“Islamophobia is a term created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”
Can we acknowledge that wishing something was true is completely different from it actually being so? Can we further accept that it is entirely possible that other people, in other parts of the world, have a radically different set of values when compared to ours? And that if these two disparate propositions are viable, imprinting our moral outlook onto the actions of these other people and imagining that they should behave in a way that is compatible with what we believe is monumentally stupid? Because it clearly is. They don't believe what we believe; they believe what they believe, so they will behave in accordance with their values, not ours – no matter how much effort we put into shoving our fingers into our ears and squeezing our eyes shut. We may wish they had our values, but they don't. It's really that simple and yet we still pretend otherwise.
The Western model (the one that is being dismantled before our very eyes) is based on the individual. The subject of this offering, Islam, is based on the collective. And with Islam the progressive's antipathy to religion – which, in reality, is only an antipathy towards those religions which hold that individual rights are God-given – is waived. The Left is fine with Islam. And Islam is the second-most practiced religion in the world, with around 1.8 billion adherents, a number that is expected to swell to nearly 2.8 billion by 2050 which, given that the Christian West's catastrophic demographic arc, will likely make it the world's largest religion by mid-century.
But there is a huge difference between what is a nominally Christian population, few of whom practice their religion which is, in any case, separate from state power, and the Muslim peoples. We are intentionally obtuse on this score, as we are when we speak of Islam as a 'peaceful religion' which is given a bad rep by 'extremists'. We are commanded to reject 'Islamophobia' and instead sing Hosannas in praise of our Muslim brothers and sisters. This is a mistake and a potentially catastrophic one at that. Islam is not a religion of peace and Muslims do not share our values. The end goal of Islam is a worldwide Islamic Caliphate; this intent is not solely the intent of the jihadist but, by definition, is the goal of all Muslims.
Furthermore, Islam is not practiced as an abstraction, as a set of personal values that inform an individual's morality. Islam and the state are intended to be inseparable. Even the nominally secular Muslim countries practice a version of sharia law, certainly for the majority Muslim population itself.(1) Islam is not merely a religion, “but a cultural, political, and military system of conquest through violence, stealth, or both.”(2) And that quote isn't from some trenchant Western critique of Islam; it's from a former jihadist.
Surveys consistently find that most Muslims believe that sharia is not simply a body of law which man has created and which reflects the will of God, but is instead the revealed word of God Himself.(3) Generally, they are more on board with the family law provisions of sharia and slightly less keen on cutting the hands of thieves off and executing apostates, which somewhat contradicts their belief in its divine provenance, although the most enthusiastic advocates of sharia corporal punishment are Palestinian Arabs.
Sharia is Mohammad's law, created by him and practiced by him. It's not the invention of extremists that came after him, nor a result of aberrant interpretation. And the fact that, in most Muslim countries, various legal hurdles must be surmounted before an Islamic court passes judgement, does not alter the fundamentals, but does provide a clue as to the true nature of the religion, specifically (for now) in relation to women, to homosexuals and unbelievers (infidels).
Although many Muslims deny that husbands may beat their wives (historical revisionism is endemic within the Islamic world), it's right there in the Quran – Sura 4:34.
