America’s Islam Trance

David Kupelian on why Muslim religion is growing rapidly in world’s most Christian nation

WND, by David Kupelian, May 14, 2017:

It’s not that unusual for an Islamic society.

After all, the usual features are all on display – the Muslim call to prayer, the teaching of Islam in the nation’s schools to the exclusion of other religions, preferential treatment afforded Muslims by government and the courts, news coverage reflexively portraying Islam in a positive light, the rapid growth in mosque construction – and also the disturbing cultural phenomena of female genital mutilation, “honor killings” and so on.

Except this is not Saudi Arabia or Egypt we’re talking about, or any of the world’s approximately 50 Muslim-majority countries.

This is the United States of America. Not America as it might be one day if current trends continue, but as it is right now – today.

That’s right. While North Korea threatens to nuke the U.S. mainland, while the left (including most of the media) continues its infantile post-election meltdown into madness, while President Trump endeavors to remedy the torrent of national and international problems unleashed by his predecessor Barack Obama – beneath the radar and largely out of view, America is inexorably becoming ever more Islamized.

While a few brave souls have been sounding the alarm over the progressive inroads Shariah Islam is making into American culture, schoolscolleges, religion, medicinelaw, government and even the military, perhaps the most important question that needs to be addressed at this point is, why?

Why, when Judeo-Christian America has been hands-down the most successful nation in history – indeed why, when Americans are blessed with a crystal ball called Europe in which they can clearly see the disastrous future awaiting a once-Christian civilization that recklessly embraces Islamic expansionism – would we continue down the same suicidal path that has led to Europe’s virtual suicide?

There are several reasons, some obvious, some less so.

Let’s start with the obvious: Power-mad Beltway Democrats’ obsession with importing multitudes of voters in hopes of attaining a “permanent progressive voting majority,” since statistically the vast majority of Muslims in America vote Democrat. Big business’s selfish desire for cheap immigrant labor. Liberal-left Christians’ naive compulsion to “welcome” Muslim “refugees,” not simply to help the needy and downtrodden, but to prove to others – and to themselves – that they are good people and not “racists,” “Islamophobes” or “xenophobes.” And of course, Muslim Brotherhood-front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ go-to tactic of exploiting America’s expansive First Amendment religious freedom protections to aggressively advance their Shariah-supremacist agenda.

But there are other not-so-obvious, but ultimately more fundamental, reasons America is bending over backward to welcome the growth and influence of an ideology openly dedicated to dominating us.

To understand the forces truly at work here, we need to focus for a few moments on the most basic, core, bottom-line issues of life: Unlike previous generations of Americans who grew up under the strong moral umbrella of Judeo-Christian values, tens of millions of today’s Americans – and indeed virtually the entirety of our nation’s elites – have essentially abandoned the biblical understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and immorality, life and death that served for millennia as the moral foundation of Western Civilization.

Let’s get specific: What we cryptically call “the left” – which for the last two to three generations has shaped American life, politics, culture and government – simply cannot operate without violating all of the Ten Commandments. Replacing Americans’ traditional Judeo-Christian reverence for life and higher law is the left’s substitute religion, which violates God’s commandments even as it celebrates its false gods of “reproductive rights” (“Thou shalt not kill”), “sexual freedom” (“Thou shalt not commit adultery”), “wealth redistribution” (“Thou shalt not steal”) and so on. Moreover, as I document in “The Snapping of the American Mind,” because of this rebellion against reality, the left has succeeded, whether intentionally or not, in pushing millions of decent Americans right over the edge into widespread dependency, debauchery, family breakdown, crime, corruption, addiction, despair and suicide.

This inversion of Americans’ traditional core values, which causes us, for example, to glorify and celebrate immorality, perversion and mental illness (like troubled people amputating healthy body parts and pretending to be the opposite sex) while reviling and punishing virtue (like the Christian county clerk jailed for conscientiously objecting to signing a marriage license for two homosexuals) is the same inversion of values that inspires us to enthusiastically import into our country as many people as possible who are steeped in a religious and political ideology dedicated to crushing our own.

It’s as though we’re living in a hypnotic trance, in a dream state, wherein we are moving in slow motion toward certain destruction. A few of us see the danger and shout warnings, but to no avail. No one seems to hear us, or else if they do hear they don’t comprehend the peril and instead attack us and call us terrible names – or worse.

Bizarre alliance

Let’s take a closer look now at the bizarre alliance between two seemingly incompatible utopian ideologies – the progressive left and expansionist Islam – currently undermining America at every turn. After all, those on the Democratic left are continually defending, excusing and running interference for Islamic supremacists in America, not to mention “welcoming” into our country thousands of Muslims from the most radicalized regions on earth. Why would they do that?

The alliance between the left and Islam can best be explained by the overarching reality that both share a common enemy, Christianity. Thus does the left warmly sidle up to Islam, which, truth be known, were it in charge would destroy the left, throwing members of some of the left’s main constituent groups off buildings or hanging or stoning or otherwise executing or enslaving them.

Both since the Marxist left and Shariah Islam both detest and fear Christian civilization more than each other, they therefore are natural, albeit temporary, allies in their shared aim to defeat a common enemy. (After all, America temporarily allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler.)

Andrew C. McCarthy is the former federal prosecutor who convicted the notorious “blind sheikh” and other jihadists for waging a terror war against America, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He explores the strange alliance between Islam and the left in his 2010 book, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.”

Zeroing in on the disturbingly symbolic yet pregnant-with-meaning spectacle of President Barack Obama scandalously bowing waist-deep to Saudi dictator King Abdullah bin Abdul Azziz, McCarthy asks the obvious: Why would the leader of the free world grovel before a corrupt Muslim potentate?

“Because,” writes McCarthy, “Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam. More specifically, it is the bottomless purse and symbolic crown of a movement which aims at nothing less than supplanting Western political, economic and cultural values. The subversion of those values is Obama’s fondest wish: the work of his presidency, the Hope behind the Change. The president was bowing to a shared dream.”

Setting aside as equally irrelevant both Obama’s Muslim affiliation as a youth in Indonesia and his professed Christianity as an adult, McCarthy observes: “The faith to which Obama actually clings is neocommunism. It is a leftism of the most insidious kind: secular and uncompromising in its rejection of bourgeois values, but feverishly spiritual in its zeal to tear down the existing order, under the banner of its all-purpose rally-cry: ‘social justice.’

“Neocommunists need not adhere to a formal religion,” explains McCarthy. “Instead, they tend to infuse causes like environmentalism, privacy and secularism with religious fervor. For most leftists, though, religion is a useful tool. It is never a straitjacket because neocommunists consider themselves no more bound by the strictures of creed than by the constraints of tradition.”

