Muslim Immigration Poses Serious National Security Threat

This is Part 5 of a series called Know Thy Enemy: A Crash Course In Radical Islam

In this series, IBD breaks the political taboo linking Islamic violence with the religion of Islam by studying Muslim attitudes and beliefs.

It also examines the Obama administration’s refusal to identify Islamic terrorists as Islamic, which has led to a misdiagnosis of the factors driving terrorism and an unrealistic assessment of our enemy.

Because the administration has failed to understand the militant theology motivating the enemy, it has failed to develop a coherent strategy to defeat it. Worse, immigration and security policies are mismatched with the threat and actually aid the enemy. This exclusive series hopes to better inform the public about the source of growing world violence.

Know Thy Enemy: A Crash Course In Radical Islam

Investors Business Daily, BY PAUL SPERRY, Feb. 19, 2015:

France, Belgium and now even liberal Denmark regret letting in so many immigrants from Muslim countries. Their swelling Islamic communities have become breeding grounds for terrorists. So why is the U.S. opening the floodgates to foreign Muslims?

The threat Muslim immigrants pose to homeland security was not addressed during the White House’s three-day summit on terrorism.

Instead, Vice President Joe Biden assured Muslim groups gathered during one session that the “wave” of Muslim immigration is “not going to stop.”

Wave? More like a tsunami.

Between 2010 and 2013, the Obama administration imported almost 300,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations — more immigrants than the U.S. let in from Central America and Mexico combined over that period.

This is a sea change in immigration flows, and it threatens national security.

Many of the recent Muslim immigrants are from terrorist hot spots like Iraq, where the Islamic State operates. From 2010-2013, Obama ushered in 41,094 Iraqi nationals from there.

Now the State Department says it will quadruple the number of refugees brought here from Syria, where IS is headquartered.

The U.S. will admit as many as 2,000 Syrian nationals by the end of fiscal year 2015, up from 525 since fiscal 2011.

Yes, the number of displaced people inside war-torn Syria and Iraq, an estimated 3 million refugees, rivals the most in Mideast history. But rolling out the welcome mat for them in the middle of a mushrooming war on Muslim terrorism is dangerously shortsighted.

Top U.S. counterterror officials say terrorists could easily slip into the country from Iraq and Syria, in spite of promised screening procedures for such refugees.

“It’s clearly a population of concern,” National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen testified this week.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul called the new policy “a federally sanctioned welcome party to potential terrorists.”

That’s no stretch. If just a fraction of the 300,000 new Muslim immigrants already here follow in the footsteps of the Franco-Algerian brothers who recently terrorized Paris, we could be facing chronic terror in our cities.

The main homeland threat from groups like IS comes through our immigration system. If they also use our loose policies as a vehicle for jihad and Islamization, we will face the same crisis as Eurabia.

The British press is reporting that IS has threatened to release a huge wave of migrants from Libya across the Mediterranean disguised as refugees to cause chaos in Europe.

Who’s to say they aren’t setting a similar immigration bomb for America?

Authorities can’t even get a handle on homegrown IS jihadists who are already in America. Why would we risk adding so many potential jihadists from abroad to the already overloaded terrorist threat matrix?

The FBI director says he’s got open cases against IS suspects in every state but Alaska. More than 100 American Muslims have hooked up with the vicious terror group in Syria or Iraq, and at least a dozen fighters already have returned to America and may be forming sleeper cells to attack the homeland.

These suspects are hard for agents, who already are overstretched, to monitor. They’ve discarded their Islamic beards and garb and have blended into society. Analysts suspect some may have even infiltrated the military and government.

While America ushers in Islamic immigrants, Europe is pulling up the welcome mat. In recent months, both France and Britain have proposed imposing curbs on immigration out of fear of importing more terrorists. The bills will likely pass in the wake of the Paris massacre.

Thanks to mass immigration from North Africa, France’s Muslim population has swelled to 6.5 million, or 10% of its population. More than 1,000 French Muslims have joined IS. A recent poll found that 27% of French Muslims ages 18-24 support the Islamic State.

Growing pockets of radicalism are spreading in towns throughout France. There are “no-go” zones for non-Muslims and even local authorities, not just in Paris but all over the country.

Authorities say that they’ve lost control of the situation. Muslim attacks on police and synagogues are now regular events.

Similar problems are cropping up in Germany. After an influx of Syrian and other Muslim immigrants, a recent poll found that 40% of Germans say they don’t feel at home in their own country thanks to “Islamization.”

America will no doubt suffer the same nightmares if its Muslim population is allowed to reach a critical mass.

At current immigration rates, and barring a much-needed moratorium, our Muslim population will more than double over the next 15 years, hitting about 6.2 million in 2030, according to a recent Pew Research Center study — “in large part because of immigration and higher-than-average fertility among Muslims.”

Fifteen years from now, Pew found, America will “have a larger number of Muslims than any European country” except for France and Russia.

If you think this huge influx of foreign Muslims will assimilate and adopt Western values, you haven’t been to Alexandria, Va., or Dearborn, Mich., or Minneapolis recently.

They resemble little Cairos, with their Arabic store signage, halal butchers, hookah bars and even blaring calls to prayer from mosque minarets. Such cultural diversity might be quaint if not for the fact these heavily Muslim immigrant enclaves are also breeding grounds for terrorism. More people from Dearborn are on the federal terrorist watch list than from any other American city except New York.

Recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels and Copenhagen by Muslims operating with support from those cities’ swelling Muslim immigrant communities are an ugly reminder that Muslim immigration doesn’t bring the kind of diversity once cherished in the West. It leads to violence and Islamization.

All this raises serious national security concerns. But the White House is too busy defending Islam and portraying the Muslim community as victims of “discrimination” to consider them.

Sperry, formerly IBD Washington bureau chief, is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

***

Published on Feb 20, 2015 by EnGlobal News World

Rep. Mike McCaul on radical Islam spreading to American soil. Congressman concerned about possible influx of Syrian refugees

****

Melanie Nezer: We want the US to admit 75,000 Syrians over 5 years!

Melanie Nezer: We want the US to admit 75,000 Syrians over 5 years!

Media shock over Obama plan to bring in a couple of thousand Syrian refugees growing (refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com)

By Ann Corcoran:

This is just a quick commentary.

My alerts are filled with news stories about revelations last week and the week before that the Obama Administration is planning on bringing Syrian Muslim refugees to the US this year and in future years and everyone is shocked at the number being discussed—2,000.

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad the media is now paying attention.

But, remember, up until December of last year the State Department was predicting that they would bring in 9,000-10,000 this year. (See our Syrian refugees archive by clicking here)

Remember also that it is the refugee resettlement contractors***and the UN lobbying us to bring in 15,000 a year!  See one of many stories on the subject here as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Societyleads the charge.  Not to appear to be picking on HIAS—the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Lutherans testified in Congress last yearthat they wanted the US to take 12,000-15,000 Syrians a year starting last year!

And, finally, why isn’t the same media paying attention to the fact that we brought in 20,000 Iraqis (three quarters are Muslim Iraqis) last year alone and 9,000 Somalis last year alone?

Come on media!  Where have you been?

***Update*** Here is one more of many stories on the media figuring out that the Syrians are coming!

***The federal refugee resettlement contractors:

And for some perspective on where all this is leading:

How many Muslims living in the US could justify “violence against civilians” in defense of Islam? (refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com)

By Ann Corcoran:

This past week as the theme coming out of Washington was—hug a Muslim—there were many press accounts saying that the US was somehow different from Europe in that our Muslims are more “integrated” into society than those young violent ones in Europe.  Ours also have more stuff according to Obama.

In our view, the only difference is that in Europe there are more of them! 

