The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

​

 

​

 

​

 

Diversity of Multicultural Integration and Harmony!



​

 

Thomas Sullivan Weiss




Dean Murphy You might want to tell Trump that he's flipped on his anti muslim immigration stance too. Hows it fell in your ass?



Mark A Flores Poor Dean Murphy all hurt over Trump. We just voted against Hillary. ......sorry



Shallah Ar-Rasheed You must didn't read the meme.



Thomas Sullivan Weiss Is Dean Murphy the very definition of a sore loser?
Choosing corruption when corruption is way out of style?
Abundant Blessings to you Dean!



Terri Davis The money is available for both; it doesn't have to be either, or, it can be both so your meme is stupid.




Chris Harding Zionist bankers behind the wars, Zionist bankers behind the rapefugees welcome movement, kill two birds with one stone. Destroy the middle East and destroy Europe by replacing the native Europeans with a more inbred stupider population that breed more and are more easily manipulated.



Brian Wingate Refugees go home! And to the end of the new world order! Lol



Keith Allen Yup! I know the deal.



Adrienne Morrison So they travel half way round the world? They could have gone to another Muslim country!



Janice Scheffer so they chose here...US can take care of them...they are responsible for bombing the countries...duh



Joan Rooney What a ignorant statement!




Richard Dyson The message is spot on. Thanks for letting people know that Americas that are awake are not that bad. Our Government on the other hand is Evil.



Joshua Husted I feel terrible for anyone that's devastated by war.. it's truly a terrible world when you see kids and women dying in war



Angus Meigh Read this:http://www.independent.co.uk/.../six-out-of-10-migrants... And no refugee from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq or Somalia or Sudan needs to travel four thousand miles before they reach a safe country!!!!! Think about it! There are loads of safe countries for genuine refugees to escape to that are a lot nearer than four thousand miles away!!!



Brandon Duane Smith Damn straight. Take your american wars and shove them up your hind end



Marc Bing Yes indeed!!! ;-)




Alex Steenkist True I pray Trump ends it



Joan Rooney Some people have never been terrorised by bombs or bullets. They have no idea what terror feels like, they can't empathize. They ought to keep their opinionated mouths shut!



Mark A Flores Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, YEMEN Etc. And every rich able Islamic country refused to take any refugees in.



Goswald Hughes Saudi is closer.



Allan Heritic Sadly the refugees have no wher to call home Thanks to the US MIC



Josh R. Sondergeld AMERICA FIRST



Will Makepeace America first! Mexicans destroyed their own country. They have their own evil government.


Jess Martinez ...well, well, well, hold on Kimo Sabe...... We weren't the only ones. and what Country may I ask are you from?





Susan Lynne Schwenger
well>>> the 'government' is the 'collective consciousness' of all of the community or country - a vote right, avote left, or; NO vote - all carry the same equal weight as each is a choice - the sum total of the choices is called the karma of the consquences - just as action, or no action can field the same results - so, we all need to govern ourselves accordingly, we are all the sum total of the choices of our ancestors and ourselves, especially if we keep on allowing things we know are wrong to happen, the biggest traitor to any equation is the ones who see nothing, who hear nothing and who do nothing"




Tony Bermanseder
Who invaded Europe and was defeated at the gates of Vienna in 1683? It wasn't any nation or group of the 'civilized west'.

 

Polar Bear Muslims and Islamophilia!


The 18 year old Somali Muslim immigrant lived in the US legally, and as I stated countless times, their twisted ideology eventually surfaces, and American people die. The reality is that they can't assimilate, because they are taught to hate, at birth.



​

 

SWEDEN BURNING: Stockholm in flames as arson jihad epidemic rages in ‘no-go’ zones

By Pamela Geller - on November 30, 2016
ARSON JIHAD


Police lose control in Sweden to Muslims, but we are admonished and smeared for questioning the hijrah from the Middle East and Africa.
Trump is under enormous pressure from the left to alter his vow to halt this invasion. He must not waver.

SWEDEN BURNING: STOCKHOLM IN FLAMES AS CAR FIRE EPIDEMIC RAGES IN ‘NO-GO’ ZONE​

​

SHOCKING footage of cars burning out in Stockholm has emerged as the fire epidemic continues to spread uncontrolled throughout crisis-hit Sweden.​

By Lizzie Stromme, The Express, Nov 30, 2016​

The Scandinavian country has been plagued with arsonist thugs setting vehicles alight, with hundreds of cars burning out since 2015.In 2016 alone, more than 70 cars have been destroyed as police struggle to combat the increasing violence and criminal activity in the famously liberal country.​

The latest video shows three cars in Hallunda in southern Stockholm engulfed by flames as firefighters battle to put out the blaze.​

Overnight Sunday another car was also reported to be burning out in the crime hotbed, which was heavily hit by arson attacks in 2015.​

• Migrant blames ‘racist Swedes’ for car fires attacks

Hallunda was one of the cities which was placed on Sweden’s National Criminal Investigation Service’s list over “no-go” zones due to the police force’s increased lack of control over anti-social behaviour.In February, Express.co.uk reported the Scandinavian country had seen a huge surge in crime since the start of the migrant crisis in Europe – with a rise in sex assaults, drug dealing and children carrying weapons.At the time around 50 areas were put on a “blacklist” which are then divided into three categories from “risk areas” to “seriously vulnerable” as it was announced Stockholm had over 20 no-go areas where over 75,000 people live.However, the figure was increased to 55 in September as the Swedish police force face a recruitment crisis, with on average three officers handing in their notice every day.

