And another great essay from Fjordman:

[..] Sweden is a great example of why we need limited government, a state that only upholds law and order and does not concern itself with pushing a particular ideology on its people.

Why does the government dispense with the social contract and attack its own people? Well, for starters, because it can. The state has become so large and powerful that is has become an autonomous organism with a will of its own. The people are there to serve the state, not vice versa. And because state power penetrates every single corner of society, there are no places left to mount a defense if the state decides to attack you. Its representatives are no longer leaders of a specific people, but caretakers preoccupied only with advancing their own careers through oiling and upholding, and if possible expanding, the bureaucratic machinery.

[..] A characteristic of the situation in Western Europe is that we have more and more laws, yet at the same time more and more lawlessness. The German journalist Jens Jessen claims that his country has been gripped by a “prohibition orgy” regarding tobacco, cars, cheap holidays and computer games, television and fast food. The process is “disconcerting and almost grotesque in its systematization.” He believes there is some level of compensation going on for the powerlessness of politicians.

Parallel with an explosion in street crime, the state turns on its law-abiding citizens with a proliferation of regulations and an inflation of laws. The less control the state has over the the most important tasks of society, the stronger its desire to assert its power over the tiniest details becomes. Or is it a subtle show of force, a constant reminder to the average citizen of who’s boss, a sign that resistance to state policies is feared?

As Jessen points out, the dangerous thing about this spirit of prohibition is that “once it’s out of the bottle, it spreads like an infection” whose first casualty is tolerance: “The fettered citizens are going to loll in security; the more unbearable the state regulations, the more relaxed they will feel. But such a society, one that makes the individual citizen and he alone responsible for all possible environmental sins, can easily become the blind accomplice to the worst catastrophes on the international stage.”

[..]When does the rule of law break down? It breaks down when laws are no longer passed with the consent of free people, when citizens no longer feel that the law is just, when regulations become so numerous that it is virtually impossible even for decent individuals not to break the law on a regular basis and when the authorities are incapable of protecting their country’s borders while criminals rule the streets. It breaks down when the law appears increasingly arbitrary, when it invades the most intimate details of the life of law-abiding citizens while it allows great freedom to criminals. In short, it breaks down when it no longer corresponds to reality and to the sense of justice experienced by ordinary people.

Unless current trends are changed, I fear parts of Western Europe could reach critical mass soon.

Do read the whole thing.

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.

Around the middle of the 7th century the Sassanid Empire of Persia, devastated by defeat at the hands of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire (an event referred to in the Koran as a “victory for believers”, because the Romans were Christians, and thus believing ‘People of the Book’), was overrun by invading Islamic Arab armies. According to Muslim custom prior to declaring war the leader of the Islamic Caliphate, the Caliph Umar, sent a letter to the Persians inviting them to Islam (or else). Here’s the letter and the reply of the leader of the Zoroastrian Persians, Shah Yazdgerd III:

Text of the ultimatum from Omar Ibn-Khat’tab the Calif of
Islam to the Iranina Sovereign, Yazdgerd III:

 

Bism-ellah Ar’rahman Ar’rhim To the Shah of the Fars

I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save
your acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was
a time when your country ruled half the world, but see how now your
sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been defeated and your
nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path
whereby you might escape this fate. Namely, that you begin
worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god who created
all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the
false worship of fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.

Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept
Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and
become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior.
This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of
your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and
for your Persians. Submission is your only option. Allah u Akbar.

The Calif of Muslims Omar Ibn-Khat’tab

---

 

Response of the Persian King:

In the name of Ahuramazda, the Creator of Life and Wisdom.

From the Shahan-Shah of Iran Yazdgerd to Omar Ibn Khat’tab the
Arab Calif. In your letter you summon us Iranians to your god whom
you call “Allah-u-Akbar”; and because of your barbarity and
ignorance, without knowing who we are and Whom we worship, you
demand that we seek out your god and become worshippers of “Allah-u-Akbar”.

