Friday, September 08, 2006

Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims

The Fjordman Report
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.

CAIRAccording to Dr. Daniel Pipes, Omar Ahmad, the long-serving chairman of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reportedly told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

The arrest of Ghassan ElashiIn 2005, three Dallas-area brothers were convicted of supporting terrorism by funnelling money to a high-ranking official in the militant Palestinian group Hamas. Ghassan and Bayan Elashi and their company were found guilty of all 21 federal counts they faced: conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist. Ghassan Elashi was the founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR.

One would normally think that an organization that has convicted terrorist supporters among its members and whose leading members have stated a desire to replace the US Constitution with sharia would be shunned by Western media and political representatives. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

In August 2006, a poll revealed that most Americans favor profiling of people who look “Middle Eastern” for security screening at locations such as airports and train stations. News wire Reuters stated that the “civil rights and advocacy organization” CAIR protested against this. Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the CAIR, wanted Americans to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism by cooperating with, well, people such as CAIR: “It’s one of those things that makes people think they are doing something to protect themselves when they’re not. They’re in fact producing more insecurity by alienating the very people whose help is necessary in the war on terrorism,” he said.

The Kentucky office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has been conducting ”sensitivity training” for FBI agents in Lexington, examining “common stereotypes of Islam and Muslims,” and ways in which to improve interactions with the Muslim community.

Meanwhile, a survey revealed that 81% of Detroit Muslims wanted sharia in Muslim countries. Yehudit Barsky, an expert on terrorism at the American Jewish Committee, warned that mainstream US Muslim organizations are heavily influenced by Saudi-funded extremists. These “extremist organizations continue to claim the mantle of leadership” over American Islam. Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States “have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence,” Barsky said.

MSAThe northern Virginia-based Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) might easily be taken for a benign student religious group. At a meeting in Queensborough Community College in New York in March 2003, a guest speaker named Faheed declared, “We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it ... Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.”

So, what happened to the famous “moderate Muslims” in all this? That’s a question writer Robert Spencer asks, too. Imam Siraj Wahaj is in great demand as a speaker. In 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress.

Imam Siraj WahajHowever, he has also warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has lamented that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” In the early 1990s he sponsored talks by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and Wahaj was designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator.”

Mr. Spencer notes that “The fact that someone who would like to see the [US] Constitution replaced has led a prayer for those sworn to uphold it is just a symptom a larger, ongoing problem: the government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered.” The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and kitman: “These are Islamic doctrines of religious deception. They originated in Shi’ite Islamic defenses against Sunni Islam, but have their roots in the Qur’an (3:28 and 16:106). Many radical Muslims today work hard to deceive unbelievers, in line with Muhammad’s statement, “War is deceit.”

Professor Walid Phares gives an explanation of such religious deception, part and parcel of Jihad while Muslims are in a weaker position: “Al-Taqiya, from the verb Ittaqu, means linguistically ‘dodge the threat’. Politically it means simulate whatever status you need in order to win the war against the enemy.” “According to Al-Taqiya, Muslims were granted the Shar’iya (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy’s cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition.

“These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not considered as lying or denouncing the tenets of Islam. They were “legitimate” mujahedeen [holy warriors], whose mission was to undermine the enemy’s resistance and level of mobilization. One of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy’s camp. In many instances, they convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them.”

This deception “has a civilizational, global dimension versus the narrow state interest of the regular Western subversive methods.” “The uniqueness of today’s Taqiya is its success within advanced and sophisticated societies. Taqiya is winning massively because of the immense lack of knowledge among Western elites, both Jewish and Christian.”

Youssef Mohamed E., a 22-year-old Lebanese man, is one of two persons suspected of trying to carry out bomb attacks on regional trains from Cologne, Germany, in July 2006. His fellow students were stunned. They couldn’t imagine how one of their fellow students could be a terrorist, a train bomber. He was a “completely normal guy” said one of them. “He was friendly, polite, inconspicuous,” and he never spoke ill of anyone. The publication of caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammed was interpreted by Youssef as an insult to Islam by the Western world, and triggered the attempted terror attack.

Muhammad Atta was named by the FBI as the pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was also a student in Germany, where he was described as quiet, polite and inconspicuous. This strategy of using religious deception, smiling to the infidels while plotting to kill them, has become a common feature of many would-be Jihadists in the West.

According to Robert Spencer, secular clothing is actually in accord with instructions in a captured Al-Qaeda manual to appear to be a secular, assimilated Muslim with no interest in religion. In renting an apartment, “It is preferable to rent these apartments using false names, appropriate cover, and non-Moslem appearance.” And in general: “Have a general appearance that does not indicate Islamic orientation (beard, toothpick, book, [long] shirt, small Koran)....Be careful not to mention the brothers’ common expressions or show their behaviors (special praying appearance, ‘may Allah reward you’, ‘peace be on you’ while arriving and departing, etc.).”

I, MuslimAmbassadors to the Czech Republic from Arab nations and members of the Czech Muslim community were outraged by a documentary aired on ÄŒTV that used hidden camera footage of conversations in a Prague mosque. The footage showed a reporter pretending to be someone interested in converting to Islam. One of members of the mosque said Islamic law should be implemented in the Czech Republic, including the death penalty for adultery. “The result was alarming, and if not for the hidden camera, I would have never had any of this footage,” the journalist said.

An Arabic-speaking journalist had on several occasions visited a large mosque in Stockholm, and noticed that what the imam said in his speech in Arabic didn’t match the Swedish translation. “America rapes Islam,” imam Hassan Mousa roared in Arabic. Minutes later the Swedish translation was ready. Not a word on how America was raping Islam. Imam Mousa said that many Muslims call him an “American friendly” preacher. The mistranslation was because “Arabic is a much richer language than Swedish. It’s impossible to translate everything.”

