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:
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.
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.
For me, Islamic fundamentalism is under siege
in its home countries,
and will eventually lose out to democracy and freedom.
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 totally pro-immigration, for many reasons:
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.
We have a duty to give a haven to people
fleeing genocide and persecution.
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:
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:
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."
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.
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:
UK survey
claims that
women married to men of Muslim background
are 8 times more likely to be killed by their husbands
than other women.
Is this true?
If you have evidence to the contrary, tell me here.
The Conflict at Home
- Immigrants in the west are denied education
and forced into marriage
- and the western left doesn't care.
When Islam Breaks Down, Spring 2004
- "Here, for once,
are instances of unadulterated female victimhood, yet the silence of the
feminists is deafening. Where two pieties - feminism and
multiculturalism - come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is
.. silence."
"Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself,
for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world.
Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical.
Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."
-
Feiz Muhammad, 2005.
"Jews are pigs that will be killed at the end of the world"
- Feiz Muhammad.
This ranting Islamist preacher was born in Egypt, yet shamefully he was allowed into Australia,
despite the fact that he hates western values and wants to destroy them.
See transcript
(and here):
"In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime,
I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life.
Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered,
the cat wouldn't have snatched it.
...
If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.
If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen."
A 23-year-old Syrian-born immigrant to New Zealand defends the cleric:
"The argument that men should control themselves is ludicrous.
It is just like saying thieves should not rob houses whose doors and windows are left wide open."
I would deport this young man without hesitation.
Such an immigrant should not be allowed into any western country.
Letting him in was clearly a mistake.
I would deport the cleric too.
Letting him in was also clearly a mistake.
If you don't believe in western values, you shouldn't be allowed in.
More quotes from this prick:
"The Jews' struggle with humanity is as old as history itself".
"September 11 is God's work against oppressors."
The Holocaust is a "Zionist lie".
Why do feminists support disgusting, rape-defending men like this,
instead of supporting their enemies?
Rapes by Muslim immigrants:
There is some evidence in Europe of an unusually large number of
rapes by Muslim immigrants of native European women.
The cultural attitudes illustrated above would certainly help to explain this,
as they make excuses for the
rape by frustrated males of
scantily-dressed infidel women.
Police report 2005:
In 2004, non-western immigrants were 14 percent of Oslo's population,
but 65 percent of its rapists.
80 percent of victims were native Norwegian women.
Police report 2010:
Every single assault rape
in Oslo in 2006-09
was by a non-western immigrant.
That's 100 percent of assault rapes.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Nada Roude
is a conservative religious Muslim from Lebanon,
who moved to Australia in childhood.
She says that criticism of
the alleged prophet Muhammed is a
"no-go zone".
About her religion's alleged "prophets", she says:
"They are not just like you and me,
they have special status - you're supposed to show respect.
There have to be boundaries in how far you go in respecting other's beliefs."
If this is what she thinks, then she does not belong in the West.
She does not understand our civilization,
and maybe, rather than trying to end our ancient, hard-won freedoms,
she should instead move somewhere
more suitable
for her primitive beliefs about free speech
and the place of religion in society.
It's illegal to criticise alleged prophets in much of the Middle East, for example.
Actually moderate Muslims
What I mean by actually moderate Muslims
(as opposed to the fake "moderates" so often promoted)
are Muslims who oppose Islamism.
Profile:
"My modest hopes are to create the determining factors needed to create a reformation
and enlightenment for Islam. That may sound ambitious.
But the people who are needed to create the conditions needed for that are us
- the Moslems of the West.
My ambitions are - apart from making integration less painful - to show that Islam and democracy
can be made to be compatible.
If the Moslems of the West can not reform Islam, nobody can."
"It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state
and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago"
"as a parent I feel a responsibility to fight, so that my children will not have to live
under Islamist dogmas. They shall be able to live free in this country."
"Mr Tahmasebi adds that he believes the imams
are one of the biggest problems Denmark
is facing today."
"Indeed, there are indications that the main culprits for the integration problems
are the imams, who tend to be much more extremist than many of the ordinary Muslims."
Since Danish imams toured the Middle East with
three fake Mohammed cartoons (see bottom of page)
to try to incite hatred and violence against Denmark,
Denmark is finally waking up:
"I believe it has become obvious that the imams are not the people we should be listening to
if we want integration in Denmark to work",
says the Danish Integration Minister. Hurray!
