Tag Archives: Mohammed

Islam Coexists?

Posted on by
Reply

By Bill Warner:

There is an enormous irony contained in the Boston Marathon bombing. When the jihadi Tsarnaev brothers carjacked a Mercedes, it had a Coexist bumper sticker.

The Coexist bumper sticker is the religious symbol of the multicultural crowd — you know — all religions are the same. Well, the leading symbol of those who want to Coexist is the star and crescent Islam. And exactly how well has Islam coexisted with all the others? What kind of neighbor has Islam been over history?

Start with Mohammed. We know an enormous amount about Mohammed as a neighbor to Kafirs (non-Muslims), pagans, Jews, and Christians.

When Mohammed was in Mecca before he became a Muslim, he was a good neighbor who was prosperous and helped to settle disputes. But, that all changed when he became the prophet of Allah. Once he became a public preacher of Islam, he became an irritant to his neighbors. You see, not only did Mohammed know what was right, he demanded that everybody do everything his way, Allah’s way. He was a neighbor who was always right and you were always wrong. Not only were you wrong, but your parents and grandparents were wrong. Mohammed no longer settled arguments; he created arguments. After 13 years of this, the Meccans told Mohammed to leave Mecca.

So he went to the town of Medina, which was half Jewish. And what kind of neighbor was Mohammed to the Jews? Put briefly, two years later, Medina was Judenrein (cleansed of Jews). When he arrived, there were three tribes of Jews. In rapid order, the first tribe was driven out of town, bereft of its goods. Then the second tribe of Jews was exiled. They were lucky. The last of the Jewish tribes suffered the most. The women were enslaved and sold wholesale for money to purchase horses and arms for jihad. For the rest of his life, Mohammed used slavery to help finance his jihad. The children were kidnapped and adopted into Muslim families to be raised as Muslims. Then the 800 male Jews were all beheaded.

But wait. Mohammed was not through coexisting with the Jews. Later he left Medina and went to Khaybar and attacked them. Mohammed crushed them, took their wealth and put them to work under the Sharia s dhimmis and give him half of what they earned.

That was how Mohammed coexisted with the Jews.

But Mohammed was not through with coexisting with the Arabians. He attacked the Meccan caravans. His jihadists killed, kidnapped, stole, assassinated and fought the pagan Arabs at every turn. Mohammed’s coexistence policy with the Arabs was jihad. This went on until every Arab became a Muslim.

After Mohammed made every soul in Arabia convert to Islam, he turned his coexistence policy to the Christians north of Arabia in Syria. He attacked the Christians, with the losers becoming dhimmis just like the Jews.

Dhimmis are the way that the Sharia allows Kafirs to coexist within a Muslim society. The dhimmi is a third-class non-citizen who pays special taxes and has no real civil rights. A dhimmi cannot testify against a Muslim in court, for instance.

Look at how Islam coexisted with Africa. A clue as to the nature of that coexistence is that Arabic has one word, “abd”, that means both black slave and African. Context must supply which meaning is used. Islam ran the slave trade on the West coast, East coast and Mediterranean coasts of Africa. Islam sold every slave that was brought to the Americas. Conservative estimates are that 120 million Africans were killed in the jihad that produced all of the slaves in Africa.

How did Islam coexist with the Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan? Jihad annihilated every single Buddhist and their libraries and monasteries.

There is a massive database of the coexistence between Islam and the rest of the world at thereligionofpeace.com. It catalogs more than 20,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11 2001.

Read more at American Thinker

He Seemed Like Such a Nice Guy

Posted on by
1

images (51)Bill Warner:

The news is filled with comments made by people who knew the Boston Marathon bombers that they were “nice”, regular people. They cannot believe that the Tsarnaev brothers could be violent. This is not the first time we have heard such observations, but there is an added dimension. What happened was not just violence, but jihad.

By jihad I mean the “kill the Kafir” (non-Muslim), not the spiritual struggle that the apologists for Islam like to dwell on. References to jihad as “spiritual struggle” are minimal. As one measure, Bukhari collected the most important traditions of Mohammed, called Hadith. Out of 7000 of these traditions, about 1500 of them are about jihad. Of these 1500 jihad hadiths, nearly 1400 are about “kill the Kafir” jihad and only a 100 or so are about jihad as spiritual struggle. This indicates Mohammed thought that jihad as war was the much more important aspect.

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and converted only a 150 people. He was driven out of Mecca and went to Medina. In Medina he became a politician, jihadist, and warlord. He averaged a jihad event on the average of 1 every 6 weeks and as a result every Arab was converted to Islam. The religion of Islam was a failure, but politics and jihad triumphed absolutely. Mohammed talked a lot about jihad, because it worked.

The important factor here is that Mohammed is believed to be the perfect Muslim. The Koran says so over 90 times. If the perfect Muslim is a jihadi, and Allah loves a jihadi, then jihad is a sacred act. That means that the Tsarnaev brothers had an internal guidance system provided by Islamic jihad doctrine.
Read more at American Thinker

Bill Warner is the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

Related articles

The Stockholm Syndrome in Islam

Posted on by
Reply

imagesCAUGCAK3Mohammed’s Greatest Discovery, Part 1

By Kenneth Roberts:

What causes a Muslim woman to honor-kill the children she has borne and raised? The explanation is ‘the Stockholm Syndrome’. It is one of the secret keys of political Islam and Mohammed’s greatest discovery.

The Stockholm syndrome or ‘capture bonding’ is a psychological paradox in which hostages develop empathy and positive feelings towards their captors, even to the point of adopting the captor’s oppressive ideology. One would expect captives to experience resentment and hatred towards an abuser, but that is not what occurs in the Stockholm syndrome.

Rather, the Stockholm syndrome takes hold in a few days as a result of captors performing small acts of kindness towards their doomed captives. The threat of certain death in contrast with kind gestures is thought to bring about the syndrome. The confused captive soon begins to identify with the cruel psyche of the captor in order to survive.

This push-pull dynamic of terror alternating with moments of relative benevolence produces this delusion in the mind of the captive. The captive then begins to believe the far-fetched justifications for brutality and murder that bend the minds of her or his terrorist captors.

