London’s Muslim Mayor Introduces the Thought Police

jk

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, August 18, 2016:

London’s new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, is allocating over two million dollars (£1,730,726) to an “online hate crime hub” enabling police to track and arrest “trolls” who “target…individuals and communities.” There can be no doubt, given the nature of the British political establishment today, which “trolls” these new Thought Police will be going after, and which “communities” will be protected from “hate speech.” “Islamophobia,” which David Horowitz and I termed “the thought crime of the totalitarian future,” is now going to bring down upon the hapless “trolls” the wrath of London’s Metropolitan police force — and this totalitarian new initiative shows yet again how easily the Leftist and Islamic supremacist agendas coincide and aid each other.

“The Metropolitan police service,” said a police spokesman, “is committed to working with our partners, including the mayor, to tackle all types of hate crime including offences committed online.” Given the fact that Khan, in a 2009 interview, dismissed moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms” and has numerous questionable ties to Islamic supremacists, it is unlikely that he will be particularly concerned about “hate speech” by jihad preachers (several of whom were just recently welcomed into a Britain that has banned foes of jihad, including me).

And the “partners” of the London police are likely to include Tell Mama UK, which says on its website: “we work with Central Government to raise the issues of anti-Muslim hatred at a policy level and our work helps to shape and inform policy makers, whilst ensuring that an insight is brought into this area of work through the systematic recording and reporting of anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes.” Tell Mama UK has previously been caughtclassifying as “anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes” speech on Facebook and Twitter that it disliked. Now it will have the help of the London police to do that.

“The purpose of this programme,” we’re told, “is to strengthen the police and community response to this growing crime type.” This “crime type” is only “growing” because Britain has discarded the principle of the freedom of speech, and is committing itself increasingly to the idea that “hate speech” is objectively identifiable, and should be restricted by government and law enforcement action. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003criminalizes “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and no groups are better at manifesting public annoyance than Islamic advocacy groups. A pastor in Northern Ireland, James McConnell, ran afoul of this law in 2014 when he dared to criticize Islam in a sermon; he was acquitted after an 18-month investigation and a trial, but the Metropolitan police will not want to be seen as wasting their new “hate speech” money; others will not be as fortunate as McConnell.

Behind the push for “hate speech” laws is, of course, the increasingly authoritarian Left. Increasingly unwilling (and doubtless unable) to engage its foes in rational discussion and debate, the Left is resorting more and more to the Alinskyite tactic of responding to conservatives only with ridicule and attempts to rule conservative views out of the realm of acceptable discourse. That coincides perfectly with the ongoing initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam.

This is not the first time that a Sharia imperative and a Leftist one coincided during the relatively brief (so far) mayoral tenure of Sadiq Khan. The London Evening Standard reported on June 13 that “adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.” This was because “Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Said Khan: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”

And so no more ads featuring women in bikinis on London buses. People often puzzle about how the hard Left and Islamic supremacists can make common cause, when they have such differing ideas of morality; Khan’s ad ban showed how. The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

What next? Will London women be forced to cover everything except their face and hands (as per Muhammad’s command) so as not to put others “under pressure over body image”? And if they are, will anyone who dares to complain about what is happening to their green and pleasant land be locked up for “hate speech” by London’s new Thought Police?

Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s London. Shut up and put on your hijab.

Also see:

One cannot have discourse if there is no opportunity for opposition. We are now seeing European courts, the European Commission, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the UN Human Rights Council seek to silence those whose views they oppose.

It even turned out, at least in Germany last September, that “hate speech” apparently included posts criticizing mass migration. It would seem, therefore, that just about anything anyone finds inconvenient can be labelled as “racist” or “hate speech.”

Censoring, ironically, ultimately gives the public an extremely legitimate grievance, and could even set up the beginning of a justifiable rebellion.

There is currently a worrying trend. Facebook, evidently attempting to manipulate what news people receive, recently censored the Swedish commentator Ingrid Carlqvist by deleting her account, then censored Douglas Murray’s eloquent article about Facebook’s censorship of Carlqvist. Recently, the BBC stripped the name Ali from Munich’s mass-murderer so that he would not appear to be a Muslim.

Yet, a page called “Death to America & Israel“, which actively incites violence against Israel, is left uncensored. Facebook, it seems, agrees that calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state is acceptable, but criticism of Islam is not. While pages that praise murder, jihadis, and anti-Semitism remain, pages that warn the public of the violence that is now often perpetrated in the name of Islam, but that do not incite violence, are removed.

Even in the United States, there was a Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 569, attempting to promote the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Defamation of Religion/anti-blasphemy laws, to criminalize any criticism of “religion” – but meaning Islam.

Yesterday, at an airport, an advertisement for Facebook read, “A place to debate.” Should it not instead have read, “A place to debate, but only if we agree with you”?

Islam’s “Quiet Conquest” of Europe

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, August 10, 2016:

  • “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam.” — Tariq Ramadan.
  • In 1989, Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques.
  • In Britain, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques.
  • Civil war in France is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.
  • Real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with France’s director of domestic intelligence, Patrick Calvar. “The confrontation is inevitable,” Mr. Calvar said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France’s seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the miscreants down the street.”

These Salafists openly challenge France’s way of life and do not make a secret of their willingness to overthrow the existing order in Europe through violent means, terror attacks and physical intimidation. But paradoxically, if the Islamists’ threat to Europe were confined to the Salafists, it would be easier to defeat it.

There is in fact another threat, even more dangerous because it is more difficult to decipher. It has just been dubbed by the magazine Valeurs Actuelles,the quiet conquest“. It is “moderate” Islam’s sinuous project of producing submission. “Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely”.

That threat is personified in the main character of Michel Houellebecq’s novel, Submission: Mohammed Ben Abbes, the “moderate” Muslim who becomes France’s president and converts the state to Islam. And from where does President Ben Abbes start his Islamization? The Sorbonne University. It is already happening: Qatar recently made a significant donation to this famous university, to sponsor the education of migrants.

In France, the quiet conquest has the face of the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), which a Simon Wiesenthal Center report charged with “anti-Semitism, advocacy and financing of terrorism and call to Jihad… ”

Not only does UOIF not encourage the integration of Moslems in France,” the report states, “it actually provides a nursery for the most radical Islamist positions.”

In Italy we have just witnessed the strategy of this “moderate Islam.” The largest and most influential Islamic organization, l’Unione delle comunità ed organizzazione islamiche in Italia (Ucoii), sponsored Milan’s first Muslim councilwoman, Sumaya Abdel Qader, a veiled candidate of the center-left coalition. Qader’s husband, Abdallah Kabakebbji, openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel: “It is a historical mistake, a scam”, he wrote on Facebook. His solution? “Ctrl + Alt + Delete”.

Qader won the race over a real moderate Muslim, the unveiled Somali activist, Maryan Ismail. I met Mrs. Ismail at a pro-Israel forum in Milan. After losing the election, she broke with Italy’s Democratic Party in an open letter: “The Democratic Party has chosen to dialogue with obscurantist Islam. Once again, the souls of modern, plural and inclusive Islam were not heard”.

Take two “stars” of this French “moderate Islam.” The first one is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the motto of which is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Ramadan does not hide in Raqqa or shoot at French citizens. By applying for French citizenship, he would like to become one of them. His office is in the Parisian suburb of Saint Denis; he has written 30 books and he has two million Facebook followers. Ramadan has academic chairs all over the world, he is the director of the Research Center for Islamic Law in Doha (Qatar) and the president of the European Muslim Network. He publicly campaigns for Islam along with Italy’s former prime minister, Massimo D’Alema. Ramadan recently explained his vision for Europe and France: “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam”.

Ramadan’s project is not the hoped-for Europeanization of Islam, but the not-hoped-for frightful Islamization of Europe. He opposes the assimilation of Muslims into French culture and society. A few days before the election in Milan, Ramadan was in Italy to endorse the candidacy of Sumaya Abdel Qader.

