Europe's Year of Self-Destruction

In an article in The Week by Michael Brendan Dougherty, the consequences of Angela Merkel's open-door policy become painfully clear:

Germany began 2016 with a spate of semi-coordinated sexual assaults against women on New Year's Eve in Cologne, most committed by asylum seekers. And it closes the year in mourning. When the suspect of the Berlin Christmas market attack, Anis Amri, rammed that truck into the shoppers, he was imitating another Islamist attack in Nice, France, earlier this year. Amri, who was shot and killed in a shootout in Milan on Friday, was an asylum seeker, although his entry to Europe predates the great 2015 wave. Earlier in 2016, another asylum seeker murdered a Polish woman in Reutlingen. And another set off a suicide bomb, injuring dozens, at a festival in Ansbach. Another attacked tourists with an axe in July. Just this month, a 17-year-old Afghan migrant in Germany was arrested in connection with the rape and murder of Maria Ladenburger, the 19-year-old daughter of a top E.U. official...

Germany thought it could assimilate newcomers. It believed it had done so before, having absorbed Turkish "guestworkers" during the 1960s and 1970s. But there are notable differences between Turks and the current refugee wave. Turkey had already undergone significant secularization. This new wave of migration into Germany is showing signs of developing some of the generational problems that mass Islamic migration has created in France. Syrian migrants find that the Arabic-language mosques in Germany, often funded by Saudi Arabia, preach a form of Islam far more fundamentalist and hostile to Western people and culture than anything they knew in Syria. Secondly, Turks came with skills that were immediately put into employment in the German economy. The new migrants are hardly working at all.

Read the whole article here: Angela Merkel is destroying Europe.

Read more...

More Straight Talk Than You've Heard From a Politician in a Long Time

The video below is apparently a member of Parliament in Finland talking to a fairly large gathering of people, some who support his message and some who very much don't like it, including some Muslims. I say "apparently" because I can't find the speaker's name, so I can't confirm he is an MP. If you know, please put it in the comments.

In the video, he says things like, “Muslims should not be in Europe. Muslims should be banned from every civilized society...” "One day, we will kick all of you out of Europe...” “Finnish people must fight for freedom and not allow Islamization to grow.”

"I lived in your country for 10 years," he says to this very vocal Muslim crowd, "and have seen how cruel, arrogant, and stupid you are. You don’t respect your women. You force them to be your slaves. You are supposed to be tolerant according to your imams, but you are not tolerant. You don’t respect other religions. Have you seen a Christian in Saudi Arabia who can have his faith? You want us to celebrate your holidays… Do you celebrate Christmas? Do you celebrate Easter? One day most of Europe will rise against you."

Read more...

The Courageous Response to Islam

The cowardly response to Islam is to try to wish it away or pretend it doesn't exist. Or to try to share what you've learned about Islam with people, meet resistance, and give up.

The courageous thing to do is to keep entering the arena, and work to get better at getting the message through to people. Persist until you succeed. And then to keep succeeding.

We have many tools available to help you get better at getting through to people, if that's the path you've chosen:

1. A list of different ways to approach a conversation about Islam.

2. Other methods you can use to persuade besides a back-and-forth argument.

3. Support and insight from your fellow counterjihadists.

4. A link to send to your not-yet-informed friends: Inquiry Into Islam.

5. Something to focus on in your conversations: Get them to take the pledge.

6. Something to help you in your ongoing discussions: Answers to Objections.

7. An organized group for political action.

8. Practical actions you can use to influence and educate others.

9. Pamphlets and leaflets to hand out.

Use these tools and resources to do the one thing that needs to be done: Educating our fellow non-Muslims about Islam. Once we've done that, the rest will be relatively easy. Concessions will be undone. The attempted encroachments of orthodox Islam will be blocked. Islam's reach will shrink. The tide will turn, and the Islamization of the free world will begin to reverse course.

Most of the material linked to above is in our book: Getting Through.

Read more...

Make Them Contagious

A couple months ago at work, two guys were talking about ISIS and the truck attack in Nice, France. It was a perfect opportunity to inject some solid facts into two minds. I said, "Do you know why ISIS kills people in France? Do you know what they hope to achieve?"

The look on their faces was kind of funny. It was simultaneously a look of surprise that they actually didn't know, and curiosity.

I said, "They're following the work of an Islamic strategist who wrote a paper in 2005 called The Management of Savagery. The strategist pointed out that Islam can't just take over countries by force like they used to do in the old days. Non-Muslim countries would intervene and stop them."

I went on to explain the strategy: To produce enough random murders that people feel anxiety and don't trust their own government to protect them. The idea is to make people motivated to accept Islam is the ruling force just to find some kind of relief from the perpetual feeling of fear. I could tell this made something click in their heads. The strange phenomenon of random acts of horrific violence suddenly made sense, but it made sense in a way that awakened them to the determined scheming behind it. What they were witnessing in these violent acts was not just "extremists" with a grudge, but a much larger and longer-range plan than they had imagined. The immediate victims of the violence weren't the only victims. The strategy aims to make the whole country the victim.

I have the email address of one of those guys, so after work, when I got home, I shared An Inquiry Into Islam article with him (it explains more about Management of Savagery). He doesn't know I have anything to do that website (Inquiry Into Islam) or this one (Citizen Warrior), and doesn't know I wrote the article. The next day he said, "That was very interesting." I used this opportunity. I said, "This is a big deal. There are attacks all the time now. Everybody is aware of that. But if you asked a hundred people why they're doing it, I'll bet not one of them would know the answer. And we should all know at least that much."

In other words, I made it clear that he was now in possession of important information that everyone should know and that most people don't know. My intention was to motivate him to share it. And he did.

He shared it with another guy at work, and then sent him the same article. Then he shared the article on his Facebook page. When someone made a comment on his Facebook post arguing with the article, he came back to me and asked me what I thought of the comment. Since I'm a friend of his on Facebook, I answered the person's comment.

The reason I'm pointing this out is that I stumbled upon one good way to motivate people to share what they're learning with others. First I made him curious. Then I provided a very interesting and relevant piece of information. And then when he showed interest, I made him aware that he was in possession of important knowledge that his fellow citizens were unaware of, which motivated him to spread the word. I'll have to do that some more. I encourage you to try it too, and let us know how it goes.

Read more...

How Much Sense Does it Make to Tolerate a Repressive Religion?

Robandrews33304 left a comment on the article, "A Liberal With Zero Tolerance For Islam" and makes a good point:

No absolutist ideology can allow criticism and survive. Be it communism or some form of theistic belief; because there's really nothing there. That's why the enlightenment (1700s) happened after the scientific revolution (1600s), and not the other way around. But I think the internet will do what the printing press did in Europe.

As far as liberals are concerned, I'm a 1960 type of liberal. That is far left. We doubted any form of authoritarianism. So I can't understand today's watered-down version. Tolerance in our day never applied to things like any form of repressive religion.

Islam would have been thought of as some effort to "put us down" as we would have said. 

Read more...

What Muslim Leaders Say About Islam Dispels the Myth that Jihadists are a "Fringe" Element

The following was originally published in 2010. But the message is just as true today. In fact, it may have become worse.

When we discover some basic facts about Islam, our first impulse is to think, "Surely it's only a small minority of extremists!" But if you've looked into it, and especially if you've read the Quran, you realize the "extremists" are following standard, mainstream Islamic doctrine. That's a real shock when this first dawns on you.