The Stockholm syndrome is a severe form of a psychological phenomenon known as dissociation. It is the mind’s survival mechanism, the way trauma victims convince themselves that “this isn’t happening”. Mohammed discovered it by accident.

Why ‘Greatest Discovery’

The discovery of the Stockholm syndrome changed Mohammed’s life. Before discovering the Stockholm syndrome, Mohammed preached religion for 13 years and collected about 150 followers. After his discovery of capture bonding, Mohammed’s political movement grew exponentially.

Read more at Political Islam

Also see: Women, Islam and the Stockhom Syndrome, Part 2:

Jihad-and-hegira (attack-and-retreat) is the third ‘essential doctrine’ (usul ud-deen) in Islam. This push-pull dynamic, applied against women, produces Islam’s Stockholm syndrome, forcing women to submit to men. Compliant women in turn create compliant families in a compliant, monocultural Muslim society.

Muslims instinctively recognize jihad-and-hegira, a dualistic pattern that allows Muslims in stages to be both militant, then conciliatory. Jihad and hegira are opposite ends of one swing or, if you will, two phases of one cycle. Militant jihad prepares the way for conciliatory ‘peaceful Islam’. ‘Peaceful Islam’ then sets up jihad/holy warfare. In this manner, Islam ratchets itself forward, just as a reaper advances into a field, cutting wheat with the forward-and-back, swinging motion of a scythe.

Dualistic Jihad-and-Hegira creates Stockholm Syndrome

Muslims instinctively expect jihadic violence to set up the conditions for conversion to ‘peaceful Islam’ (and so it does), but the ‘miracle’ they perceive is actually the Stockholm syndrome. An example from the Sira illustrates this point:

“Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Whereupon the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.” (Ishaq: 369)

This counterintuitive story from the Sira illustrates how terrorism and the startling threat of fratricide lead to Islamic conversion. After the carnage of 9-11, Muslims around the world claimed without evidence that there was an increase in conversions to Islam. Muslims sincerely believed the viciousness of 9-11 had led to a miraculous admiration for Islam, rather than revulsion. This is a telltale sign that Muslims unconsciously recognize the Stockholm syndrome.

However, victims of the Stockholm syndrome are unaware they have been programmed to endorse violence. Muslims themselves, and their victims, become dissociated through the ratcheting motion of jihad-and-hegira.

 

 

What is the Truth about American Muslims, Part 2/3

Posted on by
1

By Bill Warner

The First Amendment Center, the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted leftists at the Interfaith Alliance have produced a polished piece of apologist propaganda for Islam. It has been getting a lot media play, because it says all the things the public would like to believe about Islam. It is a textbook summary of arguments made by Islam’s apologists and serves as a teaching example of how to refute this propaganda using the scientific method.

Here is the truth about Muslims. They will not tell you the whole truth, but only a half truth. Islam is inherently dualistic and holds two opposing truths at the same time. There are two Korans, an early Koran written in Mecca and a later Koran written in Medina. There is no jihad in the early Meccan Koran, but the later Medinan Koran is filled with jihad. So which is the real Islam? Both peace and war are true Islam. A Muslim will only talk about the half he needs. But, there is one Muslim who will tell you the complete truth—Mohammed. Needless to say, this propaganda does not consult him.

Here is the second part of the analysis:

9. How do American Muslims participate in American public life?

American Muslims have created institutions of their own in the United States, just like other religious communities. There are many long-established groups such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an umbrella organization of some 300 mosques and Islamic centers based in Indiana, and newer organizations like the Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals.

“Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)”

Whoa! ISNA is participation in American life? ISNA is pure Muslim Brotherhood; in fact, they are at the top of the list in the Muslim Brotherhood memo submitted in the Holy Land Foundation trial. And what is the Muslim Brotherhood? An organization dedicated to bringing the caliphate to rule over the entire world and to destroy our Constitution by replacing it with Sharia law.

And remember the Muslim Brotherhood motto? Here it is:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

ISNA and all other Muslim Brotherhood types participate in American life in the sense of working to annihilate it.

10. Is Islam a political movement?

No. Islam is a religious tradition and adherents to Islam are called Muslim. Of course, American Muslims like Americans from other religious groups, participate in American political life. American Muslim voting patterns generally mirror the broader American population. American Muslims are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives. There is no one political platform or agenda for those who practice the religion of Islam in the United States.

“Islam is a religious tradition”

Yes, but it is also a political tradition. To prove that read the Sira, the biography of Mohammed. It is very interesting to plot the data found in the Sira about how Islam grew. Here is the plot:

The religion of Islam was a failure. In preaching the religion of Islam, Mohammed converted 150 Arabs to Islam. Then he went to Medina and became a politician and a jihadist. During the last 9 years of his life in Medina, he averaged an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks. When Mohammed died every Arab was a Muslim. Without politics and jihad there would have never been an Islam. The religion failed, the politics succeeded.

11. Have American Muslim leaders spoken out against extremist violence?

Yes. Many American Muslim leaders and organizations have repeatedly denounced extremist violence in the strongest possible terms.

Of the many statements and actions taken by American Muslims to condemn and counter terrorism, the fatwa (religious ruling) from the Fiqh Council of North America (an Islamic juristic body) captures the views of the vast majority of American Muslims: “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism.”

Fiqh Council of North America condems violence, but Islam does not condemn jihad. Jihad is neither extremism nor terrorism. The Fiqh Council of North America (a Muslim Brotherhood group) may condemn terrorism, but Allah does not.

8:12 God revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the Kafirs. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’

“innocent lives”

As you read about innocence, remember that a Kafir is in perpetual rebellion against Islam. Hence, Kafirs are never innocent, but guilty of offending Allah.

The Fiqh Council of North America’s statement affirms the following Islamic principles:

“All acts of terrorism, including those targeting the life and property of civilians, whether perpetrated by suicidal or any other form of attacks, are haram (forbidden) in Islam.

“All acts of terrorism…are haram”

Well, so acts of terror are forbidden in Islam. But jihad is a community obligation for all Muslims. Jihad is not terror, but sacred violence to prepare the world for Islam and the Sharia.

Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not.

“It is haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or prohibited violence.”

