This article was written for the Unz Review.
With the upcoming French Presidential election in France the topic of Islam in Europe has again become central to the political discourse. This is nothing new: we also saw that in the UK, in Holland, in Austria and even in Switzerland, where the Muslim communities were banned – by popular referendum – from building minarets (even though only four minarets existed in Switzerland before that referendum). Tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims are clearly on the rise, not only due to some more or less racist or anti-immigrant feelings in the general population, but also due to the often appalling behavior of some refugees from Muslim countries (assaults, rapes, hooliganism) and even some Muslim communities in Europe (advocacy for terrorism, attempts to impose Sharia law). Before the situation gets better (assuming it ever will), it will most likely get worse, much worse.
So what are the options here?
First, let’s agree with Otto von Bismark’s wise words that “politics is the art of the possible“. Those Europeans who think that they will simply expel all Muslims from Europe or somehow manage to eliminate Islam from Europe are deluded. Likewise, those (rather few) Muslims who want to create some kind of Caliphate in Europe are no less deluded. In fact, all those who offer simple, straightforward “solutions” to the current crisis would be well advised to study some Hegelian dialectics to understand that the outcome of this crisis will not be the return to a status quo ante or the creation of an absolutely new reality.
Second, I submit that neither Muslim immigrants nor Islam itself will ever leave Europe: like it or not, they are here to stay. Why? Simply because while some groups, such as illegal immigrants, can be expelled from a country or even from the European continent, others, such as Muslims holding European citizenships or local/native converts to Islam are simply not expellable: this is impossible legally, and this is impossible practically (expel where? how?). I have personally worked in refugee centers in Switzerland (as a translator and interpreter) and I have worked as an analyst for the Swiss General Staff where the issue of refugees was often front and center, and I can promise you that anybody who really knows how the system works also fully realizes that most of these immigrants are here to stay, even the pseudo-political refugees who are, in reality, economic immigrants and not political refugees at all (about 99% of so-called “political refugees”). At best, the EU could, in theory and with an immense effort, close its borders to future immigrants. Not likely, but at least possible. But mass expulsions are simply not an option.
Third, those Muslims who are already in Europe will inevitably climb the social ladder even if right now they are at the bottom. Many of them are young, many of them have suffered hardships which most Europeans could never overcome. Their family, tribal, ethnic and religious ties are much stronger than the ones you can observe in the modern “nuclear” family of most Europeans. Last, but not least, their social drive is much stronger than the one found in “established” Europeans circles. So even if the current generation is poorly educated and not integrated in the European society, the next one will be. I have seen that with many other economic migrants such as Italians or Albanians. So when you see that Iraqi women sweeping the floors of your local hospital, remember that, in ten years or so, her daughter will likely work at the same hospital, but as the medical doctor. In other words, the social power of the Muslim community will inevitably grow.
Does that mean that the EU will become ISIS-occupied territory where all women will end up wearing burkas and/or raped, all men forced to converted to Islam or murdered, that slave markets will spring up all over the country, that Sharia law will be imposed on everybody, and that homosexuals will be stoned to death?
Of course not! This is a silly caricature of Islam created and promoted by the AngloZionist 1%ers who run the Empire and who are trying to artificially create a clash of civilization which would allow them to remain in power and to continue pulling the strings from behind the scenes.
For one thing, Muslims will remain a rather small minority in Europe for the foreseeable future. But even more importantly, the kind of “Hollywood ISIS-Islam” which I portrayed in the paragraph above is not at all the kind of Islam most Muslims want to live in. In fact, many of them fled their own country precisely to avoid living in a Takfiri “Caliphate”.
You might ask me about those Wahabi crazies who have already murdered many Europeans with screams of “Allahu Akbar” on their lips. Aren’t they bona fide ISIS-types? Well, that is a complicated issue. For example, did you notice the vast majority of these so-called “Islamic” crazies had strong ties to the European security services? That some of them even had traveled to Israel? Doesn’t it seem strange to you that their attacks somehow always seem to be scheduled to coincide with important political events in Europe? Could there have been a genuine ISIS attack in Europe? Yes. But I am pretty sure that most of them were Gladio-style false flags executed by EU or US special services.
I will readily agree that there are real and dangerous al-Qaeda/ISIS types in Europe right now. Yes, they do represent a real risk. But unlike most refugees, these guys do violate European laws and legal action can be taken against them. In theory, Europe could even re-introduce the death penalty for terrorism or even for apology of terrorism. I know, that ain’t happening anytime soon, but what matters is that this will depend on a political decision, the political will of the Europeans. No so for mass expulsions which are impossible regardless of any political decision or will.