How strange that you occupy the seat of the Arab Caliph but are
as ignorant as any desert roaming Arab! You admonish me to become
monotheistic in faith. Ignorant man, for thousands of years we
Aryaee have, in this land of culture and art, been monotheistic and
five times a day have we offered prayers to God’s Throne of Oneness.
While we laid the foundations of philanthropy and righteousness and
kindness in this world and held high the ensign of “Good Thoughts,
Good Words and Good Deeds”, you and your ancestors were desert
wanderers who ate snakes and lizards and buried your innocent
daughters alive.

You Arabs who have no regard for God’s creatures, who mercilessly
put people to the sword, who mistreat your women and bury you
daughters alive, who attack caravans and are highway robbers, who
commit murder, who kidnap women and spouses; how dare you presume to
teach us, who are above these evils, to worship God?

You tell me to cease the worship of fire and to worship God
instead! To us Iranians the light of Fire is reminiscent of the
Light of God. The radiance and the sun-like warmth of fire
exuberates our hearts, and the pleasant warmth of it brings our
hearts and spirits closer together, that we may be philanthropic,
kind and considerate, that gentleness and forgiveness may become our
way of life, and that thereby the Light of God may keep shining in
our hearts.

Our God is the Great Ahuramazda. Strange is this that you too
have now decided to give Him a name, and you call Him by the name of
“Allah-u-Akbar”.

But we are nothing like you. We, in the name of Ahuramazda,
practice compassion and love and goodness and righteousness and
forgiveness, and care for the dispossessed and the unfortunate; But
you, in the name of your “Allah-u-Akbar” commit murder, create
misery and subject others to suffering! Tell me truly who is to
blame for your misdeeds? Your god who orders genocide, plunder and
destruction, or you who do these things in his name? Or both?

You, who have spent all your days in brutality and barbarity,
have now come out of your desolate deserts resolved to teach, by the
blade and by conquest, the worship of God to a people who have for
thousands of years been civilized and have relied on culture and
knowledge and art as mighty supports.

What have you, in the name of your “Allah-u-Akbar”, taught these
armies of Islam besides destruction and pillage and murder that you
now presume to summon others to your god?

Today, my people’s fortunes have changed. Their armies, who were
subjects of Ahuramazada, have now been defeated by the Arab armies
of “Allah-u-Akbar”. And they are being forced, at the point of the
sword, to convert to the god by the name of “Allah-u-Akbar”. And are
forced to offer him prayers five times a day but now in Arabic;
since your “Allah-u-Akbar” only understands Arabic.

I advise you to return to your lizard infested deserts. Do not
let loose upon our cities your cruel barbarous Arabs who are like
rabid animals. Refrain from the murder of my people. Refrain from
pillaging my people. Refrain from kidnapping our daughters in the
name of your “Allah-u-Akbar”. Refrain from these crimes and evils.

We Aryaee are a forgiving people, a kind and well-meaning people.
Wherever we go, we sow the seeds of goodness, amity and
righteousness. And this is why we have the capacity to overlook the
crimes and the misdeeds of your Arabs.

Stay in your desert with your “Allah-u-Akbar”, and do not
approach our cities; for horrid is your belief and brutish is your
conduct.

Yazdgerd Saasaani

Is that a ‘no’, then?

This wasn’t the first ‘invitation to Islam’ for the Persians. A few years earlier, Muhammad himself had sent the following letter to the Persian king who preceeded Yazdgerd III, Khosrau II:

“In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to the great Kisra of Iran. Peace be upon him, who seeks truth and expresses belief in God and in His Prophet and testifies that there is no god but God and that He has no partner, and who believes that Muhammad is His servant and Prophet. Under the Command of God, I invite you to Him. He has sent me for the guidance of all people so that I may warn them all of His wrath and may present the unbelievers with an ultimatum. Embrace Islam so that you may remain safe. And if you refuse to accept Islam, you will be responsible for the sins of the Magi.”

All rather ironic considering that it is the Persians doing the letter sending these days – the US, Germany, Italy, China and the Vatican have all recently received “contractual obligation” missives from Iran.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, basil’s blog, Overtaken by Events, Pirate’s Cove, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

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.
[..]