I guess that Mohammed did not get this memo, because he said, just the opposite:

[Bukhari 4,52,96] Mohammed: “Anyone who arms a jihadist is rewarded just as a fighter would be; anyone who gives proper care to a holy warrior’s dependents is rewarded just as a fighter would be.”

“It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to undertake full measures to protect the lives of all civilians, and ensure the security and well-being of fellow citizens.”

Muslims are to undertake full measures to follow the Sunna of Mohammed and he attacked every single neighbor, without a single exception. And he did it year after year, until he ran out of enemies in Arabia and then he left Arabia to go to Syria and attack the Christians there.

12. Are American Muslims concerned about extremist violence in the United States?

Yes. Most American Muslims, like most other Americans, are deeply concerned about the problem of extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. According to the most reliable data we have, the overwhelming majority of American Muslims is well integrated into American society and report criminal activity. Over the past decade, 40% of domestic terrorism plots have been uncovered or deterred with assistance from American Muslims.[iii]

“40% of domestic terrorism plots have been uncovered or deterred with assistance from American Muslims”

Since 100% of the domestic jihad has been by Muslims, what can be said about the other 60%? What Muslims did not turn them in?

13. Do American Muslim leaders support freedom of expression and religious liberty?

“support freedom of expression and religious liberty”

Really? Then why do the Muslim Brotherhood organizations demand that only Muslims be allowed to talk about Islam to government officials? That is freedom of expression? Under pressure of Islamic leaders, no US agency can listen to a lecture about Islam if it is given by Kafirs, courtesy of Obama.

Yes. Many American Muslim leaders, educational institutions, and advocacy groups have repeatedly spoken out for freedom of expression and are actively involved in promoting religious liberty for all people both in the United States and abroad.

“promoting religious liberty for all people both in the United States and abroad”

The Center for the Study of Political Islam publishes a monthly newsletter called the Bulletin of Christian Persecution. It documents the murder, rape, kidnapping of Christians in Muslim nations. Thousands of Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus die each year at the hands of Muslims. This persecution was started 1400 years ago by Mohammed and sanctioned by Allah. Here is the liberty promised by Allah:

Koran 9:29 Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given [Christians] as believe in neither Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostles have forbidden [follow Sharia], and do not embrace Islam, until they pay the dhimmi tax out of hand and are utterly humiliated.

Allah’s liberty for Christians includes murder until the survivors agree to live by the Sharia, pay special taxes and are humiliated.

read more at Political Islam

What is the Truth about American Muslims, Part 1

Posted on by
2

By Bill Warner:

The First Amendment Center, the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted leftists at the Interfaith Alliance have produced a polished piece of apologist propaganda for Islam. It has been getting a lot media play, because it says all the things the public would like to believe about Islam. It is a textbook summary of arguments made by Islam’s apologists and serves as a teaching example of how to refute this propaganda using the scientific method.

The theme of this propaganda brochure is that “truth” about Islam is all about opinions. But, the truth of Islamic ideology is found in the Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his Traditions). Mohammed’s acts and words are the perfect model of actions (Sunna) for all Muslims.

The grand lie of this propaganda comes from confusing cause and effect about Islam and Muslims. Islam is a concrete doctrine that produces Muslims. This brochure, What is the Truth about American Muslims, argues that we may learn about Islam from Muslims. The beauty of this approach is that you can choose the Islam you want by choosing the right Muslim. Although Islam can be precisely defined, Muslims are all over the map. There is one Islam, but 1.5 billion Muslims and whatever answer you want about Islam, you can find a Muslim who will tell you what you to hear. And that is what this piece is about—finding the Muslims who will tell you what you want to hear.

Here is the truth about Muslims. They will not tell you the whole truth, but only a half truth. Islam is inherently dualistic and holds two opposing truths at the same time. There are two Korans, an early Koran written in Mecca and a later Koran written in Medina. There is no jihad in the early Meccan Koran, but the later Medinan Koran is filled with jihad. So which is the real Islam? Both peace and war are true Islam. A Muslim will only talk about the half he needs. But, there is one Muslim who will tell you the complete truth—Mohammed. Needless to say, this propaganda does not consult him.
Knowing all of this, the following quotes are taken from the brochure, What Is the Truth about American Muslims?

“This resource has been endorsed by 21 diverse religious, secular, interfaith and civil rights organizations…”

Immediately we that learn the authority of this document is based on 21 groups of diverse people. Sounds good? Maybe. But the brochure is supposed to give us the “Truth about American Muslims”. If we are talking about Muslims, then there is no organization that matters. When we talk about Muslims, there is one way to find out the truth about Muslims–Islam. The only place to find the truth about Islam is in the Koran, Sira and Hadith—the Trilogy—Mohammed and Allah.

Think about it. Who cares what some theology graduate of divinity school says about Islam? If he agrees with Allah and Mohammed, then he is redundant. If he disagrees with Mohammed or Allah, then he is wrong. All the organizational “expert” brings is either redundancy or error. Skip the diverse, secular, interfaith and civil rights bureaucracies, and go to the factual basis of Islam—Koran, Sira and Hadith.

The same thing applies to all Muslims. A Muslim is only a Muslim when they follow the doctrine of Islam. When they don’t follow Islam, they are not being a Muslim. It is so simple. Neither a Muslim nor a non-Muslim has an opinion that is worth a hoot, unless it references the doctrine of Islam.

“During the past decade, acts of violence by extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam have raised fears and created confusion about Islam. In the United States, some individuals and groups have attempted to conflate all of Islam with extremist violence by disseminating misinformation and distortions about Islam and American Muslims. This has led to a rise in discrimination against American Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims, attacks on American Muslim institutions, and protests against the building of mosques in local communities.”

“acts of violence by extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam”

What are these “acts of violence”? There is a massive amount of violence in the Koran, Sira and Hadith and it is the violence of jihad. Here is a chart of how much violence there is in Islam’s sacred texts.


Nearly a third, 31%, of the complete doctrine of Islam is about violence. And who is committing this violence? Both Mohammed and his warriors. Is Mohammed an extremist? No. His actions, the Sunna, are the very definition of moderate Islam. There 91 verses in the Koran that say that the entire world is to follow his perfect example. The Koran defines moderation, the moderation of Islam. Islam is violent; hence when Muslims are violent against the Kafir, that violence is moderation. So say, Mohammed and Allah.

