The Rise of Western Civilizationism

Middle East Forum, by Daniel Pipes, April 14, 2018:

Victor Orbán’s landslide electoral victory on Sunday, gaining 134 seats out of 199 in Hungary’s parliament, increases his governing supermajority and endorses his tough policy of excluding illegal immigrants, especially from the Middle East. His success dramatizes a new reality across Europe and in Australia: a novel kind of party has emerged, disturbing the political scene and arousing impassioned debate.

Examples of this phenomenon include the other three members of the Visegrád group (Poland, Czechia, and Slovakia) as well as Austria’s four-month old government. Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, sees western Europe following the Visegrád group: “In the Eastern part of Europe, anti-Islamification and anti-mass migration parties see a surge in popular support. Resistance is growing in the West, as well.”

In France, the National Front emerged as the second strongest party in last year’s presidential elections, in Italy, a muddled situation could lead to an Orbán-like government, while Cory Bernardi’s Conservatives and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation have made their mark on the Australian scene. Indeed, like-minded parties have quickly become a significant force in some twenty countries.

An initial problem is how correctly to name them in general. The media lazily lumps these parties together as far-right, ignoring their frequent leftist elements, especially in economic and social policy. Calling them nationalist is wrong, for they neither bellow calls to arms nor raise claims to neighbors’ lands. Populist misses the point because plenty of populist parties such as La France Insoumise (Rebellious France) pursue nearly opposite policies.

Best is to focus on their key common elements: rejecting the vast influx of immigrants and especially Muslim immigrants. Non-Muslim immigrants also cause strains, especially those from Africa, but only among Muslims does one find a program, the Islamist one, to replace Western civilization with a radically different way of life. Turned around, these parties are traditionalists with a pro-Christendom, pro-European and pro-Western outlook; they are civilizationist. (This definition also has the benefit of excluding parties like the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn in Greece, that despise traditional Western civilization.)

Enlightened opinion generally reacts with horror to civilizationist parties, and not without reason, for they carry a lot of baggage. Some have dubious origins. Staffed mainly by angry political novices, they feature dismaying numbers of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim extremists, Nazi nostalgists, power-hungry cranks, economic eccentrics, historical revisionists, and conspiracy theorists. Some proffer anti-democratic, anti-European Union, and anti-American outlooks. Far too many – and especially Orbán – have a soft spot for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

But civilizationist parties also bring critical benefits to the political arena: realism, courage, tenacity, and a civilizational critique necessary if the West is to survive in its historic form. Therefore, contrary to many friends and allies, I favor working with most civilizationist parties, advocating critical co-operation rather than rejection and marginalization.

Four reasons drive this decision: First, civilizationist parties pose a lesser danger than do Islamists. They are traditionalist and defensive. They are not violent, they do not seek to overthrow the constitutional order. Their errors are correctable. Arguably, they are less dangerous even than the Establishment parties which permitted immigration and shirked Islamist challenges.

Second, they respond to political realities. The lure of power has already inspired some civilizationist parties to mature and moderate; for example, the founder of the National Front in France was expelled from his own party by his daughter due to his persistent antisemitism. This sort of evolution entails personnel fightsparty divisions, and other drama; however inelegant, these are part of the growing process and, so, have a constructive role. As they gain governing experience, the parties will further evolve and mature.

Third, parties focused on civilizationism cannot be dismissed as ephemeral. They emerged quickly and are steadily rising in popularity because they represent a sizeable and growing body of opinion. As they relentlessly approach power; it is better they be engaged with and moderated than be reviled and alienated.

Finally, and most critically, civilizationist parties have a vital role in bringing their issues to the fore: without them, other parties usually ignore immigration and Islamist challenges. Conservative parties tend to overlook these issues, in part because their big business supporters benefit from cheap labor. Leftist parties too often promote immigration and turn a blind eye to Islamism.

To appreciate the role of civilizationist parties, contrast Great Britain and Sweden, the two European countries most lax in dealing with culturally aggressive and criminally violent forms of Islamism. Lacking such a party, these issues are not addressed in Great Britain; immigration and Islamist inroads progress almost unimpeded. Prime ministers might provide excellent analyses, but their words lack practical consequences and problems such as the sex-grooming gangs go unaddressed.

Great Britain lacks a civilizationist party because Nigel Farage decided that UKIP would not deal with immigration and Islamism.