Could there be an uprising or even a civil war in Europe? Yes, but only as long as the governments in power have a vested interest at letting one happen or creating one. As soon as the national authorities give the security forces and the military the green light to intervene and suppress the insurrection it’s “game over” for the al-Qaeda types.
So while Islam per se or Muslims in general are not expellable from Europe, the Europan nations will be able to deal with the security situation provided there is a political will to do so.
Right now the European political class is split into two equally misguided political camps:
- Those who think that any criticism of Muslims is “Islamophobic”.
- Those who think that all Muslims and Islam are bad, bad, bad, bad.
These are very primitive and fundamentally misguided positions. More importantly, both of these beliefs are bound to result in failure to achieve anything. For the time being, many Europeans and Americans appear to be stuck in this false choice, but no matter how long it takes reality will eventually catch up with them and they will realize that there is no such thing as one “Islam” or a single type of “Muslim”. The truth is that the world of Islam is extremely diverse and that all of the ingredients needed for a complete defeat of Takfiris (whether of the al-Qaeda, ISIS, al-Nusra or any other kind) can be found inside Islam. In fact, they can only be found inside Islam. Let me illustrate my point by making a simple comparison between Russia and the EU.
Unlike the EU, Russia has one single central government, and a strong one at that. The Russian intelligence and security services are amongst the best on the planet, as it the Russian military. Russia does not suffer from the disease of political-correctness: it is totally acceptable in Russia to denounce Islamic terrorism in the harshest possible terms. In fact, Putin even made a famous statement about “offing the terrorists in the toilets if needed” and the Russians did exactly that: they killed every single Chechen Wahabi leader and, far from denying it, they proudly proclaimed it. The key difference with the EU is that Putin and the Russian people had the political will to stop the insurgency in Chechnia, even if that meant turning all of Chechnia into a pile of smoking rubble.
Yet, at the same time, Putin made major efforts to support the Muslim community in Russia. Not only did he built a huge (and beautiful) mosque in Moscow, he has embarked on major program to support the growth of traditional Islam in Russia (just as he has done with the Orthodox Church). As for Chechnia, Putin has made Ramzan Kadyrov something of a “political son” and has given the Chechens an extremely wide autonomy, especially in matters of religion. So is Putin anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim? Neither. Putin understands a simple thing which, so far, totally eludes western politicians: Russians are very good at killing Takfiris, but only Muslims can kill Takfirism.
The threat has never been Islam. The threat is Takfirism. Here is how Wikipedia defines the concept of “Takfir”: In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer (Arabic: تكفير takfīr) refers to the practice of excommunication, one Muslim declaring another Muslim as kafir (non-believer). Please read this again carefully. The practice of declaring “another Muslim” as a non-believer. Another Muslim.
So the key characteristic of Takfiris is that they believe that all those who do not follow their version of Islam are not even Muslims. How do you think that this makes these other Muslims feel about the Takfiris? Actually, there is nothing wrong in theological terms with the notion of “Takfir” just as there is nothing wrong with the notion of “excommunication” or, for that matter, “anathema” or “heretic”. These are categories which, when properly used, are indispensable for specific types of theological arguments. However, just as “excommunicate”, “anathema” or “heretic” can be used by some only as insults, slander or even calls to murder, “Takfirism” is first and foremost a mindset. Guns and bullets cannot defeat a mindset. In fact, only ideas can defeat other ideas. The Russians know that.
There are several videos on YouTube (alas, in Russian) which show Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov coming to the location of a battle with Chechen extremists and engaging the terrorists in a theological dispute about Islam. Instead of just ordering his troops to kill them all, he challenges them by asking them “so you think that you are Muslims and we are not?” or “how is our society not Islamic?”. And his favorite one “if you can find a single quote in the Quran proving to me that what I do is not Islamic then I will immediately cease doing it”. This does not always work. Some refuse to surrender and they are all inevitably killed (there is zero tolerance for Takfiris in Chechnia). But frequently this does work. Terrorists lay down their weapons, come out and instead of being abused and jailed or simply shot, they are sent to special prisons where Islamic preachers come and spend long hours teaching them about true Islam. And more often than not, when these young men come out they become volunteers for the Chechen security forces!