Most people consider “moderate” to mean non-extreme, normal, or average and hence, peaceful. But, pay attention here. Moderation implies some scale or reference. As an example, the temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit would be extremely hot in your living room. But, if you are talking about stars, then 10,000 degrees is moderate, and not even that hot. In the same way, peaceful relations between people are moderate on the scale of the Golden Rule. But, on the scale of the Koran, murder of Kafirs is moderate. So far as “claiming” to act in the name of Islam, when Major Hassan shoots 42 soldiers in Fort Hood while yelling “allahu akbar”, he is claiming to act in name of Islam. But what he is doing is not violence, it is moderation in the name of Islam—the moderation of jihad.

“some individuals and groups have attempted to conflate all of Islam with extremist violence by disseminating misinformation and distortions about Islam and American Muslims.”

Note that we do not conflate “all” of Islam with jihad. No, it is clear that since 67% of the Sira is about jihad, then 33% of the Sira is not about jihad. This analysis exactly measures the truth of the statement.

What is an “American Muslim”? What is any Muslim? A Muslim is one who follows the doctrine of Islam. What is the American Islam that an American Muslim follows? There is no American Islam because there is no American Koran and no American Sunna. There is only the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. End of story. There is only Islam. Muslims are in America as part of the umma (the Islamic community) first, being American is secondary.

Exactly, what part of the Koran and the Sunna does an American Muslim reject or reinterpret? It turns out the words “American Muslim” cannot be defined in terms of doctrine, only in misdirection campaigns such as this.

“By seeking to provide accurate information about religious freedom and American Muslims, this publication does not ignore or minimize the significant threat posed by extremists who promote and commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. We fully recognize the challenge to peace and justice posed by small factions within Islam who lift up extremist theology and pervert their faith to support their violence. All of the world’s major religions have faced similar challenges. But acts of violence by radical individuals and groups must not be used to condemn Islam itself – or to paint all Muslims with the brush of extremism.”

This paragraph is a target rich environment because it contains so many apologist clichés. Let’s tackle them one by one.

First cliché: “religious freedom”

What every person must care about is political Islam, not religious Islam. As an example, the Sharia dictates that during a part of Islamic prayer a Muslim’s backside must be higher that his head. Who cares? Who is trying to restrict that?

Jihad, a part of Islamic doctrine, is political since it is carried out against non-Muslims, the Kafirs. All of Islamic doctrine that concerns the Kafir is political. The amount of Islamic doctrine that is devoted to Kafirs is astounding. Look at this chart based on word count:


The big picture is that over half of Islam’s foundational texts are about the non-Muslim, the Kafir. Islam has a highly detailed doctrine about the Kafir and that means that most of Islamic doctrine is political. This is the reason that Islam has such political impact in America and everywhere Muslims exist.
So drop the “religious freedom” distraction. Let’s deal with the politics of Islam, let’s keep it political and talk all we want.

Next cliché: “must not be used to condemn Islam itself”

We do not need to condemn Islam. We need to know Islamic doctrine and see how it drives the actions of all Muslims, both peaceful ones and jihadists. Islam is dualistic and contains both peace and war (jihad). That is its true nature and we must not condemn it, but know it. We must know the detailed history of political Islam and how the Sharia has annihilated all Kafir civilizations for 14 centuries. We must understand Islam in both root and branch. It condemns itself; we do not need to condemn it.

Next cliché: “paint all Muslims with the brush of extremism”

No, we do not want to paint Muslims with extremism. We want to paint all Muslims with the brush of Islam. We must ask Muslims where they stand on Sharia, the Kafir, jihad, the beating of women, death to apostates and so on. Every Muslim must be confronted with Islamic doctrine. Do they reject the assassination of intellectuals who oppose political Islam? If so how do they oppose it, because Mohammed repeatedly ordered the assassination of all intellectuals and artists who opposed Islam? Assassination of opponents is Sunna, normative Islam.

“Our purpose here is to inform Americans about the vast majority of their fellow citizens who are Muslim. In doing so, we seek to uphold our shared commitment to religious freedom and contribute to a climate of understanding and respect among Americans of all faiths and none.”

Read more at Political Islam

Anti-American Savages of the Post-American World

Posted on by
1

Daniel Greenfield:

The past week has shown us what a Post-American world looks like and it isn’t a batch of treaties that lead to men and women from around the world meeting to decide how to feed the hungry, clothed the naked and take everyone’s guns away to banish violence from the world. It’s mobs of violent savages ransacking embassies while their suited brethren use it to explain to our decadent leaders that the only way we will have peace is if we let them decide what sections of the Bill of Rights we get to keep.