One day when I was reading yet another popular Muslim leader giving a speech and saying something that would be considered "inflammatory rhetoric" if I said it, but that was nothing more than just plain, ordinary Islamic teachings, I thought I should start collecting a list. Here's what I have so far (below), and I hope you to add to it in the comments.

I thought you could send this list of quotes to those people who tell you "the terrible stuff you say about Islam" only applies to a fringe group of nutcases who have hijacked Islam and twisted and distorted peaceful Islamic teachings into something bad. You could quote chapter and verse from Islamic source books until you're blue in the face without making a dent because they'll think hardly any Muslims nowadays believe in that stuff.

This list should disabuse anyone of the notion that the incessant intolerance, hatred, and even violence against non-Muslims is "fringe." This is not just a small group of "radicals." This is Islam, plain and simple. The leaders quoted below are hugely popular, even famous mainstream leaders in the Islamic world. For each quote, I've provided an online source. Let's begin:

Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he said, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs. Source

Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University (the most prominent and authoritative institute of Islamic jurisprudence in the world) also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.” Source

Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, said non-Muslims have "absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God's earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines." If they do, "the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life." Source

The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid teaches that "at first fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory." He clearly identifies two groups Muslims are obligated to fight: "(1) they who start fighting against Muslims, and (2) they who worship gods other than Allah." Source

The most prominent Muslim scholar of the 20th century, Sheikh Abu Ala Maududi, stated in his book, Islamic Law and Constitution, on p. 262, that the Islamic State “seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.” Maududi added “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.” Source

Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (the largest international Islamic organization in the world) wrote, "Islam is an all-embracing concept which regulates every aspect of life, adjudicating on every one of its concerns and prescribing for it a solid and rigorous order." Hasan al-Banna acknowledged there are many levels of jihad, including mere "interior spiritual struggle," which he deemed the lowest level. According to al-Banna, waging warfare against the infidels is the highest expression of fidelity. Source

Hasan al-Banna also wrote, "it is a duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world." Now remember, this is the founder of the largest international Muslim organization in the world. Source: Robert Spencer's book, Stealth Jihad.

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Bin Abdullah Bin Mohammed al Sheikh said on Iqra’ TV channel, “Killing producers who show women unveiled is legal.” Source

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, told Al Watan Daily, (March 25, 2008) “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes).” Source

Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi says: "There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." Source

Shaykh Ghawhi, well-known and well-respected in Islamic universities and throughout the Islamic world, is a teacher of Islamic studies and Islamic law. He says according to Sharia:

1. A woman must only leave her house if she has a real need to do so.
2. Her husband or guardian must authorize her leaving the house.
3. When she is out, she must be completely covered, including her face.
4. When she is out, she must not look left or right but keep her head bowed down as she walks.
5. She must not wear perfume in public.
6. She must never shake a man's hand.
7. Even if she is visiting a female friend and is inside her friend's house, she must not uncover herself in case a man is hiding somewhere in the house. Source

Ayatollah Khomeini, the immensely influential leader of the Iranian revolution, and known as "the greatest Shi'ite leader of all time" said: "Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world...But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world...Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim." Source

Ayatollah Khomeini also said: “Mehrab (a mosque) means a place of war, a place of fighting. Out of the mosques, wars should proceed. Just as all the wars of Islam proceeded out of the mosques. The prophet had a sword to kill people. Our Holy Imams were quite militant. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords. They used to kill people. We need a Caliph who would chop hands, cut throats, stone people. In the way that the messenger of Allah used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people.” Source

Ayatollah Khomeini also said, “Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.” Source

The following "explanatory memorandum," as it's called, was captured in an FBI raid and outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the Muslim Brotherhood (known to members as "Ikhwan"). Keep in mind that the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest international Muslim organization in the world. Here's its goal in America, according to its own leadership:

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a 'Civilization-Jihadist' process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack." Source

The co-founder of CAIR (the most prominent "mainstream, moderate Muslim" organization in the United States), Omar Ahmad, an honored guest at the Bush White House, was invited by the president to the National Cathedral to mourn the Americans lost on 9/11. In 1998, Ahmad was secretly recorded at an Islamic conference in Fremont, California, saying, "Islam isn’t in America to equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion." Source

Before founding CAIR, Ahmad was a leader at the Islamic Association of Palestine, an Islamist organization that raised money in America for Hamas, but was shut down by the government in 2005. The three largest American-based Brotherhood front groups have been blacklisted and/or shut down by the FBI. The FBI shut down Holy Land Foundation, the largest Islamic charity, for fraudulently raising money for Hamas and the FBI listed CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) as unindicted co-conspirators. Source

"The leading Egyptian cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, considered one of the most influential scholars in Islam, promoted by London mayor Ken Livingstone as a moderate voice, says something on his Islam-online website, speaking of female genital mutilation (the removal of a girl's clitoris): 'Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world.'" Source

Yusuf al-Qaradawi also urged Muslims to kill the Jews on Al Jazeera TV (Jan. 9, 2009), not only in Israel but also worldwide. He added, “No peace can be made between us (Muslims) and the non-believers. This what our holy book says. This what Allah says.” Source

Yusuf al-Qaradawi also wrote: "Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society." Qaradawi is the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah, an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago. Source

We're talking about Qaradawi, the “progressive” Muslim intellectual, much loved by Georgetown University’s burgeoning Islamic-studies programs. Like Harvard, Georgetown has been purchased into submission by tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars. In its resulting ardor to put Americans at ease about Islam, the university somehow manages to look beyond Qaradawi’s fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi, they tell us, is a “moderate.” In fact, as Robert Spencer quips, if you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.” Source

And he’s not just any reformist. Another Qaradawi fan, Imam Rauf, the similarly “moderate” imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project, tells us Qaradawi is also “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” Source

Rauf is undoubtedly right about that. So it is worth letting it sink in that this most influential of Islam’s voices, this promoter of the Islamic enclaves the Brotherhood is forging throughout the West, is convinced that Islamic societies can never accept secularism. After all, secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds. Source

It is also worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist. The excerpt from his book continues:

"As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (Qur’an, 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari’ah is downright apostasy." Source

Andrew McCarthy wrote: "In considering Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero project, Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely important. Like most Muslims, Rauf regards Qaradawi as a guide, and referred to him in 2001 as 'the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.' And indeed he is: a prominent, Qatar-based scholar whose weekly Al Jazeera program on the subject of sharia is viewed by millions and whose cyber-venture, Islam Online, is accessed by millions more, including Muslims in the United States. Not surprisingly, his rabble-rousing was a prime cause of the deadly global rioting by Muslims when an obscure Danish newspaper published cartoon depictions of Mohammed."

Andrew McCarthy continues: "Qaradawi regards the United States as the enemy of Islam. He has urged that Muslims 'fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.' In 2004, he issued a fatwa (an edict based on sharia) calling for Muslims to kill Americans in Iraq. A leading champion of Hamas, he has issued similar approvals of suicide bombings in Israel." Source

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly, former Mufti of Australia and Imam of the Lakemba Mosque, said in a sermon at the Lakemba Mosque October 2006: “Those atheists, people of the book [Christians and Jews], where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.” Source

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, former leader of the Justice and Development Party, one of Turkey's most popular politicians, and now Prime Minister of Turkey, publicly read an Islamic poem that included the lines: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…” Source

Prime Minister Erdogan also commented on the term "moderate Islam," often used in the West. He said, "These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it." Source

OIC General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu readily admitted in a speech in June of 2008 the OIC's targeting and orchestration to criminalize speech that "offends" Muslims, noting their success in causing the West to deter "freedom of expression." The OIC is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations and the largest voting block in the UN. Ihsanoglu said, "In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film Fitna, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look serious into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked." Source

Mohammad, the prophet of Islam, said: "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." Source

"Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." So said Mohammad, founder of Islam (from Sahih Muslim's Hadith, 4294). Source

A man came to Mohammed and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward." Mohammed replied, "I do not find such a deed." Source: Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 44

Read more...

