The view of the article below is that they (ie the differences) are at least staying the same, saying that every generation of German Turks is like a first generation of migrants, especially as many Turks seek marriage partners in Turkey. But the rate of cultural change in Germany is different to that in Turkey and especially in rural Turkey, in Anatolia mentioned below, the conservative Muslim heartland of the country, which, if anything, is following the general trend in the Muslim world towards increased religious conservatism. Such a growing rift can only lead to one thing – an eventual split in the very identity of the host nation.

The extracts below are from a lengthy article, “Where Every Generation Is First-Generation”, in the NT Times, exploring some integration issues Germany is having with its huge Turkish population:

Exact statistics are hard to come by, but it is possible that as many as 50 percent of Turks (a word that in common parlance often includes even those with German citizenship) seek their spouses abroad, according to Schäuble, the interior minister. For most of the past decade, according to the ministry, between 21,000 and 27,000 people a year have successfully applied at German consulates in Turkey to form families in Germany. (Just under two-thirds of the newcomers are women.) That means roughly half a million spouses since the mid-1980s, which in turn means hundreds of thousands of new families in which the children’s first language is as likely to be Turkish as German.

Binational marriage alarms many Germans for two reasons. First, it allows the Turkish community to grow fast at a time when support for immigration is low. The Turkish population in Germany multiplies not once in a life cycle but twice — at childbirth and at marriage. Second, such marriages retard assimilation even for those Turks long established in Germany. You frequently hear stories from schoolteachers about a child of guest workers who was a star pupil three decades ago but whose own children, although born in Germany, struggle to learn German in grade school. After half a century of immigration, every new generation of Turks is still, to a large extent, a first generation.

Turkish marriages are seldom Western-style love matches. They are often arranged by parents. A 2003 study by the Federal Ministry of Family found that a quarter of Turkish women in Germany hadn’t even known their partners before they married. The rural Anatolian practice of marrying relatives, usually first cousins, is frequent. It accounts, according to the Center for Turkey Studies at the University of Duisburg-Essen, for between a sixth and a quarter of binational pairings. These marriages bring certain Anatolian problems into the heart of Germany. Domestic violence is high. The causes of wife-beating among families of immigrant background can be debated, but not the numbers. Gulgun Teyhani, who works at a battered-women’s shelter in Duisburg, reckoned that of the 86 women her house took in last year, 60 had a migrant background, and 51 of them spoke Turkish. Last year, the Federal Criminal Investigation Agency found that in the preceding five years, 45 “honor killings” were carried out by Turkish or Kurdish families in Germany against women deemed to have “strayed,” generally by dating Europeans or adopting Western fashions.

[..]
The tragedy of imported brides, Necla Kelek writes, is that they “will live in Germany but never arrive there.” Like Ates, Kelek is a Turkish-German woman with intense passions on either side of the hyphen. [..] It is in large part a result of her books that some Germans who once viewed Turkish marriage practices as none of their business now see it as a pressing crisis.

[..]
Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands, Kelek has been accused of “Enlightenment fundamentalism,” a tendency to defend secular values too dogmatically. Last year, a group of 60 “migration researchers” wrote an open letter to the weekly paper Die Zeit attacking Kelek’s writing as “unserious” — an odd criticism to level at a memoirist, even one trained in sociology. Others say she has made Islam too central to her explanation of violence against women.

[..] In 2000, the German Youth Institute reported that 53 percent of Turkish women ages 16 to 29 would not consider marrying a German “under any circumstances.”

[..] In North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state and the one where Duisburg is located, 80 percent of Turks ages 25 to 34 are married; their average marriage age is 21 for women and 24 for men. Among non-Turks, only 32 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds are married; the average marriage age is 29 for women and 32 for men. Germans have one of the lowest fertility rates in the history of the world — 1.36 children per woman, according to 2004 figures. While it is hard to find precise figures for Turks in Germany, the rate is widely agreed to be higher.

[..] According to a study done by the Center for Turkey Studies in Essen, young Turkish women and men brought up in Germany view their fellow Turkish-Germans of the opposite sex as “distant from their own culture, or ‘degenerate.’ ”

[..] In the Comenius Garden in Neukolln, a particularly tough part of Berlin, Murat, Ali and Hakan, all in their late teens, were passing a freezing cold afternoon chatting and making up rap verses. Ali, whose family comes from the Black Sea port of Rize, is the son of a local Neukölln imam. He is training to be a plumber but is not employed yet. He is betrothed to a “friend” in Turkey. The person who introduced me to Ali said Ali’s other friends had spoken of the woman as his cousin. So I started by asking him why he had looked for his wife in Turkey. “German girls are Schlampen,” he replied. They’re sluts.