Forget the UN, the Post-American order isn’t a blue flag, it’s a black flag with Mohammed on it. There are far more people in the world who believe in a world order based on the violent ravings of a 7th Century madman than the number of people who believe in a world order based on 19th Century European wishful thinking. And it helps that the supporters of 7th Century violence over 19th Century internationalism are far more willing to use murderous violence to get their way.
The burning embassies and authorities scurrying to intimidate the Mohammed filmmaker into making some kind of apology or going to jail, as their British predecessors bullied Salman Rushdie into doing, reveal the naked order of the new world. It isn’t a place of treaties or laws, but of naked force and we will not be the ones doing the forcing.
In the new world order we will cower behind our televisions while the global mob, composed of whoever has the most surviving kids living on international handouts, will tell us what laws they want us to live under. And those will not be tolerant laws, they will not protect women or gays, let alone minority religions, they will be the laws of the violent majority, not that of the Christians or Buddhists, or the tinier numbers of Jews or Atheists, they will be the laws of Islam, because Muslims are willing to do what they aren’t, go out into the streets and kill to establish those laws.
Let us dispense with any pretense that if we do criminalize defamation of religion or prosecute Mohammed cartoons as a hate crime, that this will be because we are tolerant or respect religion. It will be because we are afraid of Muslims and we are right to be afraid of Muslims because our leaders are gutless cowards who have no idea how to deal with anyone whose greatest fear in life isn’t being called a racist on the evening news.
And let us dispense with the pretense that the growing internationalism is humane, rational or orderly. It is nothing of the sort, it is a mob of savages that kills to convey its demands to the officials who pretend to be running a humane and rational world order and uses them as its mouthpiece. When our enlightened leaders lecture us on offending Muslims, they are acting as the interpreters for bearded thugs who believe that Jinns are around every corner, that angels are afraid of cats and that women are inferior creatures because Mohammed went down to hell and found it full of women.
Any order that takes its laws from savages will be an order of savages, no matter how urbane and cultured the men and women who have chosen to act as their international representatives, while pretending to be ours, are. The world order envisioned by 19th Century Europeans is now a secret negotiation between their criminally idiotic descendants, who still go to all the right schools, and a mob of savages and their oil-rich patrons. Their global order is not taking us to the 22nd Century, but back to the 7th Century, and of all the things that they owe us, the least of them is to be honest about that.
Leftist Anti-Americanism has revealed itself to be Post-Americanism and Post-Americanism is nothing more than savages making laws by burning and killing things. And our Anti-American and Post-American elites had better start explaining to us why being governed by Salafi savages is a moral improvement over Americanism and they had better do a good job with that explanation because the American people are watching.
Laws are given by the conquerors to the conquered and the conquerors today are not the European colonialists, but a new wave of Muslim colonialists spreading across the world. The failure of the  European chattering classes to deal with this simple reality, rather than celebrating the local version of that colonialism as cultural enrichment, while condemning any criticism of it as racism, is a further sign of their irrelevance and complete incapacity for dealing with any crisis more significant than a canape shortage at their latest book signing party.

Having ignored the crisis for as long as possible, they are now discussing on what terms the raiders should be able to impose their laws on us, while bellowing at us that any notion of Sharia law being imposed on us is a fantasy of racist extremists, even as they cower when the actual racist extremists tell them they want Sharia law or they will go on bombing, burning and killing. And there is still not even the faintest twinge of an honest discussion of this subject in any official forum, even as officials arrest men and women for the crime that in most Muslim countries is honestly known as blasphemy.
We can now see what kind of glorious world the abandonment of nationhood and national laws is getting us. It isn’t a John Lennon song, it’s a long screaming guitar solo, a wretched tormented yell of the savage set loose to kill in the night. It isn’t a peace flag, it’s the black flag of Islam scrawled with the supremacy of its prophet and its deity on every surface. It isn’t a system that makes life better, but one that reverts to the savage order of those with the most power making the laws for all.
And that is what this is really about. Americanism guarantees rights to all Americans. It even guarantees rights to many non-Americans, and it uses force to protect those rights. Anti-Americanism however introduces us to Post-American Internationalism, which on paper guarantees so many rights that you can never remember them all, but that really only has one right, the right of those with the largest and most violent single group to impose their will on everyone else.
That is what Muslims have been doing consistently at the United Nations ever since its membership was opened up. That is why Israel is so consistently reviled and despised at the hands of a Muslim alliance and its foreign enablers. But as the alliance has grown and gotten stronger, its appetites are no longer limited to the Jewish State. Any country that defends itself against Muslim violence, from the United States to Russia and China, from the Philippines to Burma, India and Thailand, will sooner or later be gnawed on by the hungry savages looking to put more infidels under their boot.
Now we have come to the acid test of internationalism. The great naked emperor moment that will determine whether we will go on down the ladder to the 7th Century or climb back up to the light of a better future.
The question is childishly absurdly simple. Will we allow Muslim mobs to determine the content of our Bill of Rights? Will we decide that as Americans, we have a right to freedom of speech, without considering the “global opinion” of a band of savages who want us to bow down to their stone god and its views on women, freedom and blasphemy, or will we decide that as Post-Americans we must consider the opinions of the “international community” and accept that freedom of speech is no longer feasible in a connected world?

Read more

You Can Never Awaken a Man Who Is Pretending to be Asleep

Posted on by
4

Bill Warner:

The White House and media response to the events in the US embassies in Egypt and Libya can be characterized by the fact they speak like they have never seen Sharia mob justice before in their lives. Or, at least, you would think that from the knowledge and wisdom they display in their analysis.

For the last 11 years since 9/11, we have watched the same events unroll in the Islamic world and the same response come from our so-called leaders in the government, media, schools and the pulpits. The establishment view: Those Muslims are extremists, not real Muslims. We should be careful not to offend the religion of peace. When Muslims are offended by movies, Koran burnings and Mohammed cartoons, it is our fault.

The clue phone is ringing, pick it up. Here are the clues:

The murder of intellectuals and artists who criticize Mohammed is Sunna. Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed’s life. When Mohammed captured Mecca, he first prayed, then he destroyed all religious art and then he issued death warrants for the artists and intellectuals who had opposed him. There are only two new facts in the Koran, a derivative work. The first new fact is that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and the second new truth is that if you don’t believe he is prophet of Allah, you can be killed.

Violence is what brings Islam success. In Mohammed’s life, he preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 new followers. When he went to Medina and became a politician and a warlord, when he died every Arab was a Muslim. Jihad violence was what made Islam successful. If Mohammed practice jihad, Muslims must use the technique of jihad.

Hello establishment experts, the black flag is not an Al Qaeda flag. The black flag with the Shahada, “There is no god, but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” and the swords goes back to the Golden Age of Islam in Baghdad in the 9th century. (The establishment professors never tell you about this jihad aspect of the Islamic Golden Age.) This jihad flag is ancient.

Current news is that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was killed. If so, then this is pure jihad doctrine. The rules for rape of captured Kafirs (unbelievers) are Sunna. At the conquest of the Jews in Khaybar, the Hadith are explicit that captured Kafirs can be raped.

The mob is a manifestation of the Sharia and the umma (the Islamic community). Notice that when a fatwa is issued, such as the famous fatwa by Khomeini against Salmon Rushdie for his artistic work The Satanic Verses, the fatwa is not to be fulfilled by the Islamic police. No, the murder is to be carried by any member of the umma. This is vigilante justice, Sharia justice, mob justice. Pay attention to how often Muslims riot to make political gain.