Examples such as these leave non-Muslims with a very powerful dilemma: How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can’t.

Does this mean that ALL Muslims are lying about their true agenda, all of the time? No, of course not. Some are quite frank about their intentions.

Norway’s most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar, has said in public that there’s a war going on between the West and Islam, and that Islam will win. “We’re the ones who will change you,” Krekar told. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes.”

Mullah Krekar “Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.” He claimed that “our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours.” He loosely defined “Western thinking” as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-Islamic nations. Its “materialism, egoism and wildness” has altered Christianity, Krekar claimed.

In The Force of Reason, Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci recalls how, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”

Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens — In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.”

The US State Department believes that Washington can contain the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk through dialogue and should avoid any further clash with them, because this “would only fan hatred and incite more attacks against US interests.” The State Department has asked the US Embassy in Cairo to reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders as a preliminary step for an organized dialogue.

At the same time, the new Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef said in 2004 to Arab media that America is ‘Satan’ and “will soon collapse.” “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.” Western authorities are thus trying to “reach out” to an organization that wants to conquer and subdue them.

Besides, exactly what does “dialogue” mean, anyway? Poul E. Andersen, former dean of the church of Odense, Denmark, warns against false hopes of dialogue with Muslims. During a debate at the University of Aarhus, Ahmad Akkari, one of the Muslim participants, stated: “Islam has waged war where this was necessary and dialogue where this was possible. A dialogue can thus only be viewed as part of a missionary objective.”

When Mr. Andersen raised the issue of dialogue with the Muslim World League in Denmark, the answer was: “To a Muslim, it is artificial to discuss Islam. In fact, you view any discussion as an expression of Western thinking.” Andersen’s conclusion was that for Islamists, any debate about religious issues is impossible as a matter of principle. If Muslims engage in a dialogue or debate on religious subjects, this is for one purpose only: To create more room for Islam.

In Britain’s The Spectator, Patrick Sookhdeo writes about the myth of moderate Islam:

“The peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission).”

“So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war.’”

What is a moderate Muslim? In 2003, the Associated Press touted as a “moderate” a cleric who told Saudi radio that terrorist attacks in his capital violated “the sanctity of Ramadan.” Leading government cleric Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan was a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body. He was also the author of the religious books used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the country and in Saudi schools abroad — including those in Washington, D.C. “Slavery is a part of Islam,” he said in one tape, adding: “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” A moderate Muslim by Saudi standards is thus a person who wants to reinstate slavery in the 21st century.

Mahathir MohamadDuring his speech at the opening of the 10th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference on Oct 16, 2003, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia stated that: “We are all Muslims. We are all oppressed. We are all being humiliated.” “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way.” “Today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”

“They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power.” Mahathir talked about how Muslims could win a “final victory,” and recalled the glory days when “Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in order to access their own scholastic heritage.”

Farish Noor, a Malaysian scholar who specializes in politics and Islam, says that the idea of a secular state is dead in Malaysia. “An Islamic society is already on the cards. The question is what kind of Islamic society this will be.” There is a creeping Islamization of the country, and Islamic police officers routinely arrest unmarried couples for “close proximity.” Yet despite all of this, Malaysia is considered one of the most moderate Muslim majority countries in the world. What does this tell us?

Destruction of Bamiyan BuddhasWhile NATO soldiers are risking their lives to establish a “democratic and moderate” regime in Afghanistan, a former regional governor who oversaw the destruction of two massive 1,500-year-old Buddha statues during the Taliban’s reign was elected to the Afghan parliament. Mawlawi Mohammed Islam Mohammadi was the Taliban’s governor of Bamiyan province when the fifth-century Buddha statues were blown up with dynamite and artillery in March 2001.

In the same, Western-supported, moderate Afghanistan, the police arrested six people for stoning to death an Afghan women accused of adultery. The arrests were made after the interior ministry sent a delegation to a remote village in north-eastern Badakhshan province following reports that the woman was stoned to death. Were they arrested because stoning was barbaric? No. They were arrested because they were carrying out an unauthorized stoning: The mullah who authorized the killing was not a judge.

Ashram Choudhary, Muslim MP in New Zealand, will not condemn the traditional Koran punishment of stoning to death some homosexuals and people who have extra-marital affairs. But the Labour MP - who has struggled with his “role” as the sole parliamentary representative of the local Muslim community — assures that he is not advocating the practice in the West. The question is not just of academic interest. A 23-year-old Tunisian woman was stoned to death near Marseilles, France, in 2004.

Centre Democrat Ben Haddou, a member of Copenhagen’s City Council, has stated: “It’s impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off sharia is a form of warfare against them.”

Read that statement again, and read it carefully. Muslims in the West consider it “a form of warfare against them” if they have to live by our secular laws, not their religious laws. Will they then also react in violent ways to this “warfare” if they don’t get their will? Moreover, since sharia laws ultimately require the subjugation of non-Muslims, doesn’t “freedom of religion” for Muslims essentially entail the freedom to make non-Muslims second-rate citizens in their own countries?

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello said Australian Muslim leaders need to stand up and publicly denounce terrorism in all its forms. Mr. Costello has also backed calls by Prime Minister John Howard for Islamic migrants to adopt Australian values. Mr. Howard caused outrage in Australia’s Islamic community when he said Muslims needed to speak English and show respect to women.

Hammasa Kohistani, the first Muslim to be crowned Miss England, warned that “stereotyping” members of her community was leading some towards extremism. “Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more.”