​

REUTERS​

Hallunda, with a population with just over 14,000, was one of the areas where it was claimed violence was flourishing due to high immigration, low employment rates and bad living conditions.In 2015 alone Sweden, with a population of 9.5million, received over 160,000 asylum applications, resulting in the country closing its internal borders despite being a member of the Schengen Area, in a desperate attempt to halt the migrant influx.The report also said children aged 12 carry weapons for older criminals and 70 cars and buildings were set on fire in an arson spate last year.The southern city of Malmo suffered a surge of violence over the summer, as almost a 100 car fires ripped through the country’s third-largest city.​

RT​

The Scandinavian country has been plagued with arsonist thugs setting vehicles a blaze​

​

​

• 
  Popular conservative blogger Pamela Geller and New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer sound a wake-up call for Americans to stop the Obama administration from limiting our hard-won...
  BUY NOW
• 
  Today Islamic supremacists are demanding more accommodation of Islamic principles and practices than ever, and daily growing more aggressive in eroding our freedoms – with politically correct public officials only too happy..

Tammy Lockard
8 hrs ·

They are fueling the outrage against them.. idiot!

If the whites and native Swedes would stop being islamophobic, this would not happen and shariah would become the modus operandi of the religion of peaceful coexistence and tolerance.


Politically Correct Defence (Feminist Marxist) Ministers anyone?​

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors”

OCTOBER 27, 2016 2:57 PM BY HUGH FITZGERALD70 COMMENTS


Ever since 9/11, mosques and “Islamic centers” have been conducting campaigns of determined “outreach” to non-Muslims. The point of this “outreach” is to present Islam as the least threatening of faiths, one which has been too often misunderstood and its adherents unfairly maligned, and those adherents are only too glad to clear up misconceptions about their faith. One such gathering was held on September 16 at the Islamic Center of Boston in Wayland, Massachusetts, billed as “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors.”
The first “misconception” that the Muslim hosts thought needed to be cleared up had to do with how long Muslims have been in America. “People think that Muslims have just come here to this country,” said Shaheen Akhtar, who is an “interfaith liaison” and runs an “interfaith book club” at the Center. She told her audience that Jefferson and John Adams had both owned copies of the Qur’an. Her implication was clear: these men took a sympathetic interest in Islam. She even described Jefferson as “advocating for the rights of the practitioners of the faith.” This implies special pleading on his part for Islam. What Jefferson actually did was “advocate” for the principle of religious freedom in general, and famously quoted a line from John Locke’s 1698 A Letter Concerning Religious Toleration: “neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”
However, there were those whom Locke expressly excluded from toleration, and applying his own criteria, Muslims might well have been among them.
At the website of Apologetics Press:

Dr. Dave Miller has noted that in a section of A Letter Concerning Toleration dealing with those whom a civil magistrate “cannot” tolerate, Locke lists the following (page numbers refer to the 1796 edition of Locke’s Letter):Those whose religious opinions are contrary to “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society” (1796, p. 53);​

1. The religion that “teaches expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise” (p. 54);
2. “[T]hose that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion…and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long, until they find themselves strong enough to [seize the government]” (p. 55);
3. All those who see themselves as having allegiance to another civil authority (p. 56). Specifically, Locke gives the example of the Muslim who lives among Christians and would have difficulty submitting to the government of a “Christian nation” when he comes from a Muslim country where the civil magistrate was also the religious authority. Locke notes that such a person would have grave difficulty serving as a soldier in his adopted nation (cf. the 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree by a Muslim soldier who shouted, “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 32; see Stewart, 2010).
4. “[T]hose are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God” (p. 56).

1-#4 would all seem to disqualify Islam from such toleration.


But what did those visitors to the Islamic Center know about Jefferson’s reliance on Locke, and Locke’s criteria, that would have excluded Islam from “toleration”? And what did they know about, what could they reasonably conclude, from the Qur’ans owned by Jefferson and Adams?
Both Jefferson and Adams were intellectually voracious; they were curious about Islam, as they were curious about so many things; curiosity is not endorsement. Jefferson purchased his Qur’an, translated by the English lawyer and Orientalist George Sale, in 1765. Later, dealing with the problem of the Barbary Pirates, the North African Muslims who attacked Christian shipping and Christian sailors (and enormous sums were being spent by the young Republic to buy off these Muslim marauders), Jefferson, along with John Adams, met with the Tripolitanian envoy Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in London in 1786. Perhaps reading the Qur’an helped Jefferson to understand the motivations of this unexpected enemy; certainly by the time he became President in 1801, he was determined not to negotiate with the Barbary Pirates, but to implacably oppose with force these Muslims whom, he knew, were permanently hostile to all non-Muslims.
In London, Jefferson and Adams had queried the Tripolitanian ambassador”concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury” for the Americans had done nothing to deserve being attacked, and the ambassador replied, as Jefferson reported:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.​

​

And later, Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay and to Congress at greater length:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered 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 Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.​

​

These reports do not sound as if they came from someone who thought well of Islam. The more dealings Jefferson had with the representatives of the Barbary states, and the more he studied the tenets of the faith, the more he began to grasp the aggressive nature of Islam, the centrality of Jihad, the inculcation of permanent hostility toward non-Muslims, and the heavenly reward for Jihadis slain in battle.
As for John Adams, his owning a Qur’an did not signify an endorsement of Islam. While Jefferson’s Qur’an was that translated by George Sale, the Qur’an that Adams owned was translated by the Sieur de Ryer in 1647 into French, and from that an English translation appeared in 1649, and then published in the United States in 1806. And that edition of the “Alcoran of Mahomet” is prefaced by this: “This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible.”

On July 16, 1814, in a letter to Jefferson, John Adams described the Muslim prophet Muhammad as one of those (he listed others as well) who could rightly be considered a “military fanatic,” one who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.” Adams is nowhere on record as praising any aspect of Islam, nor even “advocating” its toleration.
Visitors to the Islamic Center of Boston were told only that Adams and Jefferson both owned Qur’ans, and that Jefferson “advocated” for Islam. They were not told what Jefferson and John Adams themselves had concluded about Islam and Muhammad (see above), or what their experience of dealing with Muslim powers had been, for that might have given those visitors pause.
And they were certainly not told that another American president, the formidable scholar John Quincy Adams, had studied the Qur’an, and the history of Islamic conquest, more thoroughly than any of our presidents before or since, and even felt impelled, from his study of both Islamic texts and of the history of Islamic conquest, to write a longer work on Islam. Here is some of what he wrote:

He [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.​

​

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. ​

He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adam’s capital letters]….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.^”​

​

As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. They [The Russians — J. Q. Adams was here discussing the endless war of the Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. ​

The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. ​

Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. ​

The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.​

​

Clearly, neither Jefferson, nor John Adams, nor his son John Quincy Adams had anything good to say about Islam. Indeed were they to utter such sentiments today they would most likely be declared “right-wing islamophobes” and consigned to the outer darkness. But the visitors to the Islamic Center were deliberately left with the impression that Jefferson and Adams were defenders, not detractors, of Islam.