The shortest hadith is: war is deceit. So here come all of the “good” Muslims to explain how the murder and riots are not real Islam. And they are so upset about what Arabs are doing at the US embassies. But, they still can tell us that Islam is the religion of peace, without a single trace of irony.

The idea that we should not blaspheme Islam, Mohammed or Allah is pure Sharia and the position of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). It seems that none of the establishment experts have the foggiest idea of what Sharia blasphemy entails. Not believing that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, that a woman is a second class citizen, that jihad is part of Islam is all blasphemy. Critical thought is blasphemy. The Golden Rule is blasphemy. Any well-founded religion can survive blasphemy, except Islam, and that is the reason it is forbidden. But the worst part of this travesty is the refrain from Obama and Hillary that we should subvert our freedom of speech to the demands of the Sharia. The Sharia is Allah’s law and our Constitution is a document of ignorance to be removed from the world. So say the imams and Obama and Hillary.

And now for the last tired response from the apologists: those violent people are an extremist fringe. NO! The mobs are main-line Islam.

You can awaken a man who is asleep, but you will never awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep. That is the reason that we find our experts in the government, media, education and the pulpits to be such dhimmis. They have refused to learn a single thing about Islamic doctrine and history since 9/11. But, cheer up! When the dhimmis write about the beauty of Islam and how the Kafirs are wrong, read the comments. You will find that the common man knows far, far more about Islam than the experts. The higher you go, the less they know.

Political Sharia

Posted on by
Reply

By Bill Warner

Islam is introducing Sharia into America under the guise of religious freedom. We are told that Sharia is religious law and, therefore, we should not worry about it. This is, at best, a half-truth.

To understand the Sharia, you MUST understand that it is completely based on the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed (his words and actions that are the model for being a perfect Muslim). So, the Sharia is nothing more than a legal/social codification for every society to march in lock-step doing life’s smallest details modeled after what the Koran says and Mohammed said and did.
The biggest misunderstanding here is that Islam is simply a religion. If Islam were only a religion, it would not even exist today. And it would certainly not be feared. The story of Mohammed and the success of his mission is well known. The summary of it is in Islam’s growth curve:
Mohammed’s career had two stages, religious and political. As a religious leader he only converted about 150 Arabs into Muslims in his first 13 years in Mecca. When he went to Medina, he became a politician and a jihadist. Politics and jihad made Mohammed a success. When he died, every Arab was a Muslim. If he had stayed with religion, when he died there would have only be a few hundred Muslims and Islam would have collapsed. It was politics that made Mohammed a success and it was politics that made Islam a success for 1400 years.
Islam’s historical success has been due to jihad and Sharia law. Jihad overthrew Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Hindu governments and the Sharia was put into place. The inferior political position of Christians and all Kafirs under Islamic Sharia means their slow annihilation. Turkey, Middle East and Africa are but a few examples of this.

The secret of Islam is that the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed are primarily devoted to politics, not religion. The Kafir is a political class under Sharia rule and much of Islamic doctrine is about the Kafir. See the next chart:
Since it is based on Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Sharia must be political in nature. And indeed the Sharia is filled with both the religious law and political law. Hence, there is a religious Sharia and a political Sharia. Every Sharia rule that impacts the Kafir is political, not religious.
Note: strictly speaking–politics, culture, law and religion are unified in Islam and Sharia. However, such a unified vision gets muddled into: Islam is a religion, Sharia law is religious and therefore, Sharia trumps our politics. As long as Islam and Sharia are treated only by their religious aspect, we lose. The easiest way to do this is to separate out the political facet.

Here is a simple example that illustrates the difference between religious Sharia and political Sharia: in Europe and New York, Muslims commandeer the streets and sidewalks to pray. This is tolerated under “freedom of religion”. It is true that the prayer is religious, but commandeering the sidewalks and streets is strictly a political act. Kafirs are told to submit and not use the public thoroughfare. Each and every Muslim should be ticketed for blocking traffic, just as you and I would be if we blocked traffic.

Islam is based on two principles: dominance over all Kafirs and dualism. The Sharia fully incorporates both principles and as a result, political Sharia rules violate universal human rights.

From the Reliance of the Traveller, A Classical Manual of Islamic Sacred Law:

Apostasy (leaving Islam): o5.4 There is no expiation [punishment] for killing someone who has left Islam

Wife beating: m10.12 … may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not bruise her, break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. It is unlawful to strike another’s face.

Jihad: 09.0 Jihad means war against Kafirs to establish Islam’s Sharia law.

Inferior civil rights for Kafirs: o11.1 A formal contract (dhimma) is made with Christians and Jews, they then become dhimmis.

There is absolutely nothing good for the Kafir in political Sharia. It denigrates and makes us submit to a profoundly foreign rule. Political Sharia violates human rights and our Constitution.

Absolutely no implementation of any aspect of political Sharia should be allowed in our government or organizations. All citizens must know the fundamental principles of political Sharia and resist its progress in every way.

Bill Warner is the Director for the Center for the Study of Political Islam

Finland’s Supreme Court Nixes Free Speech About Islam

Posted on by
1

Jussi Kristian Halla-aho

by: Soeren Kern

Finland’s Supreme Court has found a prominent politician guilty of defaming Islam for “Islamophobic” comments he made on his personal blog.

The ruling represents a major setback for free speech in a Europe that is becoming increasingly stifled by politically correct restrictions on free speech, particularly on issues related to Islam and Muslim immigration.

The Helsinki-based Supreme Court ruled on June 8 that Finns Party MP Jussi Kristian Halla-aho was guilty of “inciting hatred against an ethnic group” for blog posts he made in 2008 which compared Islam to paedophilia, and for sarcastic comments which insinuated that immigrants from Somalia are predisposed to stealing and living off welfare.

In its ruling, the court said that hate speech does not fall under the protections afforded by the freedom of speech, even though Halla-aho said his comments were a protest against public policy and not against Islam and Mohammed per se.

Halla-aho, who has become well known in Finland and elsewhere for his well-argued essays criticizing multiculturalism and runaway immigration, was ordered to pay a hefty fine and delete the comments from his blog.