Still, one wonders, how could the left’s consuming utopian obsessions possibly mesh with the equally uncompromising demands of Shariah Islam, bent on world domination for 14 centuries? The former federal prosecutor of terrorists explains the strange dynamics allowing this alliance:

Nihilism is the key. Today’s hard left is defined by what it is against: the United States, free-market capitalism, and any foreign policy premised on defending American interests or promoting individual liberty. Only this part of the agenda is concrete, leaving neocommunism elastic enough to strike alliances with any movement that shares it. What neocommunists are for, by contrast, is a set of abstractions – “social justice, “equality,” “redistributive rights,” the “rule of law,” and, of course, “our values.” The details of those can be worked out later, once the more pressing imperative of undoing the existing order has been realized.

In other words, says McCarthy, to the left, “‘change’ is not designed to create a new system. Its purpose is to destroy the old one. What comes next is negotiable.” Thus, he explains:

That is why neocommunism aligns so seamlessly with revolutionary movements catalyzed by religious fervor. What comes next for a millenarian movement may not be negotiable, but before the new can be imposed the old must be swept aside. That calls for collaboration among all factions that need to depose the established order, even if their ultimate designs don’t perfectly mesh.

There’s another critical dynamic that explains, at least in part, the cravenly pro-Muslim “trance state” of the leftist media, academy and culture: Terrorists provide powerful public relations cover for non-violent “moderate” Muslims seeking the same ultimate end as jihadists – for America to become Islamic. As McCarthy explains:

“Just as the Soviet collapse has been a boon for the left, the ferocity and overreach of Muslim terrorists has been a dual boon for Islamism. So atrocious has been the bloodbath wrought by al Qaeda, its affiliates and its imitators that it has enabled more methodical Muslim extremists to operate under the radar. Repeated terror strikes, culminating in the death of nearly 3,000 innocents and the surreal demolition of the seemingly impregnable Twin Towers, shock Americans and their government into a myopic determination to prevent additional mass-murder attacks.

“In this climate of fear, the calculating but apparently non-violent Islamist compares favorably with the uncompromising, blood-soaked Islamist terrorist. He is thus regarded as cause of hope – indeed, as a moderate – by government and opinion elites. This, despite the fact that his agenda is essentially the same as the terrorist’s: Only their methods differ, and even those differences are shades of gray.”

We are just scratching the surface here. I invite you to join me in exploring this crucial subject much more fully in the current eye-opening issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled “HOW ISLAM IS SECRETLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA.”

France: Emmanuel Macron, Useful Idiot of Islamism

 

Gatestone Institute, by Yves Mamou, May 7, 2017

  • Emmanuel Macron, a “Useful Infidel,” is not a supporter of terrorism or Islamism. It is worse: he does not even see the threat.
  • Louizi’s article gave names and dates, explaining how Macron’s political movement has largely been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood militants.
  • Is Macron an open promoter of Islamism in France? It is more politically correct to say that he is a “globalist” and an “open promoter of multiculturalism”. As such, he does not consider Islamism a national threat because the French nation, or, as he has said, French culture, does not really exist.

During the cold war with the Soviet Union, they were called “Useful Idiots”. These people were not members of the Communist Party, but they worked for, spoke in favor of and supported the ideas of Lenin and Stalin. In the 21st century, Communism is finally dead but Islamism has grown and is replacing it as a global threat.

Like Communism, Islamism — or Islamic totalitarianism — has been collecting its “Useful Infidels” the same way Communism collected its Useful Idiots. There is, however, an important difference: under the Soviet Union, Useful Idiots were intellectuals. Now, Useful Infidels are politicians, and one of them may be elected president of France today.

Emmanuel Macron (Image source: European External Action Service)

Emmanuel Macron, Useful Infidel, is not a supporter of terrorism or Islamism. It is worse: he does not even see the threat. In the wake of the gruesome attacks of November 13, 2015 in Paris, Macron said that French society must assume a “share of responsibility” in the “soil in which jihadism thrives.”

“Someone, on the pretext that he has a beard or a name we could believe is Muslim, is four times less likely to have a job than another who is non-Muslim,” he added. Coming from the direction of Syria and armed with a Kalashnikov and a belt of explosives would, according to him, be a gesture of spite from the long-term unemployed?

Macron comes close to accusing the French of being racists and “Islamophobes”. “We have a share of responsibility,” he warned, “because this totalitarianism feeds on the mistrust that we have allowed to settle in society…. and if tomorrow we do not take care, it will divide them even more “.

Consequently, Macron said, French society “must change and be more open.” More open to what? To Islam, of course.

On April 20, 2017, after an Islamist terrorist killed one police officer and wounded two others in Paris, Macron said: “I am not going to invent an anti-terrorist program in one night”. After two years of continuous terrorist attacks on French territory, the presidential candidate said he had not taken the country’s security problems into account?

Moreover, on April 6, during the presidential campaign, professor Barbara Lefebvre, who has authored books on Islamism, revealed to the audience of the France2 television program L’Emission Politique, the presence on Macron’s campaign team of Mohamed Saou. It was Saou, apparently, a departmental manager of Macron’s political movement, “En Marche” (“Forward”), who promoted on Twitter the classic Islamist statement: “I am not Charlie”.

Sensing a potential scandal, Macron dismissed Saou, but on April 14, invited onto Beur FM, a Muslim French radio station, Macron was caught saying on a “hot mic” (believing himself off the air): “He [Saou] did a couple things a little bit radical. But anyway, Mohamed is a good guy, a very good guy”.

“Very good”, presumably, because Mohamed Saou was working to rally Muslim voters to Macron.

Is Saou an isolated case? Of course not. On April 28, Mohamed Louizi, author of the book Why I Quit Muslim Brotherhood, released a detailed article on Facebook that accused Macron of being a “hostage of the Islamist vote”. Republished by Dreuz, a Christian anti-Islamist website, Louizi’s article gave names and dates, explaining how Macron’s political movement has largely been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood militants. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be candidates in Macron’s movement in the next parliamentary elections.

On April 24, the Union of Islamic Organisations of France (UOIF), generally known as the French representative of Muslim Brotherhood, publicly called on Muslims to “vote against the xenophobic, anti-Semitic and racist ideas of the National Front and [we] call to massively vote for Mr. Macron.”

Why?

Is Macron an open promoter of Islamism in France? It is more politically correct to say that he is a “globalist” and an “open promoter of multiculturalism”. As such, he apparently does not consider Islamism a national threat because, for him, the French nation, or, as he has said, French culture, does not really exist. Macron has, in fact, denied that France is a country with a specific culture, a specific history, and a specific literature or art. On February 22, visiting the French expatriates in London, Macron said: “French culture does not exist, there is a culture in France and it is diverse”. In other words, on French territory, French culture and French traditions have no prominence or importance over imported migrant cultures. The same day, in London, he repeated the offense: “French art? I never met it!”

Conversely, in an interview with the anti-Islamist magazine, Causeur, he said: “France never was and never will be a multiculturalist country”.