The Islamic Center “has long prided itself on its interfaith services,” but what does that mean? Does it mean that non-Muslims can watch, or even participate in, the regular Muslim services? Or does it have to do with charity? Mention is made of “resources for homeless families.” Ordinarily, zakat (charitable giving), many Muslim websites insist, should be limited to fellow Muslims, but if it is given to non-Muslims, it can be justified as helping to “promote Islam” by burnishing its image. It is too bad that the “moderate voices” that Shaheed Akhtar says “need to be heard” did not openly discuss this matter with their guests. They might have said, for example, “you know, there are Muslims who believe that the recipients of zakat can only be other Muslims but we, the moderates, disagree.” That would have won points, but would also have required, however, the admission that many Muslims think otherwise.

Adil Najam, a Pakistani American, gave a presentation about “the experience of being a Muslim in America.” He has himself led a charmed academic life, and is now that appetizing thing, a full professor and Dean of the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University. How unfair it was, he smilingly implied, when he appeared on a TV news show after 9/11/2001 and was unpleasantly introduced as an “expert on hate” because he was a Muslim, at the very time when, Najam said, “everyone was talking about why they hate us.” Muslims should be seen as not experts on, but victims of hate, when they wish only, joked Najam, to someday become regarded as “experts on love.” Muslim love for non-Muslims, reciprocal non-Muslim love for Muslims, the promise of a Peaceable Kingdom if only the Islamophobes could be silenced, what a comforting prospect..

Along with attempts to enroll the Founding Fathers in the campaign to burnish Islam’s image, Muslims, and not just in CAIR, like both to backdate and exaggerate the Muslim presence in America. Broad claims have been made for an early Muslim presence. Najam did not disappoint, for he stated, almost offhandedly and, without reference to any supporting evidence, that “around 30 percent of the slaves brought over to the United States were Muslim.” No such certainty exists among those who have researched the question of slaves who were Muslim; figures range from 5% to 10% to 15% to the fantastic figure of 30%. Najam chose not to discuss the complexity of the issue, but plucked out of the air the highest figure that anyone has ever mentioned, 30%, and presented it as indisputable fact. He did not discuss another aspect of this matter, which is that even those slaves who came as Muslims found it impossible to keep up the observance of Islam and within a few generations, as Syviane Diouf has pointed out, the observance of Islam practically, and swiftly, died out: “Islam as brought by the African slaves has not survived….in the Americas and the Caribbean, not one community currently practices Islam as passed on by preceding African generations.” The absence of Qur’ans, madrasas, mosques, and the pressure to convert to Christianity, all contributed to this rapid disappearance of Islam.

Adil Najam wanted to convey to his non-Muslim audience the challenge of being a Muslim in America, and the “difficult conversations” so many of them had to have with their children. “How do you explain to your child that someone who has a name like his, someone who claims to be from the religion that he has grown up in, would do a horrible thing”? Notice how Najam suggests by sleight of word that anyone who “would do a horrible thing” (a terrorist attack) only “claims” to be a Muslim, but cannot really be one. And it is the good, kind, peaceful and therefore “authentic” Muslims who are also victims of Islamic terrorism, for it is they who suffer the consequences of the acts of bad (and therefore “false”) Muslims. Yet Najam passes over in silence – does not attempt to explain — the disturbing habit those “false” Muslims have of quoting passages from the Qur’an to justify their every act. Did they make those passages up?

Adil Najam isn’t sorry for Muslims alone. He emphasized that non-Muslims also had to have “difficult conversations” with their children, too. What kind of conversations? Perhaps, you are thinking, conversations about safety, because children have learned about Boston and San Bernardino and Fort Hood and Chattanooga and Orlando, and about dozens — or hundreds, or thousands — of other Muslim terrorist attacks, in London and Paris and Brussels and Amsterdam and Madrid and Moscow, in Nigeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Libya. There have been, after all, nearly 30,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims since 9/11/2001. This might naturally cause some anxiety, and not only among children. The heightened security at airports, railroad and bus stations, subways, sports events, concerts, political rallies, any place where large numbers of people gather – all this is in response to, and reminds us constantly of, the threat of Islamic terrorism.
But it’s not reassurances about safety that Adil Najam thinks non-Muslim parents must offer their children. He does not think that the “difficult conversation” non-Muslim parents need to have with their children should be about terrorism, even if it were in the context of an attempt to reassure them, by possibly minimizing the danger. No, the conversation that he thinks non-Muslim parents need to have with their children is not about terrorism at all but should be “about how to deal with Islamophobia, too.”

So the problem for all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, is not the steady stillicide of Muslim attacks on non-Muslims (in this country, in Europe, around the world) but, rather, the attitudes such attacks give rise to among non-Muslims (fear, suspicion, hostility), attitudes that the adil-najams of this world insist on dismissing as the bigotry of “Islamophobia.” Adil Najam was in his element at this Meet Your Muslim Neighbors event, encouraging the belief that any suspicion or hostility felt by non-Muslims reflected a baseless and irrational fear, an “Islamophobia” that we are all supposed to reject as we learn to meet and trust Our Muslim Neighbors. Others might beg to differ, might even argue that it would be irrational, given the observable behavior and attitudes of so many Muslims, not to be exceedingly wary of Islam and its adherents.

