Muslim population in European cities

Muslim population in European cities

September 7, 2010

I was recently asked which cities in Europe have the highest Muslim percentage. The following is what I found in my research.
I linked to my sources, but note that not all sources have the same reliability level. STAT - official municipal or national statistics, EUMAP - EU Research program, WIKI - Wikipedia, NEWS - mentioned in the news.

Note that in some of these cities, there are neighborhoods which have a much higher percentage of Muslims (for example: Kreuzberg in Berlin, Molenbeek in Brussels and Tower Hamlets in London) and neighborhoods with a much lower percentage.

Austria

Vienna - 8% (120,000) (NEWS)

Belgium

Antwerp- 6.7% (>30,000 of >450,000) (EUMAP)
Brussels (region) - 17%-20% (160,000-220,000) [some say 33% (City of Brussels?)] (NEWS, NEWS)

Denmark

Aarhus - ~10% (NEWS)
Copenhagen - 12.6% (63,000 of 500,000) ( EUMAP)


France

Ile de France - 10%-15% (up to 1.7 milliion) (NEWS)
Marseilles - 25% (200,000 of 800,000) (NEWS), PACA region - 20% (0.7-1.0 million of 1.5 million) (EUMAP)
Paris - 7.38% (155,000 of 2.1 million) (EUMAP)
Strasbourg - 10% (NEWS)

Germany

Berlin - 5.9% (~200,000 of 3.40 million) (EUMAP)
Cologne - 12% (120,000 of 1 million) (WIKI)
Hamburg - 6.4% (~110,000 of 1.73 million) (EUMAP)

The Netherlands

Amsterdam - 24% (180,000 of 750,000) (STAT), Greater Amsterdam - 12.7% (STAT)
The Hague - 14.2% ( 67,896 of 475,580) (STAT), Greater Hague - 11% (STAT)
Rotterdam - 13% (80,000 of 600,000) (EUMAP), Greater Rotterdam - 9.9% (STAT)
Utrecht - 13.2% (38,300 of 289,000) (STAT), Greater Utrecht - 7% (STAT)
Zaan district - 8.8% (STAT)

Russia 

Moscow - 16%-20% (2 million of 10-12 million) (NEWS)

Sweden

Malmö - ~25% (NEWS) [percent of immigrants, foreign born or both parents foreign born: 36% (STAT)]
Stockholm - 20% (>155,000 of 771,038) (EUMAP) [percent of immigrants: 36% (STAT)]

United Kingdom

Birmingham - 14.3% (139,771) (WIKI)
Bradford - 16% (75,000) (NEWS)
Leicester - 11% (>30,000 of 280,000) (EUMAP)
Greater London - 8.5%-17% (1.3 million of 7.5 million) (NEWS, WIKI)
Luton - 14.6% (26,963) (WIKI)

Thanks to Nieuw Religieus Peil for helping collect the data.
Updated: September 7, 2010

UK: 52% think Muslims create problems, 39% of Asians want immigration halt

UK: 52% think Muslims create problems, 39% of Asians want immigration halt

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2011

UK: 52% think Muslims create problems, 39% of Asians want immigration halt


Via UKPA:

The poll, carried out by Populus, was one of the largest studies carried out on the subject, based on 91 questions to more than 5,000 individuals.

Immigration was held to have been on the whole a bad thing for Britain by 63% of whites, 43% of Asians and 17% of black Britons. It found that 39% of Asians, 34% of whites and 21% of blacks believed immigration should be halted either permanently or at least until the UK's economy was back on track.

Almost half (48%) were open to supporting a new far-right party as long as it eschewed "fascist imagery" and did not condone violence. And 52% agreed that "Muslims create problems in the UK". Ethnic minority communities generally feel less "proud" at seeing the English flag flown - though only 25% of whites questioned said they felt that emotion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Islamic Propaganda towards the West

Islamic Propaganda towards the West

Islamic Propaganda (da`wah) Towards the West
David Bukay

The Islamic propagation is very highly pronounced, and one can find it in numerous publications, written and electronic. One can sum up their main arguments: all individuals in Islam are equal. No authority may deprive any citizen of his rights and powers, and his opinion should be decisive in the formation of the government. The political system of Islam is a democracy, even if it is not secular. Islam does not accept a system which involves any kind of dictatorship, nor does it accept a system of monarchy. Islam was the first institution ever to advocate and implement such human rights as universal equality. In fact, Islam promoted the universality of the human experience over 1,300 years before the United Nations declared it to exist. Islam grants basic human rights to all people, Muslims and non-Muslims, regardless of their race, nationality, ethnic origin or language. Islam grants the individual the right to freedom. It is categorically forbidden to capture a free person and make him a slave or sell him into slavery. Islam recognizes absolute equality between people. There is no superiority of Arab over non-Arab, white over black. Islam protects the rights of the citizens, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim, the right of freedom of thought and expression; the right to freedom of association and formation of parties or organizations; and the right to participate in the affairs of state. Islam is strongly opposed to all forms of injustice and takes all measures to ensure that justice prevails in every field.

In time of war, Islam decreed humane rules of war, many centuries before such ideas were put into conventions and agreements in the West; it is prohibited to kill anyone who is in captivity; residential areas should not be pillaged, plundered or destroyed; treaties must not be broken, and Muslims are prohibited from opening hostilities without properly declaring war against the enemy. Islam set an unprecedented standard for the ethics of dealing with captured enemies. They treated prisoners of war in a manner that has yet to be imitated in history. It instructs Muslims either to free captives who cannot offer ransom or to ransom prisoners of war. Prisoners of war have the right to their human dignity and to be protected. The Islamic ethic of treating prisoners of war is part of the whole system of Islamic ethics, which places utmost importance on the preservation of human dignity and rights. All forms of barbarism, unnecessary acts of violence and unjust aggression are forbidden by Islam. The use of the concept of "jihad" for acts of aggression against innocent people that is for terror would be unjust and a great distortion and it is quite different from the wars of Joshua. Religiously, Islam proved a more tolerant religion, providing greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians.

Islamic propaganda towards the West uses mainly verses from the Qur'an and related sayings of Muhammad in the Hadith - to prove their case of a peace-loving Islam. The ultimate and overall message of the Qur'an is only peace.