The second French “star” is Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. In 1989, Boubakeur justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2002, he testified for the prosecution against the writer Michel Houellebecq. In 2006, he sued Charlie Hebdo in court, after the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France.

Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, last year called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France. (Image source: TV5 Monde)

In the United Kingdom, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques. Divorce, polygamy, adultery and wife-beating are only some of these courts’ matters of jurisprudence. In Germany, vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel criticized Saudi Arabia for financing Islamic extremism in Europe. It is the same kingdom which last year offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany.

Qatar, with its Al Jazeera television megaphone, is also very active in sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood Islamic radicalism all over Europe. The Qatari royal family, for example, in 2015 donated £11 million to Oxford’s St. Anthony’s College, where Tariq Ramadan teaches. Qatar also announced that it was willing to spend $65 million in the French suburbs, home to the vast majority of the six million Muslims in France.

Today in Europe, several scenarios are possible, including the worst. Among them, there is a civil war, which many are beginning to talk about, including Patrick Calvar, the director of domestic intelligence. This is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.

The end is more important than the means. The Islamic State has the same goal as most of the members of so-called “moderate Islam”: domination under the sharia. Many supposedly “moderate Muslims”, even if they do not commit violent acts themselves, support them quietly. They support them by not speaking out against them. If they do speak out against them, they usually do so in coded terms, such as that they are “against terrorism,” or that what concerns them about violent acts by Muslims is the possibility of a “backlash” against them.

Violent jihadis, however, are not the only means of transforming Europe, and perhaps are even counterproductive: they could awaken the nations they attack. Soft and more discreet means, such as social pressure and propaganda, are even more dangerous, and possibly even more effective: they are harder to see, such as the West’s acceptance of dual judiciary and legal systems; sharia finance (if there had been a “Nazi finance” system, in which all financial transactions went to strengthening the Third Reich, what effect might that have had on World War II?), and the proliferation in the West of mosques and extremist Islamic websites. Although there are indeed many real “moderate Muslims”, there are also still many who are not.

To conservative Muslims, however, any Muslim who does not accept every word of Allah — the entire Koran — is not a true Muslim, and is open to charges of “apostasy”, the punishment for which is death. According to a leading Sunni theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, based in Qatar, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today.”

That is why the late writer Oriana Fallaci once said to The New Yorker: “I do not accept the mendacity of the so-called Moderate Islam”. That is why real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

This might summarize the current Islamic mainstream mentality: “Dear Europeans, continue to think about a shorter working week, early retirement, abortion on demand and adultery in the afternoon. With your laws, we will conquer you. With our laws, we will convert you”.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Daniel Pipes: Three possibilities for Europe’s future as Islamization rises

160714184008-08-nice-truck-deaths---restricted-super-169

The Rebel, July 15, 2016:

At least 84 people were murdered yesterday in France’s third major Islamist terrorist attack in less than a year. In our latest video collaboration with the Gatestone Institute, Daniel Pipes talks about Europe’s crossroads:

Will Europeans succumb to Islamization, or will they rise to fight radical Islam and hold onto Western values? How it looks so far?

“Sheer Horror” in Paris

blackoutCounterJihad, July 11, 2016:

Ben Judah is a journalist who comes especially well-recommended.  His two books, one about Russia and the other about London, have been hailed for their shockingly honest accounts of unpleasant truths.  Of his work on London, the New Statesman reviewer wrote:  “Every MP should be given a copy immediately. On every page lies an uncomfortable truth, in every paragraph sheer horror.”

Now he has turned to the rapid shift towards Islam in France.  Brought on by mass immigration and hardline Islamic preachers, Judah finds a neighborhood in the shadow of the tombs of French kings that is no longer French.

“The French are too scared to come and shop in Saint-Denis since the attacks. There’s fear. There’s less order — less police, more druggies, more dealers and more thieves. It’s getting worse. I tell you — ten years ago it was not this bad.”

How does the French state explain all this? I take the butcher’s accusation to the prefect. Grey-haired Philippe Galli is Saint-Denis’s most powerful official and the president’s envoy to the department of Seine-Saint-Denis. His throaty, gravelly voice is accustomed to power.

“Those same people who say there is a lack of authority,” snaps the 60-year-old prefect, “are the same ones who refuse the police access when they try and enter. Those from the Maghreb, by origin, permit themselves to behave in ways that would be unthinkable where they came from.”

He tells me that the secret services are currently monitoring 700 people at risk of radicalisation in Saint-Denis, and the police are too frightened to enter alone most areas under his control.

The whole of his piece should be read.

The French government has been drawing up counter-insurgency plans against those al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS) have been recruiting.  Last year’s multiple major terror strikes in Paris not only led to the deaths of hundreds, but also highlighted the failure of European police authorities to handle the problem of rising Islamic radicalism.

Meanwhile, with French native birthrates continuing to be below replacement level, mass immigration has continued apace.  A quarter of teenagers in France are now Muslims, implying a future in which any radicalized Islam poses only a greater threat to the stability of the Republic.  Second generation immigrants, according to several major inquiries, seem to be the ones most inclined to radicalization.  The problems of France today may well pale in comparison to the problems of a generation from now.

Already Judah’s article identifies a rising Antisemitism that is driving French Jews from their homes.  But it is also driving non-Jewish French from their homes, and making those who continue to live in the changing neighborhoods feel besieged.

The response by the French has been a rising nationalism.  Even al Qaeda’s top figure in charge of recruting from France has endorsed the National Front.  “If the French don’t want war, they should vote Marine Le Pen,” he said. “OK, she’s a woman, and one can call her a racist.  But at least she defends the true values of France.”

Does she?  Judah cites a gay leftist who has come to feel inclined towards a more nationalist politics.  “I realised… my error of interpretation on immigration and Islamisation, which is a danger to liberty…. [A]ll around us this rise of halal, this halalisation of France through its dishes, it’s a conquest of France through its dishes, if you look closely.”

That has parallels in Germany, where nationalism is also rising as a response.  These stories may not be pleasant to read, but every wise person should consider them, and ponder what is to be done.

Also see:

ESW in Dallas: “Europe is Careening Over the Multicultural Cliff”

esw-dallas-201604Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, April 28, 2016:

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has just returned to Austria after an extended visit to the United States, where she was invited to speak by various anti-Islamization groups in different cities.

On April 21 Elisabeth spoke in Dallas, Texas at an event sponsored by the Dallas chapter of ACT! For America. She was introduced at the event by Lt. Col. (ret.) Allen West. Below is the prepared text for her speech.

(L-R) Lt. Col. (ret.) Allen West, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Rabbi Jon Hausman, Dallas, April 21 2016

(L-R) Lt. Col. (ret.) Allen West, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Rabbi Jon Hausman, Dallas, April 21 2016

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak to ACT! for America here in Dallas, Texas. These are perilous times we are living in. Advocates for freedom on both sides of the Atlantic need to stand together!

For the past nine months Austria and the rest of Western Europe have undergone a profound transformation, one that will inevitably change the face of Europe permanently. I refer, of course, to the migration crisis, which began in earnest last summer, and is continuing as I speak to you. As the weather warms up and spring gives way to summer, we may expect the crisis to intensify even further. More than a million immigrants arrived in Austria and Germany via the “Balkan route” last year, and at least as many are expected to come this year — probably significantly more.

These migrants are generally referred to by our political leaders and the media as “refugees”, but this is hardly the case. Not only are most of them from countries where there is no war to flee from, but they are also overwhelmingly young Muslim men, of fighting age. In other words, the current crisis is actually an instance of Islamic hijra, or migration into infidel lands to advance the cause of Islam. The hijra goes hand in hand with jihad — once enough Muslim migrants have settled in the target country, violentjihad can begin.