The non-Muslim visitors to this “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors” farce were eager to signal their acceptance of Najam’s victimization narrative. “You can’t be a bystander,” said Elizabeth Jonczyk, who was visiting the center with her sister to learn about Islam. “You have a duty to stand up and say, ‘That’s just wrong,’ and that you don’t stand with the people who have this hateful rhetoric.” Music to the ears of CAIR.

One wonders what exactly Ms. Joczcyk learned about Islam during her visit. Whose “hateful rhetoric” was she deploring? Has she been made aware of any “hateful rhetoric” in the Qur’an? Has she glanced at even one of the thousands of Muslim websites spewing “hateful rhetoric”? Or is “hateful rhetoric” what comes only from “right-wing” Islamophobes? Was she made aware, in meeting her Muslim neighbors, of any of the more than 100 Jihad verses in the Qur’an? Did she learn anything about the life of Muhammad? Did she find out – and please pardon the repetition, but these things must be repeated again and again — about as his attack on the Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, or his marriage to little Aisha when she was six and consummation of that marriage when she was nine? Did she learn of the satisfaction he expressed at the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak for mocking him, or his viewing of the beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Did anyone at the Islamic Center let her know that despite all this, Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil), the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana)? Did she find out that Muslims are called the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims the “vilest of creatures” in the Qur’an?

I would bet my bottom dollar she learned none of that from her hosts at “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors.” All she heard was that it is hard for Muslims in this country, for they are so unfairly tarred with the brush of terrorism, when we all know, don’t we, that these attacks by people who “claim” to be Muslims have “nothing to do with Islam.” Yet Muslim parents have to have that “difficult conversation” with their children, in this climate of right-wing hate speech (add any other epithets you like) and Islamophobia, and non-Muslim parents have a similar duty, too, to make sure their own children become aware of this “Islamophobia” phenomenon and are properly immunized against it.

Adil Najam, who grew up in Pakistan, knows what is in the Qur’an and Hadith. He knows perfectly well the Qur’anic verses that call for Jihad, knows the description of non-Muslims in the Qur’an, knows about Aisha and Asma bint Marwan and the Khaybar Oasis and the Banu Qurayza. He knows the significance of the Hadith as a gloss on the Qur’an, perhaps even more disturbing than the Qur’an. But he does not wish to share that knowledge with his trusting non-Muslim guests. He would prefer that whatever they learn about Islam not be anything that might alarm or worry them. And he wants them to think that any anxiety about Islam is merely the result of motiveless malignity, irrational hatred, “Islamophobia.”

What might Adil Najam, Dean of the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies, and a Professor of More Than One Thing at Boston University, have done differently that Saturday morning at the Islamic Center? He might have said that yes, there are many passages in the Qur’an that call for Jihad against the Infidels. He might have admitted that these passages had proven dangerous to the well-being of all non-Muslims, as over the past 1400 years Muslims had repeatedly shown that they took the duty of Jihad to heart, and had conquered many lands and subjugated many peoples.
Professor Najam might have said that it was up to Muslims, like himself, to own up to the centrality of Jihad in Islam. It was imperative for Muslims, Dean Najam might have argued, “to put Islam back into history,” as Christians and Jews had learned to do with their holy books, instead of treating it as uncreated and immutable. It was up to Muslims, he might have continued, not to try to protect their faith from the prying eyes of Infidels, but to own up to the texts and teachings of Islam in the hope of finding ways to contextualize or re-interpret the offending passages in the Qur’an and Hadith.

Adil Najam might have said that many events in Muhammad’s life were deeply disturbing, and ought to be recognized as such by mainstream Muslims, rather than denied or explained away, and non-Muslims had a perfect right to be alarmed at those events, particularly since Muhammad was regarded by Muslims as “the Perfect Man.” Professor Najam might have said that Muslims should try always to enlighten, and never to mislead, their non-Muslim Neighbors.

Yes, he might have said any of these things, and by now in these paragraphs you have been asked to believe, if my aging abacus is accurate, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast. But if Adil Najam, Professor and Dean of the Frederick S. Pardee Etc., were to say or do even one of the things just suggested, he would not be Adil Najam, but instead be Maajid Nawaz, or Pervez Hoodbhoy, or Ibn Warraq, or Wafa Sultan, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And he would then not only have, but would actually deserve, the trust of those who came to Meet Their Muslim Neighbors.


AFDI sues London taxis for Sharia censorship
Germany: Christian refugees flee migrant camp as Muslims threaten to behead “unbelievers”

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: A Saudi Princess In Paris

NOVEMBER 2, 2016 1:50 PM BY HUGH FITZGERALD118 COMMENTS


In France this September, a Saudi princess had her bodyguards seize her Parisian decorator simply because he took, as part of his work, a photograph of her flat. She then had him beaten and bound, threatened with death (“Kill the worthless dog!”), and forced to kiss her feet in a sign of craven submission.
Here’s what happened, according to the magazine Le Point:

The decorator said his terrifying ordeal started after he had taken a snap of the interior of the flat in a chic apartment block on Avenue Foch, in the affluent 16ème arrondissement, when the princess flew into a rage.
“You must kill him, this dog. He doesn’t deserve to live,” he told police she had screamed at her armed bodyguard because she thought that he had taken the picture to sell it to the press.
Guards of Saudi royals are authorised by the French interior ministry to bear arms, which is not the case for private security guards of French nationality, bar rare exceptions.
The decorator said he desperately tried to explain that he always took pictures of buildings where he conducted works to be sure to put back objects and furniture in the same place afterwards.
But the princess remained unconvinced and the decorator said her guard then punched him on the side of the head before binding his hands together.
In a fit of zeal, the guard then ordered his prisoner to “kiss the feet” of the princess. He said when he refused, the guard pointed a gun at him.
​

The decorator’s ordeal lasted four hours. He was finally let go, and he now has brought a claim against the princess, for not paying her bill to him, for keeping his equipment, and for holding him prisoner and beating him. Meanwhile, the Saudi princess skipped town, claiming “diplomatic immunity,” as so many well-off Saudi princes and princesses have done, since they are, after all, part of the vast ruling family, though their connection to actual diplomacy is non-existent.