“4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them.”(4)
“Fearing high-handedness” is a form of words that is amorphous enough to permit a wide variety of interpretations and proving that a husband had no such belief is unlikely to be an easy task. Mohammad himself beat his girl-bride, which makes it permissible for his followers to do likewise.(5) Generally, the more closely sharia is followed, the fewer rights enjoyed by women. As it is, Muslim women are already second-class citizens. And a Muslim woman becomes a woman at nine years of age. The following are the words of an Iranian 'woman':
“For the next 9 years, I would suffer terrible cruelty under Islam. Rape, lashings, arrests and beatings were my life because I was regarded as property to be “handled” rather than a human being to be loved. During those nine years, I was sold into marriage to a much older man who abused me terribly. A bruised body and broken bones became a common reality for me, and there was little I could do to stop it. Divorce was not an option. Islamic law offers women little support in abusive marriages.”(6)
Except a wife cannot be raped by a husband under sharia law.(7) And a husband may take several wives. But there are others who are even less favored. Homosexuals (or, more accurately, those who are even suspected of being gay) are to be executed either by being burnt alive, having a wall pushed on to them or by being “thrown headlong from the highest summit”(8), the method favored by Hamas, who force suspected gays into base jumps off high rise buildings in Gaza without the benefit of a parachute.(9) Adulterers are to be stoned to death (Mohammad himself took part in at least one such murder)(10), apostates are also to be killed if they refuse to repent (11) and aggressive and unjust jihad is an obligation. In just ten years in Medina, the Prophet instigated seventy four raids or wars.(12)
The conquered were enslaved (women and children) and everyone else could be tortured and/or killed unless they converted to Islam. Once again, Mohammad himself engaged in torture and murder of rivals and those who mocked him (including poets and singing girls)(13) and 600-900 Qurayza Jews in Medina in 627AD who were beheaded,(14) thus wiping out an entire tribe. Arguments about the authority upon which this atrocity was justified are redundant, given Mohammed's claim to be the last and true voice of God, using Gabriel as an intermediary. As such, the Quran abrogates the New Testament which must yield to God's updated guidance, which is intended to clear up Christians' 'muddled thinking', by reverting to Old Testament-style brutality and vengeance.
Modern apologists and Islamic scholars are prone to re-interpreting whole swathes of sharia and it is certainly true that there are contradictions that allow for a variety of teaching. However,
“...knowledgeable Muslims will point out that Allah prohibits inhumanness, but it is just a semantic juggling of well known contradictions in Islam’s holy texts, the Quran and Hadith. To Muslims’ delight, the Quran — like any other foundational text in all religions — has so many inconsistencies that one could find opposite opinions about hot subjects.”(15)
And proportionality matters:
"The Islamic Doctrine consists of the Quran (14%) which stipulates that "there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger," Sira, Mohammad's biography (26%) and the Hadith, traditions, (60%) The two different Qurans, the Mecca Quran and the Medina Quran have been combined into one. About sixty one percent of the contents of the Quran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for the violent conquest; at best only 2.6% of the verses of the Quran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About 75% of Mohammad's biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers."(16)
Whatever one may think of the diverse system of thought that is Hinduism, or the central figures in Judaism and Christianity, one can say that peace and goodwill are prominent themes in those religions and that there is some degree of discernible cogency. That's not something that is found in Islam or in the character of Mohammad. He comes across as a thin-skinned narcissistic, sociopathic snake oil salesman who justified his excesses by claiming that God told him do stuff.
He robbed, killed and took thirteen wives (Muslims are limited to four, so he granted himself a waiver), one of whom was 6 or 7 years old at the time.(17) These are facts that are not in dispute. Jesus reportedly lost his temper once, when overturning the money lender's tables in the Temple. Mohammad was considerably less sanguine. He was a man of his time and location, but Islam is not an advance on Christianity, nor does it bear any resemblance to the latter's belief system.
If there is a God, it seems extremely unlikely that 'turning the other cheek' would have mutated into 'kill the unbeliever'. Much more believable is the possibility that Mohammad cherry-picked what was useful to him and made up the rest to further advance his cause. And these last two paragraphs mean I fall foul of yet one more offence against Islam – criticism of the religion is also punishable, with penalties up to and including death (see Charlie Hebdo).
Religious tolerance – more accurately described as a weak-kneed unwillingness to defend one's own beliefs – is a character trait that is notable by its absence within jihadist ranks (and yes, I will obviously revisit the extremist/moderate dialectic). Any non-Muslim is an infidel deserving of summary slaughter, which is delivered without even the pretense that an opportunity to recant has been provided. As you can now see, this is not a secret although it is knowledge that is hidden from us and whose existence is denied.
