Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Is It Possible To Stop Islamification?

Francis Porretto has an excellent essay up, over at Eternity Road, in which he discusses the question of how best to eliminate the threat of Islam in the Western world. Here's an excerpt:

Perhaps the most daunting aspect to the problem of Islamic terrorism is the openness of secular societies to infiltration by those whose desire is to destroy them. The states of Europe have demonstrated how easily a seemingly modest influx of Muslim immigrants or "guest workers" can become a pressure bloc of non-trivial strength. Unfortunately, America seems not to have drawn the moral from the tribulations of the Old World; Muslim immigrants are being welcomed here at a higher rate than ever before.

Part of the problem, and inseparable from the rest, is the tendency to grant Islam and its adherents "religious protection:" that is, to deem Islam just "one more religion," equally as protected by our Constitution and laws as Judaism or Christianity, and to make no objection to its importation to our shores. But no other religion abroad in the world today commands the subjugation of the "infidel" by any means expedient. Nor is it thinkable that Islam, a creed that explicitly sanctifies deceit that furthers its aims, could be trusted even if its spokesmen were to renounce, publicly and explicitly, all use of force or fraud in pursuit of the Islamization of the world.

The founder of Islam, and the Qur'an he imposed upon his followers, make it plain that violence and guile are indispensable to that effort; by command from Allah, they cannot be renounced:

Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen
that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love
a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not. [Qur'an, Sura

I was Umar's clerk. Once Abdullah bin Abi Aufa wrote a letter to 'Umar
when he proceeded to Al-Haruriya. I read in it that Allah's Apostle in one of
his military expeditions against the enemy, waited till the sun declined and
then he got up amongst the people saying, "O people! Do not wish to meet the
enemy, and ask Allah for safety, but when you face the enemy, be patient, and
remember that Paradise is under the shades of swords." Then he said, "O Allah,
the Revealer of the Holy Book, and the Mover of the clouds and the Defeater of
the clans, defeat them, and grant us victory over them." The Prophet said,
"Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will
surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their
treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'. [The Sunnah of Sahih
Bukhari, Book 52, entries 266 and 267]

Fourteen centuries of history speak eloquently to the attachment of Islam and Muslims to force and fraud.

Just to hold what we have against the Islamic tide, it's become irrefutably necessary to deny Islam and Muslims further access to the United States, to the states of Europe, and to Australia, New Zealand, and all other lands with an attachment to peace and freedom. But political policy alterations that would bar immigration by Muslims are not on the table in any legislature at this time, nor should we expect to see them soon. Politicians are exceedingly reluctant to incite the wrath of a special-interest group, most particularly one whose members are known for their penchant for rioting.

But a holding action is not and cannot be enough. Islamic terrorism is already transforming free societies, the United States included, into semi-garrison states. The use of mass transport involves major constraints and humiliating rituals. Gaining access to a large building or a sports stadium has become an arduous process as well. Few persons can avoid a twinge of uncertainty as they drive onto a bridge. We worry constantly about our drinking water, our power plants, and our fuel depots. Even our communications have become occasions for wariness; one never knows who might be listening, or how he'll choose to interpret what he hears.

Of special mention is this: even nominally peaceable Muslims are prone to making demands for accommodation on the societies that admit them. They press for exemptions and subventions through a variety of means, often with a component of threat to them. For example, when Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis agitated for an exemption to the common-carrier rule, the threat was the disruption of airport traffic. When Muslim travelers agitated for foot baths in those airports, the threat was that they would render the conventional public rest rooms unusable by us "infidels." These threats to create marginal discomforts for the general public were more effective than a threat of suicide bombing would have been, as the accommodations proposed struck most persons as tolerable prices to pay for a return to harmony. Yet there's no qualitative difference between such threats and an ultimatum of war.


Anonymous said...


Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News, education

A story based on the Three Little Pigs has been turned down from a government agency's annual awards because the subject matter could offend Muslims.

The digital book, re-telling the classic fairy tale, was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

The awards which rejected the book are run by Becta, the government's educational technology agency.

The judging panel also attacked the book's stereotyping of builders.

The book's creative director, Anne Curtis, said that the idea that including pigs in a story could be interpreted as racism was "like a slap in the face".

Anonymous said...

"Stereotyping of builders"?!?

Nice to see that at least Ms. Curtis "gets it". Another citizen of the multicultural paradise receives her wake-up call: put the Three Little Pigs into your book and the Religion of Peace will scream that you're a racist. Meditate upon this, Anne.