In contrast, because Sweden’s civilizationist party, the Sweden Democrats, has doubled its votes every four years since 1998, it has fundamentally altered the country’s politics to the point that the country’s right and left blocs have allied against it. While this maneuver successfully excluded it from power, some policy changes have already occurred and more may lie ahead, especially as a conservative party, the Moderates, has raised the hitherto inconceivable notion of cooperating with the Sweden Democrats.

This points to another implication: the presence of an expanding civilizationist party pressures legacy parties of both right and left. Conservative ones, fearing the loss of voters to civilizationist parties, adopt policies to keep their support. The Republican Party in France has moved sharply in this direction, first under François Fillon and now under his successor, Laurent Wauquiez. Germany’s Free Democratic Party withdrew from the “Jamaica” negotiations for this same reason. Angela Merkel may still be chancellor of Germany, but her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, is doing his best to apply civilizationist policies.

Leftist parties have also begun to take note of the voters they have lost, especially those workers who tend to be economically and culturally on the front lines. The Danish Social Democrats led the way when its leader, Mette Frederiksen, declared “We want to introduce a cap on the number of non-Western foreigners who can come to Denmark” and offered a detailed, if ungainly, plan. The party would set up reception centers outside Europe.

Migrants in Budapest, Hungary, in 2015.

I acknowledge their many faults, but parties focused on immigration and Islamism are essential for Europe not to become an extension of Northern Africa but to remain part of the Western civilization it created. Their raising the immigration and Islamist issues makes up for their shortcomings. This assessment leads me to urge cooperation with civilizationist parties, rather than a horrified shunning of them. In my experience, they are open to discussion and to learning; they also have something to teach. For example, Anne Marie Waters of For Britain focuses on Islamic law, or sharia, bringing new clarity to complex problems.

Returning to Viktor Orbán: despite his serious flaws as a democratic leader and an alignment with Putin, his electoral success points to a real and legitimate anxiety in Hungary about immigration and Islamization, especially in the aftermath of the 2015-16 surge in both. Orbán leads, but others are not far behind. In twenty years, I predict, civilizationist parties will likely be widely in government; no less important, their policies will have influenced their conservative and leftist rivals. It would be folly to try to ignore or ostracize this movement; far better to temper, educate, and learn from it.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org@DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum© 2018 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Muslims Inadvertently Call for Ban on Islam

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, April 19, 2018:

The very same logic that Muslims cite in their ongoing efforts to criminalize anti-Islamic speech in Western nations would require the criminalization of Islam itself.

Secretary-General of the Muslim World League Mohammed al-Issa argues that “Europe must do more to … criminalize religious hate speech.” In an April 9 interview with Reuters, this prominent Saudi said: “We believe that European countries, where there is much debate now, and other countries around the world … need to … criminalize hatred and contempt for adherents of religions because this threatens the safety of the community.”

The “hatred and contempt for adherents of religions” that Muslims complain of is ecumenical code for “Islamophobia.” Thus, on April 5 Ömer Serdar, a senior official from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, announced that he and a “group of Turkish lawmakers will travel to the heart of Europe,” where they will “investigate whether authorities take measures against the hostility of Islamophobic discrimination in Muslims’ daily lives.” Afterwards, “they will hold meetings with state authorities during their visits to Germany, France, and Belgium” and “discuss the issue of marginalization.”

All of this is in line with policies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the “collective voice of the Muslim World” and second-largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations. For years — especially after a Muslim massacred a dozen people at France’s Charlie Hebdo offices for publishing satirical caricatures of Muhammad — the OIC has called on the United Nations to criminalize the “defamation of religions,” meaning criticism of Islam.

Everyone — especially Muslims — seems to miss the grand irony. If international laws would ban speech, cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame religions, those laws would ban the entire religion of Islam itself.

Islam is the only religion whose core texts actively, unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.

Consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation,” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” But in Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC and others cynically maintain that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts — beginning with the Koran itself?

The Koran repeatedly slanders, denigrates, and blackens the reputation of other specific religions. Consider these passages about Christianity:

— Koran 5:73: “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity.

— Koran 5:72: “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary.”

— Koran 9:30: “[T]he Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”

The word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms. What if a core Christian text — or even a Western cartoon — declared: “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God — may God’s curse be upon them”?