Because he is a politician, Macron is not addressing the French people as a whole. He is addressing different political customer bases. When visiting Algeria, Macron said that colonization was a “crime against humanity”. He evidently hoped this remark would help him to collect the votes of French citizens of Algerian origin.

During the presidential campaign, Macron was always saying to people what they wanted to hear. French people may well be on their way to discovering that for Macron, belonging to a homeland, thinking of borders and defining oneself as belonging to a mother language or a specific literature or art, is nothing more than junk.

Yves Mamou is a journalist and author based in France. He worked for two decades for the daily, Le Monde, before his retirement.

On the Civilizational Struggle With Islam

Crisis Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, April 4, 2017:

In February, female members of an official Swedish delegation to Iran donned headscarves and long coats so as not to offend their Iranian counterparts. At about the same time, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front Party, cancelled a meeting with Lebanon’s Grand Mufti after he insisted that she wear a headscarf. “You can pass on my respects to the Grand Mufti,” said Le Pen, “but I will not cover myself up.”

The contrast neatly captures two different responses to the ongoing Islamization of Europe. Le Pen represents resistance, and the Swedish delegation represents appeasement. So far, the party of appeasement holds the upper hand. Shortly after her gesture of defiance, the European Parliament voted to lift Le Pen’s immunity from prosecution (as a Member of Parliament) for tweeting images of Islamic State violence. Like the Swedish delegates’ gesture of obeisance, this too is an act of appeasement. It signals to the Muslim world that Europeans will take it upon themselves to punish those who criticize Islam.

There may be cases where appeasement works to placate an enemy, but it never seems to work against an implacable foe. In May, 1938, while competing in Berlin, the English national football team gave the Nazi salute when the German national anthem was played. They did this, reluctantly, on orders from their own foreign office. It was one of numerous futile gestures of appeasement offered up to Hitler.

Some historians have suggested that Hitler could have been stopped if the Allied Powers had confronted him earlier before he had time to build up the Wehrmacht. That’s probably true. The best time to fight a war is while you still have a good chance of winning it. This applies also to the ideological struggle now going on between the West and Islam. Of course, “struggle” might not be the best way to describe a conflict in which only one side is fighting. Indeed, Western authorities often join in Islam’s war against the West. By passing laws against “Islamophobia” (Canada) and by prosecuting critics of Islam (as in Europe), the West is strengthening the hand of its foe.

Instead of appeasement, what is needed is an ideological counter-attack. And the best time to launch it is now—now while it is still possible to make one’s case without being fined or jailed. Now is the right time from another perspective, as well. The sheer volume of Islamic violence is difficult to ignore. As a result, more and more people now realize that criticism and challenge of Islam is fully justified. They realize that it should be Muslims who are put on the defensive, not the so-called “Islamophobes.”

Imagine if Catholics were committing violence on the same scale as Muslims, and doing it in the name of Jesus. Would the Catholic Church be afforded the kind of kid-glove treatment now given to Islam? Would Catholic clergy be let off the hook for the crimes of tens of thousands of Catholics who cited Catholicism as their motive? Not likely. The Catholic Church would be put on the defensive—and rightly so if, indeed, the Church had a well-developed doctrine of jihad as does Islam.

In a sane society, Islam and its representatives would be put on the defensive, not critics of Islam. Instead of exonerating Islam of responsibility for Islamic terror, non-Muslims should pressure Muslims to justify the tenets of Islam that call for violence. Islamic authorities should be pushed back on their heels and kept there.

Just as non-Muslims can no longer deny the immensity of Islamic violence, neither can Muslims. Yet, absent any outside pressure, they can ignore it. This is a good time for Muslims to do some soul-searching about the beliefs that, in the words of Egyptian president El-Sisi, “make the entire umma [Muslim community] a source of concern, danger, killing and destruction for the whole world.” But if no one (with a few exceptions such as El-Sisi) asks them to question themselves, whatever doubts Muslims may have about their faith will be brushed aside. If Western leaders persist in lauding Islam as a great religion, it will be taken as confirmation that Islam is indeed the supreme religion that the imams say it is.

Muslims won’t attempt to reform Islam unless they believe there is something wrong with it. If we want to see reform, we need to drop the “great faith” pretense, and confront Muslims with the troubling realities of their beliefs. Now is the time to put Islam on the defensive because the window of opportunity for doing so will soon close. It is already dangerous to question or challenge the Islamic belief system. The time is coming when it will be supremely dangerous to do so.

Right now, the West is worried about the danger of provoking Islam. But there is a greater danger. By refusing to confront and challenge Islam’s ideology, we allow an already confident Islam to grow more confident and stronger—two characteristics that make it all the more attractive to lukewarm Muslims and potential convents. The West’s walking-on-eggshells strategy is aimed at preventing a confrontation with Islam, but it may only serve to delay a confrontation to a point in time when the West is too weak to stand up to Islam.

The West will continue to have the military edge for a good time to come, but possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether. The West is strong militarily, but weak ideologically. It lacks civilizational confidence. It is not sure if it has anything worth defending. While Islamic countries have been busy raising a generation of devout warriors, the West has raised a generation of social justice warriors who are convinced that their own civilization deserves to be eliminated.

Conviction and confidence are potent weapons. Soldiers need them, but so also do civilians. They need them all the more today because much of the campaign against the non-Muslim world is being conducted on the civilian level—through stealth jihad and lone-wolf terrorism. If that twin-pronged campaign is successful then war may not be necessary. Western citizens will simply go quietly into the long night of dhimmitude.

It’s a loss of civilizational confidence that causes the West to crumple whenever Muslims press for another concession. Burqas in public? Well, OK. Muslim prayer rooms in public schools? It would be insensitive not to allow it. Laws to prevent criticism of Islam? That’s only reasonable. Polygamy? If you insist. Taken one by one, these mini-conquests are not decisive, but cumulatively they work to remake the culture. And one day you wake up to realize that it’s too late to do anything about it.

In a way, this culture war with Islam is more difficult to fight than a battlefield war. The whole direction of our culture in recent decades presses us to yield to the multicultural other, and to assume that in any dispute, he is right and we are wrong. If Islam’s cultural jihad is to be halted, that mindset must be rejected, and Islam must be put on the defensive. Apostasy laws. Blasphemy laws. Cruel and unusual punishments. Harsh discrimination against women. Child marriage. There’s something very wrong here. And Muslims should be made to know it, and made to feel ashamed of it. We should want Muslims to be uncomfortable with their faith—uncomfortable to the point that they begin to doubt it. As Mark Steyn put it, “There is no market for a faith that has no faith in itself.”