But I am not expressing some deep insight that is beyond the grasp of ordinary mortals. The religion of Islam is, explicitly, a murderer's charter. 'Moderate' Muslims are slackers. In fact they are backsliding slackers, traitors to the cause. Yes, they can point to passages in the Quran, the Sira (Mohammad's biography) or the Hadith that support their views, but they know that only a small percentage of Islamic texts could be said to speak well of humanity and the vast majority of them are aligned with the jihadist interpretation. In the West, these 'moderates' would be found among the milquetoast sheople that infest our societies and they would be regarded as either traitors or useful idiots that should be left in place, the better to obscure Islam's true purpose.
The Western dynamic, which features a similarly sociopathic cohort (but on the Far Left), also has large numbers who say that they aren't on board with extremism, but who sit on their hands while simultaneously burying their heads. The difference is that Islam is also home to a not-so-silent majority, who actively approve of the atrocities served up by the zealots, amply demonstrated by the recent polling of 668 Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank which showed that 75% of them supported the October 7th massacre and only 12.7% opposed it.(18) That's not to say that a number of Muslim populations profess to be concerned about Islamic extremism; it's just that they don't do anything about it when it is practiced.(19)
The 'moderates' everywhere have said absolutely nothing by way of condemnation, beyond the boilerplate 'appalled by the violence on both sides' false equivalences. That's because they don't condemn it. As Sam Harris (a man I disagree with about nearly everything) observed in an excellent essay;
“[there is]...a wider Muslim community that doesn’t condemn jihadism, but tacitly admits that the theology that inspires it will be true and perfect until the end of the world.”(20)
There is also a wider point at issue. 'Moderate' Muslims may be said to be the 12.7% in Gaza that did not approve of the massacre or their brothers and sisters in the West who felt likewise. But, firstly, where was the 'March of the Moderates' in London, Paris, Berlin or elsewhere? We know the answer to that question; anyone with the cojones to stand up and be counted will inevitably place a target on their back in doing so. A Muslim criticizing Islam is verboten, which would suggests a certain lack of confidence in its appeal and cohesion. Anyone who offers a captive the option of convert or die (as Mohammad did) is not recruiting souls by virtue of his profundity. As Harris also notes:
“This is what’s so toxic: Muslims supporting other Muslims no matter how sociopathic and insane their behavior.”(21)
Secondly, I would suggest that not approving of the slaughter of hundreds of innocents doesn't amount to compelling evidence of moderation. Besides, moderate compared to what? If the entire religion is immoderate, Islam lite is still an abomination. And, thirdly, ask the so-called moderate whether he/she approves of other tenets of Islam, such as the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals. They will. If they don't, they are no longer a Muslim.
But the one overriding curse of Islam, the single most toxic and impactful, doctrine is that of martyrdom. The belief that infuses jihadists with a sense that earthly life is transitory and merely a gateway to a notably carnal Paradise to come. A martyr has simply been dispatched rather earlier than they would have been otherwise. Of course, Islam is hardly the only religion to believe in the afterlife but, when combined with the obligation to wage violent jihad, it is the only religion that cheapens human life, to the extent that it is has little intrinsic worth, as dying in pursuit of a worldwide caliphate transports one to a better place. Harris again:
“Worse, in my view, is the moral logic one gets from the doctrine of martyrdom and Paradise. If you take martyrdom and Paradise seriously, it becomes impossible to make moral errors...if you blow yourself up in a crowd, your fellow Muslims will go straight to Paradise. You’ve actually done them a favor. Unbelievers will go to hell, where they belong. However many lives you destroy, it’s all good.”(22)
Following that logic (and it seems to me that it makes sense to do so), a sincere belief in Paradise must render Hamas indifferent to the casualties in Gaza. They certainly seem to be and, paradoxically, the ones they are most blasé about are the children. And I don't think we can allow the locals much slack either, as the polling suggests that the vast majority are ideologically aligned with the jihadists. This is a Pakistani jihadist, one of the perpetrators of a murderous attack on a school in Peshawar:
“Paradise is for those of pure hearts. All children have pure hearts. They have not sinned yet… They have not yet been corrupted by [their kafir parents]. We did not end their lives. We gave them new ones in Paradise, where they will be loved more than you can imagine.”(23)
And this is Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader toughing it out in a five-star hotel in Qatar:
“We need the blood of women, children, and the elderly of Gaza so as to awaken our revolutionary spirit.”(24)
As a retired British Colonel observed:
“Hamas is the only ‘army’ in history that has planned its operations deliberately to have its own civilians killed by its enemy. Its whole strategy is based on that.”(25)
If we follow the logic further, then any call for a ceasefire wouldn't be humanitarian in nature. Why would Hamas be attempting to prolong life on earth when Paradise awaits? And, if we listen carefully, we find that Hamas is asking for no such thing – it's the terrorists' apologists in the West that are the ones who beat that drum, due to their belief in their own moral rectitude. Hamas has no interest in a temporary truce for traditional reasons.(26) Nor are they short of basics like energy, for instance; they are sitting on a vast stockpile of fuel.(27) They just refuse to utilize it to care for their own in hospitals and elsewhere, preferring to instead use it to fuel rockets that it fires into indiscriminately into Israel.