It should be quite clear by now that the jihad phase has already begun in Western Europe. The most recent instances were the massacres in Paris and Brussels, which were acts ofjihad carried out by Muslims. Some of the terrorists were in fact “refugees” who had pretended to be “Syrian” and came in with the migrant wave.

And all of them were fighting jihad in the way of Allah, as instructed by the Koran.

I could take up my entire time slot tonight talking about the European migration crisis, and never do more than scratch the surface. However, I’d like to discuss one aspect of the crisis that is very important: the manipulation by the mainstream media of the news about the migrants.

A single example from a beach in Turkey will help give you an idea of what is going on. The image that sparked Western interest in the crisis was the widely-publicized photograph of the dead toddler on the beach in Turkey. That photo is an example of media manipulation. Not about the fact of the baby’s death, but what was done with his little body once he was dead. There is now ample evidence that the body was moved and arranged in place so that the most heart-wrenching photo could be taken. Furthermore, the father of the child was not a poor helpless refugee trying to escape to freedom, but an accomplice of the people smugglers who piloted the boat, who irresponsibly brought his family with him.

For journalists working for Der Spiegel or Le Figaro or The Guardian or CNN, the media narrative is more important than the truth. And the media narrative was (and is) that poor innocent refugees are drowning because they are left to die by evil Europeans.

Those facts about the incident never made it into public consciousness. Not like the image of the pitiful corpse at the edge of the waves — that’s the kind of story that the Western media love to dish out, especially when it promotes the media narrative. It’s also the kind of story that Western audiences love to lap up — it’s what Gates of Vienna, the website I’m associated with, calls “Dead Baby Porn”.

Dead Baby Porn tugs the heartstrings of well-meaning Westerners. It reinforces all their presuppositions about current events. It gives them a vicarious frisson about the poor, suffering child. And, in their response, it makes them feel morally superior when they join the clamor to open their country’s borders to the unfortunate “refugees”.

The media feed the public a steady stream of photos and videos that feature pitiful migrant women and children. We see them looking through the razor wire towards “freedom”, weeping, cooking their food over a campfire, and being pushed back by border guards. Yet these images are so misleading that they constitute disinformation.

The ugly fact is that the overwhelming majority of the “refugees” are healthy young men who either have no wives and children, or left them behind to seize the opportunity forhijra into Europe. They come from Afghanistan, Morocco, Eritrea, and Pakistan, but they acquire forged or stolen Syrian passports so that they become “Syrian”, and thus qualify for VIP status in the flood of refugees.

isisrefugees

We are being deliberately manipulated. The Western public is being manipulated into supporting the migration of fighting-age Muslim men into Europe. They are being manipulated into joining the crowd of starry-eyed people holding up “Welcome Refugees” signs in European train stations. And they are being manipulated into paying for all of it through their donations to various NGOs whose mission is to aid the “refugees”.

Yet their donations do not cover the entire cost. It’s a very expensive proposition to send refugees from Anatolia to the Greek islands, and then through Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria to Germany. It’s not just the payment to the people-smugglers who take them across a few miles of the Aegean and dump them just off the beach on Lesbos, although that is expensive enough. From there they are carried by ferry to the mainland, housed, clothed, and fed. When they continue their journey, they ride on buses and trains almost the entire distance — they walk only a few hundred yards to cross each border, getting out of a bus in one country and boarding another one in the next.

This is yet another way in which you, the Western public, are being manipulated by the media. All those photos and videos of endless columns of refugees walking along dusty roads carrying their children and pathetic belongings — those are not representative of the migrants’ journey. A typical shot would show hundreds of young men sitting on buses with air conditioning and upholstered seats. But you don’t see many of those, do you?

Someone is paying the costs of all this. Public donations cover only a small portion of the billions of dollars paid out to transport migrants. The governments of the countries involved pay some of the cost. And the European Union pays some of it. And there are multiple indications that George Soros and his Open Society Foundations are bankrolling a lot of the process, including the printing of maps and helpful instructions for the “refugees” in multiple languages.

Make what you will of all of this. No matter what their motives are, the internationalists who push for global governance and a borderless world are expending vast amounts of money to fool the European public and move millions of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe. Europe will become more “diverse”, whether it likes it or not.

And if, as a consequence, terror attacks have to kill hundreds or thousands of people, and women have to be gang-raped, why, those are just unfortunate side-effects.

You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, you know. Especially white European eggs.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The migrant crisis is just the beginning of what might be called the “kinetic phase” of the deconstruction of European nation-states. Last summer’s events were not a new crisis. They were simply a continuation of an ongoing long-term process.

The constant flow of migrants across the Mediterranean into Europe has been going on for at least a decade. It picked up speed after the “Arab Spring” began in 2011, and especially after Moammar Qaddafi was murdered. Then the flow of migrants accelerated greatly last summer because President Erdogan of Turkey stopped interfering with the boats of the people-smugglers.

And now the European Union has paid an enormous amount of protection money to Mr. Erdogan in return for his promise to do what he used to do for free — stop the traffickers’ boats from crossing the Aegean to Greece.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the flow of migrants into Europe is an intentional process on the part of EU leaders. Many of them —especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel — are on record saying how important it is to invite all this “diversity” into Europe. The recent tsunami has obviously taken them by surprise, but it is exactly what they wanted — just not this fast.

They didn’t want the immigrants entering this quickly because the indigenous people of Europe might become alarmed by the influx and take action to throw their leaders out of office. This would not do. Those leaders want native Europeans to remain asleep so that the process of population replacement can be completed before they realize it.

No, it wasn’t supposed to happen this way. But now the European people are waking up, and change is in the air. It may be too little, too late — but awareness is finally dawning.

Population replacement is only one of the strategies employed by those who want to deconstruct the nation-states of Europe. In order to complete the process without a hitch, the native populace must be kept under control. Existing cultural institutions such as the Church and patriotic organizations must be discredited and weakened so that people are unable to form networks and organize against what is being done to them. Ideally, they would be unaware that such organizing is even possible. They must remain atomized, divided from one another, and under the full control of the state — the EU superstate, that is.

As the situation has worsened for the last decade or so, the European Union and its member states have cracked down on free speech. Bringing in so many migrants has accelerated the Islamization of Europe, which tends to be unpopular. Increased crime, more rape and harassment of women, the insistence that schools must serve halal foods and male students receiving permission to refrain from shaking their female teacher’s hand — these are all things that citizens dislike. But from the point of view of EU leaders, there is no going back — the migration must proceed; it’s a necessary part of the plan. Therefore, people must not be allowed to discuss these things nor urge their leaders to make changes. Instead, the criticism of Islam and Islamization must be forbidden. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations call it “defamation of religion”, and it has now been criminalized all across Europe. The EU is for all practical purposes enforcing sharia law on its indigenous residents.

Ten years ago, when I first began this work, the number of political prosecutions for “hate speech” in Europe was very small — the cases could be counted on the fingers of one hand. But that number has been increasing steadily ever since, and is now rising exponentially. There are now hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases every year in which people are prosecuted for racism, incitement, and discrimination simply for criticizing Islam or mass immigration. Unfortunately, many of those prosecuted are being convicted and fined. And, horribly enough, some are being sent to prison.

There are many, many cases of people being prosecuted for speaking the truth about Islam. Far too many for me to tell you about them all. I’ll discuss my own case in a few minutes, but first I’d like to say a few words about two friends of mine.

The first case is that of Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom — the PVV — the most popular political party in the Netherlands. If an election were held today, the PVV would win at least twice as many seats in parliament as any other party. After the current government falls, Geert may very well become the next prime minister.

Yet the government is prosecuting him for what he said about Moroccan immigrants. His first court appearance was last month, but the trial was postponed until next fall.

He is being charged with “discrimination” for asking his supporters at a rally whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands”. The charges against him were brought after thousands of complaints had been filed with the police — on pre-printed forms that police themselves had handed out in Muslim neighborhoods, and that imams had distributed to their illiterate congregants, many of whom had no idea what they were signing.