This story seems to have gone by almost unnoticed in the blogosphere (with the exception of here and here), but deserves more attention.

A blogger in Cairns, in North Queensland, has gotten some negative press and, according to the Cairns Post, is now being investigated by the Federal Police.

Sheik Yer’Mami launched a campaign on his Winds of Jihad blog, to stop the building of a mosque in Cairns.

A local Imam, whom the Cairns Post referred to as “the Far North’s Muslim spiritual leader”, called the site ‘vulgar’, an opinion he is entitled to hold, and proceeded to complain to the Australian Federal Police. He says the AFP are investigating the site because of its ‘offensive and racist content’.

You can read the Sheik’s reply here.

I am not against the building of mosques in Australia per se, depending on who is building, where and with what funding, but if someone wants to campaign against opening of one in their neighbourhood they should be able to do so without being harrassed. And it goes without saying that a person should be able to express their political views on a website, as long as they are not inciting violence. Criticising a religion is not racism and criticising a political movement like Islamism is even further from it.

Better use of police resources would be to investigate these real racists in Cairns. Now, where did this scum blow in from?

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.

This essay by Samir Khalil Samir on AsiaNews, explores how in Europe women’s rights are being sacrificed in the name of blind cultural relativism demanded by multiculturalism, in the process slowly destroying Europe’s identity. In particular he looks at the issues of polygamy, which some European countries are turning a blind eye on or even considering legitimising, and wife-beating.

An extract recalling an interesting recent episode in France:

[..]

The Imam of Vénissieux and women

To understand the humiliation in which women live in the Islamic world, I would like to recall a fact that sparked much debate in France. Last February 20th, the courts definitively rejected an appeal made by Imam Abdelkader Bouziane. An Algerian-national, Sheikh Abdelkader, imam of the mosque of Vénissieux, near Lyon, a polygamist and father of 16 (sixteen) children (14 of which French citizens) had been living in France since 1980.

He had been ordered on February 26, 2004, to leave the country by Interior Minister Sarkozy, for his inflammatory speeches and for incitement to hatred, but the ordinance was not enforced. On April 20, following an interview in the “Lyon Mag” newspaper, he was again served an expulsion order for his statements against women, in particular for having said that “the Koran authorizes a Muslim, in certain cases, to beat his wife,” that women must subjugated themselves to their husband and were not equal to men.

On April 23rd, the administrative tribunal of Lyon suspended the expulsion ordinance and rejected the Interior Ministry’s request. The imam went back to France in May 22. On October 5, 2004, the State Council cancelled the expulsion suspension, and the next day the iman was again expelled to Orano in Algeria. On June 21, 2005, the Lyon court declared him once again free, but on October 14, he was convicted in absentia. The imam filed an appeal, but on February 6, 2007, the courts definitively rejected his case.

The “Régards de femmes” Association of Lyon, which had sued the imam, declared: “The right to dignity, to respect, to the integrity of her body belongs to every woman in France. It will not be possible from now on to legitimize violence against women on the pretence of religion.”

The Imam’s interview

Here are a few extracts of the (famous) interview with Sheikh Abdelkader on the male-female relationship.

In your opinion, are women equal to men?

No. For example, women do not have the right to work alongside men, as they [women] could be tempted by adultery.

Must women necessarily be subjugated to men?

Yes, because the head of the family is always a man. But he must be fair to his wife: he must not beat her for no reason, nor consider her a slave.

Is this why you are favourable to polygamy?

Yes, a Muslim can have more than one wife. But not more than four! Plus, there are conditions.

But why can women not have more than one husband?

Because no one would know who fathered the children!

Are you in favour of the stoning [1] of women?

Yes, because beating one’s wife is allowed by the Koran, but under certain conditions, in particular if she betrays her husband. Please note however: the man does not have the right to beat her everywhere: not on the face, but in the lower parts, her legs, her stomach, her bottom. He can beat her vigorously so as to induce fear, so that she does not start again!