5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 117
NO 139
UNDECIDED 51
6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 200
NO 70
UNDECIDED 37
7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 106
NO 151
UNDECIDED 50
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
UNDECIDED 52
9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 140
NO 104
UNDECIDED 63
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
UNDECIDED 12
b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
YES 43
NO 255
UNDECIDED 9
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
UNDECIDED 11
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
UNDECIDED 14
e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
YES 52
NO 242
UNDECIDED 13
Just as the Irish in Britain were of little use against the IRA,
and just as the "good Germans" were of little use in WW2,
so western Muslims will be of little use in this war.
They don't like the jihad, but will make no attempt to fight it,
and have only criticism for those who do.
10 percent of western Muslims will help fight this war.
10 percent will fight for the enemy.
80 percent will sit on the fence, and then, when the war is over,
will be perfectly happy with the allied victory.
The only possible defence that could be made is that
ISNA
is more radical
than most western Muslims.
Midwest Lutherans Largely Reject Violence, May 23, 2007 - Parody of our reaction to these polls.
We expect moderate levels of support for violence and terror from the Muslim community,
whereas this would be unthinkable in any other religious group.
"By an almost two-to-one margin, Midwest Lutherans
voiced solid opposition to decapitation, suicide bombing,
and chemical warfare in a new comprehensive survey of their social attitudes.
...
"If there is one headline here, it's how remarkably moderate the Lutheran community is,"
said Pew director Andrew Kohut of the survey
...
Kohut pointed to one of the study's key findings that
only 29% of all respondents agreed that "bloody, random violence against infidels"
was "always" or "frequently" justified,
versus 56% who said such violence was "seldom" or "never" justified.
The approval of violence rose slightly among younger Lutherans
and when the hypothetical violence was targeted against Presbyterians,
but still fell well short of a majority."
"Although a majority 87% of respondents agreed that "The world should be brought to submission under global Lutheran conquest and eternal perfect rule," there was a great deal of disagreement on the means to accomplish it.
...
"Taken as a whole, the results show that Midwest Lutherans
emphatically support a moderate, mainstream path to world domination," said Kohut.
"These folks are well-assimilated into the broad fabric of American society,
and unless you are Presbyterian, there is probably very little here to cause concern.""
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.
Al Qaeda understand
- article on the book,
"The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad"
by Yussuf al-Ayyeri of Al Qaeda.
He writes that
their mortal enemy is not America, or the Jews.
It is secular democracy.
Secular democracy will destroy their world.
He does not pretend to love human freedom or human rights.
He says he hates them.
He writes as if he was invented by American hawks to prove their point.
But he is just being honest.
- "If
democracy comes to Iraq, the next target ..
would be the whole of the Muslim world",
he writes.
Odd that the dark forces of Al Qaeda understand exactly
what their enemy is trying to do,
while their idiot sympathisers
in the west don't.
"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.
This is why I support George W. Bush
- because he believes in bringing freedom to the whole world,
at a time when the left has abandoned that dream
(and even opposes it).
As Oliver Kamm
puts it, Bush is a classic 18th century liberal.
He is what modern liberals should be:
"George W. Bush .. is
.. the principal heir to a progressive tradition that regards political
liberty as universal and that considers the first task of foreign policy
to be to spread it rather than overlook its absence. He is accordingly a theorist,
spokesman and figurehead for the ideals of the
liberal Left; he merits the gratitude of those of us who would adhere to them."
Globalizing Democracy
by Stephen Schwartz
- "President Bush has restored to the
Republican party its rightful legacy as a party of liberation"
Just like Reagan's wonderful
"Evil Empire" speech,
Bush's words bring hope to millions in the unfree world.
An Iraqi blogger responds to the speech
- "Many people ask whether we have heard the President's speach. Yes we have.
Immediately the Chorus of
AlJazeera,
Al Arabiya, etc.
and amazingly, CNN, BBC etc,
started their spoiling,
doubt-semming, bitchy insinuations
...
Pretending to be objective, pretending to be "balanced", they try their best to kill
the joy that the shining reassuring words bring to our frightened hearts."
Bush describes the glorious collapse of the Soviet tyranny,
and the spread of democracy over the last 20 years:
"As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world".
And he blasts us with optimism:
"and I can assure you more are on the way."
Keysar Trad, spokesman for al-Hilali, denounced as "racist", "offensive" and "untruthful" by Australian Supreme Court, 1 Aug 2009.
Since 1995.