In other words, Geert Wilders was set up. His outspoken opinions about Islam, immigration, and the EU are considered unacceptable by the Powers That Be, and he must be stopped at any cost and by any means. His trial is a travesty, a farrago of justice. To call it a “kangaroo court” would be an insult to the world’s marsupials. A more fitting term would be “show trial”, just like those ordered by Stalin in the 1930s against his political enemies.

This is not the first political trial that Geert Wilders has had to endure, nor is it the second. This is the third time that the Dutch state has prosecuted him for “hate speech”. The first ended in a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. In the second he was acquitted. But the establishment will not be satisfied until it has convicted him and ended his political career, so it is putting him on trial again.

Another friend who is being persecuted by the state is Tommy Robinson, who was one of the founders of the English Defence League and was its leader for five years. Tommy has been brought to court by the British government numerous times. All of those prosecutions — the “hate speech” charges and all the others — were trumped-up affairs carried out for political purposes.

Tommy’s most recent conviction was for “mortgage fraud”, a minor crime for which no one else has done jail time. In fact, members of parliament have done exactly the same thing, but were never even charged. Tommy, on the other hand, was sentenced to eighteen months in prison.

While Tommy was inside, he was locked up with hardened Muslim criminals who wanted to kill him. He was repeatedly attacked and beaten up, and ended up in the prison hospital more than once.

On one occasion he was locked in a cell with several Muslim prisoners. Tommy had learned beforehand that one of them was planning to throw a mixture of boiling water and sugar in his face. This nasty brew is called “napalm” by the criminals who use it, and it can cause horrible burns, much worse than those caused by simple boiling water. Tommy acted pre-emptively and beat up the man who intended to throw it on him.

It is this incident for which he was recently charged. Thanks to the efforts of a group of women who through crowd-funding raised more than enough money, Tommy was for the first time able to retain a top-notch lawyer. He was acquitted and is now a free man.

The real issue behind all these arrests is that Tommy speaks the truth about the danger to the British people posed by Islam. But he is no longer being prosecuted for “hate speech” offenses — the state does not want the substance of what he says to aired in an open courtroom and discussed in the national media. Therefore other types of infractions must be found and other charges brought. The current case against him is simply the latest example of the repressive tactics being employed by the totalitarian British state.

So here’s the plan: Lock up the most charismatic leader the British Counterjihad has. Put him in with his most dangerous enemies — Muslim criminals who have promised to kill him. Make sure that the guards are absent or looking the other way when the trouble starts. Then, as far as the sharia-compliant British state is concerned, the problem has been solved.

The UK, like all the other enlightened governments of Western Europe, has abolished the death penalty. But there’s more than one way to kill a political nuisance — you don’t have to march him up the steps to the gibbet, put the noose around his neck, and open the trapdoor under him.

What is happening to Tommy Robinson is capital punishment by alternative means.

Read more

First Christian Lashed for Violating Islamic Law in Indonesia

0032db7a00000258-2923527-image-a-55_1422024528536

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, April 22, 2016:

How long until it’s the first Christian lashed for violating Islamic law in Malmo or Dearborn?

For her crime, violating the tenets of a faith she does not observe, the courts offered two punishments.

Option one: time in a grim jailhouse. Option two: nearly 30 lashes with a cane wielded by a anonymous man, hooded and clad in black robes, as her neighbors watched.

She chose the latter.

Such was the fate of Remita Sinaga, 60, a rare Christian living in Aceh, one of the most stridently Islamic corners of Asia.

Each blow is dealt by an official, robed in dark cloth from head to toe, who humiliates the accused on a public stage. Crowds are invited to jeer and film beatings with their mobile phones.

Sinaga, however, simply bowed her head. Clad in a lavender-colored hood, she stared at her feet as the flogger landed 28 blows on her back.

This is Islam. This is Islamic law. Beneath all the lies and spin, it’s this simple. And it’s spreading. Just as it spread to Indonesia, it can spread to Europe and America.

But I’m sure if the mainstream media gets around to covering this in any depth or range, the angle will be “Indonesia Muslims Fear Backlash”.

A 1979 Time Magazine Article about Islam


By Ileana Johnson, APRIL 21, 2016:

Thirty-seven years ago, Time magazine dedicated its cover to “Islam, The Militant Revival,” and published a lengthy article, “The World of Islam,” in which John A. Meyer wrote, “We want to examine Islam’s resurgence, not simply as another faith but as a political force and potent third ideology competing with Marxism and Western culture in the world today.” It was April 16, 1979.

The editor, Marguerite Johnson, penned the cover story because “the Iranian revolution has made it especially important for Westerners to understand the driving energy and devotion Islam commands from so many.”

Senior editor John Elson indicated that “Islam has been frequently misunderstood, partly because so many people have tried to apply terms from Christianity and Judaism to it.” In writing this article, the editors have attempted to draw a picture of Islam for what it really is, “a way of ordering society.”

According to Time magazine, there were 750 million Muslims and 985 million Christians in 1979, a large group ready to assert the “political power of the Islamic way of life.” The people of Iran apparently voted overwhelmingly to create an Islamic republic, the nation’s first “government of God,” as Ayatullah Khomeini declared.

This theocratic and freedom-stifling government replaced, after one year of revolution, “a dynastic autocrat who dreamed of turning his country into a Western-style industrial and secular state.” Changing a westernized society into a government by religious mullahs was described as “a new dawn for the Islamic people.”

Time magazine quoted the Cairo’s magazine Al Da’wah (The Call): “The Muslims are coming, despite Jewish cunning, Christian hatred, and the Communist storm.”

And it came to pass – the Muslims are really coming, by the millions, invading Europe and America, welcomed with open arms by a senescent and suicidal Europe ruled by technocrat elitists who are only interested in failed multi-culturalism, their power, control of the emerging tower of Babel, and their bank accounts.

Time magazine described the revival of Islam in the 70 countries around the world, reflected in the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, unchanged for 14 centuries; this alleged revival took place among the young who desired sharia law, burkas, hijab and other forms of enslaving women to their half-person status, genital mutilation, and harsh punishments in cases of rape, divorce, adultery, and abortion.

Time magazine assumed that this alleged revival had taken place for decades because “Islam is no Friday-go-to-mosque kind of religion. It is a code of honor, a system of law and an all-encompassing way of life.”

This resurgence was inspired and fueled by a “quest for stability and roots,” a deep-seated hatred for Western values, and “the population explosion in those Islamic nations where birth control is little practiced.”

Marvin Zonis is quoted that “Islam is being used as a vehicle for striking back at the West, in the sense of people trying to reclaim a very greatly damaged sense of self-esteem. They feel that for the past 150 years the West has totally overpowered them culturally, and in the process their own institutions and way of life have become second rate.”

“Islam is a political faith with a yearning for expansion,” said Marguerite Johnson. And the history of its expansionist desires is quite telling, an expansionism that necessitated the Christian Crusades in order to regain territories occupied by Islam.

Arabs raided and conquered many lands and their traders carried Islam with them; the Persian Empire, the Byzantine Empire, North Africa into Spain, the Middle East, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines, the black tribes in Africa south of the Sahara Desert, were all forced into submission and conversion to Islam. Time magazine added that, “On the Indian subcontinent, in Southeast Asia, in Africa and the Pacific, millions of Muslims were under colonial rule.”

Time magazine remarked that “Islam is frequently stereotyped as unmitigatedly harsh in its code of law, intolerant of other religions, repressive toward women and incompatible with progress.” No mention is made of the Koranic quotes which advise their faithful to kill the infidels.

Salem Azzam, then Saudi secretary-general of the Islamic Council of Europe, was quoted as saying that seeing this Islamic resurgence in a negative light is nothing but a “return to colonialism – indirect but of a more profound type.”