The reason that the apostasy laws and the blasphemy laws are there in the first place is because Islam is a fragile belief system. It rests on the uncorroborated testimony of one man. The system cannot stand up to questioning and, thus, questioning is not allowed. The West should take advantage of this fragility and raise the questions Muslims will not ask of themselves. Why don’t we? Is it out of respect for another religion? Yes, there’s some of that, but increasingly, it seems, we remain silent out of simple fear. We fear that ideological war will lead to real war. But it’s worth remembering that in the 1930s a similar reluctance to challenge a similar ideology did not prevent war. On the contrary, the reluctance to face up to Nazi ideology only guaranteed that war would come.

A new analysis by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) concludes that the Trump administration’s get tough policy is already having a pacifying effect on Iran. After its failed missile launch on January 29, Iran was “put on notice” by the administration. According to the MEMRI analysis, the effect on Iran was almost immediate: “a halt to long-range missile tests,” “a halt to provocations against US Navy vessels,” “a halt to public threats to burn and sink U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf,” and “a near total moratorium on hostile anti-U.S. statements” such as the slogan “death to America.”

The get-tough attitude seems to have—temporarily at least—made Iran less belligerent, not more. Could a get-tough attitude improve our chances of winning the civilizational struggle with Islam? Perhaps some of the slogans that apply to real war also apply to ideological war: “weakness is provocative,” “if you want peace, prepare for war,” and, as Osama bin Laden said, “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

One of the chief reasons for waging a war of ideas is to avoid real war. The Cold War was in large part an ideological war. And Western success in establishing the superiority of its ideas and beliefs did much to prevent the Cold War from turning into a hot war. The Cold War analogy, by the way, is not a stretch. The communists pursued their objective with a religious fervor worthy of today’s Islamists. Indeed, the chief twentieth-century exponents of jihad such as Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Maududi borrowed heavily from the Marxist-Leninist playbook. While they rejected the atheism, they found the idea of an all-encompassing state to be very much in line with the goals of Islam. Like communism and Nazism, Islam is meant to be a system of total control. Keep that in mind the next time a priest or politician declares his solidarity with the Muslim faith. Don’t let the fact that Islam is a religion keep you from realizing that it is also an ideological opponent every bit as oppressive and determined as were the Nazis and the Soviet communists.

One more thing. The point of ideological warfare is not only to cast doubts in the mind of the enemy, but also to convince your own citizens that they possess a valuable heritage worth defending. To a large extent, that conviction has been lost in the West. And no amount of armaments can replace it. If it ever comes to actual war or to daily attacks by lone wolves, or to a combination of both, Western citizens had better know what they believe, why they believe it, and why it is worth defending. Islam has a mission. We must have one too.

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in France and Belgium: March 2017

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, April 18, 2017:

  • Yussuf K. said he carried out the January 2016 attack “in the name of Allah and the Islamic State.” He added that he chose his victim because “he was Jewish.”
  • A confidential police report revealed that more than 50 organizations in Molenbeek, a migrant-dominated neighborhood of Brussels, Belgium, are believed to have ties to jihadist terrorism.
  • An Ipsos poll for France Television and Radio France found that 61% of the French believe that Islam is incompatible with French society.

March 2. In a landmark trial at the Paris Children’s Court, a 17-year-old Turkish jihadist, identified only as Yussuf K., was sentenced to seven years in prison for attacking Benjamin Amsellem, a Jewish teacher in Marseille, with a machete. Yussuf K. said he carried out the January 2016 attack “in the name of Allah and the Islamic State.” He added that he chose his victim because “he was Jewish.” Yussuf K. was charged with “an individual terrorist attempt and attempted assassination in connection with a terrorist enterprise,” with the aggravating circumstance of anti-Semitism. He was tried as a minor because he was 15 when he carried out the attack. The criminal trial of a minor on terror charges was the first of its kind in France, where some fifty children are currently being investigated for jihadist offenses.

March 2. The European Parliament voted to lift the immunity from prosecution for National Front leader Marine Le Pen for tweeting images of Islamic State violence. Under French law, publishing violent images can be punished by up to three years in prison and a fine of €75,000 euros ($79,000). Le Pen, a leading candidate in this year’s French presidential election, posted the images in response to a journalist who compared her party’s anti-immigration stance to the Islamic State. Le Pen denounced the legal proceedings against her as political interference in the campaign and called for a moratorium on judicial investigations until the election period has passed.

March 4. The mayor of the French port of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, signed a decree prohibiting aid groups from distributing meals to migrants and refugees at the site of the former “Jungle” migrant camp. The decree said food distribution by charities had led to large numbers of people gathering at the site of the now-closed camp, with fights breaking out and risks posed to the safety of local residents.

March 6. President François Hollande vowed to “do everything in his power” to prevent Marine Le Pen from winning the upcoming presidential election in France. Polls have suggested that Le Pen, leader of the National Front party, may win the first round of France’s election on April 23. Le Pen, who has campaigned on an anti-immigration platform, has also vowed to hold a referendum on France’s membership of the European Union. Hollande, who decided not to run for a second term, said it was his “ultimate duty to do everything to ensure that France is not convinced by such a plan” to take France out of the EU.

March 7. The 17th Criminal Tribunal of Paris acquitted the Moroccan-born French-Jewish scholar Georges Bensoussan of hate speech charges. The Collective against Islamophobia in France (Collectif Contre l’Islamophobie en France, CCIF) filed a lawsuit against Bensoussan, 64, for “public incitement to discrimination, hatred and violence against a group of people because of their religious affiliation” because of remarks he made on Radio France about Muslim anti-Semitism. He said:

“There will be no integration until we get rid of this atavistic anti-Semitism that is kept secret. It so happens that an Algerian sociologist, Smain Laacher, with great courage said that ‘it is a disgrace to maintain this taboo, namely that in Arab families in France and elsewhere everyone knows that anti-Semitism is spread with the mother’s milk.'”

In its ruling, the court said the plaintiffs failed to prove the charges of hate speech: “Bensoussan cannot be blamed to have aroused or wished to arouse a feeling of hostility or rejection against a group of persons and, even less, to have explicitly called for specific acts against the group.” The judges added that the expression “anti-Semitism, it is sucked with the mother’s milk” is a figure of speech, not the expression of “biological racism.”

March 12. Mohammad Khan Wazir, a 30-year-old migrant from Afghanistan, was sentenced by the Criminal Court of Grasse (Alpes-Maritimes) to 18 months in prison for threatening to assassinate the city’s judges. Wazir was visiting his three-year-old son, named Djihad (the French word for “jihad”), whom judges placed under state care in Grasse, when he allegedly said that he wanted to “go to court with a Kalashnikov to kill them all.” After Wazir left Afghanistan in 2007, he met a French woman named Claire Khacer. The couple separated after the birth of their child in 2013. Khacer, who is pregnant with the child of an Islamic State jihadist, was arrested after returning to France from Syria. She is being held on charges of conspiring to join a terrorist enterprise. In court, Wazir admitted to threatening the judges. He said was he was “overwhelmed” by the slow pace of the French bureaucracy. His French-born son still does not have a French passport.