There is a fundamental moral question here, one that is never asked, either because Western minds think the answer self evident or because to even broach the subject is to acknowledge that a potential tension might exist. The question is this; if the 'Palestinians' don't care about the level of civilian casualties, why should we? Or, more precisely, why should we superimpose our Western values over their Islamic ones?
It may (does) sound callous, but it seems to me to be a question worth asking and answering. If the population of Gaza are pretty much all in on Hamas and their jihadist ideology, then they must necessarily be believers in the doctrine of martyrdom. Martyrdom doesn't have an age limit – it doesn't come with an 'R' rating, as it applies to unsullied children too. Therefore, if Hamas embeds themselves within the civilian population, they are aiding and abetting martyrdom and the population (or a large chunk of it) must' logically, be in on the deal.
Western squeamishness is just that – Western. It is also, on a subconscious level at the very least, arrogant, inasmuch as we are explicitly asserting that our moral framework is superior to theirs. Which is somewhat strange, given that we have bent over backwards in our attempts to assign moral equivalence to Islam. So, which is it? Does human life have the value that Western Judeo-Christian civilisation assigns it? Or is Islam right? Because at present, Hamas and its apologists are clearly and obviously manipulating the legions of useful idiots that populate the West. They clearly don't care how many victims they suffer – in fact, the more the merrier – but they use our value system against us in attempts to gain a tactical advantage.
Now, I anticipate that some of you may find this excoriation a little painful. Perhaps you think I should show more respect. However, why would I respect a religion that doesn't respect me? One that, if it could, would offer me the same choice Mohammad gave in his time? One that would require me to live under sharia law, that would kill me if someone in authority thought I was gay? We really haven't thought this through at all. You cannot polish a turd. Being a 'moderate' Muslim is completely pointless; there must be better value elsewhere if you have to gut your religion of what it fundamentally is in order to be so. And, even then, moderation is simply a continuum. Not being at an extreme doesn't denote moderation.
And yet, the intersectional mafia claim the jihadist as one of their own. This is because the LGBTQ+ crowd and the Far Left swear fealty to the oppressor/oppressed narrative to the exclusion of all other considerations. The cognitive dissonance that this induces must be consciousness altering. So, gays and lesbians break bread with Hamas. Feminists, too. This overriding requirement to cleave to the paradigm completely corrupts the cause with which they identify.
“Do they realize that women are treated like property throughout the Muslim world and that this is not an accident? Under Islam, the central message about women is that they are second-class citizens and the property of the men in their lives. Rather than support the rights of women and girls to not live as slaves, Western liberals support the right of theocrats to treat their wives and daughters however they want, as long as these theocrats are Muslim.”(28)
Islam is antithetical to women's rights and equality (as it is properly understood in the West, as opposed to the cluster that is equity) and completely averse to homosexuality – it's not a hypothetical, philosophical opposition either. Islam is nothing if not muscular and alpha male-ish; there will always be consequences of a physical nature for transgressions. And so it's not the thought that's the issue, if one subscribes to Western mores of free speech (although with the advent of 'hate speech' you'd be hard-pressed to get away with any 'homophobia' or 'toxic masculinity' now), it's the intent to act upon it given the opportunity.