What did this incident, that attracted a good deal of Parisian commentary, tell us? For it was not an isolated incident. There have been many cases reported in Europe (and some even in the U.S.) of royal Saudis misbehaving in extraordinary ways. Several of them have decamped from their hotels without paying their bills, though none of them lacks for money. One did so in the dead of night in Paris, along with the 60 members of her retinue, in order to avoid paying a $7 million dollar hotel bill for 41 rooms that she had rented for six months, and to avoid paying, as well, a $20 million dollar debt owed to a dozen luxury stores. Other Saudi princesses and princes have left without settling similar bills running into many millions, not only from hotels, but from interior decorators, limousine services, jewelry and furniture stores. And then there are more serious crimes, involving the physical abuse of their servants and employees. One Saudi prince, Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud, was sentenced to jail in the U.K. in 2010 for the “sexually motivated killing of his Sudanese manservant,” whom he beat to death after a “prolonged campaign of violence and sexual abuse” in a suite in London’s Landmark Hotel. But though given a life sentence, after just three years he was released, to serve the rest of his sentence in Saudi Arabia. Just how long do you think it will be before this prince of the Al-Saud family is set free from his Saudi prison? One year? One month? And do you think he’s being made to endure real prison conditions, or something more like a hotel? And when he’s freed, what can the British government do about it? Nothing.

In the U.S., another Saudi prince faced allegations of having a sexual relationship with a male aide, taking cocaine and threatening to kill women who refused his advances – as well as sexually assaulting a maid at his Beverly Hills mansion. He managed to have felony charges against him dropped, and appears to have fled the country rather than face misdemeanor charges. Another example of a Saudi getting away with, if not murder, than at least serious charges, of forced sex, with several different people.

There have been other offenses, both serious and minor, involving both Saudi princes and princesses, in Paris, London, and other Western cities. One Saudi prince used his private plane to smuggle two tons of drugs out of Lebanon. Yet they have always been able either to avoid any punishment at all, or to receive surprisingly light sentences.
While travelling in Europe with their Saudi employers, domestic servants have from time to time managed to escape from them and to tell stories of barbarous mistreatment and overwork and often a failure to be paid even the pitiful sums they were promised. One can only imagine how many servants of the Saudis endure their lives as semi-slaves in Saudi Arabia – with little payment, having their passports held so that they cannot escape, subject to 18-hour work days, beaten or sexually molested or even tortured – and who, unless they travel with their Saudi masters to Europe, and manage to escape — remain largely unable to report their intolerable conditions. But even when the reports reach the West, nothing effective is done, either by the countries whose nationals are most affected (Sri Lanka, India, the Philippines, Thailand) or by Western powers, to change Saudi behavior.
What did this latest display of Saudi cruelty and arrogance in Paris signify? It reminds us that “officially” slavery came to an end in Saudi Arabia, one of the last countries to abolish it, in 1962, and only because of outside pressure, but that the mentality remains.

In Saudi Arabia still, many servants must endure treatment close to the “slave” conditions that were supposedly abolished. Slavery is bound up with, and sanctioned by, Islam. Muhammad himself owned slaves, and whatever Muhammad did remains exemplary for all Muslims for all time. For nearly 1400 years, Muslims enslaved Infidels, from the “white slaves” of Western Europe described in Giles Milton’s White Gold, to the slaves – that is, the Slavs – of Eastern Europe, taken by the Osmanli and Seljuk Turks, to the black Africans whom Arab slavers seized in east and central Africa. That Arab trade in Africans was the deadliest part of the African slave trade, because 7 out of 10 of those seized were young boys, intended to be used as eunuchs and therefore castrated in the jungle, where 90% of them died from the operation before they could reach, by slave coffle and dhow, the Islamic slave markets of Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, and Istanbul. That Arab slave trade involved 17 million people, with many more victims than the slave trade that brought black Africans from West Africa to the New World, which involved an estimated 2 to 4 million Africans. Yet the Arab slave trade is hardly discussed in the West, while the Middle Passage is written about endlessly.
King Fahd expressed this mentality in 1993 when in Jeddah he famously said:

I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave.
​

And it’s the same mentality that impelled the Saudi princess and her guards this September to treat this Parisian Infidel as if he were their slave, someone they could with impunity bind and beat for four hours, command to kiss his Saudi employer’s feet, and threaten to kill. Had the scene taken place in Saudi Arabia, he might well have been subject to even worse. Fortunately for him, he was in a civilized country, of which he was a citizen, and could escape with his life.

But can France remain a civilized country if it allows its citizens to be so manhandled with impunity? The Saudi Princess was allowed to claim diplomatic immunity and to leave France. She’s escaped punishment, like so many other Saudis before her. Western pusillanimity simply reinforces Saudi (and Muslim) contempt for Infidels, whom the Qur’an describes in Sura 98:6 as the “most vile of creatures.”
The Saudis have been getting away with murder in Western Europe because Saudi oil, and Saudi cooperation on oil policy, in the past has been deemed so important. But is Saudi oil really as important as it once was? The world has been awash in oil, including shale oil, and the Saudis have been eager to produce more oil in order to lower prices, and thus make production of that shale oil by the Americans and alternative energy sources uneconomic. The results have been dramatic. In 2015, the price of oil was down so much that the Saudis, incapable of curbing their spending, ran a $98 billion deficit, and are likely to draw down their entire surplus of $630 billion within a few years as the shift out of oil to renewables continues, a shift that may now be, as U. S. Secretary of Energy Moniz says, “irreversible.” There is no plausible Saudi “threat” to produce less oil; that would only drive up the price of oil, ensuring that shale oil is worth producing, and certainly pushing consumers worldwide into even more rapidly embracing renewables. And the $100-billion per year budget deficit also means the Saudis will not be the customers they have been in the past. And some of the markets where they were most important – e.g., high-end real estate in London and Paris, luxury cars and goods – are seeing Saudis being replaced by Chinese and Russians.
So there is far less reason today, than there would have been twenty years ago, to placate the Saudis by allowing them to flout Western laws.