On This Day In 732, Charles the Hammer Stopped Islam's Advance on the West

Islam conquered most of the Middle East and North Africa and then came across the Straights of Gibraltar and conquered Spain, subjugating the people under Islamic rule, giving the European (mostly Christian and Jewish) people the choice of conversion to Islam or perpetual underling status burdened with a tax on non-Muslims (vital funds Muslims used to finance further conquests).

Islamic armies moved north into what is now France (known as Gaul at the time). That was the high-water mark of Islam's first major invasion of Europe, because it was there they were stopped.

After several large battles, the Islamic hordes were defeated by an army led by Charles Martel, who came to be known as Charles the Hammer. The final and decisive battle occurred on October 11th, 732, one hundred years after the death of Mohammad.

Europe is being invaded again by Islamic hordes. This time they are being welcomed in by people ignorant of history and ignorant of Islamic doctrine.

People who are committed to Islam's political goal of world domination have been swarming into Europe by the millions, gaining more and more political clout and winning more and more battles as Europeans concede their freedoms, their land, and their money to this aggressive and relentless ideology.

But they will be stopped. Europeans are not spineless people. Not even all of Europe's politicians are spineless. Islam was stopped before — despite the fact that many European kings had made deals and allied themselves with the Muslims to gain a temporary political advantage. It was happening then. It is happening now.

But Europe is waking up and so is America, Australia, and India. The more people know about basic Islamic doctrine, the more immune they become to the political manipulations of orthodox Muslims. Concessions made will be revoked. The West will rise again and stop Islam for the third time.

To fortify our commitment to our future victory, today we honor the fighting spirit of Charles the Hammer.

Read more about this historical event: Remembering the Battle of Tours.

Still more: Today in History: The Battle of Tours by Raymond Ibrahim.

Read more...

Waging Jihad by Gaining Concessions

If your goal was the eventual overthrow of the government and establishing sharia law as the law of the land, but you didn't have a large enough majority to do it by voting or by force, how could you do it? One good way would be to keep pressing for small, incremental concessions. And when you gain one, to hold it, and try to gain another.

And if you were using this strategy, what is the first concession you'd try to gain? I think it would be to establish laws and cultural norms that prohibit criticism of your group or its goals in speech or writing. This could effectively prevent an organized effort to block the next concessions you try to gain.

That is exactly what orthodox Muslims are trying to do.

Every totalitarian state that ever ruled a nation has done the same thing, and did it first. If you can't criticize something in public, you are left with your private thoughts and your few intimate friends. Are you the only ones who think this way? You don't know. Silencing criticism isolates the dissenters. And it prevents important public discussions from taking place.

Silencing criticism makes it possible for other concessions to be gained without effective opposition.

Earnest Muslims are using every method they can think of to shut down criticism and free speech. They legally lobby politicians and media outlets, pressuring them to silence or fire someone who criticized Islam. They slander anyone who criticizes Islam by calling them "Islamophobic" or "racist." They bring lawsuits against people even if they know they will not win because the bad press is damaging enough. And they riot in the streets. After a Dutch newspaper published a cartoon depicting Mohammad, Muslims rioted all over Europe, leaving 187 people dead and making publishers think twice about publishing something critical to Islam again.

And this aggressive religion will keep pushing unless we stop it. A sufficient number of them will not try to be fair, will not try to "assimilate," and will never let up on the pressure to take over. It is their religious duty.

The way to stop its spread without being cruel or violent is to establish the policy: No more concessions to Islam.

I once had a job working for a seminar company. My job was to call people who had taken an introductory seminar and convince them to take the main seminar we were selling. I was given a stack of cards participants had filled out at the introductory seminar and I was told how to handle the calls: "If they give you a definite 'no,' throw the card away. Otherwise put it here and we'll call them again later."

And we would keep calling these people, harassing them for years because those people were too nice to simply say, "I am not interested." People would say, "I don't know, let me think about it." They would say all kinds of things other than "no." I could hear in their voices that most of them really wanted to say no, but they wouldn't. I felt sorry for these people, and yet I couldn't help but think they were stupid. Why not be firm? Why not be honest? It would save them a lot of stress. If only they knew my instructions, they would have said no firmly right up front.

But the thing is, most of us are used to dealing with people who will not exploit our "niceness." We deal with fair, considerate people almost all the time, and our ways of dealing with fair people work very well. I'm assuming you are a fair person. What do you do? If someone gave you a "socially acceptable" excuse like "I'll think about it," you would let them bow out, wouldn't you? You wouldn't ignore their signals and keep pushing.

But here's what we all have to learn sooner or later: For people who ignore your signals and keep pushing, you had better develop a different approach — an approach with more firmness and strength, an approach that protects yourself and defends your interests.

The same goes for dealing with aggressive vacuum-cleaner salesmen. Have they ever come to your door? If you show the slightest interest, you'll be stuck talking to them until you say yes. They are relentless, and to deal with it, you had better be firm. If you say, "I'm busy right now," they will say, "That's okay, when would be a good time to come back?"

Islam operates much the same, except on a much larger scale with a political agenda and more deadly consequences. Islam is pressing for concessions constantly, trying to find the weaknesses, trying to find the cracks, the loopholes, and it will keep pushing until it accomplishes its goal: A world in which every country is ruled by sharia law.

This is not one of those problems that will go away by itself. It is up to us to be firm. They are not going to stop on their own. They must be stopped by us.

Read more: Islam's Relentless Encroachment.

Learn how they can be stopped by us: What Can a Civilian Do to Stop Islam's Relentless Encroachment?

Read more...

That Day

This is a video about one of the best things that happened on 9/11. Sometimes human beings are beautiful.

The Boatlift

The video is about 12 minutes long. It will remind you of that fateful day. Let us never forget.

Read more...

Why the Peaceful Majority Might be Dangerous

The following is an article from Paul Marek (author of the outstanding piece, Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant). Reprinted with permission.

Mubarka is a Canadian born woman of Pakistani parents. She grew up in Toronto among other Canadian children and attended university where she received a degree in commerce. Today she holds a prominent position with a transportation company.

Mubarka used to be as mainstream as any Canadian young adult can be; in fact, those who met her for the first time may have been struck by her vivacious personality. Her effervescence went hand in hand with her distinct Asian beauty which she shamelessly displayed with stylish clothing including the occasional low cut top. Mubarka used to converse for hours over topics as varied as business practices in Canadian politics to contemporary music.

It comes, therefore, as a shock, when one learns what path Mubarka has recently chosen for herself. She will be wedding a Pakistani man...a devout Muslim, whom she has never met but who was chosen for her when she was an infant. Not only that, but she has donned the Hijab for the first time in her life and is strictly observing Muslim tenets. She has chosen subservience to a man and subservience to his religion over the gender freedom offered her by the Western democracy she grew up in, and she's done so without so much as a whimper of protest.

When asked why she has picked the life of Sharia, Mubarka simply states that it is as Muhammad would will, and that there is no greater prophet than Muhammad. When asked how she will raise her children, Mubarka makes it clear...they will be raised as Muslims first, and Canadians second.

