a French national do so without hesitation.

The Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo were destroyed in an arson attack in November 2011 after the magazine featured a cartoon of Mohammed on its cover. The attack marked a serious escalation of a long-running Islamic war on free speech and expression in Europe.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

Danish Muslim Apostate Faces Hate Speech Charges

Yahya_HAssan_788776y-450x338Front Page, January 2, 2014, By Andrew Harrod:

“Muslims love to take advantage of” free speech, Danish-Palestinian poet Yahya Hassan says, “and as soon as there is someone else saying something critical against them, they want to restrict it.”  In an action previously indicated by this writer, Hassan is now personally facing this double standard in Danish “hate speech” charges for his anti-Islam comments.

Following Danish-Iranian artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan’s conviction under Danish Penal Code Section 266b (in Danish here) for condemning Islam as misogynist, a local Muslim Aarhus politician demanded a similar prosecution of Hassan.  His poetry “says that everybody in the ghettos like Vollsmose and Gellerup steal, don’t pay taxes and cheat themselves to pensions,” the Somali-Dane Mohamed Suleban stated after reporting Hassan to the police on November 27. “Those are highly generalizing statements and they offend me and many other people.”  Authorities are currently considering Section 266b charges for, according to one English translation, any public “communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.”

The 18-year-old Hassan’s eponymous debut book contains about 150 poems, “many of which are severely critical of the religious environment he grew up in” according to Wall Street Journal reporters Clemens Bomsdorf and Ellen Emmerentze Jervell.  Written in all capital letters, Hassan’s poems treat “issues like the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, child abuse, and the interplay between violence and religion” with “[p]rofanity and vivid analogies.”  Yahya Hassan has sold 80,000 copies following an October 17 release in the comparatively small Danish market and is expected to exceed 100,000 copies by Christmas.  Hassan’s publisher Gyldendal reports that Danish poetry books are fortunate to sell 500 copies.  A recent book forum honored Hassan as the debut author of the year and an English translation of his poetry is underway.

Hassan first became prominent with an October 5 Danish newspaper interview entitled “I F**king Hate My Parents’ Generation.”  In it he blamed poor Muslim parenting for the juvenile delinquency and social maladjustment experienced by many Danish Muslim youth such as Hassan himself.  With more than 85,000 social media shares, the interview became the most shared Politiken article of the year.

Days thereafter Hassan recited from his “LANGDIGT” or “LONG POEM” before his book’s release on the Danish news program Deadline.  Extract:  “between the Friday prayers and the Ramadans/you want to carry a knife in your pocket/you want to go and ask people if they have a problem/although the only problem is you.”  Such verses brought Hassan more death threats than any other previous Deadline guest.  Hassan has subsequently reported 27 Facebook threats against him, of which the police investigated six as serious and pressed charges in one case of a 15-year old boy.  A subsequent assault against Hassan occurred on November 18 in Copenhagen Central Station by a 24-year old Palestinian-Danish Muslim who had previously received a seven-year terrorism sentence.

Hassan now wears a bulletproof vest and receives protection from Denmark’s domestic intelligence agency PET at speaking engagements.  A November 26 reading by Hassan from his book in a school in the Danish town of Odense, moreover, required an estimated one million kroner in security costs, more than the amount spent on a high-risk soccer game.  Several hundred policemen had observed the school for two days before the event occurred with road checkpoints, a bomb sweep, and a five kilometer no-fly zone around the school.

Police safety concerns had forced the cancellation of an earlier, sold-out reading at a public library in Odense’s troubled district of Vollsmose.  Along with Hassan, Culture Minister Marianne Jelved and several other Danish politicians criticized the Vollmose cancellation as “completely unacceptable.”  Jelved demanded that police in Vollmose “make the necessary precautions” in order “to hold on to what democracy is, or otherwise we reduce it day by day.”

Yet Suleban’s charges might succeed in silencing Hassan where violence has failed.  Jacob Mchangama, legal affairs director at Denmark’s liberal think-tank Cepos, sees a “strong case” against Hassan, particularly given a “range of similar preceding cases” like Bazrafkan’s.  Hassan’s media attention and public popularity, though, might make conviction difficult, as “his poems are important social commentary.”  Hassan’s acquittal “for making statements similar to what other people have been convicted for,” Mchangama nonetheless observed, “will expose a random legislation where no-one can be sure of what is legal to say.”

Calling for Section 266b’s abolition, Mchangama further questions the law’s “arbitrary limits.” What “is sufficiently degrading” and why should, for example, homosexuals receive protection, but not disabled people.  Mchangama also sees no “good science” correlating speech laws with “less hate crimes.”  Other commentators, moreover, have argued that speech trials simply bring more attention to the offending statements.

Hassan’s case presents speech codes functioning not just as a de facto blasphemy, but also as a de facto apostasy law protecting Islam.  How, after all, can an atheist like Hassan, who says that there is “something wrong with Islam,” decide upon his religious views without rigorous testing of all faiths?  For that matter, how could anyone answer Hassan’s call for a “reformation” in an Islam that “refuses to renew itself” without similar scrutiny?  Such questions aside, Hassan remains committed to his criticisms, stating that he does not “care about getting convicted of racism.” Muslims threatening violence can likewise “all come and get me if they want.  I don’t give a s**t about these morons.”  “I know these people,” Hassan adds, “They can’t handle criticism…they’re not interested in dialogue.”

This article was commissioned by The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. You may follow Harrod on twitter at @AEHarrod.