March 13. Sonia Imloul, a 43-year-old activist and the former head of a deradicalization program, was found guilty by the Paris Criminal Court of embezzling and laundering public funds. She was accused of misusing the €60,000 ($65,000) which the French Interior Ministry gave her association, the House of Prevention and the Families (Maison de la prévention et de la familles), for the purpose of discouraging French Muslims from going to Iraq and Syria. She received a four-month suspended prison sentence and was ordered to pay €25,000. The conviction, which came after Julien Revial, a student employed by Imloul, wrote a book exposing her scam, has highlighted the failure of the French government’s deradicalization efforts.

March 15. Interior Minister Bruno Le Roux said that French security forces would begin dismantling the Grande-Synthe migrant camp on the northern coast near the port of Dunkirk “as soon as possible” after violent clashes at the site. The number of people at the camp has swelled to 1,500 since the destruction of the “Jungle” camp near Calais, about 40 kilometres (25 miles) away. The Grande-Synthe camp, populated mostly by Kurds, was built to house migrants and refugees who otherwise sleep in tents or makeshift shelters. They gather along the northern coast of France trying to break into trucks heading to Britain or trying to pay smugglers to help them get across the Channel.

March 16. An Ifop poll found that 71% of French people believe the security situation in France has deteriorated during the past five years; 93% believe the terrorist threat remains high; 60% said they do not feel safe anywhere in the country; and 69% believe there are not enough police and gendarmes. The poll also found that 88% support deporting foreigners convicted of serious crimes, and 81% support terminating social assistance to parents of repeat offenders.

March 17. A 30-year-old Muslim man yelling “Allahu Akhbar” slit the throats of his father and brother in the courtyard of their apartment building in Paris. Police said the dead men were found lying on the ground in pools of blood. Neighbors said the suspect had recently become radicalized and that his family was not happy about it. Police quickly dismissed terrorism as a motive for the crime; instead, they focused on “double intrafamilial homicide” in the context of “radicalization.” The suspect was arrested and transferred to a psychiatric ward.

March 17. Presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the Left Party, proposed a solution to the debate over sharia-compliant meals in French schools. He said that vegetarian menus without meat in school canteens would answer both religious and ecological questions:

“You do not have meat, you can do without it. There’s no need to eat meat all the time. When I was a kid, a lot of my friends were not eating pork because of their religion. We have to find a way that makes it possible for everyone to live well together. So, I would like to have vegetarian menus, menus without meat. There are other sources of protein besides meat. When you’re at school, if there’s a problem, go smile, vegetarian menus for everyone.”

March 18. Ziyed Ben Belgacem, a 39-year-old French national of Tunisian origin, was shot dead at Paris Orly airport, the second-busiest airport in France, after grabbing a soldier’s gun, and apparently intending to open fire on passengers. He shouted: “Put down your guns. Put your hands on your head. I am here to die for Allah. In any case, there will be deaths.” Police said that Belgacem, who was born in Paris, was a “radicalized Muslim” who was known to the intelligence services. He was a career criminal with a long history of violence, robbery and drug offenses but despite his being investigated as a potential jihadist, Belgacem did not have an “S” file (Fiche “S” or Sûreté de l’État (state security), which flags individuals suspected of belonging to terrorist groups).

March 20. A confidential police report revealed that more than 50 organizations in Molenbeek, a migrant-dominated neighborhood of Brussels, Belgium, are believed to have ties to jihadist terrorism. More than 70 individuals are currently being monitored for suspected connections to jihadism. Most (46) reside in Belgium, while 26 are thought to be in Syria. Twenty people on the list are currently in prison. Counter-terrorism police have visited 8,603 homes and monitored 22,668 residents in Molenbeek, or one quarter of all of its inhabitants.

March 20. French Muslims between the ages of 14 and 16 are far more likely than non-Muslims to hold to “religious absolutism” and be “tolerant of taking violent action for ideological reasons” than non-Muslims, according to a survey of radicalism among French high school students. The study, carried out by the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), showed that “the dissemination of radical ideas in religious matters is approximately three times stronger among young Muslims than in the sample as a whole” and especially among boys (two times more often than girls). Nearly one-third (32%) of Muslim youth believe it is “acceptable in some cases to fight arms for their religion in today’s society” compared to 8% of young people in general.

March 22. An Ipsos poll for France Television and Radio France found that 61% of the French believe that Islam is incompatible with French society, compared to 17% who believe the same is true for Judaism and 6% for Catholicism. Most respondents strongly endorsed proposals regulating Islam in the private sphere: 79% favor banning the veil in universities and 77% prohibiting the burkini in public spaces. An extremely large majority of the French (90%) believe that secularism is an essential value of the Republic, and 74% think it is threatened today (92% of Marine Le Pen’s supporters feel this way). A majority of the French (60%) believe that the cohabitation between different religions does not happen well in France (85% of Marine Le Pen’s supporters feel this way).

March 22. In an interview with De Morgen to mark the first anniversary of the jihadist attacks in Brussels, Mayor Yvan Mayeur warned: “Everyone knows that all mosques in Brussels are in the hands of Salafists. We need to change this, we need new mosques that follow our democratic rules and that are being controlled by the government.” Salafists say they want to replace Western democracy with an Islamic government based on Sharia law.

The Collective against Islamophobia in Belgium (CTIB) condemned the mayor’s remarks: “Those statements are very serious, manifestly incorrect and totally unacceptable from the mouth of a political representative of a cosmopolitan city such as Brussels.”

Mayeur later called for a “mosque planting strategy” based on the “church plant model.” This would give the government more control over what is preached inside the mosques. In an interview with the French-speaking RTBF radio, he said:

“I want a moderate Islam in Brussels. I have regular contact with two groups of people who want to build a mosque and who want to follow the standards in exchange for government support. I suggest that the government participates in the financing and control, a bit along the lines of the model of the church councils.”

March 25. French anti-terrorism judges charged two men suspected of involvement in supplying a weapon to the gunman killed at Paris’s Orly airport on March 18 after seizing the weapon of a soldier. The suspects, aged 30 and 43, were charged for “association with terrorist criminals.”

March 29. Flanders, one of three official regions of Belgium, announced that it will impose new restrictions on the ritual slaughter of animals. As of January 1, 2019, all sheep will have to be stunned before they are slaughtered. The restrictions, which will eventually also apply to cattle, have been criticized by Muslim and Jewish groups as conflicting with their religious tenets.

March 30. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (Conseil français du culte musulman, CFCM), the official interlocutor between the French state and the country’s Muslim community, in a bid to curb radical Islam, published a 12-point charter regarding the role of imams in society. The document, which all practicing imams will be encouraged to sign, recognizes the values of the French Republic and promotes tolerant Islam. The charter has been rejected by some of the biggest Muslim organizations in France, including the Grand Mosque of Paris and the Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF).