Halla-aho maintains a blog called Scripta, which deals with issues such as “immigration, multiculturalism, tolerance, racism, freedom of speech and political correctness.” His blog attracts thousands of readers every day, and the Tampere-based newspaper Aamulehti has described him the best-known political blogger in Finland. Halla-aho’s notoriety has placed the guardians of Finnish multiculturalism on maximum alert.

In a blog post in June 2008, Halla-aho wrote that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a paedophile, and that Islam is a religion of paedophilia because Mohammed had sexual intercourse with his wife, Aisha, when she was only nine years old.

According to Halla-aho: “This sentence is related to a discussion where I criticize the idea of the subjective offensiveness of some sentence as being sufficient criteria for its judicial offensiveness. In other words, if some group is offended by sentence X, sentence X is illegal irrespective of whether it is true or not. In my opinion, stating of facts cannot and must not be criminal, even if they offend someone. This is also a problem of equality. For example, a Muslim is offended by criticism of his religion far more easily than an average Christian. If subjective offensiveness suffices as the elements of a crime, the law protects a Muslim with greater force than it protects a Christian.”

He continued: “My sentences about Mohammed and Islam were not opinions, but inescapably logical conclusions based on known facts. I did not use the word ‘paedophile’ as psychopathological concept, but in its popular meaning of a person having sex with children. The traditional Muslim knowledge, the Hadith literature, tells us that Mohammed had sex with his wife Aisha when she was nine years old. A nine-year-old is seen as a child today, and physically she was a child in 7th century, no matter what her judicial status was. Therefore, if Mohammed had sex with Aisha and Aisha was a child, Mohammed had sex with a child. That Mohammed is a holy figure to Muslims cannot make him immune to criticism in West, especially if criticism is based on undisputed facts.”

In another post, Halla-aho responded to a Finnish columnist who wrote that drinking excessively and fighting when drunk were cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Finns. In order to show the double standards of such arguments, Halla-aho asked sarcastically if it could be stated that robbing passersby and living at the expense of taxpayers are cultural and possibly genetic characteristics of Somalis.

According to Halla-aho, “I turned the newspaper Kaleva’s sentence into parody where ‘Finns’ were replaced by ‘Somalis.’ My hypothesis was that Somalis are under the special protection of the media and government officials, and my argument is that what is permissible to present about Finns becomes impermissible when it is about Somalis. My own version was as follows: ‘Robbing passers-by and living as parasites on tax money is the national, maybe even genetic characteristic of Somalis.’”

He also wrote: “In order to poke fun at The Council for Mass Media in Finland, I mentioned in the text that I present this argument as supposition, not as a fact. In addition, I proved that by using crime statistics, the argument about Somalis can be proved just as effectively as Kaleva’s argument about Finns.”

Halla-aho continued: “I emphasize that, unlike the writer of newspaper Kaleva’s primary editorial, I didn’t present my own, offensive argument as my opinion, but used it to criticize and insult double standards. Factually speaking, and considering the mechanisms of evolution, the mere thought of living as a parasite on tax funds or killing people while intoxicated as being genetic characteristics of some population is insane.”

He concluded: “Therefore, even if I had presented the argument about Somalis as my opinion and not as demonstrative material, the fact that an indictment was made against me for my proposition concerning Somalis but not against newspaper Kaleva for its proposition concerning Finns, would be in conflict with the equality section of the Constitution.”

Elsewhere, Halla-aho wrote: “The imams are building, on European soil, in their mosques paid for by Europeans, a fanatic robot army without free will, whose only task is to destroy Western society.”

Read more at Stop Radical Islam

Fantasy Islam vs. Islam

Posted on by
1

By Diana West: In pointing out recently that Geert Wilders confounds Americans with his fearless clarity, one of the incidents I had in mind was an interview he sat for in May with The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein (photo above).

Because it so perfectly encapsulates the point at which sparkly-brittle delusions about Islam crack up against obdurate reality, this interview is well worth revisiting, if only to bear witness to the plight of the determined delusionist as he gathers his shards of fantasy and retreats to a vaccuum where he will reassemble them, far from the buffeting facts.

The interview starts off smoothly enough with Geert Wilders’ basic story and goals for his book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me. Geert goes on to explain why Islam “should not be compared so much with other religions like Christianity or Judaism” but rather “to other totalitarian ideologies like Communism and Fascism. If we acknowledge that fact then you don’t have to treat it like a religion and a lot of problems can be solved far more –”

This a provocative and instructive point but Weinstein cuts him off, deflecting conversation to Israel, which doesn’t have a more ardent supporter than Wilders (“Israel is a canary in the coal mine…a beacon of light in total darkness.. I believe we should all support Israel … in this “jihad against us all”….), to Islam and, at Weinstein’s cue, Muslims.

Talking about “people” is one way to steer the debate away from ideology, history and political theory — dangerous territory for the Islamic apologist-cum-fantasist – and toward a more squishy, personal, emotional level. It is here where the appalling, anti-humanity imperatives of Islamic doctrine are supposed to recede among  visions of ordinary, every day folks, people, kids — “women of cover” and “Muslim moms and dads,”  to recall some of  George W. Bush’s  memorably awkward invocations.

Geert states his basic position: that he has nothing against people, that the majority of Muslims in our society are law-abiding. He makes the distinction, a la Ibn Warraq, that there are moderate people who are Muslim, but, getting back to the concrete subject at hand, there is no moderate Islam.  “Don’t let anybody fool you who says Islam can be moderated,” Wilders says. “There are not two Islams; there is only the Islam of the Koran, the Islam of the life of Mohammed, and the Islam of sharia law.”

Wilders goes  on to declare that we should de-Islamize our societies, “which doesn’t mean that we have to make trouble with the Muslim people” so long as they assimilate in our societies, take our values, our constitutions, our rule of law “as the dominant one.”

If that’s not generous and liberal, I don’t know what is. Wilders’ position is that Muslim newcomers who accept Western law and values as supreme are welcome in the Judeo-Christian-humanist West. Wilders, however, does not concede to Islamic newcomers the right to regard Islamic law and values as supreme in the West, thereby establishing bastions of Islam that will expand until there is no West.