When we have a higher percentage here in the US, the Muslim population will be emboldened and along with higher numbers will come more demands from the Muslim ‘community’ for America to accept precepts of shariah law.

The numbers!

One important statistic being misused by the mainstream media and highlighted in an article from the Associated Press by Josh Lederman is drawn from this 2011 Pew report.

First, before we get to the news, put these numbers in your head:  By 2011, Pew Research estimates that the US population of Muslims stands at 2.75 million.  Pew’s numbers are now nearly 4 years old so I believe the population is higher.  It must be! because Pew says 100,000 legal immigrant Muslims enter the US each year.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) puts the number at 6-7 million (also a few years old).

From the Associated Press at Eyewitness News 3:

Ample evidence suggests that Muslims in America do feel more integrated into society than those living in Europe. Often marginalized and relegated to poorer neighborhoods in European cities, many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. have flourished as doctors and scientists and in other white-collar professions. Middle-class, predominantly Muslim or Arab-American enclaves have cropped up in places such as Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis, allowing immigrants to carve out their own stories.  [So sick of this story c***!—we have stories too!—ed]

“That’s the story extremists and terrorists don’t want the world to know: Muslims succeeding and thriving in America,” Obama said during separate remarks at the summit Wednesday.

Now this is how Obama and the media use numbers in deceptive ways. AP continues with its editorial piece disguised as news:

There’s also reason to believe that sense of successful assimilation has offered a degree of protection against the allure of extremism. In 2011, a Pew Research Center survey of American Muslims found that just 2 in 10 Muslims in the U.S. thought there was a great deal or a fair amount of support for extremism among Muslim Americans. Roughly 80 percent said suicide bombings and other violence against civilians was never justified to defend Islam from its enemies, compared to just 8 percent who said it was sometimes or often justified. [Doesn’t sound bad, right?—ed]

By the way there is another 5% who say “rarely” justified.  (See the full report, here)

O.K. now look at it this way!

If 8% of the US Muslim population believes that VIOLENCE AGAINST CIVILIANS IS JUSTIFIED (often or sometimes) TO DEFEND ISLAM, then:

Using a low of 2 million Muslims in America and a high of 7 million, that means that 160,000 Muslims in the US could justify violence against civilians to defend Islam at the low end, to 560,000 at the high end!

Sounds like a ticking time bomb to me!

Diana West at Center for Security Policy Defeat Jihad Summit

Diana West comments on Muslim Immigration:

 

Notes from a Defeat Jihad Summit

By Diana West, Feb. 13, 2015:

Earlier this week, I participated in the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit.

I find that the several hours of speeches and discussion have distilled into some salient recollections and comments.

1) There remains a chasm between American “messaging” and that of some of our European friends who were invited to speak, including the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, who contributed a taped message, and Lars Hedegaard, who addressed the conference via Skype from Denmark.

American participants in the main demand, even a little truculently, that we now, finally, break the bonds of “political correctness” and speak frankly about “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” “ideas of ISIS,” etc.

Wilders, whose Party for Freedom is No. 1 in the Dutch polls, and Dispatch International editor Hedegaard both speak, and have always spoken about “Islam” — pure and very simple.

Indeed, Wilders has encapsulated everything you need to know about Islam and the West thus: “The more Islam there is in a society, the less freedom there is.”

Not “Islamism.”

This difference is more than semantic.

The primary mechanism of control that Islam exerts over people is Islamic slander law, Islamic blasphemy law. This is the institutional means by which Islam protects itself against criticism, even objective facts about Islam that might be construed critically. The penalty is death. Not for nothing did Yusef Qaradawi state that Islam wouldn’t even exist without the death penalty for “apostasy.” We have seen innumerable instances, particularly since the 1989 publication of Salman Rushdie’sSatanic Verses, where Muslims have executed, or tried to execute this death sentence even against non-Muslims, from Europe to Japan, in efforts to extend the rule of Islam.

When American lawmakers, generals and security experts omit “Islam” from their debates and war councils, focusing instead on what they have dubbed “radical Islam,” “Islamism” and the like, they are succombing to this same control mechanism. They are protecting Islam. They are themselves sheltering Islam against the cold light of analysis. By extension, they are also preventing their own Western societies from devising means of defense against Islamization. They are accepting and carrying out what is probably the most important Islamic law.

There is concrete danger in this. Unless we can come to an understanding that it is the teachings of Islam — not the teachings of some peculiar strain called “Islamism,” or of an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS — that directly undermine our constitutional liberties, we cannnot protect our way of life from these teachings, whose popularity grows with the increasing Islamic demographic. This is what the advanced Islamization of Europe shows us. A nominally sensible US immigration policy would immediately halt Islamic immigration to prevent a sharia-demographic from gaining more critical mass in the USA, democratically.

Then again, we don’t have a national border, much less a sensible immigration policy. That means many of these questions are moot.

2) Still, it bears noting: The Left has responded to the current cycle of Islamic jihad — a recurring blight on civilization, as Andrew Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad amply documents — by inventing a foe called “violent extremism.” The Right, scoffing at this euphemism, “pinpoints” the threat of “radical Islamism.”

What is the difference? Ultimately, I see none. Both terms protect Islam. Warning against the dangers of “radical Islam” implies that there exists some “normal Islam” that is completely compatible, perhaps even interchangeable, with Christianity and Judaism. Indeed, this ongoing effort to normalize Islam is equally as dangerous as the institutional efforts that long ago “normalized” Communism. This officially began when FDR “normalized” relations with the wholly abnormal Soviet regime in 1933, a morally odious event whose horrific repercussions are treated at length in American Betrayal.

Just as it required endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” Communism, so, too, does it require endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” or “moderate” Islam. According to all of Islam’s authoritative texts, according to the example of Islam’s prophet, this “moderate” creed does not Islamically exist.

To turn the notion around, as Lars recently reminded me, when the brave and splendid ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan was asked several years ago to distinguish between “Islam” vs. “Islamism” at a Copenhagen conference, she brought the airy theory back to earth by asking: Based on your definition of Islamism, was Mohammed a Muslim or an “Islamist”?

3) This brings me to The Best Line of the summit, which was spoken by Lars Hedegaard: “Islamism is Islam and Islam is Islamism.”

4) The Spirit of ’76 Award goes to retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons who inquired of guest speaker and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich whether there was any movement in the Congress to censure Obama or initiate impeachment hearings. The consensus on this burning, patriotic question is, no, expediently speaking, there is not nor will there be such a movement. As per the entire US elite’s corruption and complicity in Soviet crime outlined in American Betrayal, it seems we have arrived at the point where Obama’s political judge and jury — our elected representatives in the Congress — is surely complicit in his crimes against the Constitution, as well as with his identity fraud on the American people.

5) The Most Profound New Thought of the summit came from brave and splendid ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish (who, bonus, I met for the first time here).

Nonie conveyed her understanding, having grown up in Egypt the privileged daughter of an Egyptian shahid (martyr), that terrorism, the threat of terrorism is a feature of Islamic life at all levels: inside the family, in the public square, and everywhere in between. I’m paraphrasing, but what came through her talk was the idea that Muslim “moderates” in Islamic society (which I am taking to mean human beings who do not have the seeds of violence within them) have come to take Islamic terrorism/violence/coercion as a given. This means that they have come to accept such terrorism/violence/coercion as normal. Her great fear is that Americans, too, are coming to accept such Islamic violence as normal — that we, in a sense, are taking on the role of such Muslim moderates. This is, if it can be imagined, an even darker iteration of dhimmitude.