1) The Prohibition of Killing Women and Children
Muslim propagandists quote verses from the Qur`an and Hadith to prove that in Islam there is the prohibition of killing of women, children and the elderly. Then they attack the Old Testament to prove that this is not the case in Judaism and in Christianity.1

From the Qur`an:

Surah 5 verse 32
If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.
In this noble verse we clearly see that Allah almighty honors all the innocent souls that he created. Killing an innocent soul is so hated by Allah that he considers it as a crime against all of mankind.

Nevertheless, it is so typical to quote only part of the verse, ignoring the other which is the opposite. The full verse is:

That is why we decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever kills a human being except for murder or for spreading corruption in the land it shall be killing all humanity. And whosoever saves a life saves the entire human race. Our apostle brought clear proofs to them, but even after that most of them committed excesses in the land.
The next verse reveals the whole issue clearly:

The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his prophet and perpetrate disorder in the land is to kill and hang them or have a hand on one side and a foot on the other cut off. Or banish them of the land. Such is their disgrace in the world, and in the hereafter their doom shall be dreadful.

To this horrific and violent commandment, the Islamic propagandists explain that killing any innocent soul is hated by Allah and he considers it as a crime against mankind.

Surah 2 verses 190-191,
...order to "fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah loves not transgressors". 

However, not transgressing the limits of war can mean anything but not exactly to love peace and be compassionate. Moreover, who determines the limits? According to what? The promise is that Islam prevails and will dominate all other religions:

It is he who sent his messenger with the guidance and the true faith, in order to make it superior to other religions, even though the idolaters may not like it.2

It is he who sent his messenger with the guidance of the true faith, so that he may exalt it over every other creed...3

The radical change to offensive jihad was exemplified by Surah 9, the only Surah which does not open with bismillah al-rahman al-rahim: in the name of Allah the benevolent, merciful. We find "the verse of the sword" (ayat al-sayf):
But when the sacred months prohibited for fighting are over, slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captives or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place. But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat, then let them go their way.4

We then find then that the behavior towards the Jews and Christians also changed drastically:

Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah and the last day, who do not prohibit what Allah and his messenger have forbidden, nor accept divine law, until all of them pay the poll tax (al-jizyah) out of hand (`an yadin) in submission (wahum saghirun).5

After fighting the idolaters, the unbelievers and the "People of the Book", came the turn of the hypocrites:
Fight, O prophet, against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal with them firmly. Their abode is hell and what a wretched destination.6

We also find the command of fighting all the abovementioned enemies of Islam, which is the basis of the horrific acts of beheadings:

When you clash with the unbelievers, smite their necks (fadarb al-riqab) until you overpower them... until war (al-harb) shall have come to an end.7

From the Hadith
The Islamists bring narrations from the Hadith, which relate to the same one event: 8

Narrated by `Abdullah: Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children, by al-Bukhari and Muslim.9
Narrated by Ibn `Umar: Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children, by al-Bukhari and Muslim.10

Then come three narrations:

Narated by Rabah Ibn Rabi`: the apostle of Allah told Khalid ibn al-Walid not to kill a woman or a hired servant. 11

Malik brings prohibition against killing women and children in military expeditions, but if there is no choice to kill the enemy, than it is possible. 12

Narrated by Ahmad al-Tirmidhi: Ibn `Abbas says: The messenger of Allah, when dispatching his troops, would tell them, "Do not behave treacherously, nor misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate those whom you kill, nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters." 13

However, according to al-Tirmidhi himself, the main reason for sparing the life of women and children is to take them captives, to convert the children to Islam and take the women as concubines:

And there is no group of people on earth in which you cannot bring to me from them Muslims. And the best I like that you bring their wives and sons and kill their men.14

Taking part in jihad with soul and body is the utmost recommended action for the Muslim believer. The mujahid's best prize is paradise:

Muhammad said: Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the shahid who, on seeing the superiority of jihad, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in the way of Allah).15

Mohammad: Nobody who enters paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except the mujahid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times for of the dignity he receives.16

al-Miqdam b. Madikarib reported Allah's messenger as saying: the shahid receives six good things from Allah: he is forgiven at the first shedding of his blood; he is shown his abode in paradise; he is preserved from the punishment in the grave; he is kept safe from the greatest terror; he has placed on his head the crown of honor a ruby better than the world and what it contains; he is married to seventy-two wives, comprised of the maidens with large dark eyes; and he is made intercessor for seventy of his relatives.17

Muhammad said: No doubt I wish I could fight in the way of Allah and be a shahid and come to life again to be shahid and come to life once more.18

Muhammad said: paradise is under the shadow of the swords.19

One should also pay attention to the amount of energy devoted to proving something which is very common, acceptable and an integral part of Western civilization (not to kill civilians, especially women and children). And still, the question is, why do they boast of something which is obvious? Indeed, from the "no" (not to kill women and children), one can deduce the "yes" (it is permitted to kill males, youngsters and elders).

2) "Verses which Refute the Terrorism Lie in Islam"

Surah 8 verse 61:
But if the enemy inclines towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for he is one that hears and knows (all things).

This is really interesting, because the verse which precedes it (verse 60) explains it all:

…strike terror in the hearts of the enemy of Allah and your own, and others beside you not known to you but known to Allah… 

Now verse 61 can be understood: "if they are inclined to peace", means, if they accept the rule of Islam, by conversion or submitting to Islam, "make peace with them". This is really the Islamic peace.

Surah 5 verse 28:
If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, cherisher of the worlds.

However, the problem is that this is the story of Adam and his two sons, Cain and Abel, and the quotation is the answer of Abel to Cain before he was murdered. What is the connection to the refutation of terrorism in Islam?

Surah 60 verse 8:
Allah does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. Allah loves just dealers. 

This is perplexing if not amusing, because the correct meaning of the verse is: it is possibly showing kindness and dealing justly towards those who do not fight the Muslims over faith and do not drive the Muslims out of their homes. If the Muslims attack the enemy territory, and there is no issue of religion and/or territory - there is no problem, since it means that the enemy was defeated or subdued. If the enemy attacks the Muslims, surely the issues of religion and territory become crucial. Moreover from the "no" (when and whom the Muslims are ordered not to fight), one can deduce the "yes" (against whom Muslims can fight). If any, this verse shows precisely the aggressive face of aggressive occupying Islam.

