Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-West. Pro-Israel.

Home      Blog      About      Contact



Islam - Islam in the West

  Muslim immigration

Fascist refugees

Is there any threat to our liberties?


"Moderate" Muslims in the west

Islam in the US


Islamic attacks on the West

Islam in the UK

Islam in Ireland

Sharia law in the West


Islamist nightmares

Islam in the West

Since the 1950s, Islam has been growing in the West, mainly by immigration. Most immigrants come to the West precisely because they support its freedoms and want to escape failed states ruled by clerics and Islamic dictators. We have a duty to let these freedom-loving Muslims in. There is an upside to doing so:

  1. Western Muslims are the most liberal, tolerant, pro-democracy Muslims in the world. All the dissidents are here - the religious dissidents, the political dissidents, the feminist dissidents, and the gay dissidents. All the dissident works - such as criticism of Islam and Islamism - are published in the West.

  2. There is an argument that if there is ever to be an Islamic Reformation, it will come from the western Muslims, who are free to speak and question, rather than from the Muslims living in unfree states.

But there is a substantial minority (10-20 percent) of immigrants who threaten our western freedoms. What to do about these aggressors is one of the questions of our time.

Islam v. the West.
Photo in the English Garden, Munich, on a hot summer's day in 2010.
Actually, it's not so much that the immigrant women dress like this. It is that they have to dress like this, or they will face consequences, up to and including death.
Amazing picture from Blick newspaper. From here.

Islamic terror attacks on the West since 1968

Muslim immigration

I suspect that Islamic fundamentalism will eventually collapse in its home countries due to the Internet, TV and "cultural imperialism".

The idea that Islamic fundamentalist immigrants could come to the West and eventually threaten our freedoms I find a bit far-fetched.

My instinct is fairly pro-immigration, for many reasons:

  1. I believe human rights and western freedoms are universal, and all races can participate.
  2. Around the world, millions of people who live in tyrannies long for freedom and democracy. We have a duty to give pro-democracy activists, anti-communist dissidents, anti-Islamist dissidents and western freedom-lovers a haven. The west is the natural place for them to set up their opposition parties, newspapers, websites and governments-in-exile, which we should support.
  3. We have a duty to give a haven to people fleeing genocide and persecution.
  4. I believe free movement of people, like free trade, is good for the economy. Skilled people move where the work is. Attempts to stop this are like protectionism, and restrict the economy. (However, this does not hold if the immigration is unskilled and unambitious, and it may be that much actual immigration in Europe does not help the economy.)
  5. I despise anti-immigration movements that are based on ethnic purity. Some of the paleo-conservatives seem to be in or near this territory. I think the desire for ethnic purity is one of the single worst ideas in human history. My country, the Republic of Ireland, is far too ethnically pure already, having lost most of its ancient Protestant and Anglo-Irish population. In general, ethnic purity is a sign of failure. Immigration is a sign of success.

Having said all that, there is one troubling issue:

  1. How about letting in people who hate you and threaten you? To oppose immigration per se (or be against all immigrants once they are in) seems racist to me. But the western left ignores the fact that immigrants may hate western freedoms, and want to end them, and force their primitive, barbarous ideas on me. Obviously, not all immigrants have been threatening like this, so we must be careful to focus on the ones who have issued such threats. At the moment this category consists almost entirely of Islamists who openly want to destroy our freedom and some day set up sharia law in Europe.

My response to the existence of such appalling people is as follows:

  1. Let in freedom-lovers, exclude freedom-haters. - Yes, I agree that people who hate western freedoms should not be allowed in. Islamist activists should not be let in, even if they are being persecuted. West-haters can be hard to identify on arrival, though. You need to be careful that your rules and checks do not exclude democracy-loving Muslims who are fleeing Islamist religious states. These are exactly the people you want to let in.

      • Islam v. Islamism makes the same point, about how many Muslims and ex-Muslims in the West are our allies: "Remember that most Muslims who emigrated to the United States did so to get away from "cultures" and "societies" (I use the terms very loosely) like the ones that are described below, much as Judeo-Christian immigrants came here to get away from European monarchies, religious despotisms, and feudal lords."

  2. Deport freedom-haters. - Inevitably, you will let in some freedom-haters by accident. If they are serious, they will eventually do something, at which point they can be identified. Then you have the problem of: Can they be deported? After all, native born people are allowed hate the west. Are we making immigrants second-class citizens, with less freedom of speech than natives? It's certainly a difficult issue. I think they can be deported, on the grounds that letting them in was clearly an error at the time. So I think, yes, an immigrant can be a second-class citizen in this sense for n years, until they have proved they are not an enemy of the country. This is not a restriction that will bother any immigrant who does not actually hate the west.

    Native born people cannot be deported, even if they hate the west and its freedoms. They must be first-class citizens. In a free society, we tolerate citizens who hate tolerance and want to end it. We have free speech for people who want to end free speech, such as fascists, communists and Islamists. But the point is: We can be relaxed about this when they are powerless cranks. But what if there is a growing number of such people who want to end freedom? My response would be that we should still have free speech, but a free society has every right to try to survive. It must do everything possible to reduce the numbers of such people, and not let any more in.