What if, instead of permitting members of the Al-Saud family to escape from the consequences of their criminal behavior by claiming “diplomatic immunity,” the French government were to have summarily denied that status, and arrested and charged the princess and her bodyguards with holding a French citizen against his will, and then binding, beating, and threatening him with death? There would be two justifications for this. One is that even if the princess invoked “diplomatic immunity,” the government of France could claim that her actions fell outside the scope of a diplomat’s official functions, and therefore diplomatic immunity did not apply. Second, when the claim of “diplomatic immunity” is based not on her actually being a diplomat at any level, but only on her being a member of the Saudi royal family, such a claim becomes absurd, especially when one considers that there are now 15,000 princes and princesses of the Al-Saud. “Diplomatic immunity” was never meant to apply to such numbers. For a very large diplomatic presence as, for example, France has in the United States, with an embassy and ten consulates, at most a hundred embassy and consulate employees might be able to legitimately claim “diplomatic immunity.”

By standing up to the Saudis, who until now have treated the laws of the Infidels with indifference or contempt, the French would have set an example for the rest of Europe, signaling that the previous policy of craven obeisance was over, that the oil-rich Muslim countries no longer needed to be courted, and neither the Saudis, nor the Qataris (who ignored French laws about preserving the architectural heritage when they installed huge underground garages and elevators in 17th century Parisian houses, such as the Hotel Lambert, destroying their historical integrity), nor the Emiratis, are any longer going to be able to ignore Western laws.
Imagine the effect on Western morale if the French had prevented the Saudi princess from leaving, declared publicly that she had been denied “diplomatic immunity,” and held her for investigation and trial, making clear that there was to be no return to the ill-considered policy of submission to Saudi desires and diktats.
And imagine the effect on the Saudis and other Muslim Arabs if it were no longer possible for the rich Arabs to use Western Europe as a combination luxury goods store, fun fair, and brothel, and to behave in Europe just as they liked, without suffering any consequences.

Or suppose, taking a different tack, the French government had unceremoniously booted out the princess and her retinue, and declared that none of them could ever return to France, announcing that its former indulgent policy toward “certain foreigners who have presumed on our forbearance in the past” (no need to specify, everyone will understand the Gulf Arabs are meant) was over, and that those deemed guilty of any infractions of French laws would in the future, after serving whatever prison time might be imposed, and fine paid, then be required to leave France, never to return. That is a threat that has real bite not just for Saudis, but also for others similarly situated (Kuwaitis, Qataris, Emiratis), who have cut a wide swathe in Europe without worrying overmuch about consequences. Access to Western Europe is something the rich Arabs, for all of their o’erweening arrogance, desperately desire. If you have all the money in the world, but are condemned to spend your time and money in monotonous souks and glittering shopping malls of the Gulf, life can be intolerably constrained.
What is needed is for the West to reassert itself, to become more aware of its true position of strength vis-à-vis the world of Islam, and to not allow itself to be inveigled or snookered or pressured by the rich Arabs into letting them ignore our laws. They need the West for many reasons. It is where they can indulge their private pleasures, far from the stultifying atmosphere in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Gulf. Their yachts are in the Mediterranean, their pleasure palaces in Paris and London, their villas on the French Riviera and the Costa del Sol, their Maseratis and Maybachs garaged in Zurich and Berlin, their jewelry bought at Harry Winston and Cartier in New York and Paris.
And where would the rich Arabs be if they could not count on Western medical care, whether from the doctors of Harley Street in London, or at the hospitals of Boston and New York (the niqabbed waiting rooms at many of these institutions testify to that dependence). They will always need the West. But the West no longer needs them, as we once convinced ourselves we did, because of the vast changes in energy supply and demand. As already mentioned above, more oil can be retrieved, thanks to fracking, than once thought, and there is at the same time a steady drop in oil demand, with greater use of electric cars and solar heating. Better schooled in Islam than we once were, we now realize that treating leniently those who are taught to view us as the “vilest of creatures” wins no favors, but merely confirms Muslims in their contempt and o’erweening arrogance.
Even if this particular princess got away, similar outrageous behavior by another Saudi is bound to come along soon. And this time, the French (or other Western) government should not allow any invoking of “diplomatic immunity” unless the Saudi in question really is a diplomat (and not just a member of the Al-Saud). Rather, bring that offender to trial, and if convicted, make sure he (or she) serves out the sentence in Europe, not in Saudi Arabia. This is needed to re-set relations between the civilized Western states and the uncivilized states of Dar al-Islam. The world’s oil-rich Muslim states need to recognize that their former hold over the advanced West is gone.
The French might also signal their new policy by declaring that that princess, who fled to Saudi Arabia, is forever barred from returning to France, and they might even seize her apartment, holding it for sale to satisfy a judgment likely to be won by the decorator, a judgment which, considering what happened to him, could well be substantial). And if the Saudis don’t like that kind of treatment, what can they do? If they sell less oil they will lose even more market share not just to other oil producers (Iraq, Iran, American frackers), but also to the alternative sources of energy that the elon-musks of this world are making constantly cheaper and more efficient, from electric cars to solar collectors.

This progress is inexorable, and there is nothing the Saudis or other Muslim oil states can do to stop it. It is up to the countries of Western Europe to show the Saudis (and other Gulf Arabs) that the days of Western deference and Arab swagger are over, beginning with an end to treating their terminally arrogant “royals” as the real thing. La Commedia è finita! Why not bring down this particular curtain, so that we can concentrate on what is now being performed on the main stage, for what looks like a very long run, which is to say, the Muslim invasion of Europe?