Necla Kelek is great, by the way, have a read of this article on Europe Multiculturalism and integration for a taste.

Fjordman finds the picture is more complicated than may first appear.

See also my previous posts on the demographics decline of the West and Europe in particular, and where it is leading.

Continuing with the theme of the day, The Chronicle Review has an excellent essay by Walter Laqueur today, adopted from his forthcoming book “The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent”, which will be published next week (h/t The Brussels Journal):

This, then, is the picture of Europe in the first decade of the new century. It is a picture of gradual decline. Future historians may well be at a loss to understand why the sorry state of affairs was realized only late in the day, despite the fact that all the major trends — demography, the stalling of the movement toward European unity, and the crisis of the welfare state — had appeared well before the turn of the century.

The decline of the Roman Empire has been discussed for centuries, and it could be that the discussion about the decline of Europe will last as long. Decline often does not proceed as quickly as feared; there are usually retarding circumstances. But it is also true that, for better or worse, the pulse of history is beating quicker in our time than before.

There is also a danger that we will throw up our hands in despair and accept with resignation Europe’s future role as a museum of world history and civilization, preaching the importance of morality in world affairs to a nonexistent audience. Surely decline offers challenges that ought to be taken up, even if there is no certainty of success. No one can say with any confidence what problems the powers that now appear to be in the ascendancy will face in the years to come. And even if Europe’s decline is now irreversible, there is no reason that it should become a collapse.

There is, however, a precondition — something that has been postponed. The debate should be about which of Europe’s traditions and values can still be saved. The age of delusions is over.

Extracts from a new essay by Fjordman:

[..] I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn’t matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won’t make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that all political ideologies “basically mean the same thing.” They simply don’t view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus won’t spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific creed. This is Marxist materialism.

The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is over. All peoples around the world will gradually blend into one another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, because mankind will be one and equal. It’s cultural and genetic Communism. Nation states who create their own laws and uphold their own borders constitute “discrimination” and an obstacle to this new Utopia, and will gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of course, replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move wherever they want to and where international legislation and human rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of — supposedly well-meaning — transnational bureaucrats managing our lives.

What the proponents of this ideology don’t say is that even if it were possible to melt all human beings into one people, which is in my view neither possible nor desirable, this project would take generations or centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and enormous suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly allow themselves to be eradicated.

[..]

The extreme Left didn’t succeed in staging a violent revolution in the West, so they decided to go for a permanent, structural revolution instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw material for a violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The Western Left are importing a new proletariat, since the previous one disappointed them.

A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”

I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in Sweden, but all over Western Europe, who openly brag about censoring coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the Multicultural society.

[..]

Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse. By hiding behind labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, “the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”

[..]

Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a totalitarian society. There is no “enlightened Marxism,” and the idea that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history.

Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.

[..]

Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know that. It’s time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century.

I mentioned Bernard Lewis’ (“the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East.”) speech at the AIE dinner recently, you can read the full text here.

Here are some editted extracts the AIE also posted for those lacking the patience to read the whole thing, “Islam and Europe”:

The Muslim attack on Christendom . . . has gone through three phases. The first is from the very beginning of Islam, when the new faith spilled out of the Arabian Peninsula, where it was born, into the Middle East and beyond. It was then that the Muslims conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa–all at that time part of the Christian world–and went beyond into Europe, conquering a sizable part of southwestern Europe and occupying for a while parts of France.

After a long and bitter struggle, the Christians managed to retake part, but not all, of the territory they had lost. They succeeded in Europe, and in a sense Europe was defined by the limits of that success. They failed to retake North Africa or the Middle East, which were lost to Christendom. Notably, they failed to recapture the Holy Land. . . .

That was not the end of the matter. The Islamic world, having failed the first time, was bracing for the second attack, this time conducted not by Arabs and Moors, but by Turks and Tatars. They conquered Anatolia and Russia and captured the ancient Christian citadel of Constantinople. They conquered a large part of the Balkans. Twice they conquered half of Hungary. Twice they reached as far as Vienna. Barbary corsairs from North Africa–well known to historians of the United States–were raiding Western Europe. They went to Iceland–the uttermost limit.