6) Speaking of ex-Muslims, I made a comment about the role of the apostate in the great ideological battles of our time. Today, it is the ex-Muslims who offer special insight into totalitarianism of the Islamic kind. Many of my American colleagues, however, still prefer to lean on guidance from Muslim “moderates” — despite the fact, referenced above, that Islam’s own sacred texts, including the example of Islam’s prophet, support no such “moderation.” As they wish, they may await, or even themselves lead an Islamic reformation, but this in no way protects free speech or preserves public safety in our country now — especially when there are indicators that an alarming level of support for curbing and even criminalizing free speech about Islam exists among American Muslims — punitive measures, again, that find support in Islam’s texts.

In the 20th-century-battle against totalitarian Communism, anti-Communists did not embrace “moderate Communists.” Rather, they embraced ex-Communists who understood the totalitarian teachings and practices of Communism in Moscow’s gangster-quest for global dominance — a “caliphate” a la Lenin & Marx. It was mainly the Left and Center  — the anti-anti-Communist Left and Center — that made common cause with “moderate Communists,” i.e., Social Democrats, Communist apologists, also Soviet agents among others, engendering meaningless treaties, defeats and loss. Even more pernicious, though, was the resulting “postmodern” rot across the political spectrum, which tells me, as I argue in American Betrayal, that the West lost the “struggle of ideas” in the “Cold War.”

This spectral shift is interesting in and of itself. I see its patterns repeat in the past decade of military disaster in which it was US military strategy to ignore the teachings of Islam and instead lean on perceived Muslim moderates, or just bank on a hoped-for emergence of Muslim moderation, in the Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrible defeats ensued.

As former FBI special agent John Guandolo pointed out at the summit, we’ve tried this type of thing for 15 years and it doesn’t work.

Nor does it make sense — logically, doctrinally, strategically. But then neither does seizing on  “radical Islamism” and other terms of art that exclude and thus protect Islam.

The Moral of this summit: You can’t protect Islam and defeat jihad at the same time.

The Great Awakening Has Begun

the world awakens about islamCitizen Warrior:

FRANCE: Several polls show that more than 70% of the French think Islam is incompatible with democracy and Western civilization. Those polls predate the Charlie Hebdo attack (source).

AUSTRALIA: One in four Australians holds a negative attitude towards Muslims, a national survey has found. It found people were five times more likely to hold negative attitudes towards Muslims than any other religious group. “What we’re finding is negativity towards Muslims is five times higher than towards Christians and Buddhists, so there’s quite a significant issue there,” said Professor Markus (source).

AUSTRIA: A new survey carried out in December and published on Saturday by Der Standard newspaper shows that 51 percent of the respondents say that Islam is a threat to Austrian society (source).

BRITAIN: More than a quarter of young adults in Britain mistrust Muslims, a BBC survey shows. Some 27% of the thousand 18 to 24-year-olds questioned said they did not trust them, while fewer than three in 10 (29%) thought Muslims were doing enough to tackle extremism in their communities. A similar proportion of the young people polled (28%) said the country would be better off with fewer Muslims and almost half (44%) felt Muslims did not share the same values as everyone else (source).

GERMANY: A majority of Germans have rejected former President Christian Wulff’s famous statement that “Islam is now also a part of Germany”, with 52 percent against the idea (source).

CZECH REPUBLIC: About two-thirds of Czechs who have used the European election calculator EUvox consider Islam a threat to Czech society, according to an analysis of the results carried out by the Academy of Sciences Sociological Institute, released today. The institute assessed the opinions of 18,000 Czechs (source).

NETHERLANDS: Half of all Dutch people agree with Geert Wilders’ opinion that there should be fewer Moroccans in the country. De Hond polled 2500 people, 43 percent of whom expressed that they would rather there be fewer Moroccan people in the Netherlands. Only 3 percent of the people want there to be more Moroccans (source).

DENMARK: A Gallup poll shows most Danes think too many concessions are made for the minority. The public debates over banned Christmas trees, halal meat at schools and cashiers wearing headscarves appear to have made the Danish population more wary about giving their Muslim neighbors cultural concessions (source).

UNITED STATES: A Zogby Analytics poll found a growing number of Americans doubt that Muslim-Americans would be able to perform in a government post without their religion affecting their work. Forty-two percent of respondents felt that Muslim-Americans would be influenced by religion (source).

CANADA: Polls by Angus Reid, a public opinion research firm, show a steady increase in anti-Muslim sentiment since 2009, higher than any of the other major religions. Last year, 54 percent of English-speaking Canadians viewed Islam unfavorably, a feeling that stands even higher, at 69 percent, in the country’s French-speaking region, Quebec (source).

ITALY: At least half of those surveyed in Italy say they have a negative opinion of the Muslims who live in their country (source).

GREECE: Fifty-three percent of those surveyed in Greece have a negative opinion of the Muslims who live in their country (source).

SCOTLAND: A school in Glasgow, Scotland asked pupils to say which which words came to mind when people talked about Muslims. Their responses included “terrorist,” “oppressed,” “a threat” and “scary” (source).

BRITAIN: More than half the British public think that Muslim women SHOULD NOT be allowed to wear the niqab in public. An opinion poll for Channel 4 found that 56% of respondents said they opposed the wearing of the full face-veil, while 55% said they would support a national ban, similar to legislation that was passed in France in 2010. The poll found that three-quarters (76%) said they were unsure of how to relate to women wearing the full face veil, while more than half (56%) thought it was demeaning to women who wear it (source).

GERMANY: The Bertelsman Foundation think tank survey looked at the perception of Islam in Germany from the eyes of Muslims and non-Muslims. Of the non-Muslims surveyed, 57 percent thought that Islam was threatening or very threatening to German society. The survey was carried out in November, before the massacre of journalists in Paris (source). According to a study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, 56 percent of Germans consider Islam to be an “archaic religion, incapable of fitting into modern life” and many believe religious freedom for Muslims should be “substantially restricted” (source).

UNITED STATES: A Pew Research Center survey found that 82% of American Republicans are “very concerned” about the rise of Islamic extremism in the world, compared with 60% of political independents and 51% of Democrats. Similarly, two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers, compared with 47% of independents and 42% of Democrats (source).

Update 1/4/15 – John Hayward at Breitbart has this analysis:

POLLS: WEST ILL-AT-EASE WITH MUSLIMS LIVING IN ITS MIDST

Polls from Italy and Germany showing that roughly half of respondents said they “have a negative opinion of the Muslims who live in their country.”

A wide variety of negative opinions are captured in these polls, which represent a considerable spectrum of survey methods and sample sizes.  Just to contrast the first two results cited, 70 percent of the French believing that “Islam is incompatible with democracy and Western civilization” is a lot more severe than 25 percent of Australians holding a “negative attitude toward Muslims.”

One of the news items collected by Citizen Warrior concerns an unspecified number of pupils at a Scottish school in 2013 using negative terms like “scary” when asked to write down their thoughts about Muslims; this earned them a visit from hijab-wearing women from a Muslim women’s resource center, who had an evidently amiable chat with the kids that included a few odd digressions, such as comparing the hijab to headscarves worn by Mother Theresa and the Queen.  That doesn’t seem like an item that belongs on the same shelf as 57 percent of Germans telling a pollster they regard Islam as “threatening or very threatening to German society.”

There’s also the question of conflating Islam with Islamism, the point at which nearly every discussion of Islam, by everyone from the most affectionate devotee of the religion to the most hostile outsider, runs into trouble.  The most severe critics wonder if there’s a real difference between Islamic theology and its political application at all, judging it to be a political faith that draws no line between secular and religious law.  We’ve all heard the case from the other side of the spectrum that Islam’s problems are the work of a “tiny minority of extremists” who don’t understand their own professed religion.  Some of the news items in Citizen Warrior’s roundup explicitly concern Islamism or “Islamic extremism,” while others are broader expressions of unease with Islam at large.