Other Muslims and their defenders claimed that “Islam is not monolithic, that it is compatible with various social and economic systems, and that far from being a return to the Dark Ages, it is wholly consonant with progress.” The reality is that the Taliban had oppressed and regressed a thriving Afghan society.

The “war refugees” from Syria, who have invaded welfare-generous European countries and are raping and pillaging the host societies, have gravely affected the very tolerant and multi-cultural nations who foolishly invited them in with open arms.

Devout Muslims are described in this article as opposed to the “materialism of the West and the atheism of Communism.” But they welcome “individual initiative, respect private property, and tolerate profits.” But moderation and “communal responsibility” are most important. Usury is forbidden but interest is allowed if used for the “common good.” Community and the common good are communist tenets.  A zakat of 2.5%, levied against individual assets, was allowed for the benefit of the community.

A devout Muslim objects to the evils associated with modern life but enjoys everything free that the west must provide, such as welfare, housing, TVs, cell phones, cable, cars, electricity, A/C, etc. The Time article stated that Islam objects to “liquor factories,” to the “breakdown of the family structure, the lowering of moral standards, [and] the appeal of easygoing secular life-styles.” But Muslims “are demanding the best of the West: schools, hospitals, technology, agricultural and water development techniques.”

Devout Muslims, no matter where they live, are required to abide by Sharia Law, “the path to follow.” The consensus of Islamic scholars in charge and the deeds and sayings of Muhammad become an “all embracing code of ethics, morality and religious duties.” It is thus a complete control of one’s life.

Once entrenched in the western civilization, Muslims start chiseling at its foundation in an effort to turn it into Sharia-compliance; everything that made western schools, hospitals, agriculture, military, and technology great in the first place, will be replaced with what is approved by the Islamic theocracy.

No matter how the media spins Islam then and now, Sharia Law and our U.S. Constitution are not compatible. Moral relativism and tolerance to the point of ignorance will result in national suicide.

Powerful interview with Tommy Robinson: “The Biggest Problem I Face is the State”

FrontCoverGates of Vienna, April 15, 2016:

Yesterday evening, after the court case against him was dismissed, Tommy Robinson was interviewed at length by Trinity Channel, an American Christian broadcaster. The topic was “The Islamization of the United Kingdom”.

Now that Tommy’s legal entanglements are over (for the moment), he is able to speak out freely about the persecution he has suffered at the hands of the British state. In this excerpt there are details about what happened to him that I hadn’t heard before. He also talks about the defense fund that was recently set up to pay for his legal representation — which you, the readers of Gates of Vienna (among others), helped make a reality with your generous donations. Thanks to your contributions, Tommy Robinson is a free man today.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading this video:

Update: This is the direct YouTube link for the above video.

The full video is recommended viewing. In addition to Tommy’s segments, Nonie Darwish is interviewed about sharia and the Islamization of the West.

The Citadel considers first-ever uniform exception: allowing a Muslim hijab

citadel2

Washington Post, by  April 14, 2016:

The Citadel is considering a request from an admitted student that she be allowed to wear a hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith, a move that would be an unprecedented exception to the school’s longstanding uniform requirements.

If the request for the traditional Muslim hair covering is granted, it apparently would be the first exception made to the Citadel’s uniform, which all cadets at the storied public military college in South Carolina are required to wear at nearly all times. (At beaches, for example, college rules stipulate that, “Cadets will change into appropriate swimwear upon arrival and change back into uniform when departing.”) A spokeswoman said that to her knowledge, in its nearly 175-year history, the school has never granted a religious, or other, accommodation that resulted in a change to the uniform.

As word spread on social media, students, alumni and others responded strongly to the idea of an exception being made at an institution where uniformity, discipline and adherence to rules are defining values, where loyalty to the corps is paramount and individual preferences are trivial.

That the first exception might be for a Muslim student was an additional provocation for some — and welcome symbolism for others —  in the midst of a national discussion about Islam in U.S. culture.

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has called for strict limits on Muslims entering the U.S. because he considers the religion one of hatred and violence, while President Obama has said the fight against extremist terrorism is not a fight against one of the world’s largest religious faiths.

Nick Pinelli, a cadet working in marketing and DJing who is expecting to graduate in May, wrote a long post about the issue on Facebook Wednesday with his objections, including:

The Citadel should be able to tell the prospective student to wear what they tell her to wear. Not because they are concerned with the religion she is trying to practice or the speech expressed by doing so, but because they are concerned with the execution of an essential part of the system the Citadel puts in place. Agree or not with the system, this institution has that system for a reason (that most maintain has worked exceptionally for almost 200 years) and the disruption of that system by exempting those who don’t wish to conform is legally pronounced a slippery slope that will lead to the further disintegration of said system. Unfortunately, after seeing what has happened in the military in similar cases, the school is being financially responsible in not fighting it.

He pointed out that he doesn’t speak for the Citadel (which he doesn’t blame for considering the request) or for the Trump campaign, for which he is an intern, and wrote:

If I valued liberal ideology, I would go to UC Berkeley. I’d wear, say, and do whatever I wanted and it wouldn’t cost the university any time or money for me to do so. If I valued conservative ideology and wanted to challenge myself in a military environment, I would go to the Citadel. It’s no secret that you can’t wear what you want when you’re at the Citadel. You’re punished even for wearing what you want when you’re not on campus. But, those who come here are signing up for that, no matter how much they hate it (we do). So it’s not unfair to those people who want to join an organization with the intentions of excluding themselves from the regulations, it’s unfair to those who practice within the realms of those regulations. It’s unfair to the school having to change rules and adjust to the individual, when the individual could’ve gone to USC without incident. Your expression of self shouldn’t place a burden of cost on others.

This girl should be welcomed to the Corps with open arms, as should any person of any religion, race, gender, or identity. That’s equality. It’s not equality to let one of those groups follow a different set of rules

Pinelli wrote about a cadet whom he admires, a young man with cerebal palsy. “As you can imagine, one with such a physical condition would face challenges meeting the standard for physical fitness. Instead of showing up seeking a different set of rules, he jumped right into a challenge that was a perpetually uphill battle. Instead of saying he shouldn’t have to pass the PT test because of his disability, he failed it time and again and suffered the ramifications of holding himself to the same standard as the rest of the Corps.” He did not give up, and ultimately passed the test.

Pinelli wrote that another cadet had called him a bigot for objecting to the idea of an accommodation for a Muslim student. But it was not her religion but her “sense of entitlement” in asking for the accommodation that bothered him, he wrote.

Someone wrote in response to his post that if the rules were not changed, “she would either have to break the rules of the Citadel or the rules of her religion.” Another wrote, “… I  hope the best for this young lady. … I applaud our school and administration.”

But many voiced strong opposition to the idea of altering the college’s traditions. One cadet responded:

It doesn’t bring harm to the school. But it is a blatant disrespect to what a military school stands for. We come here and willingly give up our individuality and become a part of a group that upholds the time honored traditions of this school. So for anyone to come, not even walk through our hallowed gates, and force the school to go to extreme lengths both financially and resourcefully, to accommodate one person, isn’t right. I can’t wear a tshirt around campus that says “I love Jesus”. Why? It’s not because of religious intolerance, it’s because it does not meet uniform requirements that all 2400 of us are held to. Am I offended that I can’t wear a religious tshirt? Nope. Why? Because I accepted the system that I have become a part of, and I’m willing to let it change me and join a long line of men and women who I will be honored to call my brothers and sisters.

The college, founded in 1842, has won praise for its academics as well as the leadership skills taught to its 2,300 or so undergraduates, about 170 of whom are women (the school began admitting women in 1996). The college has several Muslim students enrolled now, a spokeswoman said.

25% of French Teenagers now Muslims

unnamed (10)

By Counter Jihad, March 15, 2016:

There is a general danger to mass immigration and a danger specific to Islamic immigration.  France is facing destruction because it has chosen to combine the two.