If Muslims consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard, it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.

Consider how the Christian Cross, venerated by billions, is defamed in Islam. According to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses. Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.”

Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

What if Christian books or Western movies specifically named the sacred symbols of Islam — perhaps the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba — as “idolatry” that Muhammad himself will return and destroy? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.

Here is perhaps the most particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment: According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad will be married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary in paradise.

Imagine if anything — from a core Christian text to a cartoon — portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife Aisha, the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven.

If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam — and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc. — then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Such defamation of Christianity is hardly limited to Islam’s core scriptures. In fact, modern-day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree: it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about — and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world — revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves. On the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns — in a word, “defames” — all other religions.

And we haven’t even mentioned the specific calls for violence against Christians, Jews, and adherents of all other religions (e.g., Koran 9:29).

It is this issue — Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy — that the international community should address.

And the right to freely discuss and criticize Islam’s penchant to defame and destroy is what the international community must protect.

Huffington Post Arabic Closes

Camera, April 17, 2018:
Huffington Post Arabic has shuttered its doors. Leaving aside what prompted the powers that be to discontinue publishing their materials under the well-known and longstanding Huffington Post brand, it’s important to note that, with the closing of the Arabic site, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters, such as Hamas, have lost an important mouthpiece.
Shortly after Huffington Post Arabic’s 2015 launch, The Guardian’s Brian Whitaker charged “that [Wadah Khanfar] the editorial director of Huffington Post’s Arabic offshoot is a Qatari known for his pro-Islamist stance and its Egyptian editor-in-chief is a self-declared member of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Khanfar, the former editorial director of Huffington Post Arabic, previously served as director general of Qatar’s Al Jazeera. A synergy between the two news outlets, with Khanfar as the apparent conduit, foreshadowed his later role at the American site.
While the web site operated thanks to the American principle of freedom of the press, on numerous occasions it failed to uphold key Western tenets of professional journalism. For instance, there was not a single other media outlet in the Arabic language that operated with the pretense of providing serious coverage, and yet which simultaneously gave voice to expressions like “the Zionist enemy” or “the Israeli entity.” In addition, no other Western news site so diligently served the role as spokesperson for senior Hamas members by republishing declarations previously appearing in Hamas media outlets. Moreover, Huffington Post Arabic violated a basic journalistic standard by using Hamas material without informing its readers of the source.
Thus, the Huffington Post did not manage to impart professional journalistic standards and practices for serious coverage into the realm of Arabic-language Western media outlets. To the contrary, from the moment that a Qatari company gained ownership of the Arabic site, it served as a tool in the political and media conflict between Doha and a number of Arab and Gulf capitals. Qatar’s fingerprints were all over the Huffington Post site, and this carries over into the new incarnation of the site, Arabi Post.
While it was possible to send feedback and even prompt corrections at Huffington Post Arabic, the new site does not provide any means of communication. Nor does it provide any information about its ownership. It is not possible to verify whether Huffington Post Arabic editors maintain their positions at the new site. In any event, as the Arabic proverb says: “The ass who goes looking for horns returns without ears.” The Huffington Post Arabic editors attempt to plant a new discourse into Arabic-language Western media outlets was a failure, costing them the Huffington Post imprimatur.

Southern Poverty Law Center Quietly Deleted List of ‘Anti-Muslim’ Extremists After Legal Threat

Maajid Nawaz on the April 18, 2018, edition of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. (via YouTube)

National Review, by Jack Crowe, April 19, 2018:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has removed the “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” from their website after attorneys for Maajid Nawaz, a practicing Muslim and prominent Islamic reformer, threatened legal action over his inclusion on the list.

The report, which had been active on the SPLC’s website since it was published in December 2016, was intended to serve as a resource for journalists to identify promoters of hateful propaganda; but it included a number of liberal reformers such as Nawaz, a former Islamic extremist who has since dedicated his life to combating the hateful ideology.

“A shocking number of these extremists are seen regularly on television news programs and quoted in the pages of our leading newspapers. There, they routinely espouse a wide range of utter falsehoods, all designed to make Muslims appear as bloodthirsty terrorists or people intent on undermining American constitutional freedoms. More often than not, these claims go uncontested,” the report, which still exists in PDF form, reads.