Everyone desires clarity and honesty in a discussion of this importance.  Muslims who feel they are unfairly viewed with hostility or suspicion blame an incomplete or incorrect understanding of their faith by outsiders, deeply resenting the assumption that every mosque is sympathetic to terrorism.  As several items in the list above illustrate, including the one from Scotland, the common reaction to strongly negative opinions of Islam is a call for more education and outreach.  It is a common Western assumption that bad feelings about any group are largely a product of ignorance, while understanding breeds tolerance.

This desire for clarity should be universal: Western cultural and political elites should make the effort to understand people who are uncomfortable with Islam, too.  Dismissing them as benighted bigots is itself an act of bigotry.  It’s uncomfortable to talk about the real reasons so many outsiders are suspicious of Islam, but a truly tolerant society must be illuminated by courage.  A great deal of what Western elites say to mollify (or, more commonly, intimidate) critics of Islam is laughably simplistic or obviously untrue.  We are expected to beat around some very large bushes, and ignore formidable elephants standing in the middle of the room.

Pat Condell: A special kind of hate

Published on Jan 27, 2015 by Pat Condell

Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe.

Jews in Europe report a surge in anti-Semitism
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/wor…

74% of French Jews are considering emigration
http://tabletmag.com/scroll/173382/ne…

Jews flee anti-Semitism upsurge in Europe
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/…

French Muslims see Jews controlling the economy
http://www.jta.org/2014/11/16/news-op…

Islamic anti-Semitism
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Ant…

The global pogrom
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Co…

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

Reporter wearing kippah abused by Muslims in Malmö, Sweden
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/20…

Jews attacked in Malmö days after synagogue vandalised
http://www.jta.org/2014/08/04/news-op…

Jewish woman beaten by Muslims in Sweden for wearing Star of David
http://www.inquisitr.com/1422149/anti…

The mayor of Malmö blames Jews for anti-Semitism
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-…

Anti-Semitism in Copenhagen
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruc…

Switzerland: Muslim protesters attempt to storm synagogue
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/New…

Belgian cafe posts a sign banning Jews from entering
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world…

Anti-Israel protesters defend Hitler. Police eject pro-Israel man
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/…

Anti-Semitism in Britain. “Sit up and take notice.”
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/463…

UK Islam apologist admits to Muslim anti-Semitism, “our dirty little secret”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/…

The Luton Islamic Centre is a hotbed of anti-Semitic hatred
http://hurryupharry.org/2015/01/18/lu…

Jewish MP cancels surgeries after threat
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news…

UK Muslim gang goes “Jew bashing”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/…

Another gutless UK politician condemns the current wave of anti-Semitism without once alluding to its source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/relig…

New York City councilman David Greenfield calls out the Jew haters for what they are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpGPz…

Arab TV teaching children to hate Jews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2…

Daniel Greenfield: We need to talk about Muslim anti-Semitism
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgre…

Contemporary imprints of the anti-Semitic libel, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempo…

The Muslim population of America is expanding at warp speed

American Thinker, by Carol Brown, Jan. 21, 2015:

Even when Muslims are a minority population they can and do transform whole cultures and societies. And not for the better.

Why? Because their holy book is a totalitarian ideology founded on submission and world domination. And toward that end, Islam is on the march. Meanwhile, the West remains mired in cowardice and complicity. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in Europe, which is on the fast track to join the Caliphate.

Not to be outdone by Europe’s madness, the United States is traveling down the same bloody path, importing large numbers of Muslims from Islamic countries thanks to the Islamophile sitting in the Oval Office and a nation full of dhimmis.

muslims in americaEstimates on the number of Muslims living in the US vary, ranging from 3 million to 7 million. Whatever the precise number, it’s already outdated as it rises with each passing nanosecond.

Since 9/11, there has been a dramatic uptick in immigration from Islamic countries with a 66% increase in the past decade. And things are just warming up. Islam is now the fastest growing religion in America.

Muslim popStrange, is it not? War has been waged against America in the name of Islam and we’ve opened our doors ever-wider to those who adhere to the very ideology that mandates our destruction.

Pew Research projects that by 2030, the Muslim population in the United States will more than double. In large part this will be attributable to immigration; to a lesser degree due to the size of Muslim families.

9781612154985In his book Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam, Peter Hammond wrote a detailed analysis on the proportion of Muslims to the overall population and increased violence and adherence to Sharia law. Hammond’s research reads like a roadmap to ruin; a horrifying picture of the future of civilization. To summarize an oft-quoted section:

When the Muslim population remains at or under 2%, their presence tends to fly low under the radar. In the 2% – 5% range, Muslims begin to seek converts, targeting those they see as disaffected, such as criminals. When the population reaches 5% they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers, becoming more aggressive and pushing for Sharia law. When the population hits the 10% mark Muslims become increasingly lawless and violent. Once the population reaches 20%, there is an increase in rioting, murder, jihad militias, and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. At 40%, there are “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.” Once beyond 50%, infidels and apostates are persecuted, genocide occurs, and Sharia law is implemented. After 80%, intimidation is a daily part of life along with violent jihad and some state-run genocide as the nation purges all infidels. Once the nation has rid itself of all non-Muslims, the presumption is that ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ has been attained – the Islamic House of Peace.

(Peace, of course, is never attained. Schisms among sects, starting with the rift between Shia and Sunni, erupt. The ideal of absolute power with divine authority always leads to internal conflict.)

That the United States is ramping up Muslim immigration is sheer insanity. A crucial step to putting the brakes on this frenzied march to our demise is to close the door to Muslims – whether those from Islamic countries or anywhere else.

Unfortunately, we’re doing the exact opposite.

In the last three years alone, 300,000 Muslims immigrated to the United States. And that’s just the beginning. The Refugee Resettlement Program is paving the way for a mass of Muslims to flock to our shores. With the United Nations in charge of determining who qualifies for refugee status and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference) as the power broker at the UN, you can count on a flood of Muslim refugees to be arriving at a town near you – if not your own town – soon.

And as one might expect, Obama is on board with any and all avenues to bring Muslims to the United States. I guess it’s part of his dream; our nightmare.

Who can forget the lie he told back in 2009 when he said the United States was one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Taqiyya? Stupidity? Slip of the tongue? Wishful thinking? Whatever the reason, it appears he is doing everything in his power to make that lie a reality.

 

Part of the process of flooding this country with Muslims from Islamic countries involves transplanting entire communities from places like Somalia. And just as we see in Europe, the new arrivals don’t assimilate and they live off the public dole.

20100715_SomaliMigrantsFor example, Family Security Matters reports that Somali immigrants have overwhelmed many small towns in America, creating their own enclaves. In some cases they’ve become the majority population – a population distinguished by being the least educated and most unemployed in the country, with evidence to show some have little motivation to become gainfully employed. When they first arrive, they are urged to go to towns where welfare is easy to access – places like Lewiston, Maine, a city of about 30,000 people.

At least before the invasion began.

The town provided welfare and public housing to Somali Muslims, many of whom were mothers with lots of children. And the Somalis came at a rate of about 100 per day.

The Somali population of Lewiston now exceeds 40,000.

In addition to Muslims from Somalia, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, a new wave has started arriving from Syria. The State Department expects “admissions from Syria to surge in 2015 and beyond.” It is expected that 9,000 or more Syrian refugees will arrive this year with a plan to bring at least 75,000 over the next five years.

syrian-refugees-protest (2)And as refugees flow in, our tax dollars flow out as the American tax payer funds the Muslim invasion, because when refugees arrive they are linked with a broad array of publically-funded services (food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized medical care, tutors, interpreters, and so on). In addition, charities (many of which are Christian or Jewish) that assist refugees receive federal grant money to provide additional support.