Such an uncompromising dedication to self-preservation disturbs those Westerners who have chosen the Two Islams approach. This approach is not the result of analysis of the Islam of the Koran, the life of Mohammed, and Islamic law, as Wilders likes to put it, but rather an emotional reaction to Muslim people — or, at least, to one particular Muslim person, Zuhdi Jasser. Jasser represents to Weinstein and so many other conservatives the poster boy of what they, as Westerners, fancy as An Islam We Can Live With. Islam. This Islam — call it Islam No. 2 — is totally and completely separate, they fervently believe, from Islam No.1 — the Islam That Wants to Detroy Us. The only problem is that No. 2 doesn’t exist, not in the Koran or any of the other sacred writings and traditions of Islam.

But, as Weinstein makes clear, that doesn’t matter a bit.

WEINSTEIN: And here’s an area a lot of conservatives in the US may differ with you …You’re taking, in essence, the bin Laden view of Islam. You’re kind of excommunicating those who don’t adhere to the strict form of Islam that’s prescribed by Qutb and the Wahhabist vision. Why not – you know, you re not a scholar of Islam, you studied Islam — but why not take those, in the states like Zuhdi Jasser, and say well, you know, I’m going to stand behind them and if they believe there’s a moderate Islam, and if there’s plenty of Muslims who believe that they’re Muslims, I’m going to stand behind them and not take the bin Laden view of excommunicating, takfiri, excommunicating people from the Islamic faith.

It is an extraordinary statement. Let’s break it down.

WEINSTEIN: And here’s an area a lot of conservatives in the US may differ with you …

… [subtext] because Wilders has confronted the facts about Islam and drawn the conclusion that Islam poses a danger to liberty. That’s so extreme. What Weinstein and his fellow conservative fail to appreciate is that Islam is extreme. Such innate extremism, as codifed by mainstream, classical Islam, is simply beyond their ken. Their brains seem to short-circuit. Taking Islam at its word, then, becomes something only an extremist would do. Hence, he continues:

WEINSTEIN: You’re taking, in essence, the bin Laden view of Islam, you’re kind of excommunicating those who don’t adhere to the strict form of Islam that’s prescribed by Qutb and the Wahhabist vision.

Never mind that bin Laden’s Qutb’s and the Wahhanist “view” and “form” of Islam conforms perfectly to the view and form of the Koran, the life of Mohammed and the sharia!

WEINSTEIN: Why not – you know, you re not a scholar of Islam, you studied Islam — but why not take those like  in the states like Zuhdi Jasser and say well, you know, I’m going to stand behind them and if they believe there’s a moderate Islam, and if there’s plenty of Muslims who believe that they’re Muslims, I’m going to stand behind them and not take the bin Laden view of excommunicating, takfiri, excommunicating people from the Islam faith.

Wishing, sadly, doesn’t make it so. Nor does blaming bin Laden for what is written in the Koran, the life of Mohammed and the sharia.

But wishing — fantasy– is the state of conventional political thought today regarding Islam. In imploring Wilders to “stand behind” the placebo-Islam of Zuhdi Jasser, Weinstein is asking him also to reject the reality-Islam of Mohammed — just as Weinstein and Co. have rejected it as something extreme, like bin Laden. But as Geert replies crisply, it isn’t his or anyone’s else’s place or role to create or validate some do-it-yourself Islam of one’s own concoction or choosing.

WILDERS: I’m not excluding anyone. Who am I? The one who is excluding Muslims who don’t adhere to the holy book and the life of Mohammed is the Koran. … If [Muslim moderates] assimilate to our society they are as equal as anybody else and  they should be treated with respect, but don’t let anybody fool you that there is a moderate Islam; there is not. If moderate Muslims call themselves Muslims, I’m happy with that, but according to the Koran they are not Muslims, they are renegades, they are apostates.

And apostates, according to Islamic law, must be killed. Indeed, as Geert points out a little later in the interview, a recent poll in Egypt shows that 84 percent of Egyptians want apostates from Islam to be killed.

WEINSTEIN:  My question is, Why do we need to get into the textual elements of this? If Zuhdi Jasser — and as you said most, many, most Muslims around the world are not, you know, trying to start a holy war with the West,  and they think they’re Muslims and they believe that they’re adhering to the faith — why not say let’s get behind those and fight for that interpretation? You know, you may be right in your interpretation, bin Laden might be right, but why as outsiders why don’t we get behind those who interpret it some way else?

Odious comparison between a democratic politician living under an Islamic fatwa and a jihadist murderer of infidels sitting at their desks aside, the crucial point here is Weinstein’s acknowledgment that reality, facts, truth, are all so many extraneous details next to the importance of “getting behind” the fantasists — the truly tiny band of extremists.

This is a bizarro attitude on many levels, not least of which is the reflex not to protect the liberty of the West — doable — but rather, as “outsiders,” to mix into and imagine it possible to reshape Islam to our own uses — impossible.

WILDERS: It’s not me, once again, or bin Laden — you can mention me in the same sentence with bin Laden you are allowed to do so [Weinstein interjects that he is not comparing Wilders to bin Laden] but it’s the Koran who does it ..… it’s not bin Laden or Geert Wilders or anybody else, it’s the Koran who does it.

Wilders continues:

If Islam becones stronger in a society – and we experienced it in the last ten years and it’s the difference between Europe and America — … even though the majority [of Muslims] are moderates as you rightfully said, we se see honor killings, we see female genitial mutilation, we see forced marriage, we see sharia banking,  we even see – and a lot of Americans don’t know this — sixty active sharia courts in the UK, active today, where the word of a woman is worth half of a man, this is already implemented in Holland. So you can say and defend that there are many moderate Muslims, but the reality proves and shows that in European countries where Islam becomes more dominant, where the perecentage of Muslims rises from 5 to 10 sometimes 15 percent, that people who [criticize] Islam are being threatened by death, like myself, people are taken to court, there is, like I said, sharia implemented, and this all goes against our perception of  how a free society, how freedom of speech, and how equality between men [should be].

Wilders believes that the answer — the longterm, down the line, best possible answer — is for Muslims to renounce Islam altogether.

Read the rest at The Brussels Journal