Now I ask you – could an Orthodox Christian or an agnostic achieve the same result? Never, of course. So this is why the non-Muslim security forces, while still present in and around Chechnia, are always kept in a reserve and support role. The primary task to police Chechnia is fully entrusted to the Chechens themselves. There are always powerful Russian forces on high alert ready to intervene should the situation suddenly get out of control, but by now the real battle is not fought with guns, it is fought with ideas and, as Putin as said it many times, only real, traditional Islam, can defeat Takfirism.
Right now, most western politicians simply don’t get it. Or, if they do, they don’t dare say it. But sooner or later the Europeans will have to come to that absolutely inevitable conclusion. And when that happens, they will finally realize that Islam and the Muslims who practice is never the enemy. The enemy is a relatively small sect of para-Islamic crazies which originated in the 13th century and which remained largely in the fringes of the Islamic world until it was given an immense boost first by the House of Saud and, later, by the US CIA. Today, the Takfiris are still the instrument of the AngloZionist Empire, they are the infection which is unleashed against any country daring to reject the Empire’s dominion. Furthermore, the Takfiris are, first and foremost, a threat to any and all other variants of Islam, whether Shia or Sunni.
In conclusion – a beautiful image and a symbol.
Take a look at this photo:
It shows the “Kremlin” (traditional Russian fortress) in the city of Kazan. Notice how the Orthodox churches and the mosque beautifully blend together?
Here is another photo of this beautiful sight:
Is this not a serene and peaceful?
Now please take a quick look at the history of Kazan as outlined in Wikipedia. Kazan was a city where Christians and Muslim viciously persecuted each other, both sides practiced forced conversions and both sides engaged in full-scale massacres. In recent times, following the break-up of the Soviet Union, things almost got ugly again, there was a short-lived but very vocal local separatist movement. Then cool heads prevailed. But the fact is that the history of Kazan is hardly idyllic and that a lot of innocent blood has been shed here. The point here is that after centuries of warfare both Muslims and Orthodox Christians have learned how to coexist in peace and even create something truly beautiful, like this Kremlin, together. This would not have been possible with the Takfiris, the hateful and insane monsters who took pride in destroying the beautiful Syrian city of Palmyra. For them there is nothing beautiful in the photo above, it is a blasphemy. Should they ever seize power in Kazan, they would definitely destroy it all, including the mosque.
The lesson here is simple: first, former enemies do sometimes become friends and allies and, second, the churches and mosque of the Kazan Kremlin protect each other and make this Kremlin far stronger than if only one of the two buildings was standing inside its walls.
Mosques are here to stay in Europe too, and the short-sighted who don’t know history will view this as the end of their civilization and they are the ones who, without ever realizing it, will uselessly delay the eventual defeat of Takfirism in Europe and elsewhere. Those who do understand the real dynamics at play will see this as something very different: a chance at rebirth and a fantastic opportunity to truly crush Takfirism both at home and abroad.
Right now Putin’s Russia is the example of how “it is done”. But the West it too busy demonizing everything “Putin” and supporting anything russophobic, such as the Nazis in the Ukraine, that it simply cannot follow this example. But maybe a new generation of European politicians will.
Shows the unbridgeable chasm between co-operation and competition. In the West, only competition is taught.
A NASCAR commentator has invented a word ….. “Coopetition”
The laws of aerodynamics require the drivers to work together at times.
But of course they each want victory.
Thus, coopetition (co-op-e-ti-tion).
A favorite song lyric of mine sings ….
“Sometimes, you get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if you look at it right”
—————(“Scarlet Begonias” – Grateful Dead)
Sometimes, even a NASCAR announcer can help show the light. :)
People in the west live in misery and and suffering, they are brutally brainwashed from birth into an anti-family, anti-christian, anti-white,anti-marriage, anti-nationalist, anti-male, anti-woman, anti-church and anti-human ideology. Those miserable creatures are taught to hate themselves for their religion, culture, heritage and to even hate humanity, western Europeans are told that humans are a disease upon the earth and that nobody should have any children because it hurts nature, that there is too many humans and humanity should be shrunk back into a few hundred million tops and anyone that has children is selfish.
It is hard to imagine the hardship western Europeans live under, it is well hidden due to their high-living standards, but if you look at suicides, depressions, medicine usage it becomes clear, and indeed the high living standards is the only sale-point for the destructive ideology that infests the western, the propaganda goes : “See how rich we are, see how much we eat, see our new cool things” and other people around the world, such as Ukrainians see this and think “oh, if I hate my people and family and religion, I might also get nice new things”
Honestly, from where do you find such bizarre and far removed from reality ideas? I’m a westerner, well traveled, well read, and have retained hundreds of acquaintances and a fair sized handful of friends as close to me as if they were my own blood.