The Porretto essay is brilliant, please everyone read the whole thing. He is uncompromisingly clear-eyed about the choices we are facing.

Yes, we must be able to know that we tried everything before we are forced to the battlefield. In the end it was war that put an end to Nazism and the Emperor god of Japan, but still it could have been done earlier if people had only seen clearly what they were up against and stood up to it and we are doing the opposite. We should have slammed down an iron fist on Islam immeidately after 9/11 but that chance has gone by. The window is closing. We may have an overtly pro-Islam president by next year. But the campaign year gives us an opportunity to find those in our communities who do understand the threat and encourage them to stand up on a personal basis. At the very least, if the worst comes they will be more prepared and less vulnerable to paralyzing shock and disbelief.

Anonymous said...


"A historic statue of a wild boar is unlikely to return to Derby's Arboretum, because it could offend Muslims living nearby. The Florentine Boar stood in the Derby park from 1840 to 1942, when it was beheaded by flying masonry during an air raid. Derby City Council had hoped to replace the statue with an identical replica when plans for a massive overhaul of the park were first considered a decade ago. But following reservations raised by some people in Normanton about a new boar statue, the authority decided to consult with local community leaders.

At a meeting of the council's minority ethnic communities advisory committee it was recommended that the boar be replaced with something else because of the strength of feeling among nearby residents as pigs are perceived as offensive creatures by many Muslims. Derwent Ward councillor Suman Gupta said, "If the statue of the boar is put back at the Arboretum I have been told that it will not be there the next day, or at least it won't be in the same condition the next day at least. We should not have the boar because it is offensive to some of the groups in the immediate area."

Anonymous said...

Fine. And the next mosque put up will not be "in the same condition the next day at least". That's Chicago Rules, as applied to Islam.

And what the hell is the matter with Gupta, isn't that a Hindu name? Is everyone over there lining up to put their heads on the block?

I forget whose book included a scenario in which Muslims rioted over the nude statue of Eros in Picadilly square and the next thing anyone knew half the artworks in Europe had to be put under wraps for their own safety. Wonder how long it will take them to get round to that.

Can anyone recommend a link to a site that sells anti-jihad/Islamist stickers on a roll? All the good ones are running at least $4 and I could bankrupt myself whilst endeavoring to, um, awaken the public.

Anonymous said...

The "friendly fire" body count is up again: LGF and JW commentors are currently screaming at each other because JW posted the "Cities Against Islamisation" charter. Just posted the thing, didn't endorse it. What is so hard about saying that while the charter makes some excellent points we have strong reservations about its sponsoring organization and can't endorse them? Do there have to be screaming matches and banishings all over the place?

Well, maybe it's just that the thought of, say, the KKK coming up with a charter like that it just so bizarre a concept. To say nothing of scary.

Epaminondas said...

RRA, head on over to the CofCC site and read their mission statement.

Those guys ARE racists. Yet if you read the charter it's oh so reasonable sounding.

I can even hear 'the future belongs to me' in the background.

Anonymous said...

You mean "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" from Cabaret? Gives me chills just remembering that scene.

An alliance of reasonable-sounding racists vs. a horde of takiyya-yading Muslims is not a promising situation. Somebody needs to step up to the plate and make the point that this organization does not represent everyone who objects to Islamization. What is the impact of Geert Wilder's film likely to be on this, if it does get shown?

Epaminondas said...

Just on rumor alone the film will trigger the grievance/humiliation/riot/blasphemy machine.

I think most of us here represent about where Robert Spencer is in this mess.

But just as racists are present but not prevalent in the border security movement (triggering opposition to that by groups like the SPLC), so it is with anti jihadists as well.

Here's the test .. if there were 1.3 billion orthodox jews in the world, and a lot of them were immigrating into Europe...who would the objectors be?

There would be no threat of Shariah
No threat of national disintegration, but national cultures would surely be altered.

BNP, Le Pen, for sure. VB? I bet yes.

Even though with regard to Islamization we share the same kind of goal, the reasons we act are very different. The goal we ultimately seek is completely different. We want to encompass other freely. They want to lock other into a position that cannot change the culture 'ancien'.

The world changes, the tides come in and out, and there is no way to change, CHANGE.

Those who cannot sail into that sea of difference are the ones who have the problem. Law of nature. This is my observation