Once again, these sentiments are only contentious to those who wish to suppress the truth and those who have fallen for the lie. Islamic scholars certainly muddy the waters and are given cover by Western liberals when they make their revisionist claims. But there really isn't a whole lot to study and whatever they say cannot detract from the fact that a significant proportion of Muslims have a more realistic view of their religion. The numbers don't lie; remember, 61% and 2.6%. The first the number of verses in the Quran that speak ill of the unbeliever or call for violent conquest, the second the number of verses that could be said to reflect good will on humanity.
It may be useful to frame the debate in a parallel setting. So, ask yourself this; if this belief system was a political ideology, rather than a religion, would you tolerate it? What if the Republican Party came up with a policy suite that included stonings for adulterers, death for homosexuals and the relegation of half the population into servitude. What would be the reaction? Well, the Left would immediately spit the dummy, as would everyone else. And yet, because Muslims are somehow oppressed, Islam gets a free pass. (Incidentally, if Muslims are indeed oppressed, it's predominantly by other Muslims. And that includes the 'Palestinians'.)
Islam has always been a violent, conquering religion. In the past 40 years, there have been at least 48,000 acts of Islamic terrorism.(29) While 90% of them have occurred in Muslim countries, 5,000 haven't, which would mean that, on average, there have been two terror attacks per week in non-Muslim counties over a span of four decades. As we all know, these include the slaughter of innocents and suicide bombings, Which other religion is the catalyst for those actions? Where are the Jewish or Christian suicide bombers?
This is not a recent phenomenon – Islam has always behaved in an identical fashion, pursuing warfare against non-Muslims. The US had its first conflict with the Muslim world in the late 18th century, not the beginning of the 20th century. The Muslim states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis practiced piracy in the Mediterranean and it was necessary for US forces to defeat the Pasha of Tripoli in a combined naval and land assault. Muslim reasoning for the waging of war was the same then as it is now, as the Ambassador of Tripoli set out unabashedly:
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”(30)
A worldwide jihad has been ongoing for three hundred years, since Muhammad al-Wahhab rejuvenated the essence of Islam, while simultaneously rejecting modernity and the freedom, wealth and comforts of the Christian world. The Wahhabis (or Salafists) have been waging an on-and-off war in Arabia ever since. They are behind the Muslim Brotherhood. The Saudi sheiks are Wahhabis. Osama bin Laden was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Hamas founder, Ahmed Yassin, was also in the Muslim Brotherhood.
While we're on the subject of the 'Palestinians', it may be worth dealing with why they are still 'refugees' in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and neighbouring Arab countries. Partly, it's for reasons given previously in other offerings – taking them in (in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere) would lance the boil and, in Arab eyes, let the Jews off the hook. The 'Right of Return' would be relegated to a footnote and 'from the river to the sea' would no longer be such a powerful (or justifiable) message. But the other reason the 'Palestinians' have never been assimilated is because they are trouble – big trouble, even to other Arabs. The countries that have tried to help them have been repaid with attempts to overthrow their leadership; in Jordan in 1970, in Lebanon in 1982/83 and in Kuwait in 1990/91.(31) Other Arab states got the message, loud and clear.
Between 1979 and 2021, jihadists caused the deaths of at least 210,138 people and the numbers have been growing exponentially of late – the period of 2013-2021 accounts for 165,135 of those fatalities.(32) Jihadists were responsible for the massacre at the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, in 2008, when 160 people died. Prior to that, they were responsible for the July 7th 2005 London bombings, which killed 52. They also embarked on the Paris terror attacks of 13th/14th September 2015, taking the lives of 130 people. A jihadist drove the truck that killed 86 people in Nice on 14th July 2016. Chechen jihadists were responsible for the Moscow theatre hostage crisis in 2002, when 172 people died. The list goes on. And that's just what the 'extremists' did.