And where do these new immigrants from Islamic countries settle once they arrive? Well, just about everywhere and anywhere. The five states with the largest number of refugees are Texas, California, New York, Michigan, and Florida. But the situation is very dynamic and as numbers are updated, demographic shifts occur.

These were the top 5 states in FY2014. Right now Arizona is edging out Florida and Michigan has moved to number 3.

These were the top 5 states in FY2014. Right now Arizona is edging out Florida and Michigan has moved to number 3.

There are also regions of the country that participate in what is called the Preferred Communities Program. The program considers small towns and rural areas to be most suited to refugees and immigrants because small communities are best able to offer the kinds of services this new class of imports need. Or so they claim. And so we’ve got Somali refugees flocking to Cheyenne, Wyoming, in order to get easy-to-come-by Section 8 housing vouchers they take to other states. Those states either pick up the tab, or bill Cheyenne. And Cheyenne is running out of money. Duh.

So much for the taqiyya on the Preferred Communities Program website waxing poetic about the contributions these immigrants make to our society: “Refugees help communities learn and appreciate the many ways newcomers’ talents contribute to a richer, stronger society.”

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Maybe that was the case in another time in America. But not now in the age of multi-culturalism. Not with Muslim refugees with no skills, enormous needs, and a sense of entitlement. Oh, and for some, the desire to kill us.

DSC_8770-TrojanHorse-PSSo why are all of these Muslim refugees coming here anyway? Why aren’t they being taken in by Muslim majority countries? It would certainly make sense. After all, they’re much closer geographically, language barriers would be reduced, and local values and traditions are closer.

That Muslim majority countries have not opened their doors to these refugees is, I am confident, quite by design. This is about conquest. Otherwise known as Hijra, the Islamic doctrine of immigration. Hijra works in concert with violent jihad to overwhelm a society until Islam becomes the single dominant force.

And while Muslim refugees swarm into the United States as part of this conquest, Obama has twisted the knife even further by (1) easing requirements for potential immigrants who have links to “soft” terror, and (2) closing the door to persecuted Christians in the Middle East who have precious few options of where to flee. (Obama is also making it exceedingly difficult for French Jews to immigrate to the United States.) Per Investor’s Business Daily:

In another end-run around Congress, President Obama has unilaterally eased immigration requirements for foreigners linked to terrorism. (snip)

…By exempting five kinds of limited material support for terrorism, Obama instantly purges more than 4,000 suspects from the U.S. terror watch list and opens our borders up to both them and their families. (snip)

At the same time Obama opens the floodgates to them, he’s closing our borders to Christians fleeing persecution by Muslims in Egypt, Iraq and other Mideast countries.

Leave it to Obama to make a good situation bad. And then make a bad situation worse. He isn’t satisfied until he’s upped the ante so far imminent danger is at hand.

So we’re importing Muslims from Muslim majority countries who are traumatized, who don’t speak English, who have few skills, who follow the teachings of the Koran, many of whom want to spread Sharia law, some of whom actively support terror, and/or others of whom are or will become terrorists, while we’ve abandoned Christians trapped in the Middle East as they are slaughtered en masse.

To be blunt: We are importing Islamic terror. Not because every Muslim is a terrorist. But because enough of them are. And plenty more who don’t commit acts of terror support it – quietly at home or loudly in the street.

Below is a snapshot of where American Muslims stand on a variety of issues based on polls conducted over the past few years (see here, here, and here):

·      13% agree that some frequency of violence to defend Islam against civilians is justified.

·      19% are either favorable toward Al Qaeda or aren’t sure.

·      40% support Sharia law and believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution.

·      46% believe Americans who mock or criticize Islam should face criminal charges, with 12.5% in support of the death penalty for blasphemers, another 4.3% somewhat agreeing on the death sentence for those who insult Islam, and 9% unsure if the death penalty should apply.

In addition, to name a few additional points of concern among many (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here):

·      Mosques are proliferating across the landscape at breakneck speed, 80% of them preach jihad (through sermons and/or materials), and more than 95% of American Muslims attend such mosques.

·      Many American Muslims send their children to Islamic schools where they are indoctrinated in hate.

·      Many American Muslims have embraced Jew-hatred, as is written in the Koran.

·      There are compounds across America where Muslims receive jihad training.

·      Our prisons are breeding grounds for jihadists.

·      The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated every arm of our government as well as other major institutions.

So all-in-all, there are a lot of Muslims in America who are on board with Islamic law/jihad. It doesn’t matter if all of them are. Enough of them are.

What are we doing?!

We’re carefully planning our suicide, that’s what.

As Michael Walsh wrote at PJ Media: “There is no assimilating invaders who wish to replace your society with theirs, whether they call themselves ‘immigrants,’ ‘refugees’ or ‘asylum-seekers’…When it comes to the soul of a country, there really can be only one.”

Changing the Rules of the Democracy Game in Europe: Change the rules in Europe and change them now!

The situation in Europe is intolerable. At any given moment one of the thousands of Jihadists living in Europe can be annoyed by a movie, article or caricature published in a newspaper, grab the closest Kalashnikov and spread death and destruction in editorial offices, shops, museums, schools and on the streets.

He can hurl bombs – homemade or imported – into restaurants, movie houses, theaters, railroad stations, pour oil on highways and perpetrate other terrorist acts which will not be enumerated here so as not to give him any ideas.

There are various factors that indicate the potential for a major explosion:

  1. The enormous number – tens of millions – of Muslims in Europe, a large number to take into account even if only a small fraction of them turn radical.  Look at it this way: if, of the fifty million Muslims in Europe, only one in a thousand becomes a Jihadist, that means there are still fifty thousand Jihadists like the ones who turned Paris into an urban battleground last week.
  2. The fact is that many Muslims did not integrate into European culture. Many of them live in areas where they constitute the vast majority, where the language heard on the street is not French, schools are locally run even if they are called public schools, the mosque is the center of the neighborhood and the Imam is the spiritual leader who guides the perplexed (and there are many) and sustains the stumbling, especially economically. Many Muslims have really remained in their land of origin, both psychologically and mentally, and Islamic Sharia – anti-democratic by definition – is more important to them than the laws of the land in which they reside.
  3. Europe places almost no limitations on Muslim immigration. There is no proper guarding of the coastline and when illegal infiltrators arrive, they receive fair treatment, work permits, financial support, public housing, medical care and education without any linkage to their contribution to the society and economic system that absorbs them. The good reception the immigrants receive is sure to bring the rest of the family tomorrow, the day after that and next week.
  4. European security forces are not using sufficient surveillance forces to keep track of the Jihadists and their fellow travelers as well as their support systems. There is almost no one listening to what is being said in mosques, not enough tracking of Syrian and Iraqi war veterans, very little supervision of what is going on in the public sector. In France there are Muslim neighborhoods closed to police. In Germany there are already Islamist “modesty enforcing officers”  who force the locals to fall into step with behavioral requirements.

As a result of these factors, many Muslims feel that Europe is theirs. They pray on the streets and block traffic, including ambulances, force supermarkets to stop selling pork and alcoholic beverages, demand that churches cease to ring their bells and force women to dress according to Islamic law when outside the home. Europe’s economy – especially the financial market – is increasingly accepting Sharia requirements. European young women are seen as legitimate prey to satisfy the lusts of some of the immigrants, and the percentage of Muslims among those in jail is much higher than their percentage of the general population. This fact reflects the derision the immigrants and their sons feel for European law.