Iranian military leader: Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps "will be in the U.S. and Europe very soon"
UK Muslim spokesman Mohammed Shafiq: Louis Smith ban for "Islamophobia" fuels "Islamophobia"

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: Geert Wilders, Or, A Daniel Come to Judgment “More In Sorrow”

NOVEMBER 6, 2016 6:19 PM BY HUGH FITZGERALD44 COMMENTS


In March 2014, during a political rally at The Hague, Geert Wilders asked his audience whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans” in The Netherlands. “Fewer, fewer,” his supporters chanted. And then he promised them that “then, we will arrange that.” He meant, of course, that if his party were to do well in the next election, he would limit the number of “Moroccans” entering the country. He did not denounce all “Moroccans.” He did not say he would be forcibly removing “Moroccans” from the country. All he did was utter less than a dozen words, lasting less than 30 seconds. There was no ranting, no mocking of Moroccans. But out of that briefest of exchanges with his supporters a hysterical case has been concocted by the Dutch state against Wilders, who is now on trial, put there by those who think that his question-and-answer constituted “racism” and “discrimination” and “hate speech.”
Where should we begin with this? Wilders has never made a comment on a race, though he is forever being accused of “racism.” “Moroccans” are not a “race,” and it is not “racist” for a Dutch citizen to worry aloud about the observable effect of their increasing presence in the Netherlands. Nor do Moroccans constitute an ethnicity; there are both ethnic Arabs and ethnic Berbers who are “Moroccans.” “Moroccan” signifies a national identity, albeit one that is inextricably linked to Islam. Wilders said nothing to whip up “hate” against “Moroccans.”

He merely asked his audience whether, given their own experience with Moroccan immigrants, they wanted more or fewer such migrants in the Netherlands. For experience had shown that those “Moroccans” continue to make heavy demands on the generous Dutch welfare state, soaking up funds (for housing, medical care, education, unemployment benefits, etc.) that are then no longer available for needy Dutch people, and that the rates of criminality, and expensive incarceration, among “Moroccans,” have been many times larger than the rates among the native Dutch. As of 2011, 65% of all Moroccan males between 12-23 years of age have been detained by the Dutch police at least once. One third of this group has been detained five or more times. Moroccan criminals are convicted at four times the rate of Dutch suspects. These numbers were steadily increasing when reported on in 2011, and it is reasonable to conclude they have continued to rise since then, though no more recent reckoning has been made public. It may be that the Dutch government doesn’t want figures to get out that would alarm the populace still further. And European officials, including the police, often discourage the reporting of crimes by Muslim migrants.

Wilders did not discuss in detail the high rate of Moroccan criminality. But he knows, and his Dutch supporters know, and for that matter even those putting Wilders on trial know, that it has to do not with their being Moroccans, but with their being Muslims. First, as Muslims, they are inculcated with contempt and hatred for non-Muslims. It is not just that Infidels are described in the Qur’an as the “vilest of creatures” (98:6) while Muslims are the “best of peoples” (3:110), but that throughout the Qur’an and the Hadith, one finds these same judgments endlessly repeated, dilated upon, amplified. Shouldn’t the best of peoples be allowed to take the property of the vilest of creatures?

Second, in an Islamic society, Muslims will spare the lives of non-Muslims (if they are People of the Book, Christians and Jews) and allow them to practice their religion in return for payment of the Jizyah, or capitation tax. But in Europe today, which is not yet ruled by Muslims, taking property from non-Muslims can also be understood, and justified, by Muslims, as a proleptic helping themselves to the Jizyah even before Muslim rule is established, and the Jizyah formally exacted.

Third, because Allah can and does interfere at will with human destinies, distributing or withholding bounty as he wishes, there is not much point in striving to succeed; instead, Muslims exhibit what is known as inshallah-fatalism.
Fourth, another aspect of Islam that acts as a brake on economic achievement is the distrust of bida, or innovation, which in its narrowest interpretation means “innovation in religious matters,” but is applied more generally to new ways of doing things, and new ways are Islamically doubtful. Just think of how often the word “innovative” is used as a positive epithet in the West, while in the lands of Islam, whatever is “innovative” is regarded with deep suspicion. The economic performance of Muslim migrants is not impressive, when compared both with that of the indigenous peoples and with that of non-Muslim immigrants in Europe. The unemployment rate for Muslims is much higher than for non-Muslims. Inshallah-fatalism and hatred of bida have their effect. Why work hard when Allah decides who gets what? Why work at all when the property of the Infidels is there for the taking? Higher rates of Muslim unemployment have two consequences: first, more money from the Dutch government goes to welfare benefits for Muslims; second, more unemployed Muslims leads to more property crimes committed by Muslims.
Finally, it is not just crimes of property, but sexual crimes by Muslims that worry those who answered Geert Wilders with the chant “fewer, fewer” (Moroccans). Muhammad himself took sex slaves from three different tribes, and Muhammad was the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct for all time. Muslim sexual assaults on non-Musliim women – a steady and growing feature of life in Europe today, especially in Germany and the Scandinavian countries – can be Islamically justified by the belief that these women, by dress and demeanor, are “asking for it.” And since Muhammad took Infidel women for his sexual pleasure, why shouldn’t Muslims today follow his example? Hence we have in many parts of Europe what has been called, and not by Geert Wilders, the “Muslim rape epidemic.”

To appreciate the magnitude of this problem, think of Sweden, where Muslims now make up 2 percent of the population, but 77 percent of those convicted of rape.
The trial of Wilders has begun, but right now it’s Hamlet without the Prince. Geert Wilders has decided to boycott the proceedings. He doesn’t want to dignify what he regards as a farce. Farce it certainly is, but there’s reason to think he’s chosen the wrong strategy and is missing an opportunity to educate the Dutch public. I think he should now announce that he will show up, will defend himself, will bring to the attention of the court and to the larger Dutch public what prompted him to openly worry about the numbers of “Moroccans” in the Netherlands. He should take the occasion to hold up for inspection and discussion every one of the prosecution’s points. He should insist that “Moroccans” are neither a race nor an ethnicity. He should explain that yes, of course Islam has something to do with his wanting to limit the number of “Moroccans” in the Netherlands, for it is Islam, he should insist, that explains their hostile attitudes and behavior toward the Dutch Infidels, their inability to integrate into Dutch society, their high rates of both unemployment and, especially, criminality.