You may be reading too much of the headlines and been brainwashed because your views seem straight out the tabloids. How long have you lived in the west? And where?
My English brethren are very similar to their fathers and mothers, maybe a little bit more interested in global affairs but it’s all over social media these days. Other than which they are loving families, hard working, loyal, honest chaps who have little to zero interest in religion, worry a little about the way the world is going, have developed a mistrust of the government and media…Yet seek love, fun and adventure, travel when they can. Harbour no deep rooted racism and definitely retain a sense of pride on england, it’s past its present and hopefully its future.
They all have kids now, have lost the laddishness of old and become top drawer men. I could say similar of most the English folk I know, of varying ages. All of them, make your statements seem outlandish and very much mistaken.
They are happy folk, yes there were problems, many and worsening but English culture, rough at the edges and innards, remains one of my favourite on the planet and I miss it dearly…
Now if you are talking of here in Australia or the US, it’s different as the % of close to brain dead and those revealing in mediocrity is hugely higher. Much more easily manipulated…
Becaise the west has idolized capitslism.
And “competition” is a euphemism for “warfare”!
You obviously never heard of the European Socialist-State Model. I tell you there is ZERO competition among Europeans and most Europeans dread the very mention of the word. There is as much competition among the masses here as there is among cows for grass on a pasture. Capitalism only exists on paper Europe is a neo-Feudal state.
It is called “replacement migration”. The main goal of this Machiavellian experiment by the capitalist elite is to weaken the working class and increase profits. They even promote wahhabism to make sure those millions of imported muslims do not assimilate. Also they forcefully expel and murder millions of non-muslims to replace them with muslims (see for example the NATO genocide against the Serbs).
[b]”Belgium would set up a mosque in the capital, and hire Gulf-trained clerics. At the time, Belgium was encouraging Moroccan and Turkish workers to come into the country as cheap labour.”
“Germany’s labor market needs more immigrants from non-EU countries”
I believe in freedom.
A key freedom that I feel every human being must have is the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs they choose.
The limit of this is that each person must respect this freedom in those around them.
One can believe whatever they want to believe, but they can not force others to belief in their beliefs.
That, not religion, is the core of a peaceful, free and just society.
A society that tries to tell people what they can and can not belief is not a free or just society, and it will not be a peaceful society.
Tolerence is the key to peaceful, free and just society. Be wary of those who preach against tolerence, for down that road lies hate and violence.
And of course, there are many voices today that scream and yell against the idea of tolerence.
Tolerance must be understood as the limits between which two or more systems can interact without affecting the integrity of the system(s). A distance between them is a condition. You cannot tolerate a system which is the negation of your own system without imposing some restrictions on its manifestations.
Nice and clear definition.
Mgr John A Ryan, Catholic Principles of Politics, 1940:
The fact that an individual may in good faith think that his false religion is true gives no more right to propagate it than the sincerity of the alien anarchist entitles him to advocate his abominable political theories in the United States, or the perverted ethical notions of the dealer in obscene literature confers upon him the right to corrupt the morals of a community.
“The threat has never been Islam. ”
-What about the Ottoman invasion? The Islamic slavery of millions of Europeans, what about the Moor invasion and occupation of large areas of Europe for hundreds of years? Russia and other European powers has been fighting for their survival against Islamic forces for over a thousand years.
Western Europe became reasonably civilized only at the end of the Middle Ages and it derived most of its civilization from Muslim Spain, North Africa and the Middle East. Pope Sylvester ( mid 11th century ) studied at a university in Morocco before there was a university in Bologna (1091).
“… it derived most of its civilization from Muslim …”
To say that the whole of western Europe got most of its civilization from the Muslim world is a bit of a stretch. There is no doubt that Muslim civilization, especially in Spain, was more advanced and did have a very significant influence on the revival of European culture, however.
If I am not mistaken, the seeds of Oxford University came from centers of learning based in Muslim Spain.
@Europe got most of its civilization from the Muslim world is a bit of a stretch
It is more than a ‘bit’. But the myth of the ‘Dark Medieval Ages’ steeped in appalling ignorance where a supposed anti-Science Inquisition hell-bent on ‘suppressing free-thought’ reigned sovereign, is still so hard wired in the brains and emotions of superficially educated people, that a more serene appraising of the real place of learning in Europe is almost impossible, the more when it is propped by political propaganda.