But it's not them alone that we need to concern ourselves with. 'Ordinary' Muslims have also acted out, which is inevitable, given the tenets of their faith. This is an uncomfortable reality. At the risk of belaboring the point once again, even if the 'moderates' are not temperamentally suited to jihad, it doesn't mean that they don't support those that are and it also doesn't mean that other aspects of Islam are similarly unappealing. A complete lack of respect for any non-Muslim would be one of those beliefs that has been demonstrated over and over again.
The UK has suffered an epidemic of Muslim grooming gangs, all over the north of England initially and then countrywide:
“Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, Telford, Leeds, Birmingham, Norwich, Burnley, High Wycombe, Leicester, Dewsbury, Middlesbrough, Peterborough, Bristol, Halifax, Newcastle, Huddersfield, and Hull are only some of the regions in the United Kingdom where the largely Islamist grooming gangs freely went about their perversion.”(33)
Girls as young as nine were picked up, raped, beaten, sold (and sometimes killed) by mostly British Pakistani Muslims. In some towns, these gangs operated for as long as forty years. Thousands of white children were abused in these towns, by men who were almost exclusively Muslim. Police and social services frequently looked the other way, fearful that they would be accused of racism for doing their jobs properly. In at least two cases in Rotherham, fathers of abused daughters approached the police and were themselves arrested while the perpetrators remained at large.(34)
Even when the scandal broke, the press did their best to obfuscate, often failing to report the full details as they pertained to race or creed. When they did, references might be made to Asian men, but not to the fact that they were Muslim. When that fallback position was overwhelmed, the authorities were quick to point out that they were “not followers of Islam but were from Muslim communities”,(34) a non-sequitur for the ages. It is precisely because of their Muslim faith that these gangs of men believed that they had dispensation to do what they did.
Sweden, long a Leftist's Narnia, was probably more welcoming to Muslim immigrants than any other European country. One assumes that the government and the people were, as usual, ignorant of what their new neighbors' values were or perhaps they harbored a belief that the Swedish way of life would win them round. Whatever the reason, they were asleep at the wheel. Sweden now has huge societal problems, ranging from gang violence and no-go areas to enormous increases in sexual assault, all of which can be laid at the door of Muslim immigrants.
By 2015, after a few short years, Sweden found itself at number two in the world on a list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho.(35) A willingness to tackle the problem has been as lacking here as it was in the UK. Courts regularly acquit Muslim suspects who claim that the victim consented to sex with six, seven or eight men.(36) Integration has not worked, in the same way it hasn't worked elsewhere.
There is now a second migration, this time of Swedes ether moving into the hinterlands or leaving the country.(37) Violent jihad is being preached in the Wahhabi mosques and madrassas of Sweden.(38) The city of Malmö, with its Muslim majority, is the violent rape capital of Sweden. This is entirely unsurprising:
“In Muslim tribal cultures, rape is sanctioned outside the family, the clan, and the faith, the umma. However, rape and the worst kinds of violence are religiously authorized in jihad war against declared out-groups. Punishment for rape can be severe if the victim is a protected family member. But infidel women are free for all. That is what ISIS is telling the world...”(39)
But the Western world refuses to listen. However, one can clearly see that the entire debacle was inevitable. The Swedes were even myopic enough to allow the call for prayer to be broadcast in their cities, seemingly unaware that the prayers which were then recited encourage hatred of Jews and Christians (chapters 62 and 63 of the Quran).(40) Denmark is heading down the same path.
Cities in Germany, whose Chancellor at the time (the infamous Angela Merkel) bore more responsibility than anybody for the tidal wave of immigration from Muslim countries in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, hosts New Year's Eve celebrations where thousands of women are surrounded and sexually assaulted by large groups of Muslim men, at least half of whom had recently arrived from Morocco or Algeria.(41) The country now has a Muslim population of 5.5 million. Ethnic Germans are becoming less and less impressed.(42)
France has been the country most affected by jihadist terror attacks, with at least 82 attacks and 332 deaths.(43) There are 5.7 million Muslims resident in the country, most in the banlieus (suburbs) of its large cities. These are set on fire on a regular basis, most recently to protest the death of a French teenager of mixed Algerian/Moroccan descent who refused to do what he was told to do by police.(44) And in Paris, the banlieu of St Denis is 30% Muslim. They are Catholic schools where 70% of the students are Muslim children.(45) By 2016, among high school students in France, 25.5% identified as Muslim and 83% of them stated that their religion was important or very important to them.(46) Naturally, nobody in authority would ever say that these numbers are emblematic of a big problem, but they are.