Nawaz, who founded the anti-extremist think tank Quilliam, said during a Wednesday night appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, a popular podcast hosted by comedian Joe Rogan, that the report was removed from the SPLC website under legal threat sometime in the last two days.

“We have retained Clare Loch, they are writing to the Southern Poverty Law Center as we speak. I think they’ve got wind of it — the Southern Poverty Law Center — and as of yesterday, or the day before, they’ve removed the entire list that’s been up there for two years,” Nawaz said on the podcast.

Nawaz — informed by his experience as a former member of a global terror organization and a political prisoner in Egypt — routinely criticizes the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam that gives rise to terrorism. As a result of that work, the SPLC and a coalition of partner organizations that helped create the list accused him of “savaging Islam.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born liberal feminist who fled her home country amid civil war and now works at the Hoover Institution, was also branded an “anti-Muslim extremist” by the SPLC.

Like Nawaz, Ali routinely criticizes inhumane practices that are common in majority-Muslim countries, including female genital mutilation, which she herself was subjected to before fleeing Somalia. The report branded her discussion of such topics “toxic.”

The inclusion of Nawaz and Ali on the “anti-Muslim extremist field guide” was the subject of criticism by conservative commentators and prompted a petition on Change.org, which drew thousands of signatures.

The SPLC did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

90 Years In, The Muslim Brotherhood Faces An Uncharted Future

by Hany Ghoraba
Special to IPT News
April 19, 2018

The Muslim Brotherhood has managed to weather many storms during nine decades in Egypt. Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak all tried to contain and suppress the Islamist movement, which ultimately seeks a global Muslim Caliphate. But opportunity suddenly presented itself after Mubarak’s fall in 2011, and the Brotherhood won power a year later. Any high hopes among voters led to an ill-fated year under President Mohamed Morsi, who was ousted from power when millions of frustrated Egyptians took to the streets during the June 30, 2013 revolution.

A resulting military crackdown put top Brotherhood leaders in jail and sent others into exile. As a result, the Brotherhood celebrated its 90th anniversary April 1 in Istanbul, Turkey, one of the group’s last strongholds in the region. It attracted Ibrahim Munir, the group’s London-based secretary general and de-facto supreme guide, and Khaled Meshaal, the former head of the Hamas political bureau. The two leaders bragged about the Brotherhood’s survival  under what they labeled tyranny and oppression.

And they tried to project a united front to supporters despite factors that prove otherwise.

The first is an internal struggle over tactics exposed by communiqués denouncing members, such as former Secretary General Mahmoud Hussein, for criticizing deadly Muslim Brotherhood attacks on Egyptian police and the army.

Hussein, an official Brotherhood communiqué said, “not only sought to stop any attempt at rapprochement, he would occasionally go out in the media to reignite the atmosphere of disagreement and strengthen division within the ranks of the Brotherhood without regard to circumstances or regulations.”

Egyptian public opinion toward the Brotherhood changed radically after Morsi’s failed tenure, dropping from 80 percent support at the start of the Arab Spring to less than half of that by 2014. “When Egyptians voted in the MB in 2012, it was because they believed they would bring a better life to all,” said Azza Radwan Sedky, a Canadian-based Egyptian political analyst and author of Cairo Rewind: The first two years of Egypt’s Revolution. “It proved to be a sham.”

The group’s future never looked bleaker. According to Egyptian political strategist Ahmed Sarhan, “the group’s local organization in Egypt has suffered severely under continuous successful security crackdown over the past 5 years, and it is now safe to assume that the leadership has been completely wiped off, most of the senior leaders are serving jail sentences, and [a ]few managed to escape to Qatar and Turkey.”

Sedky agreed, saying that she doubts that the Muslim Brotherhood can survive as a powerful organization that can galvanize the majority of Egyptians behind it. Although the group managed to survive previous security crackdowns, it now lacks the public support that it relied on to endure the hard times. This is due to its open war strategy that it is accused of waging against the Egyptian armypolicepublic officials and even common citizens.

A loss of public support isn’t the Brotherhood’s only challenge. Financial and political support from countries such as Turkey and Qatar could be affected by mounting pressure from states opposed to the Brotherhood, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood is well known, defended Brotherhood activities in Turkey labeling them as  “ideological and not terrorist.”

But that support for the Brotherhood isolates Turkey and Qatar politically and economically from neighboring states. Turkey’s ailing economy and worsening relations with the EU pose immediate threats. That situation is not sustainable long-term, Sarhan said.