    • Germans to put Muslims through loyalty test - The German state of Baden-Wurttemberg is to test whether incoming Muslims believe in western values of religious freedom and a tolerant society. If not, they are denied citizenship. Even better, if you answer the test correctly, but it is found out later that you do not really believe in western values, you can have your citizenship removed. Those who support 9/11 will be denied citizenship. This is the future. This is what all of Europe should do. If immigrants do not believe in western values of tolerance and freedom, they should not be let in to Europe.
    • Plain-talking quotes from Australian leaders: "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you."

Fascist refugees

Be kind to them and let them in, and they will bomb you.

Islamic Fascism in Belgium:
Abu Imran (Fouad Belkacem) of "Shariah4Belgium" declares that he wants to basically destroy all of Belgium. Well what a lovely immigrant to have!
He says he will demolish the Atomium.
I notice that this barbarian uses infidel inventions like video, however. And did I spot a mobile phone? What a vile hypocrite.
From here.

Islamic Fascism in Holland:
Den Haag Connection (DHC), a Moroccan immigrant fascist rap group in Holland.
(The very idea that immigrants might be fascists never occurred to anyone promoting mass immigration in the 1960s and 1970s.)
"Fuck them Jews, those dirty Jews, the immigrants will come to kill you ... Jews must be killed. Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."

Islamic Fascism in Norway:
The disgusting "Peace Conference Scandinavia 2013" organised by Islam Net in Norway, March 2013.
The audience all say they are regular Muslims, not extremists. And then they all declare support for segregation of men and women, sharia law (death for gays and apostates) and stoning for adultery. They declare that all of Islam is extremist like this, not just a fringe.
It is a thoroughly depressing video.
However, there is a counter argument. Which is that only an extremist Muslim would go to an Islam Net conference.

It is comic really:
Sharia transforms countries into shitholes.
Muslims then leave those countries to go to countries that actually work.
Then some of them try to introduce sharia in those countries, so they can wreck them as well.
Found here.

Is there really any threat to our liberties?

Will Muslim immigrants really threaten our liberties? I'm fairly relaxed so far, but that situation may of course change. West-hating immigrants have achieved little so far, though there are some worrying signs:

Islamic defacement of posters

Muslim immigrants and rape

Because they come from a culture in which many forms of rape are acceptable, there are many Muslim clerics in the West who justify rape. There is also some evidence that Muslim immigrants are over-represented in rape statistics.

Islam and rape in Australia

Australia in particular seems to have a problem with Muslim immigrants committing and defending rape. There have been a number of high profile cases.

Australian rape-apologist Feiz Muhammad calls for Geert Wilders (and indeed all critics of Islam) to be killed.
He absurdly claims that Muhammad is "the greatest man that walked this earth".
This enemy cleric is now back in Australia.

The comedy show "The Chaser's War on Everything" have a great, light-hearted, Australian response to the humourless Islamofascist freak Taj El-Din Hilaly (of "uncovered meat" fame).
Laugh at the Islamist with the "Mufti Muzzler".
Search for more: And here.

Libyan sex attacker Almahde Atagore could be a poster boy for the screwed up attitudes to sex in Islam.
He got a Libyan government scholarship to study in Australia.
He was "upset and sexually aroused at the way women in Australia dressed and behaved".
So he started sexually assaulting them.
"Atagore told police he didn't know the country's laws prevented women being assaulted."
He got 5 years in jail, and when released will be deported.
Image from here from The West Australian.


Even if freedom-hating immigrants never succeed in actually changing our laws, there is another threat, which is that of sporadic violence and terrorism. Importing Muslims means inevitably importing some jihadis. Even if you only let in freedom-loving, democracy-loving Muslims (as discussed above), their children may be jihadis. This seems to be the case with the 2005 London bombings. The simple act of letting in Muslims at all increases the number of jihadis who will try to kill you.

Tragically, it seems that the second London bombing attack of 2005 was by refugees, on the country that took them in. They came to Britain as child refugees from war-torn Africa. And they repaid British generosity by trying to slaughter its people.

The 2013 Boston bombing was by refugees.

I have no answer for this. If the war against the jihad escalates, we may have to stop all Muslim immigration, including those fleeing persecution. I hope to god it never comes to this awful scenario.

"Moderate" Muslims in the west

As I said above, it is true that the west is the heartland of truly moderate Islam. Western Muslims are far more moderate than Muslims in the Islamic world. There are millions of Muslims and lapsed Muslims in the west who believe in democracy and freedom, and are in the west precisely because they do not wish to live under Islamic law.

At the same time, many Muslim leaders promoted by the media as "moderate" Muslims turn out to be anything but. Sometimes, hate-filled extremist jihadis, such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, are simply described as "moderate". More often, "moderates" turn out to be religious ultra-conservatives who have crackpot views on Israel and America, and who seem incapable of condemning Islamism. Certainly, nobody who believes in Islamic law, or subscribes in any way to Islamism, could possibly be described as a "moderate". Nobody who supports attacks on Israeli civilians could possibly be described as a "moderate". Any time I hear the left describe some Muslim, such as Tariq Ramadan, as a "moderate", I now assume they are lying.