The exact number of Muslims in Europe in unknown, but by 2010 it was already 44.1 million, with an anticipated rise to 58 million by 2030.(47) I expect this to be a substantial underestimate, given the unabated influx of migrants from North Africa and the tendency for Muslim men in Britain, France, Belgium and Germany to practice polygamy, thus resulting in huge families, with sometimes upwards of twenty children, almost always state supported.(48) This would also suggest that the devout are out-breeding the 'moderates'. By 2050, Muslims may make up 15% of Europe's population. What might we expect then?
Well, the creeping implementation of sharia law, for one. An American survey found that more than half of the Muslims questioned thought they should have the choice of being governed by sharia – there's no reason to think that their European counterparts would think differently.(49) Nearly 20% supported using violence to implement it (jihad, in other words) and a quarter believed that it was legitimate to also use violence to punish those that offend Islam. That would be one in four to five potential jihadists from the 'religion of peace'.
I would imagine that Jews in Europe will migrate, probably to Israel, as the level of anti-Semitism evinced by North African and Middle Eastern residents is around 74% and they will be bringing that with them.(50) Those of us that remain will be forced to live cheek by jowl with millions of jihadists. In truth, judging from the pro-Hamas marches all around Europe, millions are already here.
Islam and Western civilization are not compatible – it's really that simple. And yet it's here and here to stay. So, how did it happen and why? If we are in a charitable mood we might reference the trait of pathological care that afflicts Leftists everywhere and surmise that they just didn't understand the ramifications of welcoming the world and his wife into Europe (which is where the issue is most recognizable). However, it never pays to be charitable to Leftists and globalists, because they always have a hidden agenda; it is, therefore, foolhardy to assign wayward good intentions as their motivation, when there are so many indications (across the board) that their intent is uniformly malign.
They – and it is they, not Western populations who have never been on the same page – have encouraged immigration because they are open borders fanatics who seek to undermine the nation state and home-grown culture. That's why they're called globalists. That's why they witter on about multiculturalism and diversity. There is never any attempt to explain why either of those concepts represent an unalloyed good; it's simply taken for granted and any opposition is excoriated as racist. And opposition parties who profess to be hard on immigration in order to achieve power have then reneged on their commitment – as the Tories have done for thirteen years straight in the UK.
But multiculturalism has been an unmitigated failure. Indeed, it could only ever have worked if those that came were from cultures that had values that were at least adjacent to our own and if they came at a rate that permitted assimilation. They would also, of course, have to be willing to be assimilated. That hasn't happened. Islamic culture is in no way complementary to our own, their values are similarly divergent and they haven't come to Europe to be assimilated – they have come to conquer via demographics and/or jihad.
As for diversity – there are some potential advantages, clearly, but it is hardly a panacea to cure all ills. A black, one-legged lesbian will no doubt endow a tug-of-war team will bucket loads of diversity, but she won't stop them losing every contest thereafter. And a distinction needs to be made here; importing diverse nationalities is not the main issue at stake. Importing diverse nationalities which all share the same fundamental belief system which holds that all other religions are bunk and that all believers in bunk are infidels deserving of punishment very much is.
This is not intended to be a comprehensive take down of Islam; I am not a theologian. But expert knowledge isn't required in making a general assessment of the religion – it really isn't complicated. Imagine what we would think if someone believed that we were of no value, that we could be killed without sanction and that if we were to object to these contentions or criticize the ideology that gives rise to them, we would become even more of a target. Would we accept it? I think not. If I wish to criticize someone or something, I will. Not only that, but I'll explain why – in detail, which I believe I have. I am under no obligation to be polite about any other matter, so why would Islam be any different? Especially when Islam has absolutely no regard for me.