So, if radical Muslims stage mass-murder attacks against non-Muslims, the non-Muslims must not show any anger because of this, otherwise the moderate Muslims may get insulted and become terrorists, too. Gee, isn’t it comforting to know that there is such a sharp dividing line between moderates and radicals, and that moderate Muslims have such an aptitude for self-criticism?

Unfortunately, Jihad-supporters are allowed to stifle Western defense capabilities by feeding them Politically Correct propaganda. U.K. police officers were given ”diversity training” at an Islamic school southeast of London, the private Jameah Islameah school in East Sussex, that later became the center of a terrorism investigation. The county’s police officers visited the school as many as 15 times for training to improve their awareness of Muslim culture and for advanced training so they could themselves become diversity trainers.

In August 2006, following the unveiling of a plot to blow up several airliners between Britain and the USA, Muslim leaders summoned to talks with the Government on tackling extremism made a series of demands, which included the introduction of sharia law for family matters. Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, said: ‘We told her [the minister] if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.’

As Charles Johnson of blog Little Green Footballs dryly commented, this is an interesting viewpoint: Only by receiving special treatment and instituting a medieval religious legal code can Muslims be treated “equally.”

After the plot against the airliners was uncovered, a large number of UK Muslim groups sent a letter with veiled threats to PM Tony Blair, stating that “It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad,” and that the British should “change our foreign policy,” in addition to allowing Muslims more sharia. The same thing happened after the bombs in London in 2005.

If we watch closely, we will notice that Muslims are highly organized and have prepared long lists of demands. Every act of terrorism, or Jihad as it really is, is seen as an opportunity to push even greater demands. Radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies, not adversaries. The radicals bomb, and the moderates issue veiled threats that “unless we get our will, more such attacks will ensue.” It’s a good cop, bad cop game.

It is true that Jihad is not exclusively about violence, but it is very much about the constant threat of violence. Just like you don’t need to beat a donkey all the time to make it go where you want it to, Muslims don’t have to hit non-Muslims continuously. They bomb or kill every now and then, to make sure that the infidels are always properly submissive and know who’s boss.

Hospital burqaSadly, they frequently tend to get their will, and the donkey, or as in this case, the British, do what the Muslims want. A hospital in northwest England has introduced a new surgical gown modelled on the burka, allowing female Muslim patients to cover themselves completely. The blue “Inter-Faith Gown” is the first of its type in Britain and has being tried out at the Royal Preston Hospital.

Professor Moshe Sharon teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He gives this description of how a temporary truce, a hudna, is used as an Islamic strategy against infidels:

“Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.” “With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires.”

“A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, [Palestinian leader] Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, “Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?” Arafat continued, “That’s not so. I’m doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did.” “What Arafat was saying was, “Remember the story of Hodaybiya.” The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.”

I have earlier quoted how even Norwegian diplomat and United Nation’s envoy Terje Röd-Larsen, a key player during the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s, later admitted that “Arafat lied all the time.”

The Arabs never wanted a peace with Israel. They wanted to buy time until they were strong enough to win. The peace overtures by the Israelis were interpreted as a sign of weakness. The so-called Treaty of Hudaybiyya, signed while Muhammad and his supporters were not yet strong enough to conquer Mecca, has become a standard for Islamic relations with non-Muslims ever since.

Sharon states that “Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the “peace” agreement].” “What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.”

Furthermore, the Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war. There’s also war by infiltration, as we can see in Western countries now. Is there a possibility to end this dance of war? According to Moshe Sharon, the answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future. What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.”

As Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald says of moderate Muslims: “They are still people who call themselves Muslims, and we, the Infidels, have no idea what this will cause them, or could cause them, to do in the future. We likewise have no idea what their children, or their grandchildren will see as their responsibility as Muslims. The “moderate” Muslim today may be transformed into an “immoderate” Muslim, or his descendants could be if he does not make a complete break and become an apostate. All over the West now we see the phenomenon of Muslim children who are more devout and observant than their parents.”

This is, unfortunately, very true. In November 2005, an intelligence study obtained by Canada’s National Post said that a “high percentage” of the Canadian Muslims involved in extremist activities were home-grown and born in Canada, a marked shift from the past when they were mostly refugees and immigrants: “There does not appear to be a single process that leads to extremism; the transformation is highly individual. Once this change has taken place, such individuals move on to a series of activities, ranging from propaganda and recruiting, to terrorist training and participation in extremist operations.”

Hugh Fitzgerald wonders how many of our Muslim immigrants will be truly moderate. How many of them “will turn out to be like Ayaan Hirsi Ali? One out of 20? One out of 100? One out of 1,000? One out of 100,000? How many of the men will turn out to be like Magdi Allam in Italy, or like Bassam Tibi in Germany? How many Ibn Warraqs and Ali Sinas, or converts to Christianity such as Walid Shoebat, are there likely to be in any population of, say, 1000 Muslim immigrants? Should the Western world admit a million immigrants, or permit them to remain, because a few of them see the light?”

“Let Muslims remain within Dar al-Islam. Let the Infidels do everything they can to first learn themselves, and then to show Muslims that they understand (so that Muslims will then have to begin to recognize) that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic societies, both within Dar al-Islam and in Dar al-Harb, are directly related to, and arise out of, Islam itself.”

Youssef Ibrahim of the New York Sun is tired of the silence from the Muslim majority: “Hardly any Muslim groups, moderate or otherwise, voiced public disapproval of [Dutch Islamic critic Theo] van Gogh’s murder except in the most formulaic way.” “In Islam, “silence is a sign of acceptance,” as the Arabic Koranic saying goes.” “The question that hangs in the air so spectacularly now — particularly as England has been confronted once again by British Muslims plotting to kill hundreds — is this: What exactly are the Europeans waiting for before they round up all those Muslim warriors and their families and send them back to where they came from?”

A just question, which increasing numbers of Europeans are asking, too. A big part of the answer lies in the elaborate Eurabian, pro-Islamic networks that have been built up by stealth over decades, and hardly ever debated by European media. Besides, it’s embarrassing for Western political leaders, who have championed Multiculturalism for a long time, to admit that they have made a terrible mistake that is now threatening the very survival of their countries.

It is possible that those Western countries where the infidels are strong enough will copy the Benes Decrees from Czechoslovakia in 1946, when most of the so-called Sudeten Germans, some 3.5 million people, had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth column without any loyalty to the state. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land. As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has demonstrated, there is a much better case for a Benes Decree for parts of the Muslim population in the West now than there ever was for the Sudeten Germans.

The most civilized thing we can do in order to save ourselves as a civilization, but also to limit the loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims in what increasingly looks like a world war, is for Westerners and indeed non-Muslims in general to implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world, as suggested by Mr. Fitzgerald. This includes completely stopping Muslim immigration, but also by making our countries Islam-unfriendly, thus presenting the Muslims already here between the options of adapting to our societies or leaving if they desire sharia law. Even whispering about Jihad should be grounds for expulsion and revoking citizenship.

I have compared Islam to the movie “The Matrix,” where people are turned into slaves by living in a make-believe reality designed to keep them in chains. In the movie, everybody who hasn’t been completely unplugged from this artificial reality is potentially an agent for the system. I have gradually come to the conclusion that this is the sanest way to view Muslims, too.

Some would argue that it is a crime and a betrayal of our own values to argue for excluding Muslims from our countries or even expelling some of the ones who are already here. I disagree. The relatively small number of Muslims we have in the West now has already caused enormous damage to our economy, to our culture and not the least to our freedoms. The real crime, and the real betrayal, would be to sacrifice centuries of advances in human freedom as well as the future of our children and grandchildren to appease Muslims who contribute virtually nothing to our societies and are hostile to their very foundations.

Two-facedAs I have demonstrated above, it is perfectly accepted, and widely practiced, by Jihadist Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their true agenda. I have also demonstrated that the relationship between radicals and so-called moderates is a lot closer than we would like to think. At best, they share the goals of establishing sharia around the world, and differ only over the means to achieve this goal. At worst, they are allies in a good cop, bad cop game to extort concession after concession from the infidels. Moreover, even those who genuinely are moderate and secular in their approach may later change, or their children may change. This can be triggered by almost anything, either something in the news or a crisis in their personal lives, which will create a desire to become a better, more pious Muslim. The few remaining moderates can easily be silenced by violence from their more ruthless, radical counterparts.

At the end of the day, what counts isn’t the difference, if any, between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims, but between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between Muslims and ex-Muslims. Ibn Warraq says that there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. He is probably right. As he writes in the book Leaving Islam — Apostates Speak Out, a unique collection of testimonials by former Muslims, ex-Muslims are the only ones who know what it’s all about, and we would do well to listen to their Cassandra cries.

Donate to FjordmanNote from Fjordman: I have plans for at least a dozen longer essays after this, provided I have the time and financial opportunity to write them. The essays will be dealing with why I find a Reformation of Islam unlikely to happen, why the work of many self-appointed Muslim reformists is inadequate, why Islam probably cannot be reconciled with democracy and how the West should deal with these facts. All of my online essays can be republished for free by anybody who wants to, as long as credit is given to the author. Any financial donation, which can be given here, should be considered as payment in advance for future essays.


KG said...

As always, a wonderful post.
Gradually--painfully gradually--people are beginning to see that islam is the enemy. Period.
But it mayalready be too late. Our political masters in the West (one hesitates to describe them as our "leaders") are still captive to the whole multiculti apparatus. The media and the left also.
That doesn't leave many avenues available to get the message across.
Crusader Rabbit.

kepiblanc said...

Fjordman, you wrote an excellent essay - as always.

Allow me to add another suggestion : In order to defuse the "demographic time bomb" - i.e the uncontrolled multiplication within Islamic families - we have yet an option besides expelling them. An option not very different from the Chinese politics of "one child per woman".

The average European woman gives birth to something between 1.4 (ethnic Italians) and 1.9 (ethnic Danes) children. An average Muslim women gives birth to something like 3.9 children, thus making a Muslim takeover by majority a matter of time only.

Unless we reverse the copycat tradition and learn something from the Chinese - for a change. Let's say we implement a "two children per woman" politics. Such measures would hardly affect the average European family, and certainly not harm the average Muslim woman, who thereby could get rid of her shackles and eventually be given equal opportunities with her western sisters.

Of course the Muslim men and the Imams would object - to put it mildly - but if it's the law of the land it's equal to all, so the "racial card" can't be played. And the "feminists" will have to reverse their old stance 180 degrees if they object to the law.

At the same time the "over-population" issue could be solved - finally. Two children per woman is sufficient to uphold the present population and secure - or improve - the economies of the world. Especially in "third world" countries.

But how to enforce it ? - Well, Muslims (and some Catholics) refuse to take "the pill", use condoms or similar items of birth control. What about them ?

Here comes the tough part : In addition to economic incentives - like children's checks for two kids only - a mandatory sterilization would be required right after the second delivery. That's a minor, safe, painless, endoscopic procedure. easily performed under local anaesthesia everywhere. Still no "racial card" in play. Equal annoyance for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Would any woman object ?

Cindi said...

I object. Any solution to the Muslim infestation that involves sanctions on Westerners' freedoms is not the answer, not for me. I am not an abortion supporter and it seems equally egregious to mandate child-bearing and sterilization for a Western woman in order to combat Islam.

In order to operate our Western societies and keep our civilization, and improve on it, the desire and commitment to families can be strenghtened in non-coercive ways. But the Muslims, moderates and radicals alike, need to go live in Muslim countries and be contained there.

I just don't understand the urge to further 'regulate' Americans and Europeans simply because we've got Muslims living amongst us and they need controlling. Get them out.

Concerned UCI Student said...

I can tell you what happened to Siraj Wahaj. He's alive and well - he visited UC Irvine in February 2006 to talk about Islamic student activism. His speech was a testament to his rhetorical ability. And he was very careful to not go to the extremes of the other speakers invited to campus by the MSU at UCI.

KG said...

I'm with Cindy there. As tempting as Kepiblanc's solution is.
We need a clear line in the sand and the will to enforce it and if that means an end to Muslim immigration and massive deportations then so be it.
I think the cost of the deportations would be more than covered by the savings in welfare payments.

Pavel said...

Congratulations to our fellow blogsman Fjordman on his beautiful interview to Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMag, you are making it to a big league, man!

"Hunter" said...

Great essay! I must say that I have discovered Islam's true intentions over the last three weeks. My emotions started at: surprise, to worry, to depression, to anger, and now I am resolute. The truth is always more powerful and I feel not all is lost. Blogging is just the start of the backlash. Remember at the sametime more and more people are taking notice of the issue then would in the 1990s. These people and our leaders don't fully comprehend the threat, but that should change.

Thanks for all that you do Fjordman! When I get a little more coin in my pocket, I would like to donate to such excellent work. Keep it up, there are more and more like me discovering the truth everyday.

X said...

La.beuche and others, you have good points, but you fail to consider that, once realisation starts to set in, it will pick up pace very rapidly. It's a historical oddity that populations can and do change their opinion practically overnight. Look at Denmark (again, denmark... :D). They've changed quite radically in just a few months. It wouldn't surprise me if the Danish government start seriously considering deportations in the next few months or the next year. All it takes is a single event to change people. It dosn't even have to be violent or bloody, just shocking to the psyche. That it hasn't happened in Sweden or the UK already is just a testament to how deeply our respective views of the world are controlled and limited.

The people I know, people I've talked to all over the place, are nothing like the picture you might get from the official sanitised version of reality that the government and media portray. Most people are quite eager for things to change, but they're also working on the assumption that the government will do something about it, becaiuse the impression they've had for so long is that the government is there to do all that stuff. Therefore I think that the shock, in Sweden and the UK, will be to see the government completely out of control, to a point that it simply can't be hidden by the media anymore. After that you'll probably feel a little surprised at how quickly the popular view appears to change. Of course the realuity is that the popular view was like that all the time, but suppressed by, of all things, naive trust. Not to mention a rather callous media and political class...

In France, of course, the government is never really in control, so that won't work there. ;)

Anyway, I've ranted enough. Wonderful article as always, Fjordman. I look foward to your future articles.

Jeremayakovka said...

Outstanding summary. An article can be written about each of the many Muslim leaders F-man has devoted a pragraph to. Thank you.

Profitsbeard said...

Fjordman, kudos, as always. Apt diagnosis and grim prognosis.

Any 'religious creed' that promotes terrorism as a 'sanctified' method for the conversion of reluctant infidels deserves only contempt. Mohammadism proclaims the righteous subjugation of non-Muslims by the Islamically-ordained Rulers of the World, AKA Muslims.

This kind of 'holy truth' needs to be mocked, crushed, and expelled from those lands it has silently infiltrated since WW II.

Islam's core dogmas are utterly opposed to everything that the modern world values. Where we cherish freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, the freedom of women as equals, and the freedom to criticize all beliefs, the Koran, meanwhile, teaches "submisssion" to the resentful, homicidal desires of a plagiarizing pedophile warlord.

Believing in a system of organized suppression of human freedom is to become an avowed enemy of our intellectually and spiritually liberated Civilization. The jihadists and their enablers ("moderate Muslims") find their system of sanctimonious enslavement "superior". There is no compromise with them. It is Allah's will. Perfect and eternal.

Let's get this clash of "cultures" clarified, brought out in the open (why are the Hadiths or al-Quran's intolerant and bizarre tenets not being exposed and debated on some PBS or BBC 4-Part special?).

We need fight this soft invasion of Imperialistic Islam with a freeman's and freewoman's backbone strengthened by the historical examples of Washington, Adams and Jefferson.

And a little Voltaire (author of a play that should be on Broadway- "MOHAMMAD- or Fanaticism"), Mary Wollstonecraft, Blake, William James, Krishnamurti and Edmund Husserl to provide tools to unveil the darkness that is Islamic 'True Belief'.

Jihadists will not be argued away. The infil-traitors of the Umma in the West will not be cajoled into "repatriating".

The battle will be ultimately conceptual -as we critically undermine the murderous intolerances of the al-Qur'an. And as we tear off the taqqiya mask and show the true, proto-fascist face of the shamelessly-dissembling, endlessly vengeance-seeking "prophet" Mohammad.

Until the Koran's vicious suras (9:29-30, et al) are "humbled" (reinterpreted as metaphorical, not homicidal), the ongoing 'Unholy War' will be unwinnable by our side.

The Engine of Jihad is inscribed in the 'bible' of Islam.

Wrestling with its tentacles ("soldiers of Allah") instead of smashing the head (the Koranic dogmas) evades the only effective way to fight this enemy:

Their bloodthirsty beliefs must be bared.

The reality of the cruel, despotic wishes of Islam will repel free minds.

And steel our resolve.

And win this War,

bernie said...

There are Three Threats to Modern Civilization:

1) Islamic Fascists.
2) Moderate Muslims. Because they insidiously infest countries and turn cities into Islamic enclaves with sharia law until the host country can longer control or enter those cities.
3) Liberal useful idiots who do not recognize either threats 1 or 2.

Papa Ray said...

To me and to those in my circle of friends it's simple.

Or maybe we have just simplified it the way us Redneck Texans do.

We are going to survive, no matter what happens to anyone else. Whatever we have to do to guarantee that, we will do.

Break the law, if we have to in order to survive, yep, sorry.

We of course look first to our Federal Government then our State Government, then County Government to protect us.

But, we are not going to rely just on them. We are prepared to be our last line of defense. We as in our family units, circle of friends and associates.

Times have changed in the last five years, but compared to how they are going to change in the next five years...well, lets just say, its going to be a doozie and many, many people are going to have to choose sides here in this Republic.

Not to say that we are pessimistic, no, we are just being realistic. Do you think that our settlers that faced the unknown and great trials and hardships were pessimistic? No, they couldn't afford to be.

But they were realistic about the challenges and they adapted, perservered, and overcame all to not only survive but to prosper.

We are all going to have to sacrifice, and adopt that same spirit and determination. Because no matter who believes it or not, the darkest days of this nation's history await us within our lifetimes.

Faith in ourselves, our way of life and in each other is going to become the most important thing to us very soon.

God did grace this Republic, but it's up to us to protect and preserve it.

Papa Ray
West Texas

Mihir said...

I read this post on Bharat Rakshak, an Indian defence forum...

we have been making fun of the Pakistanis and the like. I woke up at
midnight after a nasty nightmare and I am putting my thoughts down.
We must look at history and the last sweep of Islam for a lesson.
Islam prepared for a few centuries gestating in the middle east and
then sprang forth eastward and westward.
They swept because their philosophies were different and merciless.
Are we seeing a possible repeat of that?

Whenever I have spoken to Pakistanis I have seen their calm way of
talking - with an assurance that time is on their side.
Is the west and India too soft to take hard decisions? If so, we are doomed.
any takes?

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Offensive breeding.

The ultimate trump card in a world where liberal values are assumed.

We have seen it succeed in our own lifetimes already, as muslim Albanians in Kosovo deliberately maintained 8+ children per family in order to outbreed the Christian Serbs who were breeding at about replacement level (late 19th century the population was around 300K Serbs and 200K muslims, one century later it was still 300K serbs but 2 000 K mulsims).

Serbia attempted to (crudely) reverse it, and of course we, the west, invaded them for it.

Then just for laughs, we then promoted the Albanian leaders to be lead Kosovo. Never mind they were the biggest band of thieves, smugglers and bandits in the Balkans. We effectively covered them while churches burned, monasteries where desecrated and European christians were ethnically cleansed (well, KFOR tried to stop this, but failed often enough to de-serbianize 90% of the province we did stop the Serbs defending themselves, with great effectiveness however).

Sorry, but cindi and david s - its amost entirely people like you who make the Islamoids dangerous.

kepiblanc said...

Cindi & David S. --

OK - of course I find my suggestion disgusting, to say the least. And I'm sure no doctor would cooperate. Hey, it was an attempt to come up with ideas. At least something must be done. We already have disgusting ideas in abundance, like turning their Barbaristans into glassy parking lots. Fjordman's idea is containment. Maybe. But isn't containment an ultimate resort ? - Got other ideas ? - Forget about forced sterilizations, let's try to come up with realistic tactics...

Personally, I'm an admiror of Ali Sina, a former Muslim who knows more than something about the Islamic mindset. In short, he advocates ridicule. Yes, ridicule. Let me quote :

I know the Muslim psychology. It is all pomposity and bravado. I
give you my word that if Islam is ridiculed publicly and
systematically, it will be defeated. Shame is a great motivator as
well as deterrent. Do not underestimate the power of ridicule. This
is serious stuff not a laughing matter.

But ridicule can't stand alone. My own idea of preferences is something along this line :

1. Engage our own lefties, dhimmies and moonbats. They're not stupid, but think they can use the Muslims to their advantage. The moment they realize that they themselves will be the first ones to enter the scaffolds, they'll turn around. Let them revert to their old political dogmas all they like, but having Islam under control is the "sine qua non".

2. Engage our own enlightened fellow countrymen and political parties. Some of them - still - live in an elusive world with a "democratic" EU and UN. Let's convince them that getting rid of the EU and UN is a prerequisite to a true democracy. It shouldn't be hard : the longer those monsters exist the more obvius their irrelevance will show. Call me naïve, but I'm absolutely sure that in some European countries like UK, Germany, Norway and Denmark the affiliation for the US is far greater than for the EU/UN.

3. Let the gloves come off. Islam is a crime towards humanity and civilization. Let's act accordingly. With all means. Seal off the entire Barbaristan, pull everything. Every thing. Tecnicians, doctors, engineers, bankers, communications lines, satellite links, money, trade etc.. We can do without their oil. And in a heartbeat they're back in the century, where they belong.

4. An ultimatum to our Muslim populations : quit Islam, become civilized people and enjoy freedom. Or get deported to the century.


Vasarahammer said...

Another excellent but depressing essay from Fjordman.

The comparison to Matrix was something that I found personally fitting. My former views on islam can be characterized as willful blindness and indifference. It was just another religion that has its extremists and more moderate practicioners.

Now I know that islam is what it has always been. Muslims that adhere to its teachings cannot live in permanent peace with infidels. The non-muslims must either be killed or subjugated according to sharia law.

The saddest aspect in all of this is that we have only ourselves to blame. It is impossible to blame muslims for being like they have always been.

Of course, you can shift the blame to the politicians and the media. Then again, who elected the politicians in the first place and who consumes the news?

B Shantanu said...

Great post Fjordman. I have linked it on my site

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

The peace of muslims is the peace of the protection racket, and an unjust peace like that is worse than war. You mention the USSR? Well, they were offering the same choice (mindless submission, but at least the commies were offering vodka).

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees (Though you clearly prefer to kneel,
Mark, do you like the taste of shoe polish too?).

You made your choice, hippie, and it makes you irrelevant.

In Russet Shadows said...

Mark, do you understand ANYTHING that Fjordman wrote? Are you that willfully blind, or are your kitman skills in need of polishing? Let's recap for you:

* The peaceful verses of the Koran are nearly all early.
* The violent verses of the Koran are nearly all later.
* Islamic theology states that later verses overwrite earlier verses. It's called "replacement revealation".

You want to talk hatred? You want to talk violence? Look at the life of Mohammed. Just look at the man -- polygamy, torture, war. Look at your Koran. You can't explain it all away by picking and choosing because that's not consistent.

If you have a problem with Fjordman, then you have a problem with reality. Look at the people he quotes. They're the ones out there murdering and kidnapping. Why no condemnation for them? That's right, your post is just pure Islamic lies.

Thanks, Mark. You have just proved the point of the article -- all Muslims should be viewed with distrust.

pacific_waters said...

Mark, let me say this so you can understand it. And if that's an ad hominem attack so be it.

mik said...

Lawrence Auster, a very insightful writer, for some time is developing a Cold War-like strategy of separation between Moslem world and the West.
See his many posting at

Essence of the strategy:
"West may try one solution (to Islamic terrorism) after another.It will go on this way forever, until we understand that Islam is the problem. And then we will cease trying to solve the problem (because the problem of Islam cannot be solved, short of all Muslims giving up the faith or the genocide of all Muslims) and instead quarantine Islam in its own lands."

There is no practical way to separate so-called moderate Mohammedians from jihadis as Sudden-Terrorism Syndrom indicates. The only practical and human way to solve the problem is deporting all non-native born Moslems to their countries, tightly monitoring remaining Moslems, stopping ALL Moslem immigration to the West, placing virtual wall around Moslem world in all areas the West deems appropriate.

Tom the Redhunter said...

Maybe we can't rely on existing moderate Muslims, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The bigotry expressed by many commenters in this thread is unfortunately all-too-typical. "Mark" is about the only one who has it right.

I have grown increasingly disgusted with those who have decided that "Islam is evil", or that "Islam is a religion of war" or whatever.

Read the book of Joshua, folks. Or Judges. Or Kings, or Chronicles, or....

Vasarahammer said...

Mark is like I used to be before I woke up to the reality.

Russet shadows wrote earlier:

"* The peaceful verses of the Koran are nearly all early.
* The violent verses of the Koran are nearly all later.
* Islamic theology states that later verses overwrite earlier verses. It's called "replacement revealation"."

Quran is interpreted so that the chronologically later verses abrogate the earlier ones. This is called abrogation (nasqh).

When Muhammed moved from Mecca to Medina he gained power and the tone of his revelations changed. Earlier meccan suras were replaced by more violent suras.

Mark, also look at the life of the prophet. He was no spiritual leader but a warrior chieftain who mostly fought offensive battles with only a single defensive one.

And finally, islam is not a religion but a complete religio-political system with divine legislation included. Hope this helps!

X said...

If we can replace Muslims with Jews in this article,

I see this argument quite often, but it doesn't work. Jews weren't blowing up civilians in germany, nor were they calling for the beheading of people who insulted judaism. They weren't sawing people's heads off, they weren't assasinating people at random and they weren't forcing conversions of people whom they kidnapped. Jews weren't engaging in acts of terrorism against people in order to force them to submit to their religion.

kepiblanc said...

David S. --

You can hardly let Mark & Tom represent the entire spectrum of 'the left'. They clearly display their illiteracy here. They're Muslims. Maybe even converted, former civilized persons gone nuts. Please read my point #1 again. The 'left' must be convinced and realize the facts, not killed in a civil war. I'm quite confident that as time goes by the Muslims will loose their 'moderate' masks so that even 'the lefties' can see the disgusting face of Islam. Over here it will take just one major 'incident' and all the hell will brake loose. I know. I was kind'a 'left' once and still know lots of 'lefties' who just 'had it' with Muslims. When push come to shove, we're allies. Optimistic ? - Maybe, but pessimism is the first step towards surrender.

KG said...

"Basically, to fully engage and get rid of the marks and toms of the world, we're lookin at World War III. Are you ready for that? "
David, I think we're already engaged in WW3, it's just not up to speed yet.
Pessimist or not, I'd prefer to see full-blown war and let the cards fall where they may than watch the West dying by degrees.
Time to do the dirty work that's the price of liberty and to stop flinching at the bill.

KG said...

And if anyone doubts that we're losing this war at present: go take a look at LGF right now. The Saudis are sending 15,000 students to the U.S. and learning institutions are falling over themselves for a share of this "windfall".
The U.S. is also probably about to grant the President of Iran a visa, another State Dept. brainwave.
Words almost fail...

iamfordemocracy said...

Fjordman, what you have mentioned in your article is truthful and frightening. What you have not mentioned is how things came to such a pass.

Take a look at South Asia. India became indpendent after a division of territory. The Muslims wanted their own place. 60 years later, Hindus have been reduced from 25% to 2% in Pakistan, and 40% to 10% in Bangla Desh. India, predominantly Hindu and extremely liberal, chose to be a secular state, and the majority Hindu community has declined over these 50 years, but has stayed liberal and progressive all through.

How did the world view and report this? Hinduism is portrayed in bad light, and Islam is portrayed as a great religion!! WHY? HOW? Who was responsible for this? For decades, Islamic aggression has terrorised liberal people and shrank liberal space in South Asia, and the Western world did not bother about it. Today, the monster has grown 100-fold, and there is the talk of a backlash... Most likely, the backlash will trouble the liberal Asians more than the hard core Islamists.

Fjordman, do you see a possibility of a micro-level vigorous movement to nip the islamic radicalism in the bud, rather than a gross physical movement to just hound the Asians and the brown skinnned people out of the West. For example, some fanaticals forced the removal of a pig statue in some UK city because it offended Islam. Can you begin by getting that statue back where it was? Can you get to a point where noone can stop the other doing anything because his religion does not approve it? That is the litmus taste of personal and social freedom and secularism. Unfortunately, in keeping oil-givers happy, Western society has compromised on that, and that is the root cause of the terrorism monster.

The Thinker said...

I am totally in favor of limiting the amount of children we all can have. Why? Because by limiting only the muslims, the motion will not pass legal muster. As a result, the muslims will continue to outbreed us and therefore subjugate us by sheer numbers.

In order to prevent this from happening, any legal measure would have to be applicable to all. And let's face it. The number of Christian women who have more than 2 kids is small. In Europe, the birthrate is negative anyway, meaning under 2.0. So for most people, it will have no impact on their family plans.

For those that want to have more than 2.0 kids, and will fight for islamic rights to do the same, I say you are traitor to your Christianity and a traitor in the fight against islam.

Having more than 2.0 children is NOT the most important consideration in this life. Far from it. In fact, it is irresponsible on a global scale. Fighting the unholy black pall of islam, a fight that would be won with such a policy, should be the only thing that matters.

For those that will not support such a measure, you are not soldiers against islam. You are part of the problem. Your heart is not in the battle. You are not prepared to sacrifice a bit to save your Christian civilization from the islamic hordes. Shame on you.

Deportation of muslims will not work legally. But a 2 child policy, applicable to all, will pass the race card test, and can not be defeated on such grounds, the very grounds upon which all such defences of islam will be mounted in the courts. It is a clever way to stop islam from taking us over.

If you want to live in a country where people can breed at whatever rate they want, go live in an islamic hellhole. Unregulated birth rates have made those countries as unliveable as sharia law.

Catholics take note. You are either with us or against us. If your unregulated breeding rights are paramount to defeating islam, you are part of the problem that Fjordman takes about. Take sides. And I have a feeling many of you will happily side with islam.

Slap's Blog said...

Great. The government will have the power to tell us when we can have kids or not have them, what we can smoke, where we can smoke, listen in to our conversations, operate clandestine prisons on foreign land, keep people detained for decades without charging them and then not let them know what evidence is being used agianst them. Where does it end? We should have spent the billions and billions of dollars more wisely instead of throwing it away to Halliburton and other crooks from the top of the line down to the bottom.

Profitsbeard said...

Sterilize the Koran, not people.

The disease is in the psychopathic suras, not yourselves.

scrilla said...


netsuffering said...

Good to know that individuals in the free thinking western world are understanding the real crices they are about to face in the future.

Thankfully in india the demographic issue is not as serious though we are beseiged by radical islam from both sides and within we are waking up to a new reality thanks to minority or muslim appeasement by our politicians

the whole ideals of leftists and islam are same but an antithesis of each other both want a worldwide state one calls it an ummah and the other a socialist state

oki_mak said...

From Orhan

Dear friends,

Living in a "European and democratic" country, is supposed to make me feel civilized and peaceful. But considering your comments I see that Huntingon's 'Clash of Civilisations' is becoming a self-fullfilling prophecy. Unfortunately, I didn't manage to read the essay at all since I was affraid that there is a kind of virus in it that makes you hate the others, in this case muslims. I am amazed that you tend to show such an enormous knowledge of Islam and its principles but I must notice that you don't really know nor understand yourselves and your religions.
Once more I must say that such a high level of islamophobia I have never noticed in any other site. You dare to call muslim extremists and radicals but you don't really realize that you are become ones but worse. I just hope that you will all be able to think and see at things objectively and without hatred. Then we will all be able to leave together in peace. You say that muslims donot interract you others but as I can notice from your posts you are the ones that hate muslims and do not want to interract with them, it is a really ad hominem situation.

Captain USpace said...

This is scary, these religious NAZIS shouls be sent back to their lovely Islamic countries, expelled, deported and rejected. They are openly declaring their intent to overthrow the US government. The Bushies are dimmidiots to a frightenng degree. I am ashamed.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe loves
enemies of the state

respect other cultures
trying to destroy yours

Anonymous said...

Someone should tell the worthy Fjordman that his donation link isn't working.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the problem arises from your incorrect definition of a "Moderate Muslim." If a Muslim considers Islam a Supreme Religion, he is not a moderate, regardless of his willingness to take up arm to advance Islamic world domination. Here is an example of the real Moderate Muslims:

sla011308 said...

Our very existence is at stake here and we must wake up before it is too late. There isn't any room for tolerance of this radical, violent faith any longer. We must take our country and western way of living back from these animals. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of any Christians and or Jews hacking a non believers head off on video. The fact is, the muslims are still fighting the crusades and we aren't. Perhaps we should be, but there are too many cowards that call themselves leaders that will stand up to this threat. Government never did anything for the human desire to be free, except to try and destroy it. We, the people have to fight for our freedom and way of life. If not for ourselves, then for our children, grandchildren and generations to come. I know that I couldn't live without the God given freedom that runs through my veins. Please don't give up your freedom for security, for it is your freedom that guarantees your security.