Hardi is perhaps one of the most pleasant Canadian women anyone could ever meet. In her capacity as a caregiver of seniors, she is gentle, loving, and incredibly patient. She laughs deliciously at the kind of comical moments that only seniors can deliver and her mood seems to be permanently stuck on happy. Hardi is an angel.

Those who encounter Hardi for the first time will be struck not by her character, that comes later, but by the fact that she is virtually covered from head to toe by traditional Indonesian Muslim attire. She covers her entire body with colourful costume that leaves only her hands and face exposed. Hardi is devout, in fact, so devout that during Christmas any appreciation given her by way of gifting must be void of any reference to the season. Furthermore, during quiet moments when Hardi is free to discuss her Muslim faith, it becomes clear she believes wholeheartedly in the strict observance of Sharia. For her, Islam in its pure non-secular form, is truth.

Both Hardi and Mubarka present us with a perplexing conundrum because they are members of what has become known as the "peaceful" Muslim majority. They don't have a violent bone in their bodies, and are clearly law abiding and productive members of Canadian society. But, they are also both part of a very small minority within Canada where they and their fellow Muslims have very little effect on Canadian politics or on the evolution of Canadian cultural norms. What if though, Hardi and Mubarka were part of a Muslim majority where they and their co-religionists held the power?

Both women are Muslims first and Canadians second. No matter how much respect one may have for either woman's character, there is little doubt where either would place her loyalty if faced with choosing between the Canadian traditions of liberty for all, or Sharia. There is also little doubt that if they were part of a majority, they would acquiesce to the demands of the Muslim clerical class and choose Sharia for all Canadians.

It is therefore irrelevant in the grand scheme of things whether or not Hardi or Mubarka are "good" people; most people on the planet are, no matter their religion, race, or culture. What matters in the greater sense, is that as parts of the Muslim collective, neither woman would set aside her Muslim beliefs in order to safeguard and protect the full rights of non-Muslims to live as they choose. What's even more disturbing, is that both women have experienced the gender freedoms afforded them in Canada, yet both have voluntarily resigned themselves to the greater Muslim collective.

As long as each woman is part of a small minority within Canada, she offers Canada much; but once she becomes part of a significant minority, or heaven forbid, a majority, she becomes dangerous. Why? Because Muslims wherever they form a majority choose Islamic norms over the broader more tolerant standards of the West. If given a chance, as has been clearly demonstrated the world over, they would unravel hundreds of years of hard fought human rights gains and replace them with the medieval practices of their faith. As such, both Hardi and Mubarka are simply bit players in a monstrous and destructive Muslim vortex that would drag civilization backwards hundreds of years.

Read more...

A Liberal With Zero Tolerance For Islam

On the article, Muslims Are Not What Is Wrong With Islam, someone made the following comment:

I am a liberal with zero tolerance for Islam. Having studied this pseudo-religion for three decades, I can say with certainty that there is nothing positive or spiritual about it. Islam has no redeeming characteristics. It is simply a totalitarian, imperialistic ideology with a thin veneer of religion to dupe the ignorant and lull the complacent. I pity Muslims for having been brainwashed, but that doesn't mean that I think Islam should be tolerated in liberal democracies. It is completely incompatible with Universal human rights.

There's no reason why the percentage of liberals (at the moment, 51 percent) who understand the problem of Islam couldn't be as large as conservatives (82 percent) or even larger. If that seems hard to imagine, check this out: Liberals Can Remain Liberals and Still Recognize Islam as a Threat.

Liberals and conservatives may disagree on many things, but against Islamization, we can and should stand united.

Read more...

Help Tommy Robinson Protect Himself

For years, Tommy Robinson has been a tireless, outspoken critic of the Islamization of Britain. And he has been attacked in the media, jailed by the authorities (and thrown in with violent Muslim prisoners), he has been issued death threats, and been physically attacked by Muslims.

You can read about his tribulations here and here.

Robinson needs good legal representation and physical protection (a bodyguard). Three people decided to raise the money to help him, and they succeeded: The Glazov Gang's inimitable Jamie Glazov, the director of ACT! for Canada, Valerie Price and World Truth Summit founder, Elsa Schieder. You can learn more and contribute to Tommy's protection here: Help Tommy Robinson.

Valerie Price wrote the following:

Tommy Robinson personifies moral courage in an age when such courage is an extremely rare commodity, the possession of which can threaten one's life. He is one of the few who truly deserves the label of hero. He is my personal hero and yet it must be said that all he has done to become heroic is something that we all can do, should do, and must do: he has spoken the truth.

We live in so cheap and tawdry an age that all one must do to be a hero is speak the truth — and yet there are so few heroes. Tommy Robinson is that hero. He has done this at immense personal cost — to himself and to his family. Unlike other heroes, like Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard and Lars Vilks, he is not protected by his government with personal bodyguards. He is on his own. In fact, for speaking the truth, the British Government has turned him into “An Enemy of the State”.

One would think that the constant threats made against Tommy Robinson would wake people up to the true nature and lethal character of the enemy we face, when they are so threatened by the telling of the truth that they're willing to commit murder in response. Yet even as Tommy Robinson is defamed, vilified and marginalized, he is being proven right by the events of every day — and the light of the truth he tells shines more brightly all the time.

Please listen to this YouTube video and you will see his passion, his dedication, his bravery, his disgust with the system and how he is fighting for your children and your grandchildren as well as his own.

Originally they were asking for one-time donations, but some donors proposed a way of providing more protection against the ongoing threat of physical attacks, as well as attacks from the so-called justice system: Monthly donations to a fund for security, plus to keep the legal fund from going dry.

So now you have the option of an automatic monthly donation, setting whatever amount is comfortable for you. Everything goes 100% directly to Tommy Robinson.

Learn more about Tommy Robinson and donate to him here: Help Tommy Robinson.

Read some of the background of the legal and security fund for Tommy Robinson on The Gates of Vienna here.

The fundraising campaign was covered in The Huffington Post here.

Read more...

The Golden Rule in Islam

Islam's apologists say that Islam just needs a reform. After all, Christianity and Judaism have been reformed. But the apologists never get around to saying what the reform would be.

There are many kinds of reform possible to Islam, but does anyone care if they reformed prayer by praying towards LA rather than Mecca? No. The only thing that kafirs care about is how Islam treats us. We want our treatment changed. We want political Islam reformed.

Islam's treatment of us can be found in one word — kafir. The Koran says that a kafir (unbeliever) can be robbed, killed, tortured, mocked, insulted, beheaded, raped, crucified and on and on. The Hadith and the Sira agree with the Koran. Every single reference to the kafirs is negative, offensive and hateful.

The word "kafir" illustrates both of political Islam's principles — submission and duality. The Trilogy (Koran, Sira and Hadith) says that every kafir in the world must submit to political Islam.

The Koran also establishes dualism with its ethical system. A Muslim is not to kill another Muslim; a kafir may be killed, or not. A Muslim is not to lie to another Muslim; a kafir may be deceived or not. And so on. Islam has one set of ethics for Muslims and another set of ethics for the kafir — dualistic ethics.

The later political Koran written in Medina frequently contradicts the early religious Koran written in Mecca. The Koran gives a rule for removing the contradiction by saying that the later Koran "abrogates" the early Koran. But the earlier Koran is still true; it was given by Allah. So in Islam both sides of a contradiction can be true. This gives Islam its dualistic logic. Our unitary logic says that if two things contradict, then one of them is false

This dualism accounts for the two types of Muslims — the good Muslim at work and the Taliban Muslim. Both Muslims are "real" Muslims. Dualism gives the "good" Muslim plausible deniability when they say that jihadists are not "real" Islam. Dualism means the "good" Muslims and the jihadists are just two ends of the same stick.