He should, in the courtroom, read out, from the Qur’an, both the “best of peoples” (98:6) and the “vilest of creatures” (3:110) passages, and repeat them, and others that reinforce the same message, all the while dispassionately explaining that given that kind of inculcation, what else can one expect of the “Moroccans” who want to be “good Muslims.” He should explain that Muslims may see their property crimes as akin to the sanctioned Jizyah, which he should define as “a capitation tax which non-Muslims in an Islamic state are required to pay to stay alive.” He might even take the occasion to define the word “dhimmi” and to describe the host of disabilities, aside from the Jizyah, that non-Muslims must endure. The aim will be to ensure that these words, “Jizyah” and “Dhimmi,” and what they mean, are forced into the Dutch public consciousness.

Geert Wilders should take the tack not so much of being angry with these Muslim Moroccans, but rather, of someone offering an understanding analysis of what makes Muslims – who are mainly “Moroccans” in the Netherlands – behave as they do in the countries of Western Europe. Wilders should remind the court that whether it is mainly Pakistanis in the U.K. (with their girl-grooming gangs), North African Arabs in France, Turks in Germany, Afghans and Arabs in Sweden, the problems with these different populations of Muslims turn out to be the same everywhere, including the inculcated hostility toward their Infidel hosts which prevents integration by Muslims, no matter from where they may have come, nor where in Europe they may end up.

And Wilders can present another narrative in the courtroom. The attitude to assume toward the “Moroccans” should be one of “they can’t help it because they are merely taking the Qur’an and Hadith to heart” and “it’s unrealistic to expect that they will change, the hold of Islam is too strong over the minds of its adherents.” This unexpected air of sweet reasonableness, of explaining “Moroccan” behavior as something they cannot control, will unnerve his critics, not least because what Wilders says is true. Can those critics ignore or deny the Qur’anic passages or Hadith stories he quotes? Can they deny the statistics he adduces on Muslim criminality, and the comparison he can make with that of non-Muslim immigrants and indigenes, all over Europe?

At the same time, Wilders should keep the attention both of the court and of the journalists covering his trial, on the long-suffering Dutch people who have for too many years endured both the spectacular rise in crime by Muslims and the burden placed on them for the government benefits lavished upon an ever-increasing Muslim population. Wilders ought to turn on his accusers and put them on trial instead; he ought to hold up for critical inspection those who have tried to silence him by continuing to label him, without the slightest evidence, as “racist” and “right-wing,” he should wonder aloud at the willful ignorance, confusion, and hypertrophied fear-of-being-perceived as “right-wing” or “racist” of the political and media elites who claim to be able to protect and instruct the Dutch people, but have avoided coming to grips with the essence of Islam. Instead,they have tried to silence those who, like Geert Wilders, have been willing to take on the ideology of Islam. The baleful consequences of this are to be seen everywhere in Europe, where people who are rightly anxious about Islam feel abandoned by their own governments.

No matter how many times the press affixes the epithet “far-right” both to Wilders and to his party, the PVV – just try to find any story about him that does not include the “far-right” or “racist” label –there is nothing particularly “far-right” about wanting to lessen the number of likely criminals in the Netherlands. The high rate of Muslim criminality is not a figment of a “right-wing” imagination, but a fact confirmed by the police statistics everywhere in Europe.
Wilders should paint a full picture of Muslims in the Netherlands, not to denounce, but to help his fellow citizens, including those determined to punish him, to understand why Muslims behave as they do. He should explain how their inshallah-fatalism and suspicion of bida contributes to their economic underperformance and high unemployment. He should explain what it is in the Qur’an and Hadith that makes Muslims think that they are entitled to help themselves to the property (and, in some cases, the women) of the Infidels, as a kind of informal Jizyah, and what explains the Muslim indifference to the man-made laws of the Infidels, for the only laws that count are those that come from the Qur’an and Hadith. The trial of Wilders should be turned into a public lesson in the ideology of Islam, and its practitioners depicted, truthfully, as unable to behave otherwise than they do.

Above all, Geert Wilders should present, with outward sober mien, a “more-in-sorrow” case against the “Moroccans.” Perhaps he should begin his peroration thus: “It is not their fault that their faith inculcates the attitudes it does, or makes it so difficult and dangerous for anyone born into the faith to question aspects of it, much less try to leave the faith altogether. It’s not their fault” – Wilders should continue – “if the Qur’an and Hadith instill certain attitudes in Muslims, the same attitudes that those texts have instilled over 1400 years and that explain Muslim conquests over such wide areas, and the subjugation of so many different non-Muslims, to Muslim rule. It is madness,” Geert Wilders should quietly tell the court, “to believe that somehow all of that history, and those immutable texts, can be ignored.” And Wilders could even say “I feel sorry for those born into, and trapped in, this faith that will not let them out and that teaches them to be the enemies of all non-Muslims, that is most of mankind. I feel sorry that the habit of mental submission that is instilled in them keeps them slaves to Islam. But I feel even sorrier for my own countrymen, who are made to suffer the depredations of Muslim migrants – mostly, at this point, Moroccans – who have come to live among us, but are not here to make things better for our country, but only better for themselves, by any and all means allowed by their beliefs. Yes, I do not apologize for the fact that I am more sorry for those Dutch who now have to worry about burglaries and muggings and sexual assaults and No-Go Areas in their own country.”

And then, with this new and improved version of Geert Wilders, this “More In Sorrow” courtroom version, Geert Wilders will signal his readiness for that electoral closeup next March. A closeup which, for the Dutch who can still think straight, can’t come soon enough.


Lebanese Christian: "Donald Trump is good for Middle Eastern Christians"
Pope Francis denounces "politics of fear," says "all walls fall"