Surah 2 verse 193
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.

This is amazing. The commandment is to fight the unbelievers "until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah", which means there is no resistance to Islam as a supreme religion. Now, most important are the words "if they desist". This means stop fighting the Muslims, which includes accepting the rule of Islam either by conversion or by submitting to it. Indeed, now it is understood - accepting Islam means no hostility, and only those who resist are fought by jihad.

Surah 2 verse 256
Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.

This verse was delivered by Muhammad at the beginning of his career in Medina, when he needed the Jewish and Christian support to organize his small community (Muhajirun) and to expand the number of his new supporters (Ansar). He encouraged avoidance of conflicts with the Jewish and Christian communities and to accept them as legitimate. This attitude was changed shortly after, when Muhammad had his military success. Moreover, this is a request and not a commandment ("let there be..."), and the question is how does it stands with other commandments from the same period at Medina. For example:

So fight them until opposition ends and obedience is wholly Allah's.20

So when you clash with the unbelievers smite their necks until you overpower them and hold them in bondage...21

Surah 15 verses 2-3
Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to Allah's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). 

These verses are from Meccan period, when Muhammad was weak and persecuted, and his followers were small in number. Muhammad had a modest conception of his duty. His religious views had evolved: at first it was the "Lord" who had been the source of his revelation. After about two years he began to use "al-Rahman", the merciful one, and finally, "Allah", which was originally the pagan Quraysh god.22 Muhammad kept moderation with regard to war, and kept preaching to Arabs on the spiritual level, as a da`wah. They were too small and too weak to fight. As a general rule, all the Surahs from Mecca (90 out of 114) are the same regarding this issue.

Surah 18 verse 29
Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)…

Surah from the Meccan period. See above.

Surah 10 verse 99
If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed - all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe.

Surah from the Meccan period.

Surah 24 verse 54
Obey Allah, and obey the messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The messenger's duty is only to preach the (message).

This is almost a joke. The question relates to the connection between this verse and the ambition to prove the claim of refuting terrorism? The verse is simple but out of context.

Surah 109 verses 1-6
Say: O ye that reject faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship… To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Surah from the Meccan period.

Surah 25 verses 68-69
Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy.

Surah from Meccan the period. The verses are deliberately misquoted:

...who do not invoke any god apart from Allah; who do not take life which Allah has forbidden except for a cause that is just, and do not fornicate, and any one who does so will be punished for the crime. Whose punishment will be doubled on the Day of Judgment and he will live forever in disgrace.

The verses do not say innocent souls, whether Muslim or not. Moreover, it insists on "except for a cause that is just", which is only Islamic. All in all these are rules for the community of believers on how to behave (notice the fornication mentioned, as a proof), and has nothing to do with peace and compassion towards the others, the unbelievers.

Surah 2 verse 178
O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. 

This is part of Muhammad's moral legislation for the Muslims, and takes its sources from the Bible. There is no connection whatsoever to refuting terrorism, and one cannot deduce anything from this issue.

Surah 16 verse 126
And if ye punish, then punish as ye were punished (by them). But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient. 

Surah from the Meccan period. It deals with domestic moral legislation.

Surah 4 verse 90
Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah has opened no way for you (to war against them). 

This verse is deliberately misquoted.

Except those who take refuge with a people allied to you, or those who, weary of fighting you or their people, come over to you. If Allah has so willed he would surely given them power over you and they would have fought you. If they keep aloof and do not fight and offer peace, Allah has left you no reason to fight them.

This Surah deals with the issue of the hypocrites among the Muslims, so disturbed Muhammad's followers. After declaring in the previous verse to "seize them wherever they are and do away with them", Muhammad encourages his community to believe in Allah's abilities to overpower the hypocrites. That is all, and nothing is connected to refuting terrorism.

Surah 9 verse 7
How can there be a league, before God and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous. 

The verse means the opposite of peace-loving. It says there can be no treaty between the idolaters, on the one side, and Allah and his apostle, on the other. And there is no need to fight those who have made treaties, meaning they have joined Islam, or are in alliance with the Muslims. The next verse clearly shows that the idolaters cannot be trusted, since they neither observe pacts nor good faith, and accordingly their fate is death.

3) "Verses that Deal with Peace"
For the Islamic propagators, Islam commands the Muslims to offer peace to the enemy, so that he can become a friend. Muslims are prohibited to kill people in churches or temples, or in hospitals, or children and elderly, or the enemy soldiers who are not carrying weapons. For that, they quote Surah 2 verse 190; Surah 5 verse 32; Surah 25 verses 68-69; Surah 8 verse 61; Surah 5 verse 28; Surah 60 verse 8; Surah 2 verse 193; Surah 2 verse 256; Surah 15 verses 2-3; Surah 18 verse 29; Surah 24 verse 54; Surah 109 verses 1-6; and Surah 10 verse 99.

We have already analyzed all these verses, and found most of them to be irrelevant to the subject matter. Moreover, the Muslim propagators use the same verses to refute terrorism and to prove that Islam means to love peace. Refuting the terrorism lie, if proven, is not synonymous to peace. We would also like to add that Surah 10 verse 99, we have analyzed, if any, is most aggressive in nature, and hints that mankind should come to believe in Islam, that its fate is to be subdued to Islam if not converted.

Surah 18 verse 86
Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

However, again, the verse is clear: even in far away regions, the Muslim community has permission to fight them or treat them with kindness. Where is the peace-loving issue? If any, it means aggression, since the commandment declares: when Muslims meet the unbelievers they should:

Invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to Islam; if they respond, accept it and desist from fighting against them (which means conversion to Islam). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizyah. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands (which means, subduing to Islam and accepting its rule). If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.23

A substantial part of the doctrine includesjihad among the very pillars of Islam, along with prayer and fasting:
Muhammad said: there is no hijrah after the conquest of Mecca, but jihad and good intentions (to fight in jihad). If you are called for fighting in jihad in the way of Allah, go forth immediately.24

A man came to Muhammad and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame, and a third fights for showing off. Which of them fights in the way of Allah?" Muhammad said: "He who fights that Allah's word should be superior, fights in the name of Allah."25

Surah 45 verse 14
Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of Allah: It is for him to recompense (for good or ill) each people according to what they have earned.
This Surah is from the Meccan period.

Surah 2 verse 182
But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (the parties concerned), there is no wrong in him: For God is oft-forgiving, most merciful."

This verse is a continuation of set of moral commandments to the community. The relevant section begins in verse 177 and ends in verse 182. Moreover, the verse does not say "makes peace between (the parties concerned)", as it is quoted, but instead brings about a settlement. That is all, and nothing relevant to peace concerning the others outside of Islam.

Surah 2 verse 224
And make not Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is one who hears and knows all things.

The verse is totally misquoted. The section begins in verse 211 and ends in verse 216. The crucial issue is to see the parallel between the fate of the Children of Israel and the Muslim believers. The relevant verse says: do you think (the Muslim believers) your way to paradise even though you have not known what the others before you have gone through? They (the Children of Israel) had suffered affliction and loss, so that even the Apostle (Moses) had to cry out: the help of God arrive? Remember (you, the Muslim community) the help of Allah is ever at hand.

Again, even not to mention the misquotation, where is the connection to peace-loving in Islam?

Moulavi Ali Cheragh constitutes a typical example
Almost all Muslim and European writers think that the religious war of aggression is one of the tenets of Islam, and prescribed by the Qur`an for the purpose of proselytizing. I do not find any such doctrine enjoined in the Qur`an or preached by Muhammad. His sole mission was to enlighten the Arabs to the true worship of one Allah. These have nothing to do with popular jihad and exterminating the idolaters. All the verses of the Qur`an are related only to defensive war without exception, and none of them has any reference to make warfare offensively. All fighting injunctions within the Qur`an are only in self-defense, none of them has any reference by which to make warfare offensively. There are several passages in the Qur`an which forbid taking offensive measures and enjoin only defensive war.26

So you see, the issue is very simple - there is nothing in the Qur`an, which relates to aggression and expansionism, and Muhammad was totally compassionate with his enemy and never shed their blood, this is the nature of Islam.

In a booklet "The Basics of Islam at a Glance" prepared by The Islamic Cultural Center in Tempe, Arizona, we read:
There is no historical proof that Islam was "spread by the sword". Even non-Muslim scholars now admit that this is nothing more than a vicious myth which cannot be substantiated by historical fact. Islam is a religion of love and peace and forgiveness.27

Murad Hoffmann, a German converted to Islam, declares shamelessly:
In almost every Surah, the Qur`an also encourages man to contemplate, to use his powers of reason, to harvest the fruits of his thought, instead of simply repeating the authorities parrot fashion. Islam rejects extremism, excessive emotions and hatred, violence and revolution.28

He quotes verses from the Qur`an to prove Islamic tolerance, yet the problem is that he quotes only part of them, neglecting the full text, which denotes a different reality. He quotes Chapter 18 verse 2929

Say: the truth is from your Lord, so believe if you like, or do not believe if you will. 
Yet, the verse continues as such:
We have prepared for the sinners a fire which will envelope them in their tents. If they ask for water, they will be helped to liquid like molten brass that would scald their mouths. How evil the drink and evil the resting place. 
Moreover, the record reaches its peak by his statement: "I could complete a chapter with a single sentence: the concept of holy war, even the phrase, does not exist in Islam."30

This brings us to a prominent exegete of Islam: Mahmoud Shaltut:31

Whenever the truth is clear and simple and easy, it speaks for itself and does not require further means to enlist adherents. However, when a truth is contradictory and complicated, it is obscure and repulsive to people. Now consider to which of these two categories the Islamic mission belongs?

Muhammad revealed a book containing the principles of happiness. It commands to judge by reason, it propagates science and knowledge, it gives clear rules, it proclaims mercy, it urges to do good, it preaches peace, it gives firm principles concerning politics and society, it fights injustice and corruption. The Islamic community is commanded to do only what is good and is forbidden to do what is reprehensible and evil. The Islamic mission is clear and evident, easy and uncomplicated. It is digestible and intelligible for any mind. It is a call of natural reason, and therefore not alien to human intellect. This is the mission of Muhammad to humanity.32

Now, if Islam, according to Shaltut, claims to be a religion that has all these traits, where should we look to find an example of what true Islam should look like? Where do we find peaceful harmonic relations even between Arabs states themselves? And as for human progress and development, where can we find an example of a modern developed democratic liberal Arab and/or Muslim state? What about Arab and Muslim leaders; which of them represent the Islamic values of peaceful, egalitarian, civil rights' religion and tolerance? What about any Arab-Muslim contributions to humanity, or to science and progress? How many scientific breakthroughs and inventions were revealed and introduced by them in the last centuries?

This is the political language of the Islamists, and Muslim scholars and spokesmen. They declare, without blushing, that jihad is only a defense and a last resort mechanism. But, is this really the case? If it is, then what about the processes of Arabization and Islamization imposed by the Arabs after the invasion from Arabia, by conquering the vast areas from Morocco to India? Between the years 710 and 712, Islamic troops were battling jihad wars in the territories of India and China in the east, and Spain and France in the west. Were these defensive wars of jihad? The same are the Islamic conquests during the Ottoman Empire, in the 15th and the 16th centuries. Indeed, these jihad wars had nothing to do with defense of the Muslim religion or Arabs' souls, but were all aggressive-expansionist imperialist ones.

4) "The Old Testament is Different and Legalizes Killing"
After bringing verses to prove their case, the Islamic propagators turn to the issue of killing women and children according to the Bible, and to prove that it permits terrorism. They bring the story of the Midianites in Numbers, 31: 17-18; in Deuteronomy 20: 16; and the Amalekites in Samuel 15: 2-3.

Indeed, this is true. The Jews were ordered to kill the seven nations of Canaan, but with a big difference as compared to Islam; the Jews fought for Eretz-Yisrael, because it belongs to the People of Israel alone, which is also stated in the Qur`an.33 If one can equate this situation to Islam, then it is as if the Muslims were to perpetrate jihad war in Arabian territory. The problem is that Islam is not confined to Arabia but its ideology extends to the whole world. Their definition of Dar al-Islam includes the territories conquered, from India to Spain (Andalusia), and they wish to bring these territories back to the fold of Islam.

Muslim propagandists also turn the charge against the Jews, by quoting Ezekiel, Chapter 23 verses 45-47, as if it is a general commandment. However, this is a private story of two prostitutes: Ahola and aholibah, and the command from God is to dispatch them with swords, to slay their sons and daughters, and burn their houses. Why this harsh measures? Verse 48 explains: I will cause lewdness to cease out of the land. The other one is from 2 Chronicles, Chapter 15 verse 13, which tell the story of those from the Children of Israel who transgressed during the reign of Asa, and the command was to slay all the Jews whosoever would not seek the Lord, God of Israel. These two stories relate to interior issues of sinners among the Jewish community who have sinned and their punishment. What is the relevance to violence and terrorism which allegedly is permited in the Bible? Then they bring the story of "Mighty Samson" in Judges Chapter 16 verses 26-30. The Muslim's challenge to Jews and Christians is to prove that the in the Bible one cannot find that God condemned Samson's actions.

The only problem with this claim, that it shows a total ignorance. "Mighty Samson" was imprisoned. He was tortured and stood before his death, and commit suicide out of the inevitable. He did not come willingly and freely to murder the innocents and civilians.

The next stage the Muslim propagators bring is the story of Saul and his Children in 1 Samuel, Chapter 31 verses 1-6. However, this is the story of the Philistines fighting Israel on Mount Gilboa, and Israel's defeat. The Philistines killed Saul sons, and he was injured. Out of this desperate situation, Saul wished to die and fell on his own sword. Where is the connection to the Muslim homicide bombers? But the Muslim propagators boast happily by declaring that in reality suicide bombings were allowed in the Bible.

NOTES

1 http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/pregnant_women_ripped_open.htm, http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article05.shtml, http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article04.shtml, http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/politics/Politics/article02.shtml
2 Surah 9 verse 33; the same as Surah 61 verse 9.
3 Surah 48 verse 28.
4 Surah 9 verse 5.
5 Surah 9 verse 29. It is qualifying Surah 9 ayah 5 in severity: Meir Bravermann, "The Ancient Arab Background and the Qur`anic Concept of al-Jizyatu `an Yadin", Arabica, vol. 11, 1964, pp. 307-314; and ibid., vol. 14, 1967, pp. 90-91, 326-327.
6 Surah 9 verse 73.
7 Surah 47 verse 4.
8 http://hadith.al-Islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=4747. The ahadith below-mentioned are quoted in many Muslim internet sites with variety of narrations, but from the same source.
9 Muhammad Ibn Isma`il, al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Lahore: Kazi, 1979, Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 257; Ibn al-Hajjaj Muslim, Sahih Muslim, Cairo: Dar al-Kitab al-Misri, n.d, Book 19, Hadith 4319.
10 Sahih al-Bukhari: Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 258; Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Hadith 4320.
11 Ibn Majah Abu-Da`ud al-Sijistani, Sunan Abu Da`ud, Cairo: Dar al-Misriyah, 1988, Book 8, Hadith 2663. See also http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=3291
12 Malik Ibn Anas, al-Muwatta`: The First Formulation of Islamic Law, London: Kegan Paul, 1989, Book 21, ahadith 8, 9, 10. See also Imam Nawawi: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=4215
13 It does not bring any footnote, but we take it as it is reliable.
14 Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih. Vol. 7, p. 36.
15 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, no.53; Muslim, Sahih, vol. 11, no. 2013.
16 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, no.72.
17 Transmitted by al-Tirmidhi and Muslim: According to Mishkat al-Masih, Lahore: Ashraf, 1975, Vol. 1, no. 808.
18 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, no. 216.
19 Ibid., vol. 2, no. 70; Muslim, Sahih, vol. 5, no. 1841.
20 Surah 8 verses 39 and 67.
21 Surah 47 verse 4.
22 Francis E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994, p. 160.
23 Muslim, Sahih, Book 19, no. 4294.
24 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, vol. 4, nos. 42, 311.
25 Ibid., vol. 4, no. 65.
26 Ali, A Critical Exposition of the Popular Jihad, pp. 114-119. See also pp. 16-27.
27 Surah 23 ayah 96; Surah 28 ayat 54-55; Surah 41 ayah 34; Surah 42 ayah 40. Of course all these are from the Meccan period. See below in Chapter 2.
28 Ibid., pp. 74, 85 respectively. See also pp. 33-42.
29 This Surah is from the Meccan period.
30 Hoffmann, Islam the Alternative, p. 161.
31 Mahmoud Shaltut, al-Qur`an wal-Qital, Cairo: Matba`at al-Nasr wal-Ittihad al-Sharqi, 1948.
32 According to: Surah 2 ayat 136-138; Surah 3 ayah 64; Surah 6 ayat 101-103; Surah 29 ayah 46; Surah 30 ayah 30; Surah 42 ayah 13.
33 Surah 5 verse 21; Surah 7 verse 137; Surah 17 verse 104; Surah 10 verses 93-94.

David Bukay (Ph.D.), teaches at the School of Political Science in the University of Haifa. his main fields are: International Terrorism and Islamic fanaticism; al-Qaeda and World Jihad; Inter-Arab Relations and the Arab Israeli Conflict; State and Conflict in the Middle East; the Arab State: Militarism vs. Islamism; Syria, Lebanon and Israel: the Politics of Power Politics.  His last two books are: Yasser Arafat: the Politics of Paranoia (Mellen Press, 2005); and From Muhammad to Bin Ladin (Transaction, 2007). He has written numerous articles (mostly in Hebrew). his forthcoming book is Arab-Islamic Colonialist Expansionism: Islamization and Arabization of the Dar al-Islam

ISLAM-The Sociology of Jihad

The Sociology of Jihad

April 9, 2009

A reader responded to my charge that university professors are dhimmis. He maintains that not all professors are apologists and sent me this well-done article using a sociological basis of analysis. This is the type of work reflects both knowledge of doctrine and critical reasoning.

The Sociology of Jihad, How Rational People Commit Atrocities
John Andrews

The Salafists believe that only Jihad can reestablish a true Muslim state that will abolish all injustice from the earth and bring people out of the servitude to others and into the servitude of God. It is the duty of Islam to destroy all political systems which prevent people from freely choosing it and experiencing universal freedom (56). The sword (Jihad) must clear the way for the preaching and destroy those elements which limit mankind to living in a world of evil and chaos (62). This sword would be carried by a restored Caliphate based on the traditions of the Prophet. The Caliphate would be a leader the masses could trust, understand and follow. He would provide a simple message well suited to Muslims, not well schooled in traditional Muslim teachings. This message is liberating the Umma from its external enemies, the infidels and Jews (al-Zawahiri, 2001: part 11).

It is difficult to generalize about the characteristics of the Salafist. Most of these individuals, approximately 80 percent, went to secular schools as children. Over 60 percent had some form of college, many attending in the West, and most were trained in the sciences, not philosophy or religion. However, a majority considered themselves religious as children; 73 percent were married and most had children. The majority were from overprotected families with doting parents and stable households. They did not suffer from any major mental disorders. If they had antisocial personalities, they would have been weeded out because of their inability to work well in an organization and their lack of dedication, perseverance and ability to sacrifice for the cause. The 9/11 hijackers are perfect examples. They were not hostile, violent or macho throughout their yearlong stay in the U.S. However, when the moment came they killed enthusiastically. They were able to do so because of their social networking and group morality, which was developed over years. These individuals were not predisposed to do harm individually, but did not hesitate to perform monstrous acts collectively (Sageman 2004: 74-82).

This original group joined the Jihad in their mid-twenties in a country where they had not grown up. Although they were, for the most part, religious as children, they became considerably more devout immediately before joining the Jihad (92). The subsequent group of Salafists were second- or third-generation Muslims living in the West. Many of these individuals felt excluded from the society they grew up in, had no discipline in their lives, and pursued petty crimes, drank and took part in drug use. They grew up with little or no religious training (100-101). We will go into greater detail later on this second group, but for now it is important to note a similarity between both groups prior to joining the Jihad. They felt alienated in their current society. This was true for the first group who had immigrated to another country and the second group who felt alienated in the country of their birth. They both sought a cause that would give them emotional relief, social community and spiritual comfort (97). They eventually drifted towards like-minded local individuals.

The original group sought out the mosque in the foreign country where people from their homeland were. These prospective converts may initially have had strong reservations about the group's doctrines, but began developing strong ties of friendship with members of the group. There they began to form networks of friendships that solidified over a period of time. Sub groups were formed within the mosque where the intensity of their beliefs spiraled upward in an apparent game of one-upmanship. They found rules and structure that went beyond religion and became psychological and personal (108-109). They became embedded in a socially disembedded network, which, because of its lack of anchor to any society, is free to follow abstract and apocalyptic notions of a global war between good and evil (151). Instead of a top-down process of recruitment, it became a bottom-up process of young people volunteering to join the organization. They joined as a group, not as individuals. The East African embassy bombings and the Lackawanna Six involved individuals were close friends prior to joining the Jihad. Most of these relationships go back to childhood or are familial in nature, including in-laws and spouses. The crucial element is that social bonds predated formal recruitment into the Jihad. (110-113)

This process is rarely a fully conscious one. These sub-groups do not start out as terrorist groups. They evolve in that direction as their mutual relationships deepen, in a spiral of greater loyalty, mutual devotion, self-sacrifice and intimacy. They begin to believe that their actions are taken on behalf of God. Although outsiders focus on their willingness to kill, the insiders focus on their willingness to die. Their awareness of their own readiness to transcend their own self- interest fosters a special view of themselves and others like them that increases the value of friendship within the group and diminishes outside relationships. These feelings may compete with, and even be stronger than, those of love.

Ziad Jarrah's fiancé testified about her progressive loss of her fiance's love to the Hamburg terrorist cell which planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. The loss of love to this type of friendship demonstrates its powerful bond. Positive emotions motivate people to carry out horrific acts more easily than negative emotions. Killing in defense of family, friends or country is acceptable and encouraged. Perhaps the 9/11 perpetrators carried out their horrendous actions out of in-group love rather than out-of-group hate (155-157). As was previously stated, the Jihad strives in the cause of God to abolish all injustice from the earth in order to bring people to the worship of God alone and to bring them out of servitude to others-to abolish those oppressive political systems, which prevented people from freely choosing Islam.

Islam is one of the most communal of all religions, with many orchestrated, shared rituals. Salafi Islam is very strict in its code of conduct and prescribes dress, diet and conduct. The elegance and simplicity of its interpretations attract many who seek a single solution devoid of ambiguity. Salafi Islam uses tactics developed by other totalitarian ideologies, such as fascism and communism. It promotes a visual apartheid to distinguish its adherents from the rest of society. The specific uniform consists of beards, shirts falling down to the knees, and baggy pants with a cloth cap. They also carry worry beads. Women cover their hair, avoid bright colors, and, in some instances, wear the burqa, which is head-to-toe covering. They have simple answers to complicated problems, and they divide the world into good Islam and bad non-Islam (116).

There is another subtle factor that makes Islam attractive. Traditional masculine roles are well preserved in Islam. Western men find it difficult to express their "manhood" in increasingly neutered societies. Islam possesses what are seen as masculine virtues from the seventh century when men walked the earth, sword in hand, accepting no insult, and conquering infidel neighbors. In comparison to Christianity, which states "turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute you," Islam comports more closely with man's primordial lusts for war, booty and women (Ibrahim, 2006).

People will often seek a new religious or social affiliation after some significant change disrupts their old social networks, e.g., a new country, imprisonment, and alienation from friends and family. There is a period of social isolation in which the existing social and emotional ties are called into question and loosened until finally there is a total negation of everything that existed before (Sageman 2004:116). The religious revivalist organization possesses superior attractiveness over a secular political group. The Salafist emphasizes brotherhood, mutual sharing and spiritual support, which becomes the functional equivalent of an extended family.