The Koran: wife beating is allowed

Various readers were up in arms, but in the end the imam defended himself saying that this is the Koran. And he’s right. If we open the Koran at Sura 4, verse 34, we can read:

“Men have authority over women due to the preference that Allah concedes to them over the other and because they spend their property [for women]; Good women are therefore obedient, guarding under secrecy that which Allah has preserved [sex]. [2] ; As for those on whose part you fear insubordination, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do nothing further against them; Allah is high and great.”

Samir concludes:

I don’t know if the flag-wavers of multiculturalism realize how much human damage they cause. Actually, it is increasingly clear that so-called multicultural tolerance is only acquiescence to a subtle form of racism. In the name of cultural difference, in fact, everything is left to proceed on parallel tracks, without envisaging any progress, integration or betterment in the name of human dignity.

It is time for Europe to understand that religious law cannot prevail over civil law and that, above every form of tolerance, there is a country’s constitution. If this does not happen, Islam will be given carte blanche to colonize our customs.

UPDATE: Pamela Bone in The Australian today (which is International Women’s Day by the way. I do recall marching for it back in the Soviet Union as a child. Fun times!):

LET it be recorded that in the last decade of the 20th century the brave and great movement of Western feminism ended, not with a bang but with a whimper.

While you’re there, have a read of Janet Albrechtsen’s excellent report on the “Australia Deliberates” conference last week:

GROUP hugs get us nowhere. And that about sums up a talk-fest in Canberra last weekend called “Australia Deliberates”.

Here’s a handy list of verses in the Koran that preach intolerance, cited in a recent debate entitled “Islam: Pluralism and Interfaith Dialogue”, between Shah Abdul Halim, a Muslim scholar from Bangladesh, and Syed Kamran Mirza, an ex-Muslim, also originally from Bangladesh, now residing in the US. The latter argues that the Koran sends a mixed message on the subject of ‘religious pluralism’, but strongly leans towards intolerance of other faiths. Here are the verses cited by Syed Kamran Mirza:

Quran-9:28- “O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.”  

Quran-9:73- “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.”
 

Quran-98:6–إ “Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.” 

Quran-98:7— “Verily, those who believe [in the Oneness of Allâh, and in His Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) including all obligations ordered by Islâm] and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures.” 

Quran-3:85- “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).”

Quran-5:51- “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other…..” 

“Quran-8:39– And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere” 

Quran-9:29- “Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” 

Quran-47:4: “If you meet those who are infidels or non-believers, you cut their heads off and tie things around their necks, start a war and God will give victory and those who will die in the war fighting God will not forget their acts.” 

Quran-4:89-They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,” [Punishment for apostate is death]. 

Quran-9:111- “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an.” [Perfect verse for suicide bombers]. 

Quran-2:216- “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you.”  

Quran-8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”  

Quran-9:5- “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.” 

Quran-9:39- “Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.” 

Syed Kamran Mirza concludes:

Most of all, when we can find hundreds of Quranic verses and sahi hadiths, clearly talking about fight/wars, inciting disciples to fight, kill and torture the non-believers—how in the world one can claim “Islam is a religion of tolerance”? When Allah Himself teaching devout Muslims that Pagans are “unclean” (9:28); non-believers are the “worst creatures” (98:6); and abode of non-believers are in the hell fire—how in the world Mr. Halim can possibly claim that “Islam is a religion of pluralism”?

You can read part 2 of the debate here.

Of course its one thing to cherry pick verses and another to look at Islamic scripture as a whole. So here are some handy statistics, given by Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) in an interview with FrontPage Magazine:

For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.

Warner also had some interesting things to say on the issue of tolerance and equality in Islam:

Warner: The term “human being” has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam.

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule. [The universal Golden Rule: "Treat others as you would be treated."]

[..]

The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be “nice”, but in no case is the unbeliever a “brother” or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be “friendly,” but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite.

Further statistics, on politics and war in Islam:

FrontPage: So is there such a thing as non-political Islam?

