THE CREEP OF SHARIA LAW INTO THE WEST

THIS IS A CHAPTER FROM AN UPCOMING book: Sharia Law for Non-Muslims. The book was designed to be short, only 48 pages. Many people do not want to know anything about Islam, but experience shows that they may have an interest in Islamic law. Since it doesn't make any difference which part of a rope you pick up first, Sharia law is a great way to start learning about the true nature of Islam.

CHAPTER 1

Sharia in Europe Today

When you study Islam in Europe today, you are seeing America in 20 years. Why? The actions by Muslims in Europe are based on Sharia law, the same Sharia law that is beginning to be implemented in America today.

Traffic cannot move in London streets as Muslims commandeer the streets to pray-a political result based on Sharia law.

Entire areas of Europe are no-go zones for non-Muslims, this includes the police. These are Islamic enclaves where only Muslims live. The Muslim-only policy is based on Sharia.

In England an Anglican bishop calls for the rule of Islamic law for Muslims. The bishop is obeying Sharia law.

In the schools only Islamic approved texts can be used. This is based on Sharia law.

Christians may not speak to Muslims about Christianity nor may they hand out literature. This is a political result based on Sharia law enforced by British courts.

Rape by Muslims is so prevalent that Sweden has forbidden the police to collect any data in the investigation that would point to Islam. Rape is part of Islamic doctrine as applied to non-Muslim women.

In London mass demonstrations by Muslims call for the end of British law and Sharia law to rule all people. This political action is based on Sharia.

In some English hospitals, during Ramadan fast (an Islamic religious event) non-Muslims cannot eat where a Muslim can see them. The submission of non-Muslims is based on Sharia law.

At British hospitals, Muslim women are treated only as Sharia law demands.

If a Dane says that he is proud to be Danish near a Muslim, it can be seen as hate speech and racism. This is in accordance to Sharia law.

Sharia in America Today

Here are current and historical events in America that are driven by Sharia law:

On September 11, 2001 jihadists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. This was in compliance to the laws of jihad found in the Sharia law. The attack was a political action based upon a religious motivation.

All textbooks in America must be approved by Islamic councils that are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is in accordance with Sharia law.

American employers and schools are met with demands for time and space to do Islamic prayer. These demands are based on Sharia law.

The American banking system is becoming Islamicized with Sharia financing. Our banking system indulges in Sharia financial law and does not know the rest of Sharia law.

Universities are asked to close swimming pools and other athletic facilities to be used for Muslim women.

Hospitals are being sued for not having Sharia compliant treatment.

No course at the college level uses critical thinking in the history and doctrine of Islam. Under Sharia no aspect of Islam may be criticized.

Muslim charities give money to jihadists, as per Sharia law.

Muslim foot-baths are being installed in airport facilities, using tax money. This is in accordance with Sharia law.

American prisons are a stronghold of proselytizing for Islam.

Workplaces are being made Islamic worship sites through special rooms and time off to pray. This is in accordance to Sharia law.

Islamic refugees bring all of their wives for welfare and medical treatment to America. Authorities will not act even when presented with evidence. Polygamy is pure Sharia.

We are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to implement constitutions that have the supremacy of Sharia law as their first article.

Why Do We Need to Know Sharia?

ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CLAIM: Islamic law is perfect, universal and eternal. The laws of the United States are temporary, limited and will pass. It is the duty of every Muslim to obey the laws of Allah, the Sharia.

SHARIA: Sharia is based on the principles found in the Koran and other Islamic religious/political texts. There are no common principles between American law and Sharia.
Under Sharia law:

There is no freedom of religion

There is no freedom of speech

There is no freedom of thought

There is no freedom of artistic expression

There is no freedom of the press

There is no equality of peoples-a non-Muslim, a Kafir, is never equal to a Muslim

There are no equal rights for women

Women can be beaten

A non-Muslim cannot bear arms

There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.

Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, jahiliyah, that must submit to Sharia

There is no democracy, since that means that a non-Muslim is equal to a Muslim

Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens

There is no Golden Rule

There is no critical thought

All governments must be ruled by Sharia law

Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed

THE SOLUTION
This book uses a fact-based approach to knowledge that uses analytic or critical thought. When you finish reading, you will know what Sharia law is. More importantly you will know why Sharia is what it is. You will understand how Sharia "works" and why it cannot change. For the first time, you will understand Islam. It will all make sense.

The Three Views of Islam

There are three points of view in dealing with Islam. The point of view depends upon how you feel about Mohammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don't, you are a nonbeliever. The third viewpoint is that of an apologist for Islam. Apologists do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they try to be tolerant without any actual knowledge of Islam.

Here is an example of the three points of view—in Medina, Mohammed sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword. Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah. Muslims view these deaths as necessary because denying Mohammed's prophet-hood was an offense against Islam and beheading is the accepted method of punishment, sanctioned by Allah.

Nonbelievers look at this event as proof of the jihadic violence of Islam and as an evil act.

Apologists say that this was a historic event, that all cultures have violence in their past, and no judgment should be passed. They have never actually read any of Islam's foundational texts, but still speak authoritatively about Islam.

According to the different points of view, killing the 800 Jews was:

A tragedy

A perfect sacred act

Another historical event. We have done worse.

There is no "right" view of Islam, since the views cannot be reconciled.
This book is written from the nonbeliever point of view. Everything in this book views Islam from how it affects non-Muslims. This also means that the religion is of little importance. A Muslim cares about the religion of Islam, but all nonbelievers are affected by Islam's political views.

This book discusses Islam as a political system. There is no need to talk about Muslims or religion. Muslims are people and vary from one to another. Religion is what one does to go to Paradise and avoid Hell. It is not useful nor necessary to discuss Islam as a religion. But we have to talk about Islam in the political realm, because it is a powerful political system.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam

BLOOD FOR OIL GONE AWRY

Isn't this the sorriest of outcomes with the loss of American blood and treasure in Iraq—to be scooped by the yen-manipulating Chinese and the increasingly belligerent Islamic Turks? Can someone tell us how much oil are we now getting from Iraq? Word is China has also bought into the Alberta Oil Sands, a major supply to the US, while the libs scream for a boycott of Canadian "dirty" oil..

Fred Kagan writes in No Blood For Oil:

One would have thought that leading Democratic senators who claim to be interested in finding other sources of funding to replace American dollars in Iraq, in helping Iraq spend its own money on its own people, and in lowering the price of gasoline for American citizens, would have been all for it. Instead, Senators Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condi Rice asking her "to persuade the GOI [Government of Iraq] to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq." The Bush administration wisely refused to do so, but the resulting media hooraw in Iraq led to the cancellation of the contracts, and helps to explain why Iraq is doing oil deals instead with China.

Go figure...

CNOOC Ltd., the Hong Kong-listed unit of China National Offshore Oil Corp. has partnered with the state-run Turkish Petroleum Corp. (TPAO) to win a contract with Iraq to develop the lucrative Missan oil-field in southern Iraq, marking CNOOC's first upstream access to Iraqi oil following its two major rivals, CNPC and Sinopec.

According to CNOOC, the 20-year contract includes an increase of Missan's production capacity to 450,000 barrels per day from the current 100,000 barrels a day within six years. CNOOC has agreed to price every additional barrel of oil produced after capacity rises by 10 percent at US$ 2.30.

CNOOC will be the operator and hold 63.75 percent of the interest. TPAO will have 11.25 percent interest while an Iraqi drilling company will hold the remaining 25 percent....

The other two major Chinese oil companies, CNPC and Sinopec, have also gained a foothold in the Iraqi oil industry. In November 2008, CNPC and China North Industries Corp. set up a joint venture and signed a 20-year development contract for Al-Ahdab Oilfield....

THE ISLAMIC SLAVE TRADE, Part 3

THE DEPTHS OF KNOWLEDGE THAT MANY have yet to wade is astonishing. Remember, not all Muslims have owned slaves. But as it consistently pointed out. Islam is unchangeable. Islam via the Noble Qu'ran allows for slavery. Furthermore, Islamic slavery throughout the ages has been documented, but that documentation is being kept hidden. Find out by whom, and why. View the entire series as it is posted here.

OBVIOUSLY FIT TO BE TIED

The following piece sums up the case against Islam. Of course there will be a multitude of others who refuse the obvious and choose to look the other way as danger approaches. It's always been that way. History is abundantly clear about that.

ISN'T IT PATHETIC that the only modernization islam permits is what others invent and develop, with a strong emphasis on weaponry and bombs. They don't hesitate to use the modern conveniences invented, developed, and produced in the West, from automobiles and airplanes, to air conditioners and dishwashers.

They send their best and brightest to be educated in our universities, come to the West to receive the finest medical care, and depend on the rest of the world for virtually all of life's necessities, including food.

We give them billions of dollars every year to improve their miserable wastelands but they continue to decline in every way as their religious fanaticism deepens and spreads. They buy our planes, bombs, and weapons to use against us in the jihad while living in a time warp where women are inferior, evil creatures owned by males, and little girls are raped, murdered, and promptly forgotten.

They believe they are superior beings because they believe in a sick, evil, archaic ideology they call religion and demand that the entire world submit to their Allah, or else.

There were no vehicles or tanks in Muhammad's time, no guns or bombs, but when it comes to warfare, they justify using modern technology made available by their evil enemy, the West. Why didn't allah grant them the means to create these marvelous tools of war, since they are the "best of people" and we are despicable filth? In their twisted minds, they always find ways to justify the use of kuffar technology but when it comes to joining the modern, civilized world by abandoning the archaic, asinine, repressive edicts of their prophet, Islam forbids it.

We are fools to sell them weapons, planes, computers, and we are idiots to allow them access to our schools and universities. But the most reckless, foolish, and dangerous blunder ever made by Western "leaders" was to allow these treacherous savages to invade our countries, build their temples of hate, and become citizens of our countries. The myriad of mistakes of the last thirty years vis-a-vis Islam and muslims are nothing short of suicidal.

—SusanP

PASSING THE TORCH TO GEERT

A FAIRLY NEW WEBSITE called SITAmnesty has popped into place and is sprinting formidably to get out the word about Islamic jihad, the raw patriotism of Winston Churchill in the past, and not least, the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders who appears to have inherited the mantle of the former and is today warning us of the true historical nature of our pernicious enemies in the war at hand. Take notice young sprigs. Inform yourselves.

From the powerful pen of the great British statesman, Sir Winston Churchill we learn...

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

The Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler had this to say about Islam :

“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all—Our Fuehrer.”

In his memoirs Albert Speer wrote about Hitler’s enamour of Islam, reporting a discussion which captures Hitler’s effusive praise for Islam :

“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.”

Hitler, according to Speer’s account, repeatedly expressed the conviction that:

“The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Sir Winston Churchill likened Islamist terrorism to Nazism :

“In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that even more important than invoking the famous British “stiff upper lip,” to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies.”

Geert Wilders, among many others, likened the Koran to Mein Kampf:

Jihad means “personal(supposedly) struggle”
Mein Kampf means “my struggle”

During WWII, we might remind ourselves, Muslims themselves, when there was completely free to make their own choice, chose the Nazi side.

And lastly, this I have found:

Arial Sharon is one of my heroes and I am not a Jew or an Israeli. I simply read history and am very impressed with this man’s courage, accomplishments, and values.

However, I do understand the bitter hatred felt toward him. You can expect that anytime there is something truly good, praiseworthy, or of good report in the world—evil will attempt to poison and brainwash people against it. All one needs do is read ordinary grade-school books used to teach the young in the Arab states. Israel and America are portrayed as little Satan and big Satan—rather than the light and hope that they have undisputedly represented to so many.

Freedom inevitably gathers evil to oppose it—uncovering an eternal truth: There is opposition in all things. Choose ye this day whom you will serve . . . Freedom or Tyranny.

ANOTHER TEST FOR GREAT BRITAIN

SO HERE COMES THE ACID TEST: is Jacqui Smith, as she proclaims, an enemy of extremism in all its forms, or a cowardly hypocrite?

In October, the Home Secretary announced 'tough new measures' to deny entry to Britain to anybody 'engaged in fostering, encouraging or spreading extremism and hatred.' In recent weeks she has put them to use by banning a Dutch MP with hugely controversial views on Islam, and a notorious anti-gay US preacher. But will she be prepared to apply the same new standards to Islamic extremists who preach a hatred of Jews?

Ibrahim Moussawi, a known hardliner with links to Hezbollah, has been invited to speak at a London university, the School of Oriental and African Studies. His track-record speaks for itself.

He allegedly described Jews as 'a lesion on the forehead of history', and is an editor for the newspaper of Lebanon-based terrorist organisation Hezbollah. He is also former political editor of the Iranian-backed group's TV station, which is banned in many countries including France, Spain and the US, as its output is seen as anti-Semitic.

In short, it is a no-brainer for Miss Smith. He should, as the Centre for Social Cohesion and the Conservatives argue today, be banned from setting foot in the UK, let alone speaking here. Failure to do so must represent double-standards of the very worst kind.

The Far-Right Dutch MP Geert Wilders was banned from travelling to Britain to show his shocking 17-minute film called Fitna at the House of Lords because his views were considered wildly extreme.

His film, which links mainstream Islamic texts with the terrorist attacks on New York in September 2001, was indeed crude and provocative. It begins with the hugely controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb as a turban, and the suggestion that the Koran is ‘a fascist book’ is patently offensive to millions of people.

But so are the odious ramblings of Moussawi.

Miss Smith also banned the Reverend Fred Phelps, founder of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, from entering the UK earlier this month. The 'Reverend', who campaigns under the slogan ‘God Hates Fags’ is fanatical and hateful in equal measure. He had wanted to visit Britain to picket a performance of a play which dramatises the real-life murder of a gay man in 1998. Miss Smith said he had ‘engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a 'number of communities’. So has Moussawi.

Yet Labour has, in the past, been happy to display double standards when the beneficiaries were Islamic extremists. The cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi was not just granted a visa to visit the UK in 2005, despite being publicly praised by the then London Mayor Ken Livingstone at City Hall. Al-Qaradawi had been criticized for condoning suicide bombings and for having anti-Semitic and homophobic views.

Will Miss Smith now repeat the past mistakes of a left-wing establishment inexplicably tolerant of Islamic franatics who pass themselves off as scholars or academics? The omens do not look good. During her time as Home Secretary, Moussawi has already been allowed in at least twice—in December 2007 and February 2008.

This is her third—and surely final—chance to show some courage.

THE ROOTS OF ARAB RACISM

I know many folks in this city, this nation, this culture get their talking points and wee-sized knowledge bits from the liner notes of the "Best of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, Speeches and Gaffs" CD, but one day soon, one hopes, that these same folks will wake up to real history to help prevent the onset of their own destruction.

THE HISTORY OF ARAB oppression of blacks, whether those blacks became nominal Muslims or not, is too long. The history of Arab enslavement of blacks started far earlier, was much more devastating in its effects, and continued much later, than the Atlantic slave trade. A scholar has estimated that because Arabs specialized in seizing young black males for use in harems (contrary to the Western imagination, harems were not just for the rulers), and would castrate their hunted prey in situ in the jungle, the mortality rate among those then taken by slave coffle to the waiting boats that would take them to the slave markets of Islam reached 90%. See "The Hideous Trade" or google that title and "Jihad Watch" for more.

Slavery is legitimate in Islam. Muhammad had slaves. Muhammad is the Perfect Man. Seventh-century Arabia allowed slavery. Seventh-century Arabia provides the Sunnah, the customs and manners that are to be followed. The Arab slave trade went up and down East Africa, with the chief entrepot for the local trade in African blacks being the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, held by the Arab rulers of Oman. The Arabs also went deep into Central Africa, and into West Africa too, while the European slave-traders never managed to penetrate the interior, preferring to remain on the coast of West Africa and having slaves delivered to them by local tribes.

Slavery was not abolished willingly by the Arabs. It was stamped out, rather, by Western powers. There is no Arab William Wilberforce. There never has been a declaration, by any Arab leader, or government, or theological institute, that slavery is always and everywhere morally wrong. And there cannot be such a declaration, because Muslims are hemmed in by the Example of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, and the practice of the Sunnah. If the French ended Arab enslavement of blacks in much of North Africa, it was the British—the Royal Navy—that helped stamp out the slave trade that continued between Africa and Arabia. This tale is told most fully in J. B. Kelly's "Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1795-1880.” But the Arabs still managed, as the British presence on the seas diminished, to resurrect that slave trade, which continued into the 1960s.

In 1962, just before slavery was formally abolished—because Saudi Arabia was not yet rich from oil revenues, it had to succumb to Western pressure—20% at least of the population consisted of black slaves. For more google “Arab slave trade in Africa,” or start here.

It is not surprising that in Dayton, a Muslim girl might have made up a story blaming black men. Nor is it surprising that the Arabs in this congregation want to move from a black neighborhood to a white one. Look at how unwelcome Arabs and Pakistanis have made black Muslims who wish to attend, in any numbers, the same mosques with them. Blacks are seen as fit fodder for conversion to Islam—without really letting potential converts know much about Islam. The proselytizers hold back so much, until their targets are deeply committed and can't easily get out. They do this so as to swell Muslim ranks and perceived (and real) power, but are not so happy for the new converts to actually associate with Arabs and Pakistanis, who find such an association distasteful. Compare that with the welcoming practice of Christian churches, not least among those evangelicals who have become the butt of so much self-assured mockery.

Read it all in Hugh Fitzgerald's latest reportage on the scourge of Islam.

CHINA CRACKS DOWN ON ISLAM

(AHN) - The Chinese government is attempting to limit prayer time and areas of worship for practicing Muslims in the northwestern part of the nation, which some see as an effort to control the growth of Islam. Posted signs outside some mosques reportedly direct Muslims not to go longer than one half-hour in prayer and also not to pray outside of them, as well.

Khotan residents are also prohibited from worshipping at moques outside of their town, reportedly angering some citizens. People who are upset with the rules do not express their concerns, however, for fear of retribution from the government. China's rules on Islam stretch from public into other facets of life, as well, as only official versions of the Qur'an are acceptable to use and Imams are forbidden from teaching from the book in private.

Read these comments on the topic.

BESLAN REMEMBERED

LET US NOT FAIL TO RECALL, nor long forget Beslan either, as we seek to save the world from enemies that live among us, some that look like sheep, and some that look like the ravenging wolves that they are. Here's a tasteful link to the tragedy.

And here's a gem of writing by a poster over at Jihad Watch. Thanks to "dumbledoresarmy."

I have just got my copy of Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism".

Part One, entitled 'Islamic Antisemitism: Jew-Hatred in Islam', which is the overview and distillation of all his research, makes for riveting—and terrifying—reading.

If every Christian priest or pastor, and every Jewish rabbi, had to read just that portion of Bostom's book, during their training, and show evidence of having understood it, before their ordination, we would be spared many of the more embarrassing displays of Useful Idiocy that we are forced to witness today from our spiritual leaders. The nonsense about 'three Abrahamic religions' that we hear so much about, would cease.

If our journalists and political leaders also read Bostom's damning report, and truly understood and believed it, much Western reporting and diplomacy vis a vis 'the Middle East situation' would be radically different.

If every Jewish member of the Knesset read, learned, marked and inwardly digested what Bostom has discovered, they would *know* the mind of the enemy that they face every day. They would *know* exactly where the hate is coming from. They would know that no concession, no negotiation, no bribe, no talks, no nothing, is going to achieve 'peace' with the Arab Muslims, or indeed, the entire Muslim world: only Jews all dead, or Jews reduced to a terrified, powerless, tormented and despised remnant of dhimmi near-slaves, will ever be enough for the Muslims.

Read part one of Bostom's latest book, David England. You wrote: "It is sometimes said that the radical islam of today is fascistic. What is not talked about is how it may have grown out of Nazi fascism directly".

No it didn't. I see Nazism and Islam more as cases of 'convergent evolution'. And they hopped into bed with each other so quickly, and borrowed ideas and strategies so eagerly, because they were kindred spirits before they ever met.

Muslim jihadist hatred of Jews is a good example. Bostom's book shows that Muslims did NOT need Nazis to teach them to hate Jews, they already did that quite thoroughly and comprehensively, all by their little selves.

Furthermore Ibn Warraq, when he identified a whole string of congruences between Islam and fascism was not talking about anything that modern Islam has *learned* or *copied* from European fascism: the Islam he had in mind was classical mainstream Islam, what Hugh [Fitzgerald] calls "'Islam, Islam, Islam", Islam of Qur'an-Sira-Hadith, Islam as it was expounded by Muslim jurists and theologians, and practised by Muslim despots and Muslim mobs, for over a millennium before European Fascism was ever a gleam in a philosopher's eye.

BRITISH POLICE PRACTICE DHIMMITUDE

The absurdity of Western dhimmitude continues to wash in from the Isles. A British citizen who converted to Christianity from Islam and then complained to police when locals threatened to burn his house down was told by officers to “stop being a crusader” according to a new report.

Nissar Hussein, 43, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, who was born and raised in Britain, converted from Islam to Christianity with his wife, Qubra, in 1996. The report says that he was subjected to a number of attacks and, after being told that his house would be burnt down if he did not repent and return to Islam, reported the threat to the police. It says he was told that such threats were rarely carried out and the police officer told him to “stop being a crusader and move to another place”.

A few days later the unoccupied house next door was set on fire. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British human rights organization whose president is the former Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken, is calling on the UN and the international community to take action against nations and communities that punish apostasy.

Its report,No Place to Call Home, claims that apostates from Islam are subject to “gross and wideranging human rights abuses”. It adds that in countries such as Britain, with large Muslim populations in a Westernized culture, the demand to maintain a Muslim identity is intense. “When identities are precarious, their enforcement will take an aggressive form.”

ARTISTS FEARFUL TO ADDRESS ISLAM

Britain’s contemporary artists are fêted around the world for their willingness to shock but fear is preventing them from tackling Islamic fundamentalism. Grayson Perry, the cross-dressing potter, Turner Prize winner and former Times columnist, said that he had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

Perry also believes that many of his fellow visual artists have also ducked the issue, and one leading British gallery director told The Times that few major venues would be prepared to show potentially inflammatory works.

“I’ve censored myself,” Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Perry’s highly decorated pots can sell for more than £50,000 and often feature sex, violence and childhood motifs. One work depicted a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary. “I’m interested in religion and I’ve made a lot of pieces about it,” he said. “With other targets you’ve got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don’t know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time.”

The fate of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker who was murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after he made a film portraying violence against women in Islamic societies, is the most chilling example of what can happen to an artist who is perceived to have offended Islam. Perry said that he had also been scared by the reaction across the Islamic world to Danish cartoons deemed anti-Muslim in 2006 and by the protests against Salman Rushdie’s knighthood this year.

Across Europe there is growing evidence that freedom of expression has been curtailed by fear of religious fundamentalism. Robert Redeker, a French philosophy teacher, is in hiding after calling the Koran a “book of extraordinary violence” in Le Figaro in 2006; Spanish villages near Valencia have abandoned a centuries-old tradition of burning effigies of Muhammad to mark the reconquest of Spain, against the Moors; and an opera house in Berlin banned a production of Mozart’s Idomeneo because it depicted the beheading of Muhammad (as well as Jesus and other spiritual leaders).

Read it all, and don’t neglect the comments. That’s where the REAL story exists.

THE TAFFY PULL OF MUSLIM SCIENCE

With all the Orwellian distortions by Muslim apologists of Islamic contributions to hard science filtering in from the Twilight Zone of lates, here is another generalized take by a reader named Jerome From Layton:

Actually, I think that there are two sides to this "Middle Eastern Science" question. During the early Middle Ages, there was a higher level of freedom of action within the areas under Islam than in Europe. This meant that the Arabs, Persians, Egyptions, etc. could participate in commerce, technology, and science as long as they didn't threaten the position of Islam. And, yes, there are Arabic words in our scientific lexicon such as alcohol which was identified as a specific chemical after the Arabs invented distillation. A huge number of stars are derived from Arabic names which helps explain why they are so hard to pronounce. The Church demeaned the Arabic numbering system that the whole world uses today as "vulger mathematics". While the Greeks invented concepts such as pi and geometry, the Arabs gave us the word "algebra". So far, so good, then something changed.

I suspect that change happened when the Islamic forces started losing. It took them a couple hundred years to realize that they lost the initiative after they were beaten by Charles "The Hammer" Martel in France. After that, came the Crusades which put more pressure on Islam and what followed can be explained by any cop who deals with domestic disturbances. Losers tend to get violent and very controlling with independent thought being the first casualty. After that, "Islamic Science" became a memory.

Western science took off during the Reformation and the Age of Reason. The question of the day is about the ability of the Islamics to perform a similar transformation. If they don't, the current world war will only intensify.

FOX NEWS INTERVIEWS SPENCER

Another fine moment in defining the depth of the Islamofascist threat to contemporary civilization!

Yes, it is true that sometimes the tragic seriousness of the Islamic threat manages to pierce the usual fog of silliness that cloaks the "new, improved Saudi-patrolled" Fox News organization. In this particular case, Robert Spencer, in what has been noted as a soft-spoken but characteristic frankness, once again reminds us that the struggle for clarity in this hot war against Islamic jihaists and the cold war against those Islamic allies who provoke the West with a Koran-grounded disinformation campaign is one best understood in historical terms.

THE ILLUSION OF METASTABILITY

Here's an insight into these global events by a man named Frank:

I think it was Yeltsin who said of the USSR that in the end the society had become a land of hypocrites where no one would dare speak the truth and the few who did were in grave danger. The malaise, the stagnation of everything was blamed on the US and a false front was put up of a land of equality, a place where there was universal health care, no homelessness, etc. We were told the USSR was nothing like America and even Dan Rather waxed warm on the pre-schools and day care for Soviet kids in one of his reports. But it was all a lie, self-deception, delusion. It is much like that with Islam. And as with the USSR, every reason for Islamic failure is projected outward and there is no self-criticism, no permissions to critical analysis, no alternatives are possible because no one is really free to dissent from the system.

I once read a description of the Soviet system as being "meta-stable". Apparently it's a word from physics that means a system appears very stable until outside forces are introduced and then it becomes violently unstable. The Islamic world, especially the Mideast, is affected by the transport and communications revolutions of the past 50 years and those revolutions are striking and shattering their metastable system. Islam is in a condition similar to the Soviet system but it's more dangerous and its potential for lethal violence is greater than the Soviet system. We are in a period of history more dangerous than the Cold War.

THE FITZGERALD PERSPECTIVE

Tancredo spikes again, after the MSM continues to ignore him as a marginal candidate for for the US presidency. The following article by Hugh Fitzgerald originally posted on Jihad Watch on July 18, 2005, pulls the argument together in an even clearer light for today’s readers. Fitzgerald writes:

A two-year-old posting on the matter, put up the last time Tancredo raised the matter of deterrence and a retaliatory attack on Mecca:

"Congressman Tancredo, a former history teacher, has almost alone in Congress bothered to begin to investigate what Islam teaches, what it is all about. For this he deserves the support of everyone, and everything possible should be done to help re-elect him—if for no other reason, than to ensure that at least one member of Congress will speak the truth about the belief-system of Islam. He deserves to be supported to the hilt, in any possible way.

And the Congressman did not recommend that "Mecca be bombed." While many people have in the past suggested that—see the redoubtable Fred Ikle, for example, he who was so important in the Reagan Administration—Congressman Tancredo said something different, and perfectly understandable.

He was asked about rumors that Muslim terrorists might have already smuggled into the country nuclear devices that they planned to set off, and what kinds of things might deter them. He mused aloud, that one of the things that might deter them would be the threat to bomb Mecca. That was all he said. It was hardly remarkable, and the only thing remarkable about it has been, as has been repeatedly suggested at JW (see, for example, the recent article by Rebecca Bynum)is that all the different ways to inflict damage on the belief-system of Islam have not been discussed. But on the other hand, as long as we are conducting either a "war on terrorism" or a "war on an ideology of violent extremism" that remains carefully unnamed, perhaps in the end it is not surprising that we have no discussion of the kinds of deterrents that would work, and on whom.

For example, there may be no way of deterring the groups and groupiscules of fanatics. But there are ways to threaten, and deter, the Saudis from continuing to send money abroad to support the entire Muslim infrastructure that, as the recent Freedom House report showed, encourages not merely Islam but the most hate-filled brand of Islam—in other words, there are threats of seizure of assets that might get the attention of the rulers of Saudi Arabia (and the U.A.E. riding pillion), to have them cease using the "money weapon" to pay for mosques and madrasas and Da'wa throughout the Western, Infidel world.

But Tancredo was addressing a different problem. and he did not offer an answer. He offered one among many possibilities that he thought deserved intelligent discussion. And he was right. And this is not a clear-cut case. There are many ex-Muslims, for example, who appear to believe that Tancredo is absolutely right—that this may be the one thing which, if threatened, or at least considered, could cause Muslims to rethink. It is already clear that the change in the atmosphere in the Western world, the beginning of a glimmer of an understanding that the very matter of Islam needs to be examined, has caused such things as this absurd public-relations effort in damage-limitation, this so-called "fatwa" to be issued by some Muslim groups in America, and announced by that more than doubtful organization, CAIR—of course the wording will require the closest kind of reading, the kind we ordinarily would reserve for Shakespeare, Keats, or Hardy, applied to the banal taqiyya of Muslim bureaucrats.

But the mere fact that people who have been defending certain acts now feel they must, for Infidel consumption, seem to be distancing themselves, is a sign that when danger is perceived, there is a drawing-back. It is certain that the mere discussion of bombing Mecca has both good and bas aspects. The bad aspect is that it is the kind of remark that allows many to get on their high moral horse, and huff and puff, and "deplore" this wild man, Tom Tancredo. Anyone can imagine what editorials in The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon deploring Tancredo might look like. But in our Infidel hearts, we are all secretly pleased, and relieved—are we not?—that such a discussion of deterrence has at least been begun. For without such a discussion, there is no way to begin to think straight about the problem of Islam world-wide—not of "terrorism" but of Islam.

Every intelligent Western observer has noted what Tocqueville, who had been in Algeria, referred to as the "morbid" quality of Islam. Churchill, in "The River Wars," had nothing good to say about the foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism of the Muslim warriors, but he did note that they did not fear death, for the sensual Paradise that awaited the warrior who died in Jihad was a reality.

And because the usual kinds of threats might mean little to fanatics, one has to figure out what might work as a deterrent. In Israel the punishment of destroying houses has some deterrent effect, given that the families of the "martyrs" will suffer—and some "martyrs" are willing to die, but don't want their family members left behind to have to build a new home. It is not true that such deterrence does not work. There are other possibilities. Much Muslim behavior inimical to the West can be deterred.

For example, the family that has seized, and treats as its private property, the vast territory of Arabia—the House of Al-Saud—both directly or indirectly helps to support, and even help to create, fanatics in two ways. Within Saudi Arabia, its own despotism and corruption causes young Saudis who are enraged by them to embrace, not Jeffersonian democracy, which is un-Islamic, but rather Al Qaeda or other groups, which provide them with the vocabulary, the imagery, the categories that Islam itself supplies to define opposition to a corrupt caliph or ruler. For it does not do, within Islam, to denounce someone as corrupt, or as a despot. The rulers, after all, are the rulers, and the habit of mental submission that Islam inculcates, and the inshallah-fatalism that is within Islam, helps in large part to encourage submission to the despot, however corrupt—unless that despot can be seen as, defined as, placed in the category of, "Infidel."

Then anything and everything can be done to destroy that "Infidel." And that is exactly what happens among those who oppose the Al-Saud, or the Mubarak Friends-and-Family stratokleptocracy in Egypt—save for a pitiful, nearly nonexistent Western-style secular opposition in the latter, the opposition will always take on a Muslim cast. Muslims can do no other. And the corruption of the Al-Saud helps create the odd scion of plutocrats who, in Muslim terms most nobly, gives it all up to fight for "justice" against the corrupt rulers, but "justice," alas, Muslim-style, with the Muslim worldview, which means that all evil comes from Infidels, and all who are genuinely evil must be defined as, and treated as, Infidels, even if they may claim—falsely, obviously—to be Muslims, as do so many of the corrupt princes and princelings of Saudi Arabia.

That is one way the Al-Saud help swell the ranks of the Muslim terrorist groups.

The second way they do so is in building, and paying for the maintenance of, mosques and madrasas all over the world, but especially in the Infidel lands, the Bilad al-kufr, where those mosques, and those madrasas, can encourage the worst brand of Islam (this does not mean that a "milder" brand does not inculcate hatred of Infidels, for it must—it is a question of with what intensity, with what fervor, with what single-mindedness, the particular brand of Islam inculcates what is common to all of them, part of Islam itself). Nearly $100 billion has gone from the Saudis as part of the propaganda weapon on behalf of Islam, as part of world-wide Da'wa, and to pay for Western hirelings who will do the bidding and promote the interests of, and deflect criticism from, the Saudis as they continue their malevolent activities throughout the world.

The Al-Saud are rational actors. They can be threatened, and forced to cease their support for the mosques and madrasas and hate-filled propaganda. they can be threatened with seizure of their assets abroad. They can be threatened with a total removal of American guarantees, which they assume are permanent, for their safety. They can be threatened with a loss of secure American or other Western refuges if and when they are overturned. They can be threatened with the removal of Western doctors, and teachers, and a refusal to allow their children to study in the West, or for them to find medical care in the West. These are very dangerous threats—imagine if someone threatened you that you would never again be allowed access to advanced Western medical care.

And in the end, if they think they have that ace-in-the-hole, oil—you can show that you are willing to seize the oil in the al-Hasa province, oil conveniently close to tankers in the Persian (Persian, not Arab) Gulf, and that there are a thousand-and-one ways to deal with this situation. But this requires a complete change of tone to get the Saudi attention. Such attention will not be attained if those who continue to prate about a "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia, which one finds in such deplorable examples of the appeasement-of-the-Saudis mindset in the Op/Ed of one Flynt Leverett, described—even more disturbingly—as "former senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council"—and someone who has clearly been one of those who fails to understand that Saudi Arabia is not, and never has been, and never can be, the ally of an Infidel country, but that, if treated correctly, certain kinds of behavior on its part can be prevented, and certain other kinds of behavior forced from its rulers.

Congressman Tancredo, in raising the question of what would, or would not, work as deterrence, was performing a great service to discussion. It is of course difficult to predict what bombing Mecca would do. I tend to think it would be far better to discuss all the other kinds of deterrence that one knows will work, on the rational actors or quasi-rational actors within the dar al-Islam. And as for the fanatics, one can consider how to limit access to Mecca, airfield by airfield, port by port, highway by highway, until it should be as remote as the highest Himalayas, or some impassable and steaming jungle, or the frozen wastes of Ultima Thule. Mecca would still be there, but to get to it—that would be the problem. And that kind of deterrence would be a step-by-step affair.

But the question of the psychology of Muslims—of their combination of grandiosity and living in some mythical great past, and resentment over the miserable and obviously miserable present, where murderous hatred of Infidels is so often part of some grotesque ten-step Self-Esteem Program for those Muslims who have tasted the West, may even have used drugs or lived as criminals and now wish to go straight, Islamically straight—needs more examination.

However the debate over this or that kind of deterrence goes, the mere fact that such a debate takes place is good, for it automatically ends certain taboos. It makes clear that this is not a "war against terror" alone but a long campaign, very likely without end unless the migration of Muslims to the West is stopped and reversed (and while hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the U.K. claim to "wish to leave" one does not see any of them leaving—but more significantly, one has not heard, even from the most antisemitic and anti-Israel brigands, any pleas for them to remain), and unless the unearned and entirely unmerited OPEC oil wealth is so diminished that the Saudis, and the rest of them, can be pushed back into that state of obscurity, poverty, and general irrelevance that they were in before an accident of geology gave them power. In the meantime the Infidels, for their own safety, must work to create those conditions—or to do nothing to prevent the creation of those conditions—by which, like those in the Soviet Union who concluded that their own system had failed, Muslims themselves will be forced to confront the evident political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of their own peoples and polities, and will have to attribute those failures, correctly, to Islam itself.

Finally, it is hard for Infidels to judge the effect of a threat on Mecca, or a threat to limit access to Mecca, on Muslims. Who might best have some insight into this? Possibly ex-Muslims themselves, the many articulate and acute students of minds formed by Islam, who managed to undo its manacles, and escape from its closed circle. One wonders what views they would have on the threat to bomb Mecca, or to limit access to Mecca, as something that might work on the groups and groupiscules that, unlike the sneering but carefully calculating members of the Al-Saud, are less subject to the ordinary threats of loss of income, loss of access to all the goods and services of the advanced Infidel world, even loss of life."

ISLAM AND NAZISM

Old news, but here is a new video linking the Pan-Arabian mindset with Hitler and Nazism. In particular, a specific Mufti, Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini is known to conspired with Hitler in his own determined advance of the extermination of the Jews. The video also stipulates that the planned extermination of the Jews by the Muslims is merely the prologue to a sustained assault on the West and the entire globe until Islam has conquered all the earth.

RUNNING THE TABLE WITH SINCERITY

When ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise. Our leaders would rather pretend that Islam is nothing but a misunderstood faith because to do otherwise would require facing up to the danger it represents to Western societies.

“Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

“Islam grew with blood...The great prophet of Islam in one hand carried the Koran and in the other a sword—Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels but a religion of guidance for other people.”

—Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

“Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn’t look for a nation to be in a better condition than another nation. Islam doesn’t care about the land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad.”

—Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, ‘Jihad in Islam’

“Soon we will take power in this country. Those who criticize us now, will regret it. They will have to serve us. Prepare, for the hour is near.”

—Belgium-based imam in 1994. “De Morgen”, Oct. 5, 1994. Cited in Koenraad Elst, "The Rushdie Rules", Middle East Quarterly, June 1998.

“The Quran should be America's highest authority”. “Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.”

—Omar Ahmad, CAIR's (Council on American-Islamic Relations) chairman of the board.

"Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue."

—Sheikh Abdullah Azzam (Osama bin Laden’s late mentor.)

PROGRESS IN THE AIR

From the New York Post writer Irshad Manji:

Last week, two very different Brits had their say about the latest terrorist plots in their country. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the nation that "we have got to separate those great moderate members of our community from a few extremists who wish to practice violence and inflict maximum loss of life in the interests of a perversion of their religion." By contrast, a former jihadist from Manchester wrote that the "real engine of our violence" is "Islamic theology."

Months ago, this young man informed me that as a militant he raised most of his war chest not from obscenely rich Saudis, but from middle-class Muslim dentists living in the United Kingdom. There's sobering lesson here for the new prime minister. So far, those arrested in connection to the car bombs are, by and large, medical professionals. The seeming paradox of the privileged seeking to avenge grievance has many champions of compassion scratching their heads. Aren't Muslim martyrs supposed to be poor, disenfranchised, and resentful about both?

We should have been stripped of that breezy simplification by now. The 9/11 hijackers came from means. Mohamed Atta, their ringleader, earned an engineering degree. He then moved to the West, pursuing his post-graduate studies in Germany. No servile goat-herder, that one.

In 2003, I interviewed Mohammad Al Hindi, the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. A physician himself, Dr. Al Hindi explained the difference between suicide and martyrdom. "Suicide is done out of despair," the good doctor diagnosed. "But most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives."

In short, it's not what the material world fails to deliver that drives suicide bombers. It's something else. And, time and again, the very people committing these acts have articulated what that something else is: their religion.

Consider Mohammad Sidique Khan, the teaching assistant who master minded the July 7, 2005, transit bombings in London.

In a taped testimony, Khan railed against British foreign policy. But before bringing up Western imperialism, he emphasized that "Islam is our religion" and "the Prophet is our role model." Khan gave priority to God, not to Iraq.

Now take Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim who murdered Amsterdam film director Theo van Gogh. Bouyeri pumped several bullets into van Gogh's body. Knowing that multiple shots would finish off his victim, why didn't Bouyeri stop there? Why did he pull out a blade to decapitate van Gogh?

Again, we must confront religious symbolism. The blade is an implement associated with 7th-century tribal conflict. Wielding it as a sword becomes a tribute to the founding moment of Islam. Even the note stabbed into van Gogh's corpse, although written in Dutch, had the unmistakable rhythms of Arabic poetry.

Let's credit Bouyeri with honesty: At his trial he proudly acknowledged acting from "religious conviction."

Despite integrating Muslims far more adroitly than most of Europe, North America isn't immune. Last year in Toronto, police nabbed 17 young Muslim men allegedly plotting to blow up Canada's parliament buildings and behead the prime minister. They called their campaign "Operation Badr," a reference to the Battle of Badr, the first decisive military triumph achieved by the Prophet Mohammed. Clearly, the Toronto 17 drew inspiration from religious history.

For people with big hearts and good will, this has to be uncomfortable to hear. But they can take solace that the law-and-order types have a hard time with it, too. After rounding up the Toronto suspects, police held a press conference and didn't once mention Islam or Muslims. At their second press conference, police boasted about avoiding those words.

If the guardians of public safety intended their silence to be a form of sensitivity, they instead accomplished a form of artistry, airbrushing the role that religion plays in the violence carried out under its banner.

They’re in fine company: Moderate Muslims do the same.

While the vast majority of Muslims aren't extremists, a more important distinction must start being made - the distinction between moderate Muslims and reform-minded ones. Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam—but deny that Islam has anything to do with it.

By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions—effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations.

To do so would be admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there.

Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for re-interpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over. Re-interpreting doesn't mean re-writing. It means re-thinking words and practices that already exist—removing them from a seventh-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a twenty first-century pluralistic context.

Un-Islamic? God no. The Koran contains three times as many verses calling on Muslims to think, analyze, and reflect than passages that dictate what's absolutely right or wrong. In that sense, reform-minded Muslims are as authentic as moderates, and quite possibly more constructive.

Irshad Manji is a senior fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy, the creator of the PBS documentary "Faith Without Fear" and author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith." From TNR.com, the Web site of The New Republic.

TOTAL IMMERSION IN THE TRUTH

The following piece is from a contributor to Jihad Watch:

The sneering supremacist delusions systemic in Islam were and are at their core the engine of Arab Imperialism. The Ottomans were also Imperialists destroying "indigenous cultures", "indigenous peoples".

It is true that history is the story of Imperialism, a record of the subduing, the conquest, the removal and often the actual extermination of "indigenous cultures", "indigenous peoples". The Aztecs, the Arabs, the British, the Manchu, Chinese, Japanese, Spaniard, etc. have all engaged in this all too human behavior.

However, the Arabs, the Ottomans and Muslims in general never apologize for the crimes they commit and have comitted in history. From North Africa to Spain, to India, to the Sudan, to invasions of Europe, Muslims have engaged in mass murder, exploitation of unbelievers (Arab Muslims were deeply involved in the slave trade), and the record of crimes in the name of this belief-system cry to heaven for vengeance.

All supremacist-pigs (every group has engaged in these crimes) rewrite history to sanitize their crimes and rationalize them by explaining how good it was for the victims. I suppose even the Nazis would have done this eventually. This is the pattern of all history. However, Muslims (especially the Arabs) still engage in these rationalizations for Imperialism.

Again, only Muslims (especially the Arabs and Ottomans) never apologize for their crimes. Why? Because they still hold the delusion of their supremacism and still require that all bow to Mecca. Probably only the very ruthless use of force and devastating destruction (as Sherman did in the Slave states) will finally rip to shreds the engine of Arab Imperialism.

—Frank

PAINTING A SIMPLE PICTURE

From Hugh Fitzgerald:

Muslims feel "isolated." Muslims feel "unwanted." Muslims feel "unloved." That's why they do what they do in southern Thailand, and the southern Philippines. That's why they decaptiate Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, attack Christan churches in Alexandria, or Baghdad, kill Hindus in Bangladesh and drive millions of them out, why the Taliban, those hyper-Muslims, forced Hindus in Afghanistan to wear yellow identifying robes, why they felt compelled to blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas, or destory churches in Gaza, or drive even "Palestinian" Christians out of Bethlehem. It's why death threats were made against Danish tourists, unless and until the editors of Jyllands-Posten were punished for daring to publish a handful of anodyne cartoons. That's why bombs went off in Atocha Station in Madrid, on the Underground in London, why a Moscow theatre was seized, why Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were murdered.

"Not integrated." "Unwanted." "Unloved." Prove, Infidels, the contrary. Do everything you can to integrate those Muslims. Lavish every possible program on them—language, culture, all the things that no other group of immigrants appears to need, lest members of that group start hating those among whom they live. Provide every conceivable benefit: education, health care, subsidized housing, all far beyond what those hundreds of thousands, say, of Somalis now living in this country could ever have dreamed of at home, living in Muslim Misrule, Muslim Malgoverno. Pile it on. Dedicate, re-dedicate those mosques. Do whatever it takes. Don't say a word against Islam, don't even hint at it. Always and everywhere denounce those who beg to point out this or that disturbing feature of Islam. Shout them down. Censor their websites. Banish those "hate-mongers" to the outer darkness.

Keep it up.