We have imported a very big problem and we seem to have only the vaguest understanding of it. One again, believing the charlatans that have brought us globalism, trans rights, climate change and a fake pandemic about absolutely anything is foolish in the extreme – everything they say need to fact-checked by ourselves and the most cursory examination of Islam shows it to be a huge threat to our civilisation. This is not a hypothetical proposition. We don't understand that what happened on October 7th will not be a one-off, if Hamas has any say in it. Their own leadership said as much.(51)
We also don't understand that the atrocities that they committed are only atrocities in the eyes of the West, not to most Muslims:
“Please absorb this fact: for the jihadist, all of this sadism—the torture and murder of helpless, terrified people—is an act of worship. This is the sacrament. This isn’t some nauseating departure from the path to God. This isn’t stalled spiritual progress, much less sin. This is what you do for the glory of God. This is what Muhammad himself did.”(52)
So the next time we're tempted to call for a ceasefire or engage in what aboutism or attempt to minimise Israeli casualty numbers (or similar), it might be worth keeping our eyes on the bigger picture. Muslims don't value human life as we do; neither their own nor ours (especially ours). Take a moment to watch this link and then tell me that the Gazans themselves are innocent.(53) Sure doesn't look like it to me. The Ukrainian people are victims because they voted for Zelensky on the basis that he would make peace with the Russians and instead the pocket tyrant betrayed them, with the encouragement of the US. The 'Palestinians', not so much.
Western hyperventilation over thousands of civilian casualties is simply to be exploited; they don't think in those humane terms, but they know that we do and so they wield our compassion as a weapon against us. Sure, they hate Jews, but they hate all of the rest of us, too. And there are now jihadists embedded in the West, millions of them by any account.
I'll leave the last word to Mr Harris:
“Jihadist ideology has nothing to do with Israel, or American foreign policy, or colonialism, or any other rational grievance, and there is no concession that any civilized society can make to appease it.”(54)
I suggest we consign our collective Stockholm Syndrome to history and start dealing with reality before it's too late. I wouldn't associate with a neo-Nazi or a card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. Does not wanting to associate with another group of people who wish me harm come the day make me a bad person? I would say no; it just removes me from the serried ranks of the simps. So, showing support for the first line of defense shouldn't be problematic when compared to the alternative, after all. Quibbling and revealing our ignorance of what we are up against is not a winning strategy.
Citations
(1) https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/sharia-law-countries
(2) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/no_sharia_in_america.html
(4) https://answeringislam.org/Authors/Arlandson/beating.htm
(6) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/sharia_usa.html
(9) https://www.timesofisrael.com/islamic-state-throws-men-off-building-for-being-gay/
(10) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
(11) http://www.xn--lightoflife-2g3fc.com/eng/ilaw/
(12) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
(13) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/10/muhammads_nonassassinations_of.html
(14) https://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/qurayza_jews.htm
(15) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/11/death_of_archimedes_the_leftislam_alliance.html
(16) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/11/antisemitism_and_the_quran.html
(17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
(19) https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/
(20) https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil
(21) Ditto
(22) Ditto
(23) Ditto
(24) https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/11/the-second-war-against-the-jews.php
(25) Ditto
(28) https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil
(29) https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2021/
(30) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/11/our_forgotten_first_war_against_islamic_terrorists.html
(32) https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2021/
(34) Ditto
(35) https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
(36) Ditto
(39) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/muslim_sacralized_rape_and_feminized_sweden.html
(40) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/sounding_the_sharia_in_sweden.html
(41) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany
(42) https://www.dw.com/en/germany-hostility-toward-muslims-is-widespread/a-66069446
(43) https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2021/
(45) Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe, pg 110.
(46) Ditto, pg 121.
(48) https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6915/europe-muslim-enrichment
(50) https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/more-than-few-islamic-extremists/
(52) https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil
(53)
(54) https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil