Saturday, August 27, 2011

Losing Our Senses

Oslo riots

Those of us who follow the progress of Islamization on both sides of the Atlantic have observed in recent months the remarkable successes realized by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in achieving its agenda. By focusing on “Islamophobia”, the OIC has skillfully pushed all the available guilt buttons on government officials, academics, and the media. The fear of being seen as racist or intolerant trumps everything else. Getting with the OIC program is the path of least resistance — follow it, and you are guaranteed to feel good about yourself. Even better, you are less likely to be sued by CAIR.

The latest strategy launched by the Obama administration is to pull back from effective counter-terrorism intelligence in local law enforcement, and concentrate on “community policing” instead. In Muslim communities, this means engaging the help of local Muslim leaders in fighting “violent extremism”, rather than doing the necessary undercover work to discover dangerous networks using traditional intelligence models.

“Hello there, Mr. Fox! Would you kindly help us find the violent extremist in the henhouse?”

The concept of “violent extremism” is the height of absurdity. Extreme what? Extreme heavy metal music, maybe? Extreme Shintoism? How about extreme vegetarianism?

Without a substantive to modify, the adjective “extreme” is worse than incoherent — it is without linguistic or semantic meaning. This is the depth to which our official policy-making has sunk.

In an article entitled “Losing Malmö”, published in today’s NRO, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former prosecutor and author of The Grand Jihad, takes a look at these and other aspects of the fight against Islamic terrorism in Europe and the United States. Some excerpts are below:

Do you remember the jihadist terror campaign that ravaged Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city? Do you recall the bombings, the suicide-hijackings, and the random assassinations that finally coerced the city to surrender to Islamization?

No? Funny, I don’t remember them either. Yet there is no question that Malmö has surrendered. Large enclaves of the city, like similar enclaves throughout Western Europe, have earned the dread label “no-go zone.” They are unsafe for non-Muslims, particularly women who do not conform to Islamist conventions of dress and social interaction. They are especially perilous for police, firefighters, and emergency-medical technicians.

Why would a community discourage the so-called first-responders? After all, the top priority of law-enforcement officers is to assist crime victims. In an Islamic enclave, a high percentage of these will be Muslims. And obviously, the fire department and the ambulances are dispatched to save lives — here, Muslim lives. Yet, the community is hostile. The police and other emergency personnel are viewed as agents of the non-Muslim state. Their presumptuousness in entering the Islamic enclave and acting under the color of Swedish law is taken as an affront to Islamic sovereignty.


There is a simple reason why this has happened to Malmö, and why it is happening in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, etc. The European Union forced on its member states the same approach to their swelling Muslim populations that the Obama administration is now trying to strong-arm American cities and states into adopting. It is a suicide theory, holding that the only threat to our security is “violent extremism.”

Violent extremism, the theory goes, is wanton and irrational. Therefore, it is mere coincidence that today’s violent extremists are almost uniformly Muslims. Indeed, the big thinkers settled on the antiseptic term “violent extremism” specifically to avoid the word “terrorism,” which, owing to the inconvenience that Islamic scripture adjures Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts” of their perceived enemies, would give violent extremism an Islamic connotation that is to be studiously avoided, no matter how accurate it may be.

With violent extremism as their guide, policymakers instruct security agencies that there is no need to scrutinize any strain of Islamic ideology for the purpose of divining what Islamists want. In fact, the theory continues, because violence is wanton, while Islam is peaceful, violence must perforce be anti-Islamic, and thus Islamists must be just as offended by it as anyone else. Consequently, since by some strange quirk of fate the violent extremists seem to be coming out of the Islamic community, the best strategy is to befriend Islamist leaders and consult them about how we can conduct investigations without causing offense.


If we cared to look for the root cause of what’s happening in Europe — happening primarily without “violent extremism” — the answer is very simple: Islamist leaders have adopted a strategy of voluntary apartheid in their quest to Islamize the West.

The strategy has been championed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Its chief jurisprudent, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, urges Muslims to relocate to Europe, Australia, and North America. There, they should live among other Muslims, conduct their affairs in accordance with sharia (the law of Islam), and pressure Western governments to accept the primacy of sharia in Muslim enclaves — enclaves that will grow and spread and connect. By convincing “Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically,” Qaradawi reasons that Muslims would “traverse an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.”

Equally adamant is the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the bloc of governments from the world’s Islamic countries. The OIC purports to speak as a sovereign on behalf of the Muslim ummah. In 2010, it released its now annual report on — what else? — Islamophobia. The report conjures an imaginary tidal wave of anti-Muslim bias while overlooking both the predominance of Muslims in global “violent extremism” and the West’s pandemic of official solicitude toward Islamic leaders. “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated,” the report proclaimed. “Accommodation is the best strategy for integration.”

The best strategy for whom? Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, goes even farther, inveighing that “assimilation is a crime against humanity.” With progressives in charge and see-no-Islam in vogue, Erdogan remains the West’s favorite “moderate” Islamist, despite the fact that he rejects the term “moderate Islam” as an insult. “Islam is Islam,” he snaps, “and that’s it.” Meanwhile, he warns Germany’s leaders not to pressure their large immigrant population of Turkish Muslims to become German. The message to Muslims is clear: Integrate? Yes. Assimilate? Never.


The Obama administration has arrived at a counterterrorism policy it publicly calls “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” It has its roots in the Homeland Security Department’s “Countering Violent Extremism” working group.

In 2010, the working group issued its recommendations. The group “felt” it was essential to “delink” law enforcement’s “crime reduction efforts” from studies on “radicalization” in the Islamic community. Law enforcement needs to be more “sensitive,” the working group suggested, to damaging community “perceptions” that can arise from “enforcement actions and intelligence gathering.” Nothing is more important, the group argued, than developing strong relationships between police and communities, and those relationships can be wounded if people “perceive that they are viewed as incubators of violent extremism.” Instead, police should take their lead from “members of the community” who “should be invited to provide training to government personnel.”

And who was in that working group, offering advice that is now federal policy? Among others, it included top officials of such Islamist groups as the Islamic Association of North America (an organization shown to be complicit in the Muslim Brotherhood—led conspiracy to finance Hamas, proved by the Justice Department in a 2008 prosecution), Muslim academics, the president of the Muslim Bar Association of New York, and the president of the ultra-leftist Southern Poverty Law Center…

Read the rest at NRO.


goethechosemercy said...

To favor the community over the nation, to favor people over laws and institutions, is betrayal of the nation itself.
For this, he should be impeached.

aandrews said...

The the Organization of the Islamic Conference 2010 annual report referenced above can be found here, Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia. The statement “[a]ccommodation is the best strategy for integration” is at the bottom of page 30, item "h".

Rob said...

I find this both sickening and insulting! This is cultural annihilation; like getting run over by a mack truck in slow motion. We need to elect leaders who understand the problem and who have both the moral clarity and will to do something about it. Our voices need to get louder so that some people like that emerge.