New adherents progressively accept the new faith because it makes sense in their new interpretation of the world and their role in it. This learning process involves intense social interaction and introspection. The adherents distance themselves from their original network of friends and family or are rejected by them because of their new, highly visible behavior. The mastering of their friends' beliefs comes after a long period of intense day-to-day interaction with them. In many cases they begin living an isolated lifestyle, which intensifies the social bonds of the members. This leads to a spiral of further isolation from the outside world, the development of a collective identity, and total commitment to the group. Muslims may engage in the Jihad because they share certain norms, values and worldviews which are shaped under the guidance of a Salafi imam preaching the benefits of the global Jihad. Social interactions at these mosques build and reinforce ideological commitments to the Jihad, which these new friends further encourage (117-121).

This social jihadism has worked with second- or third-generation Muslims and new immigrants as well. This development is a paradox to many sociologists, who figured that radical Islam was confined to newcomers who brought it with them. With time, the theory went, immigrants and their children would moderate their views. Instead, it is Europe's second- and third-generation Muslims who are the most radical. Many of these individuals believe their European society is against them. They are growing up in a world of high unemployment and lack of integration in their homeland. Some begin drinking, doing drugs, becoming members of youth gangs and engaging in crimes with no moral compass or goal in life. They then become introduced to an individual who talks to them about the world, their place in it, and the religion of their ancestors. They are provided with audio and videotapes of preachers who advocate a stripped-down form of Islam that emphasizes the culture's past glories and a handful of simple religious regulations.

Soon they are meeting with like-minded contemporaries, getting rid of jeans, t-shirts, drugs and alcohol and wearing the white gowns, skullcaps and beards. They become indoctrinated into political Islam, which preaches a Utopian view of society where all citizens are part of a just and fair Umma. There is no separation of church and politics. Life centers on the mosque not just for religious instruction, but for everything. Society should be founded on Islam, and all those who are different are held in contempt. Inside the mosque talk isn't of integration, but rather how to protect oneself from harmful European society. Those members of the mosque who do not agree with this political Islam are shunned or forced out. The group dynamics change alienated young men into terrorists.

Basically, these individuals, with the help of their friends, recruit themselves. They do not necessarily attend terrorist camps or have experience on the battlefields (Johnson and Carreyrou: 2005). Their source of knowledge and indoctrination comes from the Internet. The Internet both appeals to and fosters disembeddedness. On the one hand, it appeals to isolated individuals by easing their loneliness through connections to people sharing some commonality. On the other hand, it leads them to spend more time with this virtual community at the expense of interaction with the immediate social environment. The chat rooms are egalitarian and appeal to those with limited theological background. It is a perfect compliment to the elegant simplicity and clarity of Salafism. The virtual community is not tied to any nation but to the abstract concept of the mythical umma of Salafism. This community is just, egalitarian, full of opportunity, unified in Islam, purged of national peculiarities, and devoid of corruption. It is the ideal world that Jihad strives for (Sageman, 2004: 161-163).

"He is a great guy, one of the nicest people I've ever met. He is a loving husband and he has a wife and parents in town. They are a great family. He is a very kind person. You would meet him on the street and he would want to hug you. He was a normal guy always laughing. We went partridge hunting together. He was into partying. We hit some pretty wild clubs in Hollywood." These are all quotes from people who knew individuals convicted of killing hundreds of people in suicide attacks or conspiring to provide money, recruits and equipment to the international Jihad.

Were they really decent fellows? They would never commit a murder or crime of any kind for personal gain or self-interest. Their ideology convinced them that the murders were committed for a good purpose. They were committed for the sake of a societal vision of building a good and just world. They are not unlike the SS during the Third Reich. Heinrich Himmler told a group of SS leaders:
"Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred or a thousand. To have gone through this and yet-apart from a few exceptions which are examples of human weakness-to have remained decent fellows, this is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written ... "

These people are not raving maniacs. We must go beyond calling them terrorists and examine their ideology. They do not perform these acts in a vacuum. They are building a society and will use any means to achieve it. They do so not because they are sociopaths who hate people, but because they are true believers who want to save people. And so we are continually surprised when they turn out to be nice guys after all. Decent fellows. Like the SS (Spenser, 2007).

REFERENCES
Al-Zawahiri, Ayman. (2001) "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner." Serialized in eleven parts in Al-Sharqal-Awsat (London) December 2.

Ibrahim, Raymond. (2006) "Islam's Appeal or Boys Will Be Boys." www. victorhanson.com. September 19.
Johnson, Ian and Carreyrou, John. (2005) "In France, Political Islam Preaches Intolerance, Challenge to Secularism." Wall Street Journal, July 11.

Qutb, Sayyid. "Milestones." N.D.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mother Mosque Foundation.
Sageman, Mark. (2004) "Understanding Terror Networks." University of Pennsylvania Press, Philedelphia.

Spenser, Robert. (2007) "Why's a Nice Guy Like You Doing a Terrorist Act Like This?". www.FrontPageMagazine.com. April 18. 8

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mr. Andrews served as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for twenty-three years. He conducted international terrorist investigations for nine years, serving as a national case agent and coordinating with the United States Foreign Intelligence Court in order to initiate extraordinary investigative techniques in complicated terrorist investigations. He operated numerous Middle-Eastern assets. Mr. Andrews currently serves as an Adjunct Professor at Florida State University and Troy University conducting seminars on Islamic Fundamentalism and International Terrorism and Conducts police training throughout the United States for Benchmark Professional Seminars and Unitech on Homeland Security and Terrorism.

Reprinted from: The Counter Terrorist-July/August 2008

ISLAM-Civilizational Conflict

Civilizational Conflict

June 18, 2009

If Islam were just a religion, it would be of no concern except for potential converts. But Islam is a complete civilization. It is the completeness concept that makes Islam a threat to all other civilizations. There is no issue so small that Islam does not have an opinion, position or rule.

Since Islam is based upon the principle of submission, there is nothing so small that it must not submit to the Islamic civilization. Art, history, literature, human rights, equal treatment of all citizens under the law, free speech, critical thinking, names, education, sports, TV, movies, government and food must all be under Islamic rule of law-Sharia. This is a process of civilizational annihilation. It is the same process that took a Christian Turkey and transformed it into a 99.7% Muslim nation.

Bill Warner

This article is reprinted from the ACT, West Nashville website and gives an insight into the problem of political Islam.