March 31. Up to a thousand Muslims rolled out rugs and prayed on the streets of Clichy, a northern suburb of Paris, to protest the closure of a mosque on rue Estienne-d’Orves. The mosque was shuttered after its lease expired and the municipality voted to turn the building into a library. Up to 5,000 worshippers prayed at the facility every day. City officials say that Muslims can worship at a new mosque that was inaugurated in May 2016. Muslims say the alternative facility is too small and remote.

Up to a thousand Muslims prayed on the streets of Clichy, a suburb of Paris, on March 31, to protest the closure of a local mosque; its lease had expired. (Image source: LDC News video screenshot)

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

‘Swedish Conditions’

Diagnosing a deadly disorder.

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Bawer, April 11, 2017:

Will last Friday’s terror attack in Stockholm change Swedish attitudes toward Islam? Not likely. Pretty much all of Europe has spent the last few decades undergoing (steady) Islamization, but the invasion has progressed so much further in Sweden than in almost every other country on the continent – and has occasioned so much less frank reportage, commentary, and criticism, that brave souls in Sweden’s Scandinavian neighbors, Denmark and Norway – routinely make disparaging reference to “Swedish conditions.” What this term refers to is not only the drastic social and economic changes currently underway in the country that once proudly called itself Folkhemmet, “the people’s home,” but the mentality – a mentality not unique to Sweden, but certainly more fully developed there, in the government, media, academy, police, and the public at large, than anywhere else in Europe – that has made this dread transformation possible.

A few recent news items provide illustrative examples of what it means to be living under “Swedish conditions”:

  • On March 10, it was reported that despite longtime plans, there would not be a new police station in Rinkeby, a notoriously unsafe immigrant neighborhood in Stockholm. Not a single construction firm had put in a bid for the project. Why? Because, as several police officers told SVT News, “it’s much too dangerous to build a police station in the area.”
  • On March 12, Sweden’s Minister for Culture and Democracy, Alice Bah Kuhnke, said in a TV interview that the 150-odd jihadists who have returned to Sweden after fighting for ISIS should not be investigated, let alone prosecuted, but should instead be welcomed back and encouraged to integrate – by which she seemed to mean offering various welfare incentives and assorted freebies. (Such enticements, incidentally, would be perfectly in line with Swedish practice.)
  • On April 5, after Sweden’s TV4 reported that a Muslim school in Vällingby was forcing girls to sit in the back of the school bus, Victoria Kawesa, head of a party called Feminist Initiative, blamed it not on Islam but on the “global patriarchy.”

But no recent event or telecast provided a more illuminating picture of “Swedish conditions” than the April 3 episode of Horisont, a 60 Minutes-type series on Danish TV. (The fact that Danish TV airs such programs while Swedish TV does not is itself, of course, a telling reflection of “Swedish conditions.”)

The central figure on the Horisont episode was Eva Ek Törnberg, an ethnic Swede who not only lives in Seved, an immigrant-heavy district of Malmö, but is known as the “Queen of Seved” because of her decades-long efforts to cozy up to her Muslim neighbors and help them become full members of Swedish society.

On Horisont, however, she admits that her attitudes have changed over time. She used to call herself a “citizen of the world” and to champion open borders – now she looks around and finds herself thinking: “What has happened to my little Sweden?” She once thought it was “nonsense” to expect newcomers to learn Swedish – now she feels otherwise. Yes, she still believes in letting these people in by the truckload – but she no longer warms as she once did to the idea of a “multicultural society.” She perseveres in her attempt to bring Muslims into the Swedish fold – but she’s increasingly frustrated and confused by her lack of success. As she puts it, she’s curious about these people’s lives – why are they so indifferent to hers?

Yet she doesn’t want to complain too much – because, as she puts it, “one doesn’t want to be linked to the Sweden Democrats,” those universally anathematized residents of “the people’s home” who actually dare to criticize Islam out loud and to support immigration controls. (And who, by the way, are on the verge of becoming the country’s largest party.) For all her disillusionment, moreover, Eva is still capable of getting teary-eyed about the utopian prospect of ethnic Swedes and Muslim immigrants working together to find a solution to their problems. For her, psychologically, the idea that Islam is the problem is plainly a bridge too far.

Cutting from Malmö to Stockholm, Horisont introduces us to another woman. Zeliha Delgi, originally from Turkey and apparently single, is a self-described feminist who came to Sweden decades ago precisely because she wanted to live in a country that offered completely equal rights for women. At first, Zeliha says, Sweden was “the perfect land for me.” But then Rinkeby, where she lived, began to fall under the control of the Muslim “moral police.” The real cops – the Swedish cops – backed off, allowing the “moral police” to do their nasty work with increasing arrogance and authority. Patrolling the streets, these theological gendarmes would see Zeliha out at a café, sipping coffee – a woman, alone – and order her to go home. There was nothing she could do but obey. And as time went by, the situation just got worse and worse. And the Swedish authorities were beyond worthless, washing their hands of the whole business – lest, of course, they be perceived as Islamophobic. Eventually Zeliha moved to a non-Muslim part of Stockholm, where she can dress as she wants and go where she wants without anybody giving her grief or ordering her around. She has – and this was the word she used – freedom.

For now, anyway.

Horisont didn’t tell us what to think about what it was showing us. But the point was clear. Naive ethnic Swedes like Eva, who put out the welcome mat for those despicable “moral police” and their ideological ilk, have ruined more and more parts of Sweden for people like Zeliha, who came to Sweden in search of individual liberty, sexual equality, human rights, and the rule of law. As one wise blogger put it, Eva – who is “honest, provincial, and naive” – is the very personification of today’s Sweden. She hasn’t “thought deeply about anything” – and, as a result, her country has been made a “hostage to her dreams.” One might add that while Eva sees very clearly where her dreams have led, she still can’t fully let go of them. Terrified as she is of being mistaken for a (gasp) Sweden Democrat, she’s doubtless even more appalled by the idea of Donald Trump – for while Trump is, in fact, exactly the kind of leader Sweden needs if it hopes to step back from the brink of disaster, most Swedes (who, on the whole, continue to be more worried about being considered racists than about losing their country to Islam) reject Trump outright. A March poll found him to be more unpopular in Sweden than any politician ever, from any country, with 80 percent of Swedes giving him a thumbs-down and only 10 percent – those Sweden Democrat types, you know – liking him. (Here’s a taste of “Swedish conditions” for you: when Trump announced his temporary ban on immigration from certain Muslim countries, Swedish foreign minister Margot Wallström retaliated by banning Israelis from entering Sweden.)

So it goes. On March 9, Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminology professor at Stockholm University, said that the precipitous rise in violence among Muslim gangs in Swedish cities has nothing – nothing, mind you! – to do with Islam or immigration: no, it’s all caused by social ills that are, in turn, the fault of Swedish society at large. Another criminology professor, Leif G. W. Persson, blamed gang violence on the police.