The Koran, Sira and Hadith are filled with demands for all kafirs to submit to Islam. Kafirs can submit by joining the religion or submit by being a dhimmi (an apologist). Either way, the Koran constantly demands that all kafirs submit to Islam.

So what kafirs want to reform about Islam is its principles of political submission and duality. What principle can be used to reform Islam? The key is how Islam treats the "other" — the kafir. The Golden Rule tells us how the "other" is to be treated. Every culture in the world has the Golden Rule as part of its heritage. But not Islam.

So what happens if we apply — treat others, as you want to be treated — to political Islam? All of the hurtful, hateful and harmful duality and submission disappear. What is amazing is how much of the Islamic doctrine goes away. About 61% of the Koran disappears. The Sira loses 75% of its words and 20% of the Hadith vanishes.

And those figures are low. All of the abusive words about women would go away as well. So the above reductions would be even bigger.

The Golden Rule even changes Hell. Islamic Hell is primarily political. Hell is mentioned 146 times in the Koran. Only 9 references are for moral failings — greed, lack of charity, love of worldly success. The other 137 references to Hell involve eternal torture for not agreeing that Mohammed is right. That is a political charge, not a morals failure. Thus 94% of the references to Hell are as a political prison for dissenters. The Golden Rule would empty the political prison.

Think how wonderful a Golden Rule Islam would be. No arguments, demands, accusations, law suits, threats, pressure, hateful speech, killings, or bombings. A Muslim could even be a true friend to a kafir. Islam would develop a sense of shame and admit to the terrible suffering of the 270,000,000 kafirs killed in jihad. A Golden Rule Islam would ask forgiveness about all the suffering of the dhimmis. A Golden Rule Islam would also admit to running the slave trade in Africa by killing and capturing the slaves they sold to the white slave traders.

Women would not have to be beaten and wear the hijab or burka. Honor killings would stop. Muslims could join us in the human race.

But all of those wonderful thoughts vanish when you realize what else it would mean to Islam. Mohammed had only 150 followers in Mecca after preaching the religion for 13 years. But when he went to Medina and became a politician and warlord, he conquered all of Arabia in 9 years by averaging a violent event every 6 weeks.

Duality and political submission were the principles that gave Islam its victory. Why would Islam drop the only principles that yielded success? Duality and political submission have crushed the world that believes in the Golden Rule.

CSPI could produce a Koran, Sira and Hadith that would use the Golden Rule. It would be a thin volume, but what Muslim would buy it?

- By Bill Warner
Copyright (c) http://www.politicalislam.com/
Copy and use as needed, give us credit and don't edit.
Original article

Read more...

How to Drastically Increase the Death Count

The following is an email sent out by Stephen Decatur, an ACT for America chapter leader. We've also posted it on Inquiry Into Islam here and on Foundation for Coexistence here, so when you share it with people, they will have fewer reasons not to read it.

Some of you may have seen this article from the Inspire Guide publication issued by ISIS. It was published on June 6, 2016, and it attempts to do two things: first it congratulates the Orlando Islamic killer, and secondly it points out for the reading audience how the operation could have been handled better in order to drastically increase the death count.

While the article is despicable, it is worth reading because it gives insight into the thought process of ISIS and the support it gives to those who it “inspires” to attack the west. Our administration tells us repeatedly that ISIS is not Islamic, but ISIS begs to disagree, claiming that in fact it represents true Islam as taught in the Islamic holy books. Our administration says we are not at war with Islam, but the orthodox representatives of Islam are clearly at war with us. Remember, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey said there is not a radical Islam and a moderate Islam; he said Islam is Islam!

INSPIRE GUIDE — ORLANDO OPERATION 2016/6/17

All praise is due to Allah who said "Then fight in the way of Allah, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers." {4:84} And may the peace and blessings be upon the one who was sent by the sword until Allah alone is worshiped.

To Proceed:

In Continuation upon the path of the blessed global Jihad, whose idea was set and its spark ignited by Sheikh Osama Bin Laden — May Allah give mercy to him. The one who strengthened its roots and structuring its building through the 9/11 operation and other operations before it. And in continuation upon the call to Lone Jihad, of which the necessity of war gave rise to it, making it a significant important military means inseparable from the interests of the Ummah to pressure and defend upon the American Imperialism. And in continuation in providing support through Inspire Magazine towards this blessed call to Lone Jihad operations in the West specifically. We have and continue to provide assistance to this Jihad. And in addition to this and through its team that focuses on guidance to the Lone Mujahid, we have decided to make a new addition in support of Lone Jihad, namely: "Inspire Guide." So as to follow-up, guide, put right and correct Lone Jihad operations in order to realize the best military and political results that serve the general policy of the Mujahidin in our war with America.

Today we are witnessing the event of the Lone Jihad hero Umar Siddeq Mateen, who wrote a heroic fierce battle and martyrdom operation, which subdued America and made it live in a day of terror. And we continue to see the consequences of the operation still going on.

The Mujahid umar Mateen selected the Pulse nightclub for homosexual in Orlando city, Florida. The attack took place during the late hours of the night when the Lone Mujahid Umar opened fire his machine gun towards the unconscious drunk crowd who were under the sounds of loud Latino music.

The nightclub was packed with 350 people, 50 were killed and 53 injured. Some were taken hostage by Mateen and were later on freed by police after a fierce exchange of fire that resulted to the martyrdom of our hero. With his pure blood he drew by this blessed operation a historical battle for the Lone Mujahid that America will never forget, as they describe it to be the worst shooting incident in the history of the Unites States.

As for us, we welcome this blessed operation and call for more similar Lone Jihad operations. We stand by and support all Muslims who attack America in their homeland regardless of their affiliation to any group or loyalty. We call upon all those oppressed by America, be it a Muslim or not, to retaliate and take back their rights by any possible means (under the umbrella of Shariah) from this oppressive state.

We will try, basing on the details of this blessed operation, mention its advantages, place some observations, directions and give advice that will benefit the Lone Mujahid in future operations:

The assault operation on the Orlando nightclub can be classified as an operation of "targeting general gatherings." These kind of operations are important mainly because of the goals that can be achieved through them in our war with America. They send a direct message to the oppressive public before their government, on the reasons of the operation. Sending a message to the public that elects, supports and pays taxes to their criminal governments. Messages mentioned in the famous equation by Sheikh Usama stating, "Peace is a two way equation as you kill us you too will be killed." These messages are echoed by such operations. And if they were to be comprehended by the American public, they will eventually pressure their government to stop and prevent the oppressive polices against Muslims everywhere. Umar Mateen's operation was upon this important path and context. We call upon and continue to call for the likes of these operations that target the general populations in America (Combatant Public), who are generally at war with Islam. And when we talk of the population being at war (the combatant public), this means that we no longer view them as civilians in America.

Mentioning the most important characteristics and advantages of this operation:

First: This operation is considered to be among the most successful Lone Jihad operations, meaning that it will inspire others to wage similar operations especially because the number of those killed was too high with regard to these types of operations. Therefore every new Lone Mujahid will try to do his best to realize and attain a similar or more fatalities in his operation. And this encourages those hesitant to wage and launch their own operations, especially when they see how easy it is to execute an operation.

Second: The number of those killed in the operation was high compared to other Lone Jihad operations. And perhaps the most important reason for this was the location of the operation. It was a closed area and thus making it very easy to chase and hunt the targets.