An Algerian colleague who fled his country thirty years ago once told me: “Algerians do not move from Algeria to France; they move Algeria to France”. The problem is worse when considering Muslims from Central Africa – Chad, Mali, Niger – because they suffer discrimination based on their skin color and not only their religion, a fact which explains why south Sahara Muslims are involved in terror acts: the terrorist that attacked the Hyper Casher store and the terrorist who tortured Ilan Halimi to death in 2006 were of African origin.

Europe’s reality today is a continent that is adopting another culture at a rapid pace. Dreams of cultural diversity have been shown to be unfounded delusions, as the immigrant culture is sure of itself and easily subjugates the fragile indigent culture which has divested itself of all values and has no desire to defend itself from the external threat it faces.

European nations have lost their immune system and are falling prey to new ideas, post modern in nature, that have broken Europe’s spirit and destroyed Europe’s ability to defend itself and its culture. Europe is sacrificing its values and cultural and physical existence on the altar of human rights, of which nothing will survive when Europe ceases to be Europe.

Is there anything to be done?

First, let me point out as clearly as possible: what is written below is not a recommendation or call to any specific action. It is a list of possible measures with which every person and every country can either agree or disagree. Second, in Europe there are millions of Muslims who arrived there in order to become Europeans, adopt European culture and live with and live within Europe as citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.

They contribute to European society, to Europe’s economy and to the country in which they live a normative lifestyle. They are not terrorists, do not support terrorists and are wholeheartedly against terror. One of them hid Jews in the freezer room of HyperCasher in Paris after shutting the motor. May he be blessed. No one has the right to minimize by an iota the good deeds of these Muslims.

That is why the question at hand is what European nations can do in order to guard against Jihadists. And the answer is made up of a long list of procedures and steps whose goal is to turn the immigrant population into a European one. Of course, any Muslim who does not like these steps can leave Europe and find a home that is more suited to his cultural preferences.

The countries of Europe must own up to the fact that they are in a state of cultural emergency, change the rules of the democracy game and modify existing laws. The peoples of Europe must understand that any nation that does not know how to defend itself is doomed to disappear, a culture that is unable to preserve its values is marching proudly into the window case of a museum exhibit and a society that does not bring the next generation into the world is not going to exist in that next generation.

Future legal systems must reflect Europe’s desire to preserve its civilization, heritage and culture:

Every Muslim suspected of inciting to violence, possessing an unregistered weapon, of attending weapons training or operating in Syria and Iraq must be kept from entering or remaining in Europe by governmental order.

Areas into which law enforcement forces dare not enter must be opened before them.

Every mosque must contain a recording system and cameras that allow local security organizations to ensure that no subversive or anti-governmental activity is taking place within its confines.

Imam’s speeches are to be read from a written page that is submitted to local security organizations. Imams will not be allowed to speak unless their words are recorded and documented. They must speak in the language of the host country and not in that of the country of origin.

A Muslim who visits his country of origin will have to prove the reason for his trip and what he did while there. Anyone who arouses suspicions that while in his country of origin he acted or prepared to act against his host country or against armies in other parts of the world will lose the right to return to Europe.

Imams caught inciting to violence will be returned to their country of origin forthwith.

Along with the leaders of street gangs, organizations that advance the rule of Sharia law will be closed and their members sent back to their countries of origin.

Charity fund managers will have to prove what the source of every eurocent is and where it is going.

Every immigrant will be given a year to learn a trade or choose a vocation and find his place in a normative place of work, begin paying taxes and saving for his pension fund. Anyone who does not fulfill these conditions will not be eligible for financial help and be returned to his country of origin.

Every Muslim must take part in a course to learn the local language, the history and anthem of the host country. He will have to pass a vocational course and pledge allegiance to his new country, its laws and values.

Bigamy and polygamy will be strictly outlawed and defined as a crime against women. Family violence and especially honor killings will be sufficient reason to return the entire family to its country of origin.

Female circumcision will be outlawed and anyone participating in this practice, whether parent of circumcisor, will be thrown out of Europe immediately.

Covering one’s face will be forbidden and any woman caught with her face covered in the street will be sent back to her country of origin with her entire family. Selling face coverings will be against the law.

Public schools in which children of immigrants are enrolled will be under constant supervision to ensure that they are not educating in ways that cannot coexist with the values of the host country.

Newspapers, radio and television will be forums for free debate and open to discussions of religion and tradition, free of censorship of their written and spoken content, including caricatures.

The standard punishment for immigrant criminals will be a return to their land of origin.

The rules of political correctness will be abandoned and criticism of religions, all religions, will become legitimate and accepted.

An official body will be formed to check the purpose of organizations, their ideologies, their goals and the way they intend to try to reach them.

Only flags of the host country, the EU or organizations recognized by the government will be allowed.

Any opinion on social media that is in favor of Jihad will get the writer of said opinion a free ticket on a flight back to his country of origin.

Every organization connected to Islamic terror, the Muslim Brotherhood and the like will be illegal.

Each country will encourage births by providing economic support to couples who show they identify with the ethos of the country in which they live.

Any immigrant who criticizes the above measures will be sent elsewhere, preferably to his country of origin, where he will feel more at home.

At the same time, the countries of Europe must begin investing in unemployment-ridden Islamic countries so that their citizens will be less motivated to emigrate to Europe.

The above measures may seem severe and anti-democratic, but it is simply hypocrisy to believe that a democracy must protect those who are against the very idea of democracy for ideological and religious reasons. Democracies must defend themselves and their citizens or they will simply disappear.  No democracy should turn into a prescription for cultural suicide, every democracy must express itself in such a way that the culture of those who created it can survive.

It will take only a short while for these measures to seem absolutely crucial to preserve European culture. Preventing the application of these measures will only increase the hatred of Europe’s traditional societies for the immigrants, a hatred whose signs we can already see at the “Pagida” organization protests in Germany. The present situation is leading Europe to an explosion between Muslim immigrants and European society, an explosion which may destroy Europe. If determined steps are not taken to absorb the Muslim immigrants into European society the results may be destructive to the society, regimes and economies of the European countries.

A question that rises naturally is what is going on n the USA. There are those who claim that it has already embarked on a track similar to that of Europe, but that it lags 15 years behind Europe, so that if there is no change in the USA’s attitude to Islamization, in another 15 years America will look just like Europe today.  Take this as a warning.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

New research charts Europe’s inexorable slide toward Islam

AP photo

AP photo

Breitbart, by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. Jan.16 2015

A recent article by the Pew Research Center highlights five important facts about Europe’s Muslim population in light of the recent Islamist attacks in France and anti-Islamist protest marches in Germany. The data reveals that Europe is becoming more and more Muslim.

Though the greatest sufferers of Islamist violence continue to be the populations of Iraq and Syria under siege by the Islamic State, along with Nigeria facing the virtually unchecked onslaught of Boko Haram, Europe has its own causes for concern. The Muslim population in many European nations has been growing steadily, leading some countries, such as Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands, to call for restrictions on immigration.

Recent Islamist violence in Paris has brought Europe’s concerns to the fore, but it represents only the tip of the iceberg. On Thursday, Belgian counterterrorism police interrupted another jihadist terrorist plot, killing two suspected Islamist militants and severely wounding a third, and additional raids were carried out in the capital, Brussels. Similar anti-terrorist operations are being carried out throughout Europe, and counterterrorism officials are warning that their top security threat is the risk of attacks by their own citizens.

Fact no. 1: Europe’s largest Muslim populations are in Germany and France, followed by the UK and Italy.

According to the most recent available statistics, both Germany and France have Muslim populations around 5 million, which represents about six percent of Germany’s population and 7.5% of France’s. Going beyond the borders of the European Union, Russia’s population of 14 million Muslims is the largest on the continent.