The only places in Sweden where you can find out what’s really going on are online – a handful of alternative news and commentary websites, plus Facebook and other social media, where Swedes share with one another details and (yes) graphic images that the mainstream media systematically cover up. On Sunday, the editor-in-chief of Expressen, Thomas Mattsson, devoted his column to what he apparently thought was the important takeaway from last Friday’s terrorist act: namely, the threat to Swedish society represented by those rogue online spaces. “The criticism that can – and should! – he formulated right now,” he wrote, “is about social media.” He added that “the reputable, constitutionally protected Swedish media,” which are “responsible” and respectful of “professional ethics,” and the independent online media – media whose offense, in his eyes, is obviously that they pull back the curtain on “Swedish conditions” – “could not be greater.”

A March 11 editorial in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten succinctly spelled out the whole problem with “Swedish conditions”: what should “most worry Sweden’s neighbors,” the paper’s editors wrote, is the Swedes’ “unwillingness to openly and honestly discuss the government-approved multicultural idyll….In the long run, the mendacity that characterizes the Swedish debate cannot be maintained. The discrepancy between the official, idealized version of Sweden, ‘the people’s home,’ and the brutal reality that everyone can see has simply become too great.”

Bruce Bawer is the author of “While Europe Slept,” “Surrender,” and “The Victims’ Revolution.” His novel “The Alhambra” has just been published.

***

***

Also see:

Londonistan: 423 New Mosques; 500 Closed Churches

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, April 2, 2017:

  • British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism. Muslims do not need to become the majority in the UK; they just need gradually to Islamize the most important cities. The change is already taking place.
  • British personalities keep opening the door to introducing Islamic sharia law. One of the leading British judges, Sir James Munby, said that Christianity no longer influences the courts and these must be multicultural, which means more Islamic. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chief Justice Lord Phillips, also suggested that the English law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law.
  • British universities are also advancing Islamic law. The academic guidelines, “External speakers in higher education institutions”, provide that “orthodox religious groups” may separate men and women during events. At the Queen Mary University of London, women have had to use a separate entrance and were forced to sit in a room without being able to ask questions or raise their hands, just as in Riyadh or Tehran.

“London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together”, according to Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi, one of the Islamic preachers who now lead “Londonistan“, as the journalist Melanie Phillips has called the English capital. No, Rizvi is not a right-wing extremist. Wole Soyinka, a Nobel Laureate for Literature, was less generous; he called the UK “a cesspit for Islamists”.

“Terrorists can not stand London multiculturalism”, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan said after the recent deadly terror attack at Westminster. The opposite is true: British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism. Above all, Londonistan, with its new 423 mosques, is built on the sad ruins of English Christianity.

The Hyatt United Church was bought by the Egyptian community to be converted to a mosque. St Peter’s Church has been converted into the Madina Mosque. The Brick Lane Mosque was built on a former Methodist church. Not only buildings are converted, but also people. The number of converts to Islam has doubled; often they embrace radical Islam, as with Khalid Masood, the terrorist who struck Westminster.

The Daily Mail published photographs of a church and a mosque a few meters from each other in the heart of London. At the Church of San Giorgio, designed to accommodate 1,230 worshipers, only 12 people gathered to celebrate Mass. At the Church of Santa Maria, there were 20.

The nearby Brune Street Estate mosque has a different problem: overcrowding. Its small room and can contain only 100. On Friday, the faithful must pour into the street to pray. Given the current trends, Christianity in England is becoming a relic, while Islam will be the religion of the future.

In Birmingham, the second-largest British city, where many jihadists live and orchestrate their attacks, an Islamic minaret dominates the sky. There are petitions to allow British mosques to call the Islamic faithful to prayer on loudspeakers three times a day.

By 2020, estimates are that the number of Muslims attending prayers will reach at least 683,000, while the number of Christians attending weekly Mass will drop to 679,000. “The new cultural landscape of English cities has arrived; the homogenised, Christian landscape of state religion is in retreat”, said Ceri Peach of Oxford University. While nearly half of British Muslims are under the age of 25, a quarter of Christians are over 65. “In another 20 years there are going to be more active Muslims than there are churchgoers,” said Keith Porteous Wood, director of the National Secular Society.

Since 2001, 500 London churches of all denominations have been turned into private homes. During the same period, British mosques have been proliferating. Between 2012 and 2014, the proportion of Britons who identify themselves as Anglicans fell from 21% to 17%, a decrease of 1.7 million people, while, according to a survey conducted by the respected NatCen Social Research Institute, the number of Muslims has grown by almost a million. Churchgoers are declining at a rate that within a generation, their number will be three times lower than that of Muslims who go regularly to mosque on Friday.

Demographically, Britain has been acquiring an increasingly an Islamic face, in places such as Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets. In 2015, an analysis of the most common name in England showed it was Mohammed, including spelling variations such as Muhammad and Mohammad.

Most important cities have huge Muslim populations: Manchester (15.8%), Birmingham (21.8%) and Bradford (24.7%). In Birmingham, the police just dismantled a terrorist cell; there is also a greater probability that a child will be born into a Muslim family than into a Christian one. In Bradford and Leicester, half the children are Muslim. Muslims do not need to become the majority in the UK; they just need gradually to Islamize the most important cities. The change is already taking place. “Londonistan” is not a Muslim majority nightmare; it is a cultural, demographic and religious hybrid in which Christianity declines and Islam advances.

Thousands of Muslims participate in a public outdoor prayer service in Birmingham, England, on July 6, 2016. (Image source: Ruptly video screenshot)

According to Innes Bowen, writing in The Spectator, only two of the 1,700 mosques in Britain today follow the modernist interpretation of Islam, compared with 56% in the United States. The Wahhabis control six percent of mosques in the UK, while the fundamentalist Deobandi control up to 45%. According to a survey from the Knowledge Center, a third of UK Muslims do not feel “part of British culture.”

London is also full of sharia courts. There are officially 100. The advent of this parallel judicial system has been made possible thanks to the British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution. These new courts are based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values ​​of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law.

British personalities keep opening the door to introduce sharia. One of Britain’s leading judges, Sir James Munby, said that Christianity no longer influences the courts and these must be multicultural — which means more Islamic. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chief Justice Lord Phillips also suggested that British law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law. The British cultural establishment is rapidly capitulating to Islamic fundamentalists in accepting their demands.

British universities are also advancing Islamic law. The official guidelines of the university, “External speakers in higher education institutions“, published by Universities UK, provide that “orthodox religious groups” may separate men and women during events. At Queen Mary University of London, women had to use a separate entrance and were forced to sit in a room without being able to ask questions or raise their hands — as in Riyadh or Tehran. The Islamic Society at the London School of Economics held a gala, in which women and men were separated by a seven-meter panel.

