A One-Sided Suicide Pact

By Edward Cline:

Soeren Kern, writing for the  Gatestone Institute in his November  16th article, “Islam Needs a  Fair Chance in Germany,” reported a significant development in Germany that  portends dire consequences for that benighted nation and for all of Europe: the  city of Hamburg signed a “treaty” with organizations representing its Islamic   population.

The “treaty” features a series of  concessions, not by the Muslims to secular  authority, but by the secular  government of Hamburg to the Muslims. The  “treaty,” which requires ratification  by the city’s Parliament, grants Muslims  “rights” and “privileges” enjoyed by no  other religious group there.

The November 13 agreement, signed  by Hamburg’s Socialist Mayor Olaf Scholz  and the leaders of four Muslim umbrella  groups, is being praised by the  proponents of multiculturalism for putting the  northern port city’s estimated  200,000 Muslims on an equal footing with  Christian residents….

The most controversial part of  the accord involves a commitment by the city  government to promote the teaching  of Islam in the Hamburg public school  system. The agreement grants the leaders  of Hamburg’s Muslim communities a  determinative say in what will be taught by  allowing them to develop the  teaching curriculum for Islamic studies.

Moreover, Muslim officials will  also be able to determine who will (and who  will not) be allowed to teach  courses about Islam in city schools. In practice,  this means that only Muslims  will be allowed to teach Islam and that pupils  will not be exposed to any  critical perspectives about the religious, social  and political ideology of  Islam.

Under the wide-ranging accord,  Muslims in Hamburg will also have the right  to take three Islamic holidays as  days off from work. Up until now, it has been  up to individual employers to  decide whether or not to grant Muslim staff  religious days off on a case-by-case  basis. In addition, Muslim students will  be exempt from attending school on  Muslim holidays.

The agreement also includes  provisions for the construction of more mosques  in Hamburg, the upkeep of  cultural Islamic facilities, the authorization for  Muslims to bury their dead  without the use of coffins, as well as the  counseling of patients and prison  inmates by Muslim clerics.

Moreover, the “treaty” will  guarantee “broadcast slots alongside Protestant  and Catholic broadcasts on  public and private radio and television, as well as  broadcasting council seats  for Muslims with the northern Germany NDR public  broadcaster and Germany’s  federal ZDF television channel.”

The German term for treaty,  vertag, occurs no less than five times  in the article. It occurs in the  document itself. In the article, the term agreement occurs  fifteen times. But the actual document  reads, in a loose English translation, “A Draft Treaty between the Islamic Community and the Municipal Authority of Hamburg.”

However, no matter how many times  the term agreementappears in the  article, a treaty is what the  agreement is. Islam is on a cultural or  civilizational jihad against the  West and all Western institutions.  So, what is a treaty? Is it a “truce” between  the secular authorities and the  religious Muslims? Is it a “non-aggression pact”  between two powers vying for  hegemony? Is it the granting to Muslims a “separate but equal” political status?

A treaty is commonly regarded as  an agreement between belligerent nations,  states, or governments. TheOxford  English Dictionary defines treaty as:

3a. A settlement or  arrangement arrived at by treating or  negotiation; an agreement, covenant,  compact, contract.

3b. spec. A  contract between two or more states, relating to  peace, truce, alliance,  commerce, or other international relation; also, the  document embodying such  contract, in modern usage formally signed by  plenipotentiaries appointed by the  government of each state.

A treaty between belligerents  indicates a cessation of hostilities between  the parties. The Hamburg treaty  implicitly acknowledges that its Muslim  “communities” are part and parcel of the  Islamic Ummah, or the  worldwide, global “community” of Islam. The treaty  has implicitly recognized  the Ummah as a state to “treat” or “negotiate”  with. So, the  “agreement” is called a “treaty.” The German government has not  been waging  cultural or political jihad against Muslims; it is Muslims,  especially those of  Turkish origin in Germany, who have been waging all sorts of  jihad against  non-Muslim Germans in the way of rape jihad, jihad against  freedom of speech, and jihad against Jews.

This is the situation in all European countries now, especially  in the western European nations of Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and  Finland. Across the Channel, Britain is succumbing to the same phenomena.

Out of a population of about 1.8  million in the city proper of Hamburg,  Muslims of various sects, including the  Alevi, a Turkish sect, constitute over  nine percent.

Again, I think it is significant  that this agreement is consistently called  a treaty. It acknowledges that  Islam has been at war with Western  culture, and will continue to be until the  “peace” of a global caliphate is  achieved. For the time being, in Hamburg, its  activists see a short-term gain  in minimizing or playing down their necessary  and constant hostility. In Islam,  this is an instance of Dar al-Ahd, or a  temporary truce. The  “treaty,” from the Muslim perspective,  is also necessarily an instance of what  could be called “Grand Taqiyya,”  or the Koranic sanctioning of lies and deceit when dealing with the enemy kaffirs and infidels, especially in their own countries.

But these “treaties” will turn  out to be nothing but “truces,” when a  movement is renewed to exact more  concessions from the Germans. Call these  “treaties” for what they are: fleeting  “non-aggression pacts,” with Islam being  the sole aggressor.  Regardless of the nature or content of these treaties, Germany will remain  Dar al-Harb, the land of the enemy, and Dar al-Kufr, or the  land  of the kaffirs or unbelievers. It is noteworthy that all the concessions  will be  paid by non-Muslim Germans as a form of jizya, or “protection”  tax.  Germans will not “retaliate” against Islamic aggression, for political   correctness will silence them for fear of being accused of racism or  bigotry.

Islam, however, is first and  foremost, from top to bottom, a totalitarian  ideology. Its doctrine requires  that Muslims and their spokesmen advocate  Islam’s own kind of racism and  bigotry.

Islam is a nihilist ideology, as  well. It is the enemy of all human values.  In exchange for submission to it, it  promises a paradise after death. Life on  earth is merely transitory and not  important. The Hamburg “treaty” is an  extension of that nihilism; it requires  its secular signers to aid and abet the  piecemeal annihilation of their  values and their culture. The  Islamists know what they are doing. Their secular  cosigners do not. It seems  the “right” thing to do, per a Kantian categorical  imperative to pursue an end  regardless of, but especially because of, its  selfless nature, in the name of  what Mayor Scholz called “the strengthening the  societal foundation” of  Hamburg.

Which is tantamount to injecting  the bubonic plague pathogen into a human  body in order to “strengthen an  individual’s well-being.”

Read more: Family Security Matters

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in  England  and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and  suspense  novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all  available on  Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have  appeared in The  Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other  publications.  He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security  Matters,  Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.