The anti-Islamist PEGIDA movement, which stands for “Patriotic Europeans against Islamization of the West,” rallied a record 25,000 supporters in Dresden on Monday, and there are to be more PEGIDA marches in Cologne. Though Chancellor Angela Merkel has dismissed PEGIDA as a movement followed by those with “hatred in their hearts,” other European countries are following Germany’s lead; PEGIDA chapters have been founded in Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Spain, and the UK.

Fact no. 2: Europe’s total population is becoming increasingly Muslim.

The Muslim share of Europe’s population has grown about 1 percentage point a decade for the last 25 years, moving from 4% in 1990 to 6% in 2010. The number of Muslims in Europe has grown from 29.6 million in 1990 to 44.1 million in 2010.

Europe’s Muslim population is expected to exceed 58 million by 2030. While Muslims today account for about 6% of Europe’s total population, by 2030, Muslims are expected to make up 8% of Europe’s population, or double what it was in 1990.

Percentagewise, the European Union’s most Muslim country is Cyprus, at more than a quarter of the total population (25.3%), followed by Bulgaria at 13.7% of the population. The country with the highest projected growth of its Muslim population is the United Kingdom, expected to have a Muslim population of 5.5 million by 2030.

Fact no. 3: Muslims are younger than other Europeans.

Data for 2010 reveals that the average age of Muslims in Europe was 32, while the median age of Europeans generally was 40, an eight-year gap. The median age of Christians in Europe was ten years higher than that of Muslims, or 42.

The age gap also affects population increase. Muslims’ fertility rates are generally higher than those of non-Muslims in Europe, which along with immigration helps explain why the Muslim population of Europe is projected to rise, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population.

The Pew Study analyzed current trends in the 25 European countries for which data are available and found that Muslim women today will have an average of 2.2 children each, compared with an estimated average of 1.5 children each for non-Muslim women in Europe.

Fact no. 4: European countries vary widely in their views of Muslims.

Majorities in Germany, France, and the UK have generally favorable views of Muslims, according to a Pew Research survey conducted last spring. More than half the population in Italy, Greece, and Poland expressed negative views of Muslims, while in Spain opinion was roughly divided.

Among EU countries, the Italian population is the most critical of Muslims, with 63% expressing an unfavorable view and only 28% voicing a favorable opinion.

Views about Muslims are tied both to age and to where one stands on the political spectrum, with youth and those on the left being generally more favorable to Muslims. In Spain, just over half of those age 50 and older view Muslims unfavorably, while only a third of people under age 30 say the same. While 47% of Germans on the political right see Muslims unfavorably, just 20% on the left do so.

Fact no. 5: The European Union is home to some 13 million Muslim immigrants.

As of 2010, an estimated 13 million Muslim immigrants (27% of the foreign-born population) live in the 27 countries of the European Union. When internal migration within the European Union is excluded, the percentage of Muslim immigrants among the foreign-born population rises to 39%.

The immigrant Muslim population in Germany is primarily from Turkey, whereas the roughly 3 million foreign-born Muslims in France are largely from France’s former colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter @tdwilliamsrome.

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.

The Troubling Math of Muslim Migration

pic_giant2_011315_SM_Muslims-Dearborn-G

Preventing a Paris-style attack is, in part, a numbers game. Americans don’t seem to be paying attention.

National Review, By Ian Tuttle, Jan. 13, 2015:

A major Islamist terror attack in France was only a matter of time. For several decades, the country has invited immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa en masse – first to bolster the labor force in the rebuilding years that followed World War II, then out of multicultural impulses that prevailed over prudential considerations. That radical Islam was transplanted to France, grew in strength and extent, and bore this week’s hideous fruit was not difficult to predict. The same is not unlikely in Sweden, Belgium, Germany, and elsewhere.

Demographics may not be the whole of destiny, but they are certainly a good part, and across the Atlantic, the United States seems increasingly to be turning toward Western Europe’s most undesirable demographic trends.

In 1992, 41 percent of new permanent residents in the United States — green-card holders — hailed from the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East and North Africa, or sub-Saharan Africa, according to the Pew Research Center. A decade later, the percentage was 53 percent. Over that same period, predictably, the number of Muslim immigrants coming to the United States annually has doubled, from 50,000 to approximately 100,000 each year. In 1992, only 5 percent of Muslim immigrants came from sub-Saharan Africa; 20 years later, it was 16 percent. Of the 2.75 million Muslims in the United States in 2011, 1.7 million were legal permanent residents.

There is no official estimate of Muslims in the U.S.; religious affiliation is not tracked by the Census Bureau. However, Pew’s estimate of 2.75 million seems to be on the lower end. The Council on American-Islamic Relations says there are approximately 7 million Muslims in the country.

Whatever the exact level, it can hardly be considered surprising that as the Muslim population in the country has expanded, so has the incidence of radicalism.

The Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, born in the Soviet Union and Kyrgyzstan, respectively, came to the United States as refugees in 2002. They were radicalized inside the country, Tamerlan reportedly at the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass. That mosque has reported links to several other convicted, or suspected, terrorists. Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, born in Eritrea and raised in Yemen, was reportedly an attendee before being sentenced, in 2004, to 23 years in prison for (among other things) his role in a Libyan plot to assassinate then–Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Also reported to worship there was Aafia Siddiqui, “Lady al-Qaeda,” born in Pakistan, later a graduate of MIT and Brandeis University, sentenced to 86 years in prison in 2010 for attempting to kill a U.S. Army captain in Afghanistan. But that was just what they prosecuted: She had plans to conduct a chemical attack in New York City. (The Islamic Society of Boston denies these and several other troubling associations.)

And one can look elsewhere. In 2003, the “Lackawanna Six,” six naturalized citizens from Yemen, were convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda. Lackawanna, N.Y., (as well as nearby Buffalo) is home to a large Yemeni population. In May, authorities arrested Mufid Elfgeeh, a Yemeni-born man who was allegedly attempting to recruit for the Islamic State and use revenues from his grocery store to fund the organization. He was living in Rochester, N.Y., just an hour east.

But the potential threats of a permissive immigration policy are multigenerational. France has spent decades ushering in its recent fate.

Consider: Said and Chérif Kouachi — the brothers responsible, along with a third accomplice, for the Charlie Hebdo murders — were native Frenchmen whose parents hailed from Algeria. So was Farid Benyettou, the man who drew Chérif Kouachi to radical Islam. So was Mohammed Merah, who shot seven people dead, including three children at Jewish day school, in Toulouse and Montauban in March 2012.

Radicalism seems to ferment as much, if not more so, among first-generation Westerners as among their immigrant parents. Which means that massive Muslim immigration may have few visible repercussions today — but a great many tomorrow.

That reality is becoming manifest in the United States.

Dearborn, Mich., is home to just under 100,000 people, about 40 percent of whom are Muslim. In 2013, a leaked government document revealed that more people from Dearborn were on the federal terrorist watch list than from any other city except New York. In March 2014, Dearborn resident Mohammed Hassan Hamdan was arrested at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on his way to join Hezbollah in Syria.

In October of last year, Mohammed Hamzah Khan, of Bolingbrook, Ill., was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on his way to enlist in the Islamic State. He had left his family a three-page letter inviting them to join him.

And there are the dozens of individuals from the Twin Cities’ Somali diaspora, many of whom worshiped at the same mosque, who have tried — successfully and otherwise — to do the same. (For more information on this phenomenon, go here.)

Perhaps the most infamous native-born terrorist: Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from the West Bank.

Suggesting a correlation between the number of Muslims in the country and the incidence of radicalism is, of course, considered insensitive, if not downright “Islamophobic.”

But the only point here is a mathematical one: Whatever the percentage of Muslims who support or would ever consider supporting jihadism, the raw number obviously increases along with the total number of Muslims. One percent of 10 million is much larger than 1 percent of 1 million. The questions is, at what point does the radical population achieve a kind of critical mass?