Another reason was the timing and the state of those targeted. It was late during the night and those present in the nightclub were drunk.

A third reason was that the Lone Mujahid was well trained in handling firearms; this was because of his job in a security firm.

Third: After attacking the targets, the brother Umar was able to take many hostages and lengthen the battle for as long as possible. This enabled him to send his message better and the whole world listened to his case broader. Brother Umar was able to delay the battle for three hours until the authorities attacked with armored vehicles and put an end to the operation, they tried to free the hostages by any means possible regardless of the results. And because Umar was able to restrain the hostages in the restrooms in order to take control of the situation easily, this made it difficult for the police to attack and hunt him down and they eventually resorted to use maximum force to put an end to the situation. The uncalculated approach by the police caused injuries to some of the hostages who survived. And this can only be termed as an embarrassment to the government which prioritized ending the operation over their citizen's lives.

Fourth: Capitalizing on the means and using it well:

Umar capitalized on the means available at his reach, his machine gun, which he officially owned. He did not wait to prepare for more means to assist him in his assault; he rather used and invested well on the means readily available to him. Utilizing it well in manner and tactic, during the attack. This matter always confirms to us that the main problem is not in obtaining the weapon, but is in the conviction, determination and willpower to execute such Jihadi operations.

These are the important advantages and merits of this operation and I will try here to pause and mention some points and details of this operation and other Lone Jihad Operations in general.

First: The executer specifically chose a homosexual nightclub, and even though the killing of such people is the most binding duty and closer to human nature, but better than this is to avoid targeting areas where minorities are found. This is in order not to deviate the essence of the operation and letting it be termed as a small issue as the American media is trying to portray in the case of Mateen. The Western media focused on the testimony by Mateen's father who said that his son hates homosexuals and that terrorist ideas had no place in his motives. The media reiterated this, saying that Umar saw some homosexuals kissing each other and that such a scene offended him. The media tried to portray the operation motives to be against a particular group of people in order to turn the American public away from the real motives of the operation.

Second: Most of the individuals present at pulse nightclub were Latino. We recommend — And Allah knows best — that it is better to avoid targeting places and crowds where minorities are generally found in America, knowing that the federal government will be the one taking full responsibility. Therefore we advise targeting areas where the Anglo-Saxon community is generally concentrated. This class of the American community is the majority and it is the one that is in the American leadership.

And here we present some advice and guidelines for similar operations:

There were 350 people in the nightclub, 50 were killed, 53 injured i.e. a third were targeted and two thirds of them survived. It was possible to realize more and better results if the executer had merged and used other means in executing the operation. It is true that we call to the use of means readily available just as the Mujahid Umar Mateen did. Except that he was in a position to make simple explosive devices whose design we have already laid out in Inspire Magazine. This will result to more deaths. In the case of the Orlando attack, it was possible to place an explosive or many explosives at the center of the club and blow it up to prevent anyone from entering or exiting from and to be able to finish off anyone who was still alive. The Lone Mujahid can refer to the first and the twelfth issue of Inspire Magazine to revise on how he can use such explosives in such operations.

We finally call upon the Muslims in America to take up arms in defense of their religion and the Islamic Ummah. Lone Jihad is not monopolized by al-Qaida or any other group, therefore we call upon all active Jihadi groups, to adopt and build upon the idea of Lone Jihad and call towards it. We call upon every single Muslim in Western countries or in other countries who are able to travel to the West to follow upon the footsteps of our hero Umar Mateen and his like. To rise and strike America, the head of kufr. We ask Allah to accept our hero Mujahid brother Umar Siddeq Mateen. May Allah place him in the highest paradise with the messengers, Prophets and Martyrs.

Amin
Lone Jihad Guide Team

Read more...

One of the "Worst of the Worst Islam Haters"

The following is an excerpt from an article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali in The Observer:

Do You Know Why ISIS Kills People in Europe and America?

After the Paris attacks, we published a clear explanation of the strategy Islamic groups around the world are now using.

Most people have no idea what the purpose of these attacks is. And a clarification of the strategy changes how people see them. Understanding the purpose behind the attacks can turn fear and confusion into resolve, and that's what we need.

We've republished this explanation on Inquiry Into Islam here, and on Foundation For Coexistence here. Please share with your friends and family. Use whichever site you think they will like the most.

The name of the article is, "What Does ISIS Hope to Achieve With Random Violence?"

Read more...

I Wasn't Talking About Muslims, I Was Talking About Islam

One of the most common things you'll notice when you're talking to people about Islam is that you'll say something about Islam and they'll respond with something about Muslims.

It's really important that you stop right there and make the distinction clear. Islam is an ideology. It is written. Muslims are people. Some of them know a great deal about Islam, and some of them know almost nothing, and everywhere in between.

So when you notice someone talking about Muslims in response to you talking about Islam, say something like this:

I wasn't talking about Muslims, I was talking about Islam, the ideology. Speaking freely about religions and political systems is one of the things we do in a free society. We compare and critique philosophies, religions, political doctrines in the hopes that our discussions will bring us to better clarity and understanding.

You will rarely find a person who disagrees with that.

Read more...

Swedish Politicians Insist Islam is Compatible with Democracy

The following was written by Ingrid Carlqvist in Swedish and translated by Maria Celander. Carlqvist is a journalist and author based in Sweden, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of Gatestone Institute, and editor-in-chief of Dispatch International. 

It should not be a mystery whether Islam is compatible with democracy or not. All you have to do is look at the Islamic sources or call any imam and pretend to be impressed that Islam does not separate religion and politics.

Yet, when Gatestone Institute called Swedish politicians at all levels to ask if Islam and democracy were compatible, they gave assurances that there were no problems whatsoever with Islam's capacity for democracy — or they hung up.

The two most common answers given were:

1. Islam is definitely compatible with democracy!
2. I cannot discuss this matter right now.

The question cuts through all parties; apparently no one dares to face the facts. So far, throughout history, and now in the world's 57 Muslim countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), nowhere has Islam been compatible with democracy, freedom of speech, human rights and legal certainty. These Muslim states have not signed the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, a document Swedish politicians seem to cherish. Instead, those countries have joined the Cairo Declaration, which stipulates that sharia is the only foundation for human rights. In short, human rights are all well and good so long as they do not conflict with sharia — if they do, sharia wins. In practice, this means that in the Islamic world, there are, in the Western sense, no human rights.

Then why do Swedish politicians believe they will be able to democratize Islam? Do they know something the rest of the world does not? Or, as the alternative is so terrifying, are they just pretending?

In 1985, Sweden was still a homogenous country. There was no doubt that Sweden belonged to the Swedes. We were proud of the country that our forefathers created, and the welfare state given to us by the Social Democrats. Women in veils and men in Middle Eastern clothes did not walk the streets, and Islam was still considered exotic. It was, as the analyst Ronie Berggren recently put it, "Arabian nights, or [the children's book] Tam Sventon with his manservant, Mr. Omar, and the flying carpet. Olof Palme was still alive and Sweden thought itself a safe and functioning nation."

But in 1985, the Swedish History Museum published an anthology, "Islam: religion, culture, society," in which a diplomat, Dag Sebastian Ahlander, expressed concerns:

"Islamic immigration to Sweden can also lead to new conflicts within Swedish society. The Swedish perception is that there is freedom of religion in Sweden, but that perception is built on a private view of religion. To a Muslim, a large part of the rules regarding everyday activities is based on Islam; co-education of boys and girls, sex education, the view on the status of women, the demand that the slaughter of animals should be performed according to certain rituals, the demand that Friday should be a public holiday — all of these things are potential sources of conflict to Muslim immigrants in Swedish society, and they are all ultimately founded on religion."