First of all, the university of Bologna was founded in 1088 and not 1091. There was no university in Morocco at that time, not until 1965. But you are proably refering to al-Qarawiyyin mosque. An educational instituion that was created 859. Still, just a mosque at the start. A lot of different dates to when educating started and what was even teached. Calling that an university is a BIG stretch. Especially if you compare it to Bologna, Oxford or Salamanca.
Also “Western Europe became reasonably civilized only at the end of the Middle Ages” stop watching Hollywood movies about the Dark Ages. They are a bunch of nonsense and don´t represent history. The can only be called “dark middle ages” because a lot of knowledge was lost after the fall of the Roman Empire. (as it always happens when Empires crumble).
The Dark Ages is as much as a myth as the “golden arab age” (still no proof of that to this day).
Saying Europe got most of it civilization from Muslim Spain, North Africa and the Middle East, is incredible laughable. Thats not even worth a clever response. Read some books. Start with the celts..maybe Austria and it´s 5000 b.c. dating first settlements…how Noricum was founded, how they made steel equal to the infamous Damascus steel etc etc. Point being, you can find a long line of history for most parts of europe before anyone even heared of Mekka on the continent.
Did it get influenced? Yeah sure but that works both ways.
Noricum was part of the Roman Empire and it was the Roman Empire that had been responsible for building roads.
Check the history of medicine or astronomy and you’ll realize that Northern Europe rediscovered (if it ever had that knowledge) science with the help of Muslims. Several historians regard Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, with his good relations to the Muslim population of Sicily, as the one who created the base for Europe’s later progress.
If the House of Wisdom can be regarded as an institution similar to universities, then Muslims weren’t only earlier than Europeans living in the dark ages, their university also wasn’t tied to any mosque at all. The beginnings of European universities are closely tied to Christian schools.
It was ‘rumored’ that Gerbert d’Aurilliac, the Pope Sylvester II, learned his science from Arab magicians by his enemies who accused him to be a magician. His studies in Morocco are the stuff of legends. It is doubtful that he ever studied at Sevilla or Cordoba. He had contacts with Arabic science in Catalonia, where he studied at the monastery of Vic, in Catalonia which, like all Catalans Monasteries, contained manuscripts from the Muslim Spain and especially from Cordoba.
-What about the Ottoman invasion?
Good point. The Ottomans Empire was an absolute abomination, no doubt about it. Russia fought 12 (TWELVE!!) wars against that Empire. And even today there is enough neo-Ottoman imperialism left to be a real problem.
The Ottomans are a fluke, a profound abnormality in the world of Islam. They are not the norm, they are the exception. I recommend you listen to the lectures of Sheikh Imran Hosein, or read his books on this topic.
I would put it this way: the Ottomans are to Islam, what the Jesuits, Opus Dei and the Inquisition are to Christianity.
Ottoman ruled Europe for 500 years and yet everybody is still Christians. Turks ruled Spain for 500 years yet everybody is still Catholic. Turks ruled India for 500 years yet the majority is still Hindu. ad hominem statement removed mod-hs We have a saying: They wake up miserable in the morning hating themselves, then in the afternoon they hate rest of the World.
Just because the Ottomans claimed to be Muslims, the burden of their misdeeds are not shared by Muslims. Force conversion is against basic teaching of Islam, if they committed atrocities under the guise of Muslim identity it is reprehensible, but not a Muslim responsibility. In 2:256 it is clearly mandated that you cannot force people in the matters of faith and way of life.
لا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَى لا انْفِصَامَ لَهَا وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
All followers of Al-Qur’an are expressly forbidden from forcing conversions. The later part tells the benefit to those who do follow it: at the same time it cautions and reminds people that God has all the knowledge and he hears it all.
Institutional retribution is not permitted in Islam, so travesties by Muslims (who put themselves forth as such, by ignoring the teachings of it), will be dealt with by God, it is not a human duty to judge historical injustices. Islam is a forward looking religion of the present, but it does not give any guidance on the historic past, as it serves no productive purpose.
Hope people will look up the meaning on
to satisfy themselves, instead of asking from people who may have only tainted knowledge: When in doubt, check the original source!
PS. This is a test post, I want to see if the Arabic test can be posted in Unicode.
This is one of the most important articles ever written on this site. Thank you Saker!
Living in Russia and knowing the history of why the “Gastarbeiters” came to Germany after the war and never, as planned, left, what happened with the loss of the French, Dutch and UK colonies and how so many of the patriated from the colonies were Muslim it is a fact that the EUropean countries themselves, long ago created this situation and should indeed look to the RF as a model as how to move forward.
“it is a fact that the European countries themselves, long ago created this situation”
-that is not