And finally, it is also true that 10-20 percent of western Muslims do support the global jihad.

Opinion polls of Muslims in the West

Supposed "moderate" Muslims

Actually moderate Muslims

What I mean by actually moderate Muslims (as opposed to the fake "moderates" so often promoted) are Muslims who oppose Islamism.

Islam in the US

Classic: Anti-CAIR posters by AFDI, 2014.


Survey of ISNA members

Survey of ISNA members, Sept 2006 is really disturbing:

5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 117
NO 139

6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 200
NO 70

7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 106
NO 151

8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
REAL 126
FAKE 129

9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 140
NO 104

15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:

a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
YES 37
NO 258

b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
YES 43
NO 255

c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
YES 64
NO 232

d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
YES 35
NO 258

e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
YES 52
NO 242

Surveys of American Muslims


Edina Lekovic was Managing Editor of student magazine "Al-Talib" in July 1999 when it praised Bin Laden and jihad.
This was just two years before Bin Laden attacked New York on 9/11.
The above two extracts appear on the same page.
The front cover is below.
See full pages: From Steven Emerson.
Edina Lekovic replies, and absurdly claims that the inclusion of her name is "a printing mistake", despite the fact that she contributed to "Al-Talib" many times over a long period from 1997 to 2002.

The cover of the above 1999 issue praises jihad, Bin Laden and Khomeini.

Hamas On Campus shows the links of the Muslim Students' Association (MSA) (also here) to terrorism:

Anwar al-Awlaki

The "moderate" who was invited to the Pentagon - and was later killed by the Pentagon.

The wealthy Americanised Yemeni Islamofascist Anwar al-Awlaki shows how western governments often have difficulty telling who their enemies are.

For Muslims, Benevolence Is Prevailing Over Backlash, October 6, 2001.
Washington Post article about a largely imaginary "backlash" against Muslims in America after 9/11.
One innocent, well-meaning American, Patricia Morris, organised a vigil outside Anwar Al-Awlaki's mosque in Virginia to defend it.
Sadly, later, Anwar Al-Awlaki had to be killed by a drone attack.

In 2001, just after 9/11, an innocent, well-meaning American, Patricia Morris, organises a vigil outside Anwar Al-Awlaki's mosque in Virginia to defend it.
She is unaware that some of the 9/11 hijackers were actually linked to the mosque, and that Al-Awlaki himself was probably involved in 9/11. No wonder he's smiling!
Later, Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike.
See full size at Washington Post.

From here.
Hilarious reply from here.

Islam in the UK (separate page)

Islam in Ireland (separate page)

Sharia law in the West (separate page)

Islamophobia (separate page)


I'd rather end on an optimistic note. I don't think Islamic fundamentalism is going to triumph in the west. I think democracy is going to triumph in the Islamic world.

I think Islamic fundamentalism is far more under threat than western ideas are. Which is not to say that Islamic fundamentalists won't cause a lot more death before they exit history. But exit they will, just as the entire, bloodthirsty Christian medieval world is gone. Just as the entire Soviet world is gone. Democracy is unstoppable.

American Muslim radical Carlos Almonte is typical of the sinister, yet also pathetic, nature of the modern Western jihadi.
Almonte was raised Catholic, converted to Islam, and somehow got the idea that it is supposed to be violent.
This is a genuine photo of Dec 2008 where he protests in New York with a misspelled sign. See original shots here and here.
He is both comical and sinister. He said he wanted to kill non-Muslims for not worshipping a being called "Allah", who exists only in his head: "It's already enough that you don't worship Allah, so ... that's a reason for you to die."
In Mar 2011, he pleaded guilty to Islamic terrorism charges (not related to this protest). He will be sentenced in June 2011, and apparently will get at least 15 years.

The Forward Strategy of Freedom:

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. The advance of freedom is the calling of our time"

President George W. Bush, Nov 2003.
Bush understands the "root cause" of 9/11 - the lack of freedom in the Middle East.

Feedback form

Enter a URL for me to look at:
Enter this password:

See explanation. You cannot enter comments or send email. All you can do is enter a web address (a URL) for me to look at. You can put your comments at that address.

Politics      Religion      Politics feeds      Religion feeds      Maps      Since 1995.

Banned in Iran: This site is banned in Iran.

Blocked on Twitter: I am blocked on Twitter by George Galloway and Owen Jones and Mo Ansar and Charles Johnson and Carlos Latuff and Maryam Namazie and CAGE and Alaa Abd El Fattah and Aziz Poonawalla and Andy Kindler and Ali Abunimah and David Sheen and Mick Wallace and Mary Fitzgerald and Frank McDonald and Joanna Kiernan and Allan Cavanagh and Umar Al-Qadri. What a shower. Islamists and Islamic right-wing conservatives. And their western leftist enablers and fellow-travellers.

Who I block: I will debate almost anyone. I love ideas. I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following: (a) Make threats. (b) Accuse me of crimes. (c) Comment on my appearance. (d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.) (e) Complain to my employer. Yes, people do all these things.