Again, Europe counterattacked, this time more successfully and more rapidly. They succeeded in recovering Russia and the Balkan Peninsula, and in advancing farther into the Islamic lands, chasing their former rulers from whence they had come. For this phase of European counterattack, a new term was invented: imperialism. When the peoples of Asia and Africa invaded Europe, this was not imperialism. When Europe attacked Asia and Africa, it was.
This European counterattack began a new phase which brought the European attack into the very heart of the Middle East. In our own time, we have seen the end of that domination.

***

Osama bin Laden had this to say about the war in Afghanistan, the war which led to the defeat and retreat of the Red Army and the collapse of the Soviet Union. We tend to see that as a Western victory–more specifically an American victory–in the Cold War against the Soviets. For Osama bin Laden, it was nothing of the kind. It was a Muslim victory in a jihad. . . . As bin Laden put it, “We have met, defeated, and destroyed the more dangerous and the more deadly of the two infidel superpowers. Dealing with the soft, pampered and effeminate Americans will be an easy matter.”

This belief was confirmed in the 1990s when we saw attacks on American bases and installations with virtually no effective response of any kind–only angry words and expensive missiles dispatched to remote and uninhabited places. This was a sequence leading up to 9/11. It was clearly intended to be the completion of the first sequence and the beginning of the new one, taking the war into the heart of the enemy camp.

The third phase has clearly begun. We should not delude ourselves as to what it is and what it means. This time it is taking different forms–two in particular–terror and migration.

***

Where do we stand now? The Muslims have certain advantages. They have fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking. They are self-assured of the rightness of their cause, whereas we spend most of our time in self-denigration and self-abasement. They have loyalty and discipline, and perhaps most important, they have demography, the combination of natural increase and migration leading to major population changes which could lead within the foreseeable future to significant majorities in some European countries.

But we also have some advantages, the most important of which are knowledge and freedom. The appeal of genuine modern knowledge to a society which, in the more distant past, had a long record of scientific and scholarly achievement, is obvious. They are keenly and painfully aware of their relative backwardness and welcome the opportunity to rectify it.

Less obvious but also powerful is the appeal of freedom. In the past, in the Islamic world the word “freedom” was not used in a political sense. Freedom was a legal concept, not a political concept as in the West. But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated, and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope–perhaps even our only hope–of surviving this developing struggle.

Suzanne Fields reports on a lecture recently given by Bernard Lewis at the annual American Enterprise Institute dinner:

[..]

Bernard Lewis, age 90, has studied Islam and the Middle East for more than half a century. The Capital grapevine has it that he strongly influenced President Bush to take the coalition of the willing into Iraq. His books have been important to historians, but he wasn’t known to most of the rest of us until after 9/11, when the West woke up to its ignorance of the Middle East and Islam, beyond the fanciful tales of the caliphs, harems and camel drivers of the Arabian nights.

Crucial reading soon included his book, “What Went Wrong,” in which Mr. Lewis dissects the sociology and psychology of the Muslim world after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when Muslim humiliation became total. But instead of examining their own responsibilities for their failures, the Middle Eastern governments looked for others to blame for their demoted status. “Who did this to us?” they asked. Blame was variously assigned to the Mongols, the Turks, then the French and the British, and now Israel and America. The Muslims refused to see the source of their weakness, beginning with the brutal mistreatment of women.

“The status of women, though probably the most profound single difference between the two civilizations, attracted far less attention than such matters as guns, factories and parliaments,” says Mr. Lewis. Half of the Muslims are forbidden to contribute their creativity to the Islamic civilization.

[..]

He draws chilling differences between “them” and “us.” The Muslims bring fervor and conviction to the struggle; we don’t. The Muslims are self-assured in the rightness of their cause; we answer with self-denigration and self-debasement. Muslims prize loyalty and discipline; we prize politically correct multiculturalism. Most troublesome of all, he says, demographics favor the Muslims. He worries whether there will be an “Islamicized Europe” or a “Europeanized Islam.” The assets of the West are freedom and the unfettered pursuit of knowledge, and he offers the hope that Muslims will eventually find these things appealing. But he concedes it’s only hope.

[..]