In terms of Islamic immigration, the danger is that it comes with a mandate to change the civilization to which it moves.  Mohammed said to his followers, ““I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.”  In this they are emulating Muhammad himself.  He left his home town of Mecca in a migration known as the hijra. He did so with intent of establishing a base of operations from which to return and conquer.

Figures across the Islamic world proclaim their intent to conquer through the process of Muslim migration.  These include Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Anjem Choudary, the outspoken jihadist imam in the U.K.  The danger of Islamic immigration is most evident in Western Europe.   The results of misguided “multicultural” experiments, lax immigration policies and indifference to assimilation are sharia and clashes with police.

In terms of mass immigration, the danger is that civilizations depend on their members upholding the values of the community.  Even in terms of mass immigration from Latin America to the United States, where mass immigration is from Christian nations to a majority-Christian nation, the challenge to the values of the civilization is intense.  The United States of America was founded on a particular view of human liberty protected in part by strict Constitutional limits on the powers of government.  Latin American immigrants come from cultures favoring much stronger government models, even socialist models, that are not compatible with the United States Constitution.  As mass immigration empowers this community with more and more votes, it becomes more and more likely that the traditional civilization will wither away.  Such voters elect Congressmen who anoint judges who rewrite the Constitution in court to make way for socialism.

Now put the two together, and consider a rapidly-growing mass immigrant population of Muslims:

Over two decades, the French Muslim population is thus supposed to have increased by 25% according to the lowest estimations, by 50% according to median estimations, or even by 100% if one compares the INED and government figures of 1997 to those of 2014, from 3 million to almost 6 million.

This is respectively almost two times, three times, or six times the French average population growth.

France stands on the edge of destruction by such immigration.  The France of the future, should this not change, will not be the land of liberty, equality, and fraternity.  It will be a land harboring an unassimilated Islamic majority.

Also see:

Sharia Law or One Law for All?

Qaradawi and al-AlwaniGatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, March 12, 2016:

  • Here is the fulcrum around which so much of the problem turns: the belief that Islamic law has every right to be put into practice in non-Muslim countries, and the insistence that a parallel, if unequal, legal system can function alongside civil and criminal law codes adhered to by a majority of a country’s citizens.
  • Salafism is a form of Islam that insists on the application of whatever was said or done by Muhammad or his companions, brooking no adaptation to changing times, no recognition of democracy or man-made laws.
  • The greatest expression of this failure to integrate, indeed a determined refusal to do so, may be found in the roughly 750 Muslim-dominated no-go zones in France, which the police, fire brigades, and other representatives of the social order dare not visit for fear of sparking off riots and attacks. Similar zones now exist in other European countries, notably Sweden and Germany. According to the 2011 British census there are over 100 Muslim enclaves in the country.

As millions of Muslims flow into Europe, some from Syria, others from as far away as Afghanistan or sub-Saharan Africa, several countries are already experiencing high levels of social breakdown. Several articles have chronicled the challenges posed in countries such as Sweden and Germany. Such challenges are socio-economic in nature: how to accommodate such a large influx of migrants; the rising costs of providing then with housing, food, and benefits, and the expenses incurred by increased levels of policing in the face of growing lawlessness in some areas. If migrants continue to enter European Union countries at the current rate, these costs are likely to rise steeply; some countries, such as Hungary, have already seen how greatly counterproductive and self-destructive Europe’s reception of almost anyone who reaches its borders has been.

The immediate impact, however, of these new arrivals is not likely to be a simple challenge, something that may be remedied by increasing restrictions on numbers, deportations of illegal migrants, or building fences. During the past several decades, some European countries ­– notably Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark — have received large numbers of Muslim immigrants, most of them through legal channels. According to a Pew report in 2010, there were over 44 million Muslims in Europe overall, a figure expected to rise to over 58 million by 2030.

The migration wave from Muslims countries that began in 2015 is likely to increase these figures by a large margin. In France, citizens of former French colonies in Morocco, Algeria, and some sub-Saharan states, together with migrants from several other Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia, form a population estimated at several million, but reckoned to be the largest Muslim population in Europe. France is closely followed by Germany – a country now taking in very large numbers of immigrants. There are currently some 5.8 million Muslims in Germany, but this figure is widely expected to rise exponentially over the next five years or more.

The United Kingdom, at around 3 million, has the third largest Muslim population in Europe. Islam today is the second-largest religion in the country. The majority of British Muslims originally came from rural areas in Pakistan (such as Mirpur and Bangladesh’s Sylhet), starting in the 1950s. Over time, many British Muslims have integrated well into the wider population. But in general, integration has proven a serious problem, especially in cities such as Bradford, or parts of London such as Tower Hamlets; and there are signs that, as time passes, assimilation is becoming harder, not easier. A 2007 report by British think tank Policy Exchange, Living Apart Together, revealed that members of the younger generation were more radical and orthodox than their fathers and grandfathers – a reversal almost certainly unprecedented within an immigrant population over three or more generations. The same pattern may be found across Europe and the United States. A visible sign of this desire to stand out from mainstream society is the steady growth in the numbers of young Muslim women wearing niqabs, burqas, and hijabs – formerly merely a tradition, but now apparently seen as an obligatory assertion of Muslim identity.

In Germany, the number of Salafists rose by 25% in the first half of 2015, according to a reportfrom The Clarion Project. Salafism is a form of Islam that insists on the application of whatever was said or done by Muhammad or his companions, brooking no adaptation to changing times, no recognition of democracy or man-made laws. This refusal to adapt has been very well expressed by Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:

“Islam is not constrained by time or space, for it is eternal… what Muhammad permitted is permissible until the Day of Resurrection; what he forbade is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection. It is not permissible that his ordinances be superseded, or that his teachings fall into disuse, or that the punishments [he set] be abandoned, or that the taxes he levied be discontinued, or that the defense of Muslims and their lands cease.”

The greatest expression of this failure to integrate, indeed a determined refusal to do so, may be found in the roughly 750 zones urbaines sensibles in France, Muslim-dominated no-go zones, which the police, fire brigades, and other representatives of the social order dare not visit for fear of sparking off riots and attacks. Similar zones now exist in other European countries, notably Sweden and Germany.

In the UK, matters have not reached the pitch where the police and others dare not enter. But in some Muslim-dominated areas, non-Muslims may not be made welcome, especially women dressed “inappropriately.” According to the 2011 British census there are over 100 Muslim enclaves in the country. “The Muslim population exceeds 85% in some parts of Blackburn,” notes the scholar Soeren Kern, “and 70% in a half-dozen wards in Birmingham and Bradford.” There are similarly high figures for many other British cities.

Maajid Nawaz of the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation has spoken of the growing trend for some radical young Muslims to patrol their streets to impose a strict application of Islamic sharia law on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, in direct breach of British legal standards.

In Britain “Muslims Against the Crusaders” have recently declared an Islamic Emirates Project, in which they are seeking to enforce their brand of sharia in 12 British cities. They have named two London boroughs, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets, among their targets. Little surprise then that in these two boroughs hooded “Muslim patrols” have taken to the streets and begun enforcing a strict view of sharia over unsuspecting locals. The “Muslim Patrols” warn that alcohol, “immodest” dress and homosexuality are now banned. To add to these threats, all this is filmed and uploaded onto the internet. Now, in East London, some shops no longer feel free to employ uncovered women or sell alcohol without fear of violent payback.

Nawaz goes on to write: “[T]he Muslim patrols could become a lot more dangerous and, perhaps willing to maim or kill if they are joined by battle-hardened jihadis.” Muslims have been beaten up for smoking during Ramadan; non-Muslims have been forced to leave for carrying alcohol on British streets.

A recent report by Raheem Kassam cites British police officers who admit that they often have to ask permission from Muslim leaders to enter certain areas, and that they are instructed not to travel to work or go into certain places wearing their uniforms.