Civilizational Conflict

by D. L. Adams

President Obama recently assured the "Muslim World" that we are not war with Islam, and never will be. The response has been less than encouraging. The lack of buy-in to Obama's message of friendship and pandering to the "Muslim World" is because while we may not be at war with them, they are certainly at war with us.

Throughout history there have been civilizations that are so fundamentally different from one another that no interaction or accommodation between them could be possible. This is the situation with Islam. Because Islam is at war with every kafir state and religion everywhere and forever, accommodation or understanding with Islam in the Obama model cannot be successful.

The doctrine of Islam states that no religion is acceptable other than Islam; it asserts Islam's superiority over every political and religious system anywhere and for all time. Adherents to the ideology of Islam are required to "fight in Allah's cause" even though they'd not prefer to be involved in such things. Allah commands that all must be involved in Jihad or at least support those who are. Islam is much more than a religion, it is also a political, cultural, legal, and military system that encompasses the entirety of existence from birth to death; it is a comprehensive ideology.

Because the majority of the Koran discusses how adherents are to interact with non-believers the Koran is the foundational document of a political ideology whose purpose is the conversion and destruction of all non-Muslim states and cultures and peoples everywhere and forever. This conversion and destruction of non-Muslim peoples is acccomplished through Jihad.

Jihad is asymmetrical war. This is the kind of warfare we now face in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is about propaganda, street violence, assassinations, church burnings, brutality and barbarism and small unit actions of violence and mass-murder that terrify the kafirs into inaction. There are no mass armies on the move in this war (though some jihad actions in the past have involved such kinds of warfare), no massive air bombing campaigns like those of WW2 there is only constant strife and conflict at the street level and into the institutions of the host culture whereby they are undermined and prevented from mounting an effective defense.

There are two phases of Islamic jihad, active warfare and hudna. Hudna is not peace because no Mulsim is bound by any treaty of word or paper with a non-Muslim. Treaties between Muslims and kafirs are worth less than the paper that they are printed upon. Mohammed broke treaties, and encouraged lies and deceptions in Jihad and that is exactly what we see today."

The Quran also allows them to be "disobedient towards the disbelievers and their governments and strive against the unbelievers with great endeavour." (25:52) - Shoebat, Why We Want to Kill You, p 214 

Westerners confuse the temporary period of non-fighting which is "hudna" with actual peace. The truth is that hudna is just a period of time that passes without conflict while the forces of jihad regroup, rearm and wait for new opportunities to fight the kafir unbelievers. Mohammed used this tactic to great success as do all of his followers over time.

There is no peace with Islam and with Jihad, there is only a temporary pause as the jihadists await better opportunities. For many it is difficult to conceive that this status quo of fighting punctuated by pauses could be a tactic rather than a situational response to political conflict (e.g., Israel-Palestine). Our leaders say that we are not at war because they cannot conceive that this kind of warfare can be real, but it is. This is entirely an ignorance-based position. We are very much at war with Islam but we do not defend ourselves because our leadership has deluded itself into believing that the war is not real.

But the war is very real, and we are losing it because we will not take action for defense.

We are overrun and in retreat everywhere even as we apologize to our enemies and pretend that their culture is foundational to our own, which is false. We cannot fight a war that is waged against us when we pretend that it is not happening. Jihad has never stopped since the founding of this ideology, it only pauses. So long as the trilogy doctrine of Islam requires adherents to "fight in Allah's Cause" everywhere and forever, we are at war with Islam because they are at war with us. This is not a matter of opinion it is rather a matter of the acceptance of an ugly reality.

In the Islamic world honor and pride override all boundaries and linkages of kin and morality. Those who offend the honor and pride of their Islamic familiesdo so at their peril. Family bonds and responsibilities are subsumed by the demands of Islam. The Umma of Islam is the family to adherents. This is contrary to our western concepts of the overriding value of family connections. One's connection to Islam is more important than one's connections to family, father and children, sister and brother, etc.

In their investigation, PCHR said police sources “revealed that the victim's father issued a confession to the police” that he had killed his daughter to “preserve family honor.” (Maan News, see link above)

In the first incident of its kind, a Palestinian family has killed its 15-year-old son in the West Bank after accusing him of "collaboration" with Israel.

Raed Wael Sawalha's body was discovered in the basement of a house in his village of Hijjah in the Kalkilya area on Wednesday.

The Palestinian Authority security forces announced that they have arrested a number of the boy's family members in connection with the killing. (Jerusalem Post)

This kind of barbarity is fundamentally in opposition to our concepts of morality and family relationships. This is a civilizational conflict.

Recently in Pakistan a Christian man was murdered for drinking from a cup that was designated for Muslims only. He was beaten to death with "stones, iron rods and clubs" by 14 Muslim men. This is barbarism and this is a civilization opposed to our own. A recent public beating in Afghanistan by a Taliban man puts on clear display the totalitarian brutality of Islam and those states that follow Sharia law.

Several weeks ago, a US Army private was killed in front of an army recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. The killer was a Muslim jihadist. A memorial service for this victim of Islamic jihad was held in Little Rock. A Muslim woman in a burka showed up at the event screaming Islamic supremacist and Jew hatred slogans, interfering with the memorial. This was all captured on video. (See below).

Why would someone interfere at a memorial event for an innocent American murdered by a new-fangled Muslim jihadist killer? Interfering in the service was this woman's jihad, fighting in Allah's cause against the kafir. No compassion is extended to the kafir unbelievers in jihad, no basic courtesy even in mourning is given. Kafirs are less than human, they do not merit any courtesies from Muslims. Terrorizing kafirs, confusing them, and preventing them from following their own traditions of remembrance and respect are all jihad actions.

The kafir culture and kafirs themselves merit no respect by Islam and its adherents. Because kafirs have not accepted Allah and Mohammed so they are therefore the enemy. Islam knows its enemies - all non-believers wherever they might be. We do not know ours. "The sheep do not know the wolf, but the wolf knows the sheep." (Walid Shoebat)

Deconstruction of western traditions and even funeral observances are all part of the ongoing jihad. This is asymmetrical warfare in this civilizational conflict. We pretend it is not real - but it will not go away nevertheless.

Bill Warner