This need not be inevitable. America’s immigration policy can be tailored to address this challenge. Unfortunately, the available measures will be only minimally effective without a significant change of political circumstances.

The most obvious prophylactic would be to simply reduce the numbers of immigrants permitted from Muslim-majority countries. Reducing the numbers of immigrants from those countries allowed into the U.S. would reduce opportunities for many good, hard-working folk, yes, but it would almost certainly reduce the number of radical Islamists entering the country as well, making it much more difficult for those so inclined to wreak havoc within our borders, or to entrap the young and impressionable. That would help to reduce the likelihood both of terrorist activity currently and a generation hence. However, while Congress has the authority to legislate such a change, it would meet with fierce opposition from some quarters. A more plausible solution would be to reduce immigration from these countries as part of an across-the-board immigration reduction — although that, too, is improbable anytime soon. Those may of course both be too dramatic: One milder alternative would be to shift immigration priorities toward fellow English-speaking nations and liberal democracies.

Other, finer tools are available. Enhanced scrutiny can be applied to visa applicants from countries recognized as state sponsors of terrorism, or where terrorists are known to operate. The president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ union, has called America’s immigration system the world’s “visa clearinghouse,” with applications processed with an emphasis on speed rather than security and accuracy. The current administration’s policies toward illegal immigrants are likely only to further inundate an already overwhelmed system.

We could also adjust America’s refugee policy, which has played a significant part in the arrival of certain communities — such as Minnesota’s Somalis — and allows for religious distinctions that could be used to distinguish between, say, Syrian Sunnis and Syrian Christians applying for refugee status. However, given political considerations and ham-handed bureaucratic procedures, that change is also unlikely.

But the potential problems associated with massive Muslim immigration, and potential solutions, must be addressed now, when they can still be implemented thoughtfully — not in the wake of an instance of large-scale domestic terrorism.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not inevitable, but years of permissive immigration policy made it more and more likely. If we want to reduce the probability of a similar attack inside America’s borders, we should recognize France’s mistake, and reform immigration policies that simply do not add up.

— Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.

As of Jan. 15, 2:30 pm, there are 1,672 comments on this article

E Pluribus Unum: Multiculturalism Caused the Paris Attacks – Afterburner w/Bill Whittle

Published on Jan 15, 2015 by PJ Media

It wasn’t the Mohammed cover art that caused the Charlie Hebdo attacks; it was the multicultural treatment of Muslims in France. Another scorcher of an Afterburner from Bill Whittle on PJTV.

Yes, it is Islam!

Cameron Cardow illustrates revealing words of Paris jihadists WND.COMICS

Cameron Cardow illustrates revealing words of Paris jihadists
WND.COMICS

WND, By Tom Tancredo On 01/09/2015:

So, here we are again, being told that we can’t blame Islam for the murderous acts that have cost thousands of lives since 9/11 and millions of lives since the 14th century! Well, then let me ask a simple question: If Islam did not exist, how many of these events would have occurred?

It is IDIOTIC to keep pushing this canard of the left that “Islam is not to blame.” The horrific events this week in France tell us what we should already know– that we cannot delay any longer a forthright reckoning and confrontation with Islamic radicalism.

That will sound like common sense to most citizens, but to our political elites, it is a lesson they want desperately to avoid and evade.

The head of British counterintelligence on Friday warned of terrorist plans for widespread violent attacks across Europe, and there is no reason to believe the United States will be bypassed. It’s long past time to get serious about combating Islamic radicalism – not in Iraq or Syria or Yemen, but in or own streets, schools, mosques, pulpits and prisons.

The enemy is not “terror,” it is not shoe bombs or hijacked airplanes or suicide bombers. The enemy is radical Islam, which has declared war on all non-Muslim societies, faiths and religions.

Our leaders’ unwillingness to name the enemy has led to not only wasted billions in Iraq and elsewhere but loss of tens of thousands of lives. If even leftist comedian Bill Maher can call out fellow liberals for failing to face up to this truth, why are so many Christian leaders silent?

It is becoming clearer every day that the cost of continuing this foolishness will be intolerable in the loss of lives and the loss of freedom. It must end, and it must end now. We must declare that we are at war with radical Islam and begin taking concrete steps based on that truth.

As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The war with radical Islamism is a fact, and it’s time we stopped listening to – and voting for – those who deny that fact.

It is true that not all Muslims are radical Islamists, but that is not an excuse for turning a blind eye to the truth that all jihadists are professed, practicing Muslims. That the jihadists do not represent all Muslims is irrelevant: jihadists are inspired by radical Islam, not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Buddha and not Scientology. Pretending otherwise is not an excess of political correctness, it is an excess of human stupidity and evidence of sheer mental incompetence – an incompetence that is as deadly as it is cowardly.

We have spent tens of billions hunting down and killing terrorist leaders with drones and other tools of high-tech warfare, while accepting and permitting the growth of the cancer of Shariah law in our own communities. That lunacy must end.

Yes, this is a new kind of war. Let’s be honest about that, and let’s also be honest that fighting a murderous religion will have many distasteful aspects, as all wars do. The firebombing of Dresden was not a pretty sight. In the Second World War, not all members of the Nazi Party or the German Army wanted to send all Jews to Auschwitz, but we did not administer a questionnaire to German soldiers to determine each individual’s culpability before engaging them in battle.

It’s time to recognize that preventing the planned mass murder of millions of non-Muslims in the name of Allah is a challenge that is not in the same ballpark as profiling and arresting a lone serial killer or gang of meth dealers. This new kind of war is a test of our desire to survive the growing jihadist assault, and necessarily, it is also test of our ability to survive as a constitutional republic.

Instead of thinking of this war as a series of encounters with armed militants in faraway deserts and free-fire zones, we need to see it first and foremost as a war of ideas. The heart of radical Islam’s messianic agenda is Shariah law. That’s why the war is already half lost in Europe, where Shariah law has already been quietly accepted as legitimate within the thousands of Muslim enclaves from London to Budapest, from Paris to Stockholm.

Here is the brute reality our politicians are avoiding. When any democratic nation accepts the right of avowed Muslims to live under Shariah law, interpreted and applied by mullahs and imams reading the Quran, they have accepted the first, foundational principle of the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate, and they are watering the seeds of civilization’s destruction.

There are two concrete steps we need to take immediately. They are controversial, but they also are necessary.

First, we must stop all immigration of Muslims into the United States – yes, ALL Muslims – and then deport those already here who adhere to Shariah law. I know the “not all Muslims are terrorists” retort would be screamed from the roof tops, and indeed, I know many who are good citizens. The problem is that once large communities of Muslims spring up in the West, they provide breeding grounds for “homegrown terrorists” and safe havens for the same.

Shariah can be practiced in Muslim countries, but it is incompatible with the rule of law in any Western democracy.

The second thing that must be done immediately is to seal our borders against all illegal entry. Does anyone doubt that Islamist jihadists will use our open borders to infiltrate our communities?

Let’s start there. Those two steps are only a beginning, but they will serve to define the problem and point us in the right direction.

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.

Video: Sharia No-Go Zones Threaten Free Speech and Breed Jihad

Robert Spencer on Hannity, January 9, 2015 on Sharia No-Go Zones as Incubators of JIhad:

Published on Jan 12, 2015 by JihadWatchVideo

*****

Sharia & No-Go Zones Threaten Free Speech:

Published on Jan 12, 2015 by act4america
****
Also see:

John Robson on PEGIDA and similar European movements

Published on Jan 9, 2015 by AlohaSnackbar01

“The whole dynamic is now escaping the control of European political elites because they won’t take security or culture seriously.”

– John Robson