“What is needed [today],” says Bernard Lewis, “is clarity in recognizing issues and alignments, firmness and determination in defining and applying policy.” But is anyone listening?

A great essay over at the Brussels Journal:

Recently I began to post articles about my experiences on the Dutch-language section of The Brussels Journal. Since then I have received threats from Islamists, warning me to stop. I will not stop because it is important that people know what is going on. I have many Muslims friends who are also opposed to the radicals. They keep me informed about what is going on, but cannot say this in public for fear of reprisals. As Theodore Dalrymple said: “On a micro-level people are now living in a totalitarian climate. In our Western societies. Within our Western societies there is a micro-totalitarian climate.” This is something we should not tolerate. If we do, we, too, will soon be living in a totalitarian society.

Europe is being confronted with a new challenge: Islam and its influence on political, social and economic policy. Muslims give different interpretations of what Islam means. Islam as a fixed doctrine does not exist. This makes dialogue with the Islamic community extremely difficult. To be sure, there are a certain number of tendencies which – depending on schools and traditions – claim to be interpretations of an Islamitic doctrine. But the very absence of a well defined doctrine makes Islam a Trojan horse. You have to wait to see what is inside, and the latter could be a big surprise. Unfortunately, a radical version of Islam is becoming dominant in Europe. It is the so-called “European Islam,” promoted by modern Islamic philosophers like Tariq Ramadan.

[..]

Read the rest.

UPDATE (16/3): Some background on the author of the above from the Washington Post: “Islamicization of Antwerp”, by Paul Belien, who runs the Brussels Journal:

The decisive battle against Islamic extremists will not be fought in Iraq, but in Europe. It is not in Baghdad but in cities like Antwerp, Belgium, where the future of the West will be decided.

I recently met Marij Uijt den Bogaard, a 49-year-old woman who deserves America’s support at least as much as Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Ms. Uijt den Bogaard was an Antwerp civil servant in the 1990s, who spent many years working in the immigrant neighborhoods of Antwerp. There she noticed how radical Islamists began to take over. “They work according to a well-defined plan,” she says.

One of the things Ms. Uijt den Bogaard used to do for the immigrants was to assist them with their administrative paperwork. Quite a few of them came to trust her.

About three years ago, young men dressed in black moved into the neighborhoods. They had been trained in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and adhere to Salafism, a radical version of Islam. They set up youth organizations, which gradually took over the local mosques.” The Salafists know how to debate and they know the Qur’an by heart, while the elderly running the mosques do not,” she said They also have money. “One of them told me that he gets Saudi funds.” Because they are eloquent, the radicals soon became the official spokesmen of the Muslim community, also in dealing with the city authorities. Ms. Uijt den Bogaard witnessed how the latter gave in to Salafist demands, such as the demand for separate swimming hours for Muslim women in the municipal pools.

[..]
In the end she was fired. She is unemployed at the moment and gets turned away whenever she applies for another job as a civil servant. Last week, she learned that city authorities have given the job of integration officer, whose task it is to supervise 25 Antwerp mosques, to one of the radical Salafists. Meanwhile, the latter have threatened her with reprisals if she continues to speak out.
After her dismissal Ms. Uijt den Bogaard went to see Monica Deconinck, a Socialist politician who is the head of the Antwerp social department, to tell her about the plight of the Muslim women. Ms. Deconinck said, “You have taken your job too seriously and tried to do it too well,” adding that she cannot help, although she sympathizes.
[..]

Multiply and conquer, says Sheik Abdul Raheem Green, (amongst some other jiberrish from his aussie pal Sheik Mohammed Omran):

“The birth rate in the Western countries is going down. People are more interested in their careers . . . they don’t want to have babies,” Sheik Green says in the DVD.

“So don’t you think, Muslim brothers and sisters, we’ve got a bit of an opportunity here? They’re not having babies any more. So what if, instead, we have the babies?”

Sheik Muhammed “The Aussie Connection” Omran, by the way, appears to have Osama envy issues, believes “100%” the US government is behind the September 11 attacks, praises suicide bombers and calls Australia “rubbish because women walk down the street not wearing veils and the men drink”. Rubbish indeed. What is this degenerate still doing in this country?

Coerce and intimidate, says the ‘Real Khilafa’:

[..]
We call upon our fellow youth to come and join us in our mission for universal and global Islam.