Warner: Non-political Islam is religious Islam. Religious Islam is what a Muslim does to avoid Hell and go to Paradise. These are the Five Pillars—prayer, charity to Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting and declaring Mohammed to be the final prophet.

But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.

Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.

Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.

The political nature of Islam and Mohammad’s preoccupation with politics rather than matters religion alone has long been noted both by the Mohammedans themselves and by Western observers. For example Bertrand Russell wrote in “Marriage and Morals”:

Great religious leaders, with the exception of Mohammad and Confucius – if he can be called religious – have in general been very indifferent to social and political considerations, and have sought rather to perfect the soul by meditation, discipline and self-denial.

Given that Confucius was not a religious leader, this leaves Mohammad alone as a leader of a religion who mixed petty politics and their “continuation by other means”, with matters of the divine. Back in the multicultural kindergarden people are surprised that little Islam does not play well with others, because daddy said he’s special and has given him a big stick to prove it. But you know, you can only hold the brat back so many years.

And finally, Warner gives a brief summary of what the practical result of the political, imperialist and militant dimension of Islam has been for societies that have stood in the way of its advance:

FrontPage: Can you touch briefly on the history of political Islam?

Warner: The history of political Islam starts with Mohammed’s immigration to Medina. From that point on, Islam’s appeal to the world has always had the dualistic option of joining a glorious religion or being the subject of political pressure and violence. After the immigration to Medina, Islam became violent when persuasion failed. Jihad entered the world.

After Mohammed’s death, Abu Bakr, the second caliph, settled the theological arguments of those who wished to leave Islam with the political action of death by the sword. The jihad of Umar (the second caliph, a pope-king) exploded into the world of the unbelievers. Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.

Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.

The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.

Zoroastrianism was eliminated from Persia.

The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.

In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.

Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

And lets not forget the Mandaeans now.

For more fun with numbers and further insight into the teachings of the Koran have a read of “Islam on Trial: The Prosecution’s Case against Islam”, by By Amber Pawlik, who did a statistical analysis of her own:

o I did a bigger study. This time I took it from a pro-Islamic site. I wanted to have at least 200 samples. I tried to think of the most diplomatic way to take random verses. I could go in and take every 30th verse, giving me approximately 200 verses. But that would skip over several Suras as many of them only have 5 – 9 verses in them. So I decided to give the verses a representation similar to the way our founding fathers set up our Congress: every Sura (just like every state) would be given a certain minimum representation and then larger Suras (just like larger states) would also have some kind of larger representation. So I took one verse from each Sura, thereby representing each Sura. I took the verse right in the middle. That gave me 114 verses. I wanted about 86 more. So then I went through and took every 70th verse. This naturally gave the larger Suras more of a representation. I ended up with 201 verses.

And, after hours of work, the results are in: they are exactly the same. For the percentage I was most interested in, how much of the Koran is nothing but hatred at infidels, it was exactly at 53%.

Do check out the rest of Amber’s findings.

Here’s the transcript of her speech at the Quadrant dinner, in Sydney last Thursday night.

Extract:

What should be done? Simply, this. We all have to grasp that terrorism is not the biggest threat we face. The biggest threat is the ideology that drives it. It’s not enough to fight terror, vital though that is. The principal battleground is the world of ideas. The Islamists understand this. They understand that if they can hijack the human mind to the cause of hatred and lies, they have an army; and if they can further hijack the minds of their victims, they will win. They understand that psychological warfare – the fomenting of paranoia, resentment, hysteria and demoralisation — is their most effective weapon.

But we haven’t even understood that this is where the real battleground is. The liberal west, which worships at the shrine of reason and makes such a fetish of the power of intellect, will not acknowledge that ideas can kill – and we flinch from what we would have to do to address this. As a result Britain, Europe, America and Israel have all left the battleground of ideas totally undefended, allowing the unhindered advance of falsehood and hatred. Worse still, our intelligentsia and media often act as an Islamists’ fifth column.

It is only if we act against the ideology that is spreading such 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 – resisting the Islamism which uses religion to attack western values, life and liberty, 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.