Here is the fulcrum around which so much of the problem turns: the belief that Islamic law has every right to be put into practice in non-Muslim countries, and the insistence that a parallel, if unequal, legal system can function alongside civil and criminal law codes adhered to by a majority of a country’s citizens. More than one non-Muslim has been ordered to leave “Islamic territory,” and some radicals have attempted to set up “Shariah Controlled Zones,” where only Islamic rules are enforced. Stickers placed on lampposts and other structures declare: “You are entering a Shariah Controlled Zone,” where there can be no alcohol, no gambling, no drugs or smoking, no porn or prostitution, and even no music or concerts.

***

Matters are far from as simple as the government would like them to be. Sharia law is not a cut -and-dried system that can be easily blended with Western values and statutes. There is no problem when imams or councils hand out advice on the regulations governing obligatory prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, alms-giving, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of following this or that spiritual tradition, or even whether men and women may sit together in a hall or meet without a chaperone. For pious Muslims, those are things they need to know, and although the advice they may receive on some rulings will differ according to the school of law or the cultural practices of their specific community, that has no bearing whatever on British law.

But much more goes on beneath the surface. One problem is that it is difficult if not impossible to reform sharia. Legal rulings are fossilized within one tradition or another and given permanency because they are deemed to derive from a combination of verses from the Qur’an, the sacred Traditions, or the standard books of fiqh or jurisprudence. It is, therefore, hard to restate laws on just about anything in order to accommodate a need to bring things up-to-date within terms of modern Western human rights values. Many Muslims today may be uncomfortable about the use of jihad as a rallying cry for terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State, but no single scholar or group of scholars is entitled to abolish the long-standing law of jihad. Innovation (bid’a) is tantamount to heresy, and heresy leads to excommunication and hellfire, as has been stated for centuries. The growing influence of Salafi Islam is based precisely on the grounds that any revival of the faith means going back to the practices and words of Muhammad and his companions, not forwards via reform.

In the sharia councils there appears to be no formal method for keeping records of what is said and decided on. There is next to no room for non-Muslims to sit in on proceedings, and, as a result, neither the government nor the legal fraternity has any regular means of monitoring proceedings. Even Machteld Zee, whose forthcoming book, Choosing Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and British Sharia Councils, will be the first academic analysis of what happens in the councils, only spent two afternoons at a council in Leyton and an afternoon at one in Birmingham. Unannounced spot checks by qualified government-appointed personnel are not permitted. There is nothing remotely like the government schools inspection body, Ofsted, which has periodically (albeit not always correctly) gone into Muslim schools. So there is really no way of knowing just what happens, apart from the testimonies of women who have reported abusive or illegal practices.

Read more

Enough with the Double Standards for Muslims

stop-global-islamizationAmerican Thinker, by Eileen F. Toplansky, March 11, 2016:

If alleged Islamophobia causes Muslims to pillage, rape, and slaughter, then how come centuries of anti-Semitism have not produced a raging Jewish population hell-bent on murder?  Or if cartoons about Muhammad can cause homicidal riots, how come the daily anti-Semitic cartoons emanating out of the Middle East and other parts of the globe do not result in Jews going on a rampage?

Because civilized people don’t behave this way.

For that matter, how come when people step on the American flag and rip it to shreds, Americans don’t go on assassination raids?

I am absolutely sick and tired of talking heads using a double standard for those Muslims who act like barbarians against their own women and against other people who refuse to accede to their demands.

If you don’t want to eat bacon, then don’t eat bacon.

If you don’t want to drink alcohol, then don’t drink alcohol.

If you don’t want to wear pig costumes, then don’t.

But we will not surrender to your demands.

When people begin to self-censor their ideas, their activities, their food, and their entertainment, we might as well put “RIP” over our heads, because we are triggering our own suicide.

I, for one, opt out of that thinking.  If you cannot abide by the American Constitution, and despise what the Stars and Stripes symbolizes, you are certainly free to leave this country.  If you cannot use the same toilet as a non-Muslim child, then please do not use the facilities.  We are not going backward to a segregation of Muslims vs. non-Muslims.

If you want to pray, you will not take over public space of a taxpayer-funded university and demand a key to lock out anyone else who wants to use the room.

Engaging in female genital mutilation has no place in this country; it is heinous and a form of child abuse.

If you don’t approve of gay people’s lifestyles, it is unacceptable to harm them.  You can think what you want, but when you act out and are violent, then you have crossed the line.  It will not be tolerated.

And no, we don’t want American girls to wear the hijab in school, since it actually represents one part of the infiltration and indoctrination that ultimately results in building mosques, advancing the teaching of Arabic, demanding Halal food, and creating Islamic financial institutions that fund jihad.  These are not disconnected events, but part of a well coordinated movement toward an Islamic caliphate.

You will not demand that sharia law be used instead of the Constitution.  Sharia is the complete opposite of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and to say otherwise will be met with “if there is no difference, then why are you demanding a change in the first place?”

You will not receive the largesse of this country and consider it to be jizya paid by the dhimmis.  If you cannot take care of your families, then you will be considered a drag on this society.  The entitlements will end.

When you stop murdering Christians across the globe, then you will begin to be a part of a community of people who respect others.  This last year was the “worst year in modern history for Christian persecution.”  And “who claims the lion’s share of this unprecedented persecution?” – the descendants of Mohammad.  It is Christianophobia and Judeophobia that are running rampant because of the actions of jihadists.

This obdurate desire to derail American rights has no place in this country.  Why are we so afraid to stand up for the freedom that has made this country unique and so special relative to other countries?  Why are we willing to give up our birthright so others can trample all over it?

It is time to refuse to surrender to unyielding demands by jihadists.

And to those who find my words harsh, I pose this question: why are so many Muslims coming to our shores if they refuse to become Americanized?

For those who are knowledgeable about hijra, it is patently clear why.

As explained in Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America, “Hijra remains the model to this day for jihadists who seek to populate and dominate new lands. Their migrations are not for the purpose of assimilating peacefully in a new host nation, adopting as their own its traditions and legal systems.”  Instead, it is to “colonize and then to transform non-Muslim target societies – whether through violent means or via stealthy, pre-violent ones[.]”  The ultimate goal is “global submission to shariah and the reestablishment of a caliphate to rule according to it.”

For your friends and family who are still not convinced, have them check out the Refugee Resettlement Watch website.  Since its launch in 2007, one can see that the U.S. government’s refugee resettlement program is “exacerbating the jihadist threat to our nation.”

One need only look at what is going on in Europe as un-vetted Muslim immigrants terrorize the women of Germany, England, France, Sweden, and Norway.  When did common sense and protection become unimportant?

In a poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, more than half (51%) of Muslims in America believe that they should have “the choice of being governed according to Sharia” law.  Nearly a quarter believe that “it is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam,” and nearly one fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the U.S. is justified in order to make sharia the law of the land in this country.  Consequently, these findings confirm that, indeed, mass Muslim migration eviscerates Western culture.  So has it been in the past, and so will it be going forward, if it is allowed to go unchecked.

WATCH: Geert Wilders speaks in Brussels: Threats to his life, resisting Islam and the establishment

Geert_Wilders_image

The Rebel, by Victor Laszlow, March 06, 2016:

On Friday March 4, 2016 Geert Wilders spoke at an event in Brussels at the invitation of Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest, i.e. the Flemish separatist party)

Geert Wilders is one of the few politicians brave enough to speak clear and obvious truths about what is happening to Europe and lead a fight-back against it. This is one of the best speeches he has given to date in which he discusses the current round of criminal prosecutions against him, and compare the charges against him to what other politicians say about him, for which they never seem to be arrested, despite the implicit death threats they sometimes contain.