Sadly, the anthology fell into oblivion. All at once, while the Swedes were busy tending their gardens or repainting their summer houses, and feeling safe in the knowledge that our politicians surely were not lying to us, Islam was everywhere. The problems sketched out by Dag Sebastian Ahlander are now affecting all of us — but still the politicians refuse to address the most basic question.

In calls to politicians, Gatestone also encountered an incantation: Islam is democratic because it has to be democratic, because what will happen to Sweden otherwise?

Many politicians are, evidently, frightened to death to talk about Islam. They seem to do everything in their power to avoid giving an answer. They claim they are the wrong person to talk to; they hang up the phone — anything to skirt a discussion.

The reason may well be that no matter what they say, everyone knows what happens to anyone who criticizes Islam — first, you get labeled an "Islamophobe racist," then, like the artist Lars Vilks, you might get a fatwa of death on your head.

Not one of the politicians or officials was able to name a single Muslim-majority country that has a decent democracy with legal certainty and freedom of speech. Not one could see any danger coming from an increasing Islamization of Sweden. Typical answers were:

"Yes, Islam is definitely compatible with democracy. At least, that is my interpretation." — Beatrice Ask, Conservative (Moderaterna), former Minister of Justice.

"Of course if you read the words in the Quran, and the movements and schools that are leading around the world, then Islam is difficult to merge with the Swedish version of democracy. But I try to avoid talking categorically about Islam as a whole. Many people have Islam as their personal faith." — Paula Bieler, Sweden Democrats.

"I have nothing against that. People can believe what they want in a democracy."— Nooshi Dadgostar, Left Party (Vänsterpartiet).

"Islam as a religion is compatible with democracy, why wouldn't it be? I don't think there is any religion not compatible with democracy. As long as you don't use religion to hurt each other, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all democratic in their basic perspective." — Jamal Mouneimne, Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterna).

"[Mehmet] Kaplan is a practicing Muslim in a democratically elected government, so of course both he and I believe Islam is compatible with democracy. He is also an anti-racist, a feminist and he stands up for human rights." — Mikaela Kotschack, Green Party (Miljöpartiet), Press Secretary for the recently resigned Mehmet Kaplan.

"I cannot answer that I'm afraid. This calls for a longer discussion, you cannot just answer yes or no to that question. ... No, the question does not make me nervous, but it demands knowledge and a longer discussion." — Larry Söder, Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna).

The civil servants, who are supposed to give the politicians more insight into current political issues, seem no more knowledgeable than the politicians. Deputy Assistant Göran Ternbo, the Government Offices' expert on democracy and human rights, was also asked if Islam is compatible with democracy:

"Eh, ah ... that's a controversial issue, it is. I don't know. You cannot be that categorical answering one way or the other. Why are you asking these questions? It feels ... where are you going with this?"

Gatestone: We just want to know what the government's view on Islam is. Are you aware of the Islamic agenda?

Ternbo: "We have freedom of religion in Sweden."

Gatestone: Can you say that Islam fits into democratic Sweden?

Ternbo: "Yes, if they follow our laws."

Gatestone: But many say they want sharia?

Ternbo: "I have never heard that."

Gatestone: Can you mention one democratic Muslim country?

Ternbo: "I do not understand where this is going. If you want to discuss Islam, I advise you to contact the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, they have experts on Islam."

Gatestone: But the politicians are filling the country with Islam right now, how does that affect Sweden's future?

Ternbo: "My job is to deal with completely different issues, so I cannot answer that. Right now, I'm working on the Nordic Sami Convention."

Gatestone: You work with human rights, have the Muslim countries accepted the UN Declaration on Human Rights?

Ternbo: "Yes, they've accepted a number of declarations, including the Cairo Declaration."

Gatestone: Does the Cairo Declaration view human rights the same way we do?

Ternbo: "I don't want to continue this discussion, it feels like an interrogation. We have freedom of religion in Sweden."

Gatestone: Is it possible to use Swedish democracy to abolish democracy?

Ternbo: "This is going too far. I have a meeting now. Goodbye."

The Swedes are highly secularized. They have never asked to be invaded by fierce religious rules. However, the huge immigration of asylum seekers, mainly from Muslim-majority countries, has turned everything the Swedes take for granted upside down — such as the idea that people mind their religious business in private, and that you can trust what other people tell you.

Can you trust what Muslim politicians are saying? In the Nordic culture, telling the truth is a virtue. The Aesir clan of the gods in Norse mythology listed nine noble virtues: courage, love of the truth, honorable living, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, confidence, diligence and endurance. In Islam, however, love of the truth does not seem to be a prominent virtue — in some circumstances, not only is lying allowed, it is compulsory to lie if it benefits Islam.

The question of whether Islam and democracy are compatible is probably the most important one that Sweden has faced in modern times. If Islam is not compatible with democracy, while the number of Muslims in Sweden grows week by week, then Sweden as a democratic country may soon be but a memory.

With their goodhearted eagerness to be inclusive, to defend freedom of religion, and not to discriminate against any group, Swedish politicians are easy prey for Islamists with an anti-democratic agenda.

Islam has its own system of justice, built on divine law (sharia); a ban on any and all criticism of Islam, and laws regulating virtually everything in everyone's life. Moreover, there seems to be no interest on the part of the newcomers in abandoning these traditions in favor of the traditions of the West.

The fact that all political parties apart from the Sweden Democrats (who are critical of immigration) have Muslim representatives might lead people to think that if there are Muslims working within our democratic system, they must be democrats.

Yet Swedish imams make no secret that in Islam, politics and religion are branches on the same tree. If you phone an imam, and say you are a Swede who has grown tired of the Swedish Church's compliance on political issues, and that you have thought about converting to Islam, you might hear, as imam Ali at the Islamic Cultural Center in Lund, said, "No, you cannot take politics out of Islam, it is a part of our religion. Islam is a complete system, which people need."

Of course, if you are critical of Islam mixing politics and religion, you will not get answers like that — the imams evidently know that such answers are not popular in Sweden — anyway, not yet.

Anyone who thinks that these candid imams might be mistaken can study the official pronouncements on the subject. In fatwa number 07166, for instance, entitled, "Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system," Sheik Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, one of the most respected scholars in Sunni Islam, writes:

"Praise be to Allaah. Firstly: Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is."

His fatwa number 98134, "Concept of democracy in Islam," states:

"Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members of Parliament). Based on that, in democracy legislative authority is given to someone other than Allah, may He be exalted; rather it is given to the people and their deputies, and what matters is not their consensus but the majority. Thus what the majority agree upon becomes laws that are binding on the nation, even if it is contrary to common sense, religious teaching or reason. In these systems legislation has been promulgated allowing abortion, same-sex marriage and usurious interest (riba); the rulings of sharee'ah have been abolished; and fornication/adultery and the drinking of alcohol are permitted. In fact this system is at war with Islam and its followers."

In fatwa number 111898, he answers a question on whether it is permissible to participate in non-Muslim, democratic elections:

"The Muslim participants should intend thereby to serve the interests of the Muslims and ward off evil and harm from them. The Muslim participants should think it most likely that their participation will have positive effects that will benefit the Muslims in that country, such as supporting their position, conveying their requests to the decision makers and those who are in charge of the country, and protecting their religious and worldly interests. The Muslim's participation in these elections should not lead to him neglecting his religious duties."