The job is big but nothing is impossible.

If the kafir non-believer does not accept by gentle persuasion or gentle reasoning then other methods which are allowed for in the holy Quran must be used as going to war with the kafir or converting them by manipulation. We need to send out our boys to bring the Sikh girls into the arms of the community of Islam.

This task is getting easier by the day, as the Sikh and Hindu girls are not taught (as is done in Islam) much about their religion at all. They have a more westernized upbringing, and the school, college and university campus is the ideal place for our youth to carry out their duties easily in this way.

It is easy to take the Sikh girls out on a date as they generally like a good drink and from there gradually they can be bought into Islam. This is not a hard job at all, as the kafir women they like Moslems. Hardly surprising as we are attractive and intelligent compared with kafirs. This is common sense and everybody knows. Otherwise, why would Indian films have so many Moslem actors. There is not a single Hindu or Sikh actor in Pakistani films.
[..]

Reality check for the Real Khilafah: You really aren’t going to win the Statistics on Islamic achievement in India game. Don’t go there. And don’t get your twelve year old brother to write your propaganda for you anymore, either. I think “Oh, and we’re fully sick!” would have gotten the meaning of that last paragraph across just as well, without all the embarassing factual and grammatical errors.

Here’s a scan of the actual letter the above is from. It was being handed out to Muslim youths in London, and was accidentally given to a Sikh teenager. Five years later, here’s the result.

Debate and frustrate, says… who?:

HOW TO DEBATE AND FRUSTRATE INFIDELS
by Ayesha Ahmed

Dear brothers and sisters in islam:

We live in kuffar country and daily we have to face the infidels who criticize islam and our prophet, and who want to debate us. In an Islamic country if some one did that all we have to do is to announce loudly what he said and the rest is taken care of by an angry mob. The critic is lynched in no time. End of the story. However here we don’t have that luxury as yet. Inshallah in forseeble future after we grow by conversions of morons and criminals in prisons, legal and illegal immigration and procreation we will,inshallah, become a majority and will not have to face this problem on daily basis. However, for the time being following is an approach all muslim brothers and sisters can use when faced with such a pest. Jazakallah Khair. Inshallah the vermin will steer clear of you in future.

1. A popular question is “why islam calls for death of Islamic critics and apostates”. Insist that their info is false. Quote aya “to you your religion and to me my religion”.

2. To answer “Islam spread with sword”, say that it is a big lie spread by the jews and hindus and that quran clearly says ” there is no compulsion in religion”.

3. If some one quotes violent ayas from Koran, accuse him of quoting ayas in bits and pieces and cherry picking .

4. If he then quotes full ayas and ayas before and after, than insist that the translation is wrong.

5. If he brings ten different translations than say correct meanings can be understood only by reading Quran in Arabic.

6. If he happens to be well versed in Arabic language than insist that those ayas don’t mean what they appear to mean as they have allegorical meanings.

7. If he is adamant, than say you cannot understand those ayas and it’s context without reading hadith and sira.

8.. If he shows up with the hadiths and siras in hand and quotes the context of the violent ayas by referring to hadiths of prophet’s rapes, robberies , assassinations and genocides then insist that “all hadiths and siras are heresay and are false, and only truth is in quran.

9. If he says Quran is a man made document and wants proof of it’s divinity then refer to the sciences in Quran and the book written by Dr. Bucaile confirming the sciences in our holy book. You can also quote that Mahatama Gandhi read Quran daily and also spoke highly of it.

10. If he says that Bucaile was on Saudi payroll and that nor he nor Gandhi ever changed their religions and that Bucaile was challenged and proven wrong by many experts then challenge him to ask his experts to debate islamists like Zakir Naik..

11. If the pests still hangs around then change the topic and find faults in other religions and their books.

12. If he continues on then use personal attacks and insult him by calling him a jewish a- hole , a Chinese pig or a hindu dog .

13. If that does not frustrate him, then ask him how much he is being paid by jews to throw dirt on Al Islam.

14. If he still does not stop then run for his mother and sister and use very filthy language.

15. If he is very stubborn and wants to continue, then curse him like “Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, Allah will get you in your grave” etc

16. When all of the above has failed, threaten him with bodily harm and end the debate by drum beating and announcing that you won the debate hands down because Koran is the word of allah.