German Elections Post Huge Right-Wing Gains

German Beerby CounterJihad, March 7, 2016:

In what is becoming a familiar headline, recent elections in central Germany led to a surprisingly strong performance by hard right wing political parties.  Both of Germany’s major political parties lost substantial support compared with previous elections, while parties opposing mass immigration rose sharply.  One such party, the Alternative for Germany party, is now the third largest in this German region.

Commentators on the election were stunned by the shift because it happened in and around Frankfurt, a major economic center deeply tied to international trade and finance.  Up until now, these right-wing parties have been in favor mostly in economically poorer regions, or more disconnected rural regions, especially in East Germany.  The shift in Frankfurt proves that the concerns about Germany’s acceptance of mass immigration are becoming mainstream among German voters.

Though the major parties and their allies attempt to paint these concerns as merely fear-driven, in fact there is a rational core to the concerns about the threat posed to German civilization by the wave of immigration.  Especially Islamic immigrants in Germany have not assimilated in recent generations, but have used their status as residents to import wives from the third world, especially Turkey.  That means that German culture is not receiving an infusion of immigrant blood or culture, as the Pope seems to believe it will, but is instead being supplanted by an alien culture.

Pope Francis’ remarks that the current wave represents “an Arab invasion” are bracketed by remarks that this invasion will be a good thing for Germany.  When Pope Francis says that Europe will “find itself enhanced by the exchange among cultures,” he is missing the fact that the “exchange” is mostly proving to be an exchange of one culture for the other.  That would be a legitimate concern for German voters under any circumstances, as the purpose of a nation includes the protection of a community of values and an agreed-upon way of life.  Just as it makes sense for the French to want a France that honors French culture and cuisine and values, or for the Irish to want an Ireland that honors Irish culture and cuisine and values, so it makes sense for any nation to treat its culture as a treasure to be added to rather than washed away.  While it is possible for immigrants who assimilate to add to the treasure-store, as the Irish and German immigrants to America enriched American culture while becoming Americans themselves, that requires the immigrants to take assimilation seriously.

In this case, the Islamic cultures in Turkey and Syria clash even with each other, let alone with German culture.  To import two such cultures is to import the civil war these factions are waging in the Middle East.  To import two such cultures that refuse to assimilate is to make that civil war a permanent feature of German society for future generations, while throwing away the German culture that the nation ought to defend.

As long as that rational concern is treated as mere prejudice and bigotry by the major parties, parties that take the concerns seriously will profit.  That is true in Germany as elsewhere.

Islam: The Jinn is out of the bottle

American Thinker, By John Griffing, Feb. 13, 2016:

Europe is on fire, in a social and financial crisis of its leaders’ own making. Its public places are now spectacles of the obscene, and its women are sexual objects for a predatory race of invaders. Its social systems are stretched to the breaking point by belligerent “refugees” who are devouring their host countries at will, while Europe’s leaders defend the invaders and blame their own citizens.

Western civilization is under attack, and rational citizens are at a loss to understand why their leaders are allowing the destruction of their societies.

Much has been written about the outrageous acts that have been committed by Muslim migrants, so we need not repeat them here. We can simply agree that the situation in Europe is disastrous, and it’s getting worse. And America is not far behind.

Western leaders are aiding and abetting this insanity with a consistency and single-mindedness of purpose that can only be explained in one way: they must think they have something to gain from the chaos created by this crisis.

What other conclusion can be drawn from the brazen ascendancy of Islam in the western world, and the deafening silence that permits its success?  Clearly, Western leaders think they can use Islam for their own ends, to consolidate their own power.

Whether their motivations are globalist, nationalist, pro-Islam, or merely megalomaniacal, they all seem to hold one belief in common: the belief that they can control Muslim migration to create the chaos necessary to justify their predetermined solutions.

These European — and American — leaders think they can control what is pouring out of the Pandora’s box they’ve thrown open; they think they can put the Jinn back in the bottle at their whim.

Illustration of Jinn via AlArabiya.net

But they are dangerously underestimating those they presume to use as pawns.

In the First Century, “the Moors” — Muslims of antiquity — invaded and nearly conquered the entire European continent (Spain, France, Greece, Turkey, etc.)  It was only the strength of Christianity and the unity this inspired, which turned back the scourge of Islamic imperialism in Europe.

The world of today is very similar, but with one key difference.  Europe, and less so America, now exist in a moral and religious vacuum.  There is no concrete ideology or religious paradigm posing a credible challenge to the radical adherents of Islam.

Islam is now controlling most of Europe, either actively, or passively, due to the absence of any response from local governing authorities — a curious void of law and order.  “Peace in our time” has now given way to the “Religion of Peace.”

Unless Europeans and Americans rise up now to reverse this trend, one of two things will occur. Either those in power will succeed in using this crisis to advance their aims and fundamentally transform their societies, or, more likely, Islam will become dominant in the West past the point of no return.

“The Moors” have come home.  The Muslim hoard hastily imported into Europe over the cries and screams of voters are living up to the archetypes people in the West have come to fear, especially when cartoons result in lynch-mobs, and when a woman clothed according to western custom is mercilessly raped by “migrants.”

Some would say that the murderous attacks perpetrated by Islamic radicals should be considered an aberration and unrelated to the religion of Islam. Very well; then consider:

The head of the “moderate” Muslim group CAIR Omar Ahmad (which was investigated by Congress and then ignored by Congress), wants to replace the Constitution with the Qur’an, saying, “The Quran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

Sirraj Wihhaj, unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombings and the original person selected by President Obama to give the prayer before the 2012 DNC, also believes the Constitution should be replaced:  “It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”

A majority of Muslims living in Britain say they want full Sharia law, a separate Muslim police force, and death for anyone who speaks against Mohammed.  The same survey revealed a majority percentage also favor terrorist attacks against Britain and the United States.  51 percent of American Muslims also say they want Shariah and the US government to become Islamic.

The Netherlands openly advocates placing Shariah — the desert law which commands death for adulterers, death for gambling, death for leaving the faith (or having no faith), and death for homosexuals — on the ballot.

German courts are already enforcing Shariah when requested, and the impetus for this golden nugget originated in Nuremburg.

France has over 751 “no-go zones,” i.e. areas of land ruled by Islamic law and totally unrecognizable as French.  This was verified again after the recent French attacks.

The British already have actual Shariah courts in operation all over the United Kingdom.  These “courts” are chaired by a man who thinks amputation for petty crimes is a great idea, something he wants to “offer British society.”

Americans and Europeans need to stop acting surprised when Muslims behave like Muslims.  They are acting according to what the Qur’an says to do. It’s there in plain sight for anyone to read. And its ultimate aim is conquest and complete domination of any other culture but Islam.

Winston Churchill referred to it as a “militant and proselytizing faith.”

Like the Moors, history is repeating. And not only is history repeating, but it is repeating on a crash timetable, and with the perverse backing of the host countries destined to be remade in the image of Islamic hegemony.  Why would any true German, Frenchman or Briton cooperate in their own organized destruction if there were not some goal or elusive purpose to be accomplished by the ever less accountable and more distant governments that make such decisions?

It would only be logical to deduce that French leaders, German leaders and British leaders have determined that there is an acceptable cost to property and lives if the chaos resulting from the indiscriminate welcoming of new migrant hoards can be directed towards an unspoken goal.  This is not out of left field.  Angela Merkel calling her own people “neo-Nazis” and turning water cannons on her own citizens is indicative.

Amazingly, this mindset is evident in every recent action to open the borders of Europe and America to their new visitors. Controlled chaos is the desired result. We underestimate the depravity of Western leaders if we think the lives of American and European citizens mean anything more to them than plot points in a narrative, one leading inevitably to the end of national sovereignty.

The old expression, “the genie is out of the bottle,” comes from Arabic folklore, surrounding the devilish character known as the “Jinn” who grants wishes in exchange for the soul of the seeker.

Western leaders have let the “Jinn” out of the bottle, and like Pandora’s box, the resulting chaos will not be contained.