In fatwa number 178354, the Sheik is asked, "What is the ruling on one who reviles the Muslims and praises the kuffaar [infidels], and even wishes to be one of them?" He replies:

"Allah, may He be exalted, has instructed His believing slaves to love one another and to take one other as friends, and He has instructed them to hate His enemies and regard them with enmity for the sake of Allah. He has stated that friendship can only be among the believers and enmity is to be between them and the kaafirs; disavowing them is one of the basic principles of their faith and is part of perfecting their religious commitment. There are very many verses, hadeeths and comments of the early generation to that effect."

That Islam combines religion and politics, with a view to using politics to advance the religion, and further these views, which are clearly stated, appears a totally foreign concept to Swedish politicians. Perhaps this is the reason that a Turkish-born Muslim, Mehmet Kaplan, could become Minister for Housing and Urban Development, all the while rubbing shoulders with the Islamists of Turkish groups Milli Görüs and the neo-fascists of the Grey Wolves — he was convinced no one would ever question him or his agenda, as questioning him about such alliances would be considered "Islamophobic."

When pictures of him consorting with these groups were leaked to the media, a video clip also emerged in which Kaplan compared Israel's actions with the Palestinians to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews. That remark, in 2016, crossed the line for what an Islamist may say and do in Sweden. In Sweden, it is incredibly important not to question the Holocaust. Disapproval may possibly have come as a surprise to many, who perceive Sweden's Israel policy under Minister for Foreign Affairs Margot Wallström as extremely critical of Israel. Wallström and the government's criticism of Israel stems mainly from a view of Israel as the stronger party in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, and from not recognizing that the Muslims and Arabs in the larger conflict perpetually threaten genocide against Israel and the Jews.

Mehmet Kaplan's remark forced him to resign. Alas, anyone thinking that the Kaplan affair would lead to a discussion of the role of Islam in Swedish politics, is mistaken. Nothing in the public debate so far suggests that Swedish politicians will seriously start looking into a possible underlying agenda among Muslim politicians, such as that they might in fact be working to spread Islam in Sweden, as Sheik Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid encourages. Such fatwas can be found in his IslamQA.info, one of the world's most popular websites on Islam.

Mehmet Kaplan, a Turkish-born Muslim, became Sweden's Minister for Housing and Urban Development, all the while rubbing shoulders with the Islamists of Turkish groups Milli Görüs and the neo-fascists of the Grey Wolves — he was convinced no one would ever question him or his agenda, for fear that doing so would be considered "Islamophobic." Kaplan was only forced to resign in April after revelations that he compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Jan Ainali)

Mehmet Kaplan had only just resigned, when, within the Green Party, the next scandal broke. Yasri Khan, chairman of Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice, was also a would-be member of the Green Party executive committee. In a news report on Sweden's TV4, viewers watched in amazement as Khan refused to shake the female reporter's hand. Was a man who did this really a good representative for the "feminist" Green Party?

When the Green Party's spokesman, Gustav Fridolin, tried to explain Khan's actions and why he had been recommended for the party's executive, he only made matters worse. On a morning television show, Fridolin said that he "did not understand that women could feel so offended by someone refusing to shake hands." The same evening, Fridolin apologized for the apology.

The Green Party may be the easiest party in which Islamists can act as entryists. The party appears particularly fond of physical diversity and seems willing to accept just about anybody who appears to be not an ethnic Swede. Possibly the Green Party never counted on the Swedish people, including their own constituents, having a completely different view of religion, politics, gender equality and handshakes.

After these scandals, the scholar Lars Nicander of the Swedish Defense University warned inAftonbladet that the Green Party might have been infiltrated by Islamists:

"I see a resemblance with how the Soviet Union acted during the Cold War, when it tried to infiltrate various democratic parties, and these methods are similar to what we see today, when people close to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist party, apparently have gotten a strong foothold within the Green Party."

A few days later, the Social Democratic politician Nalin Pekgul, a Kurdish Muslim, told the public-service Sveriges Television that she believes the Green Party is rife with Islamists: "The Green Party has for a long time become an arena for many Islamists to involve themselves in. That is the party where they have been strongest and most successful."

She also said that while other parties have been exposed to Islamists, the Green Party has been affected the most:

"The Islamists in the Green Party are members of the party executive, they are in City Halls around the country, in the District Councils, and they have friends in the Government Offices who push their issues and make sure their organizations get lots of money."

The key issue is what, if any, lesson Swedish politicians have learned from the Islamist revelations this spring. If Sweden is to survive as a secular democracy, then all politicians need to understand what Islam actually is. The fact that there are democratic Muslims does not mean that Islam itself is compatible with democracy. Individual Muslims may make a distinction between politics and religion, but this does not mean that Islam accepts this division. The question is where the democratic Muslims will be when Islam has gained even more influence in Sweden: Will they stand up for Swedish democracy if that means openly going against the tenets of Islam?

In 2009, the year before the Sweden Democrats party entered parliament, party leader Jimmie Åkesson published an opinion piece, headlined "The Muslims are our greatest foreign threat," in the newspaper Aftonbladet:

"This is the reason today's multicultural Swedish power elite is so totally blind to the dangers of Islam and Islamization. The presumption is that Muslims want nothing more than to adapt to a Western way of life and Western values, and that Islam is essentially the same as Christianity, the only difference being that Muslims have another name for God. Thus, the presumption is also that Islam can be tamed, the same way secular forces have tamed European Christianity and relegated it to the private sphere."

Åkesson further wrote that Islam has affected the Swedish society to a much higher degree than Swedish society has affected Islam. He listed several areas where Islam has made an impact. People who have made fun of Islam are forced to live under constant police protection; Muslim terrorist organizations are growing stronger; Muslim representatives are demanding sharia laws; taxpayer money is being spent on circumcising baby boys; public swimming pools separate men and women; demands for halal meat at supermarkets while schools should no longer serve pork, and so on.

Not even the Sweden Democrats seem to have focused on Islam's demands for political influence. Party leader Jimmie Åkesson asked what things will look like in another few decades, when the Muslim population has increased several times over, and cities such as Malmö most likely have a Muslim majority. He concluded the article with a promise:

"The multicultural societal elites may see this future as a colorful, interesting change for a Sweden and a Europe one usually denies has ever been 'Swedish' or 'European'. As a Sweden Democrat, I see this as our greatest foreign threat since World War II, and I promise to do everything in my power to reverse this trend when we go to the polls next year."

Åkesson's article ignited a firestorm. Members of the "establishment" swore they had never read anything so vile, and the article was reported to the Chancellor of Justice as suspected "hate speech." However, the Chancellor at the time, Göran Lambertz, did not open an investigation into the case. He noted that the law allows for "criticism of ethnic groups or circumstances pertaining to those groups."

"There is no doubt whatsoever that this does not cross the line for criminal behavior. You are allowed to say a lot of things that can be considered offensive and annoying and in many ways unpopular. That goes with freedom of speech."

Seven years have passed. The Muslim population of Sweden is approaching one million (out of 9.8 million inhabitants), but even the Sweden Democrats do not mention a threat from Islam.

But whether the politicians' unwillingness to discuss a threat stems from ignorance or fear, to answer a question by hanging up the phone is simply not good enough. It is the politicians who have filled the country with Islam, and the Swedish people have a right to know the result. Above all, they have a right to demand that the politicians know the consequences of their decisions for the Swedes, who are secular and who love their democracy.

Read more about what's happening in Sweden here.

Read more...