17. If possible anounce about this debate in an islamist website and that you had won it handily. Such announcements do wonders for the iman of muslim website readers and for dawah operations in prisons to convince low IQ prisoners of the truth of Al Islam.

If that fails tell ‘em the bit about there being no Hindu or Sikh actors in Pakistani films. Don’t mention that noone outside of Pakistan has ever seen a Pakistani film. Or that there are virtually no Hindus of Sikhs left in Pakistan. Don’t mention why that is.

Sharia law is perfect and “Everything you have in the West is wrong”, says an Irish revertard (much, much more in that article):

“The ultimate goal of every Muslim is to establish Sharia law over the whole Earth,” he says. “It is a superior way of life, and every Muslim living in the UK has an obligation to call for Sharia law to be implemented.

“We believe in jihad, which literally means to struggle. It is not allowed for a Muslim to obey a man-made system of laws that is prone to errors.

“Sharia law is a perfect system of divine law and order that the whole world should live under.

“Everything you have in the West is wrong. We should be in charge over you. If Sharia law prevailed, it would change everything.

“Alcohol would be outlawed and it would be illegal for any woman to leave the house unless she had her whole body and head covered. Everything would change for the better – it is sadly and badly needed.”

Kelly holds in high esteem the men who carried out the 7/7 bombings in London. “The martyrs who carried out the bombings on July 7 were praiseworthy and correct.

“We have to spread Sharia law and put fear into the head of the enemy.”

To which Diogenes Lamp comments:

Not every Muslim in the West thinks like this, but if one in a hundred does, we have got a big problem. It’s no point saying that the Muslims who would come to Australia would want nothing to do with Sharia law. It’s the children who are the problem.

Should there be some expulsion procedure for those who have effectively declared themselves to be enemies of the state?

I’d say we most certainly have a problem. Diana West explains.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Big Dog’s Weblog, basil’s blog, DragonLady’s World, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Faultline USA, Wake Up America, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Overtaken by Events, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

In Eurabian Nights Daniel Pipes explores three possible eventual outcomes that may result from the disproportionate increase in the Muslim population of Europe:

THE MOST critical issue facing Europe is the long-term relationship between the continent’s natives and its burgeoning Muslim minority. There are but three outcomes—Islamic takeover, Muslim expulsion or harmonious integration—and the end result has profound implications not only for Europe but for humanity as a whole.
[..]

The rest at The National Interest.

UPDATE: Melanie Phillips, who spoke in Sydney on Wednesday, has an editorial in The Australian today – “Do not appease hatred”:

It is only if we act against the ideology that is spreading falsehood and hatred, and stop its advance under the umbrella of minority rights, that we have any chance of defending the free world. That means – while showing respect to Muslims who derive only spiritual sustenance from their faith – reasserting Western values and resisting any attempt to subvert them. It also means facing down in public the lies spread about the West.

Only if we stop deluding ourselves and take such action necessary for our survival will we stop sleepwalking to defeat.

A new paper published today, by the now infamous Raphael Israeli:

• The aftermath of World War II brought about an acute shortage of manpower in Europe. Former colonies, where manpower was available that required relatively limited cultural adaptation, became the plentiful sources for unskilled laborers who would replenish the dwindling pool of workers in Europe.
• These workers constructed Muslim communities in certain localities throughout Europe, where their numbers created local majorities that no candidate for elective office could ignore. The growth of these communities required the construction of mosques and Muslim cultural centers, some of which grew into secret lodges of subversion, incitement, and recruitment of radical youth.
• Muslim communities have imported the Middle Eastern conflict into their host countries, with attending acts of violence and unbridled anti-Semitism toward local Jewish communities which had otherwise lived peacefully except during the Holocaust interregnum.
• Some European Muslim leaders make no secret of their intent to change Europe to their tune, not to adapt to it. They demand their own school systems, in their own native languages, financed by the host state and, in the long run, to its own detriment.
• European countries have adopted multiculturalism, and increasingly multilingualism, as an imposed reality whereby they have abdicated their role to absorb the newcomers and integrate them into the existing systems, and instead let the immigrants dictate their own visions of “integration,” which means in effect separatism, secession, or an eventual takeover when demography had run its course.
• There are already areas in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Britain where Muslim children constitute the majority of the school population. In addition, there are a growing numbers of converts to Islam in major European countries such as France and Britain – 50,000 in each in the past decade.

Read the whole thing.