“Turkey and Qatar have offered safe haven to many of the MB middle level leaders, where they have helped establish media outlets to spread their message. Nevertheless, the future of the support given to MB members in these countries [is] questionable,” Sarhan said.

Meanwhile, intellectual and organizational stagnation has the Brotherhood pushing the same political agenda it offered during the 1970s. That program focused on infiltrating Egypt’s Parliament, vocational syndicates and student unions while promoting archaic social programs that don’t fit modern times. This included attempts to ban forms of arts such as opera and ballet. During its one year in power, an aggressive program of “Brotherhoodization” of the Egyptian state was pursued through major government appointments of Brotherhood-aligned officials.

“Islamists in general, and MB sympathizers in particular, will always find their ways through the different political organizations in Egypt, especially labor syndicates and parties of the left movement,” Sarhan said. “The only way [to stop that] is to open up the political landscape to the liberal parties, while keeping the pressure on Islamists.”

Techniques that helped the Brotherhood survive for 90 years, when little was known about its activities, may be less effective under Egypt’s current crackdown. Egyptians recoiled from Morsi’s rule, and the Brotherhood’s influence has suffered, both at home and abroad. The Brotherhood’s past success fooling Western sympathizers into believing it was a moderate force in a chaotic region may be more difficult to preserve.

“MB groups in exile will eventually wither away,” Sarhan said, “since they won’t be allowed to return home. We can take lessons from Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiyyah in the 1990s, which collapsed under the security forces pressure, and their affiliates abroad ceased to exist.”

All of these factors indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood in its traditional structure and cultural impact may fade away. It is possible that it will split into smaller entities.

“It will take the MB years to build a new hierarchical organization,” Sarhan said. It may be able to build an organization in exile, biding time until conditions in Egypt are more favorable. He cited the example of Tunisia’s Ennahda movement, whose leader Rached al-Ghannouchi lived in exile in London for decades before returning to lead the government coalition in 2011.

As Sedky said, “The dream of reigning supreme across the Muslim World and the whole world doesn’t die easily.”

Hany Ghoraba is an Egyptian writer, political and counter-terrorism analyst at Al Ahram Weekly, author of Egypt’s Arab Spring: The Long and Winding Road to Democracy and a regular contributor to the BBC.

Michigan Candidate for Governor – “Brave Enough to Stand Against Sharia”

Sharia Crime Stoppers

The United West, April 19, 2018:

In a world that nearly demands “Political Correctness”, what politician would make statements that they understand the dangers of Sharia crimes; will take steps to educate their administration, the law enforcement under their jurisdiction, and anyone who is charged with handling abused women & minors or adjudicating laws affecting them?  Wouldn’t that be a step that could hurt their elect-ability?   If you side with “Political Correctness”, you would probably agree.   Those of us that have raised the flag of concern, asked the hard questions of our candidates, and demanded they know the threats from Sharia are real would applaud whoever this candidate is, stand with them and push for that candidate’s election!

Sharia Crime Stoppers

So, who is that candidate that took that “brave” stand?  

Michigan’s current state Senator, Patrick Colbeck, representing Michigan’s 7th district.  He is running for Governor of Michigan in the 2018 elections. One of his potential opponents is a Sharia-compliant Democrat candidate Abdul El-Sayed.  Senator Colbeck  has studied and learned the history of Sharia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and their plan to take down America called  “An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America, created 5/22/1991” [Arabic/English].  He not only studied it, he has seen it happening as a sitting State Senator and within his own community.

Now, it’s the next step that makes this candidate so incredible.  He not only took the time to educate himself about the threats, he stood before a MI community and presented what he learned, told them that he (if elected Governor) would stand against the threat of Sharia.  Would demand his state is educated about what is an essential requirement to follow an ideology that states Sharia is the only “law of the land”.

Candidate for Governor, Patrick Colbeck, told the citizens of Michigan he will do all he can to protect them from an ideology that requires the replacement of Constitutional law and sanctions crimes against women and children. He also signed a pledge to confirm he will do this.  This is a candidate that will go against the “status quo” to protect and defend!

The videos with this article are the proof of his commitment.  Please share this story and the videos to let everyone see the strategic importance of Patrick Colbeck’s candidacy for governor of Michigan, no matter where they reside in America.