After the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, recommended self-censorship and “some restraint” in discussing Islam. The British ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, converted to Islam and completed the pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj. He now calls himself Haji Collis.

What will be next?

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

Islam and the Jihad in London

Security forces respond to the attacks outside Parliament in London, March 22, 2017. (Reuters photo: Stefan Wermuth)

It’s not non-Western. It’s anti-Western.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, March 25, 2017:

It was a careful choice of words, Bernard Lewis being nothing if not careful. In 2004, the West audibly gasped when its preeminent scholar of Islam famously told the German newspaper Die Welt,“Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century,” if not sooner.

Listen carefully. He did not say that Muslims will be the majority population in what is still recognizably Europe. No, Professor Lewis said “Europe will be Islamic.

We are not talking about Muslims here. We are talking about Islam. Lots of individual Muslims desire peaceful coexistence, even assimilation. But Islam’s aim is to prevail. So, yet again this week, Lewis’s foreboding has been brought to the fore by a jihadist mass-murder attack, this time in London.

As we go to press, five innocent people are dead after Khalid Masood, a terrorist acting on unambiguous scriptural commands to war against non-Muslims, rammed his rental Hyundai SUV into dozens of pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, many of them tourists taking in the iconic views of Parliament. About 50 people suffered injuries, some of them grave, so the death toll may yet rise.

Masood, a burly 52-year-old weightlifter with a long criminal record that included vicious stabbings, then crashed the car through the gate at Westminster Palace, home of the West’s most venerable democratic legislature. He alighted brandishing two long knives, which he used to kill Keith Palmer, a police officer who, pursuant to British policy, was unarmed despite being assigned to provide security at one of the world’s foremost terror targets. Masood was finally shot dead by a protection officer attached to England’s defense minister.

There immediately began the ritual media pondering over Masood’s motive. Yes, what could it possibly have been?

I’m going to stick with the patently obvious.

Masood was born as Adrian Russell Ajao on Christmas Day, 1964, in Kent county, just outside London. His 17-year-old single mother remarried two years later, and he was known as Adrian Elms (his stepfather’s surname) until converting to Islam when he was about 40. Prior to that point, while fathering three children with his wife, he had several arrests, some for violent attacks. During at least one of the resulting stints in prison, like many inmates, he began indoctrination into Islam.

Between 2004 and 2005 came the critical transition: the formal conversion, marriage to a Muslim woman, and relocation to Saudi Arabia (you know, be our “ally” against terrorism). For five years, Masood was immersed in the kingdom’s Wahhabism — fundamentalist Islam rooted in scriptural literalism. He became an English language-teacher working for the Saudi government.

Masood returned to England from Jeddah about seven years ago. By the time of Wednesday’s attack on Westminster Bridge, he had seamlessly gravitated to Birmingham, a city increasingly enveloped by sharia enclaves that, to varying degrees, have become “no-go zones” for non-Muslims and agents of the state, including police.

There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system.

Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western.

Like the conversion of Masood, the conversion of Birmingham has been a function of this defining Islamic attribute. Individual Muslims may assimilate, but Islam doesn’t do assimilation. Islam does not melt into your melting pot. Islam, as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna proclaimed, is content with nothing less than political, cultural, and civilizational dominance.

As Soeren Kern relates in a comprehensive Gatestone Institute report on Islam in Britain, the metamorphosis of Birmingham, along with several other U.K. population centers, signifies this resistance. When the Islamic presence in a Western community reaches a critical mass, Islam’s hostility to Western mores and demands for sharia governance result in non-Muslim flight. Marriages between Muslims resident in the Western community and Muslims overseas tend to result in childbirth rates and household growth that dwarfs that of the indigenous population. Arranged, intra-familial, and polygamous marriages, endorsed by Islamic mores, drastically alter the fabric of communities in short order. Birmingham, in particular, has been ground zero of “Operation Trojan Horse,” a sharia-supremacist scheme to Islamize the public schools.

Kern repeats an account of life in “inner-city Birmingham” by the wife of a British clergyman, first published by Standpoint in 2011. She explained how the neighborhood in which she’d lived for four years had become a “police no-go zone,” in which the large number of newly arrived Somali immigrants now approached that of Pakistanis already resident. Then she recalled her husband’s encounter with an immigrant who had just arrived from Belgium — on an EU passport, like an increasing number of Muslims these days. The migrant was surprised when the clergyman asked why he had chosen to move into their neighborhood. Finally, he replied, “Everybody knows. Birmingham—best place in Europe to be pure Muslim.”

The memory moved the clergyman’s wife to a salient insight:

Well, there must be many places in Europe where Muslims are entirely free to practice their faith, but I suspect there are few places in which they can have so little contact with the civic and legal structure of a Western state if they choose.

To a London reader, born and bred with multiculturalism, I know that my stories may come across as outlandish and exaggerated. . . . When I recently told a friend how a large Taliban flag fluttered gaily on a house near St Andrew’s football stadium for some months, her cry of “Can’t you tell the police?” made me reflect how far many of our inner cities have been abandoned by our key workers: our doctors and nurses drive in from afar, the police, as mentioned before, have shut down their stations and never venture in unless in extremis — they and ambulance crews have been known to be attacked — even the local imam lives in a leafier area.

It is in that milieu that Khalid Masood made his decision, rented an SUV, and drove to Westminster Bridge.

Naturally, the Islamic State terror network (ISIS) took credit for the atrocity, as it has been wont to do since issuing its plea that Muslims conduct attacks “in place” — i.e., against the Western societies where they live. Western leaders have been content to accept these claims, at least as inspirational, if not operational. It is easier to indulge the fiction that ISIS catalyzes jihadism then to ask what catalyzed ISIS.

But the remorseless fact is that before ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Khomeini revolution and Hezbollah and the Blind Sheikh and the Brotherhood and Khalid Masood, there was the single thing that unites them all. There was Islam.

Western political and opinion elites remain willfully blind to this. They cannot help but project onto Islamic beliefs and practices their own progressive pieties — which take seriously neither religion nor the notion that there is any civilization but their own.

In their minds, and therefore ingrained in the media’s coverage, is the notion that a Muslim community is just like any other community. Same with the mosque — it is just a “house of worship,” no different from a church, a safe harbor from worldly concerns and hostilities. Islam, however, does not separate mosque from state; the mosque is every bit as much a center for sharia indoctrination, assimilation resistance, and anti-Western politics as it is a prayer venue. That is why al-Banna regarded the mosque and the Islamic community center commonly attached to it as the “axis” of the “movement” in every community where Islam takes hold.

The movement does not want cohabitation. It wants conquest. It starts with assimilation-resistant enclaves that nurture sharia supremacism today and thereby breed the jihadists of tomorrow. This week, it took the campaign to Westminster Bridge.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.