Patrick Colbeck,  Explanatory Memorandum – Part 1

Patrick Colbeck,  Explanatory Memorandum – Part 2

Patrick Colbeck,  Explanatory Memorandum – Part 3

Patrick Colbeck,  Explanatory Memorandum – Part 4

Patrick Colbeck,  Law and Order Despite Sharia Pledge

The Pledge that was signed:

***

ACT OHIO Meeting with Dick Manaserri of Sharia Crime Stoppers. 1-28-18

More than 90 Muslims, nearly all Democrats, running for public office across the U.S.

Creeping Sharia, April 17, 2018:

9/11 was just the first notable battle in the Islamic takeover of the United States. As we noted a few weeks ago, the Ongoing Islamization of America – Muslims Going Hyper Political. It’s much worse than expected.

Source: The blue Muslim wave: American Muslims launch political campaigns, hope to deliver ‘sweet justice’ to Trump – The Washington Post

Fayaz Nawabi has never met President Trump. But he credits the president with convincing him to run for office.

Nawabi, a 31-year-old candidate for San Diego City Council, supports almost everything that Trump opposes: He is pro-affordable housing, pro-environment, pro-immigrant and pro-refugee. That makes him part of the blue wave of new liberal candidates spurred to run by Trump’s election and policies.

But Nawabi is also part of a notable subset: the blue Muslim wave.

More than 90 American Muslims, nearly all of them Democrats, are running for public office across the country this year. Many are young and politically inexperienced, and most are long shots.

Although their number seems small, the candidacies mark an unprecedented rise for the nation’s diverse Muslim community that typically has been underrepresented in American politics.

There are more than 3.3 million Muslims living in the United States, but Muslim Americans hold just two of the 535 seats in Congress. And the Muslim community’s voter participation pales in comparison to the general public’s.

The rise of Muslim candidates coincides with the growth of the predominantly immigrant population and a partisan shift that has played out over a generation. In a 2001 Zogby poll of American Muslims, 42 percent said they voted for Republican George W. Bush in the previous year’s presidential election, while 31 percent said they voted for Democrat Al Gore. By last year, just 8 percent of voting American Muslims in a Pew poll said they voted for Trump, while 78 percent said they voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

While Clinton’s campaign never garnered broad enthusiasm from Muslim communities, Trump’s campaign — which called for the monitoring of mosques and a ban on Muslims entering the United States — delivered a jolt on election night that some American Muslims likened to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“It woke everyone up,” Nawabi said.

Now, Muslim candidates are running for a wide range of offices across the country, from local school boards to the U.S. Senate. Some are making their Muslim identity central to their campaigns.

“When you put someone in a corner and they’re in survival mode, they have a tendency to come out and speak more prominently about their beliefs,” said Nawabi, who considers himself an “unapologetic Muslim” who can quote the Koran from memory and moonlights as a “freelance imam.”

In Michigan, where 13 Muslim candidates are running for office, physician Abdul El-Sayed is hoping voters will elect him to be the first Muslim governor in the United States and has used his religion in campaign ads against Republican front-runner Bill Schuette, whom Trump has endorsed.

“Donald Trump and Steve Bannon would love to see a right-wing radical like Bill Schuette elected in Michigan,” reads a Facebook ad for El-Sayed, who faces a Democratic primary in August. “You know what would be sweet justice? If we elected a 33-year-old Muslim instead of Bill Schuette. Send a message and help elect the first Muslim governor in America.”

Asif Mahmood, a 56-year-old pulmonologist, would be the first Muslim insurance commissioner in California. Deedra Abboud, 45, in Arizona, or Jesse Sbaih, 42, in Nevada, could be the country’s first Muslim senator.

And any one of four Muslim women — Nadia Hashimi, 40, in Maryland; Sameena Mustafa, 47, in Illinois; or Fayrouz Saad, 34, and Rashida Tlaib, 41, in Michigan — could be the first in Congress.


Read it all, and weep.

This is why there was only one issue in the 2016 presidential election and there remains only one issue today: immigration.

Without a dramatic shift, a halt to Muslim immigration, and a return of tens of thousands of so-called Muslim refugees – the demographics in America will be forever changed. They will never be reversed and it will only be a matter of time until what has happened in dozens of countries in the world will happen here. The long game does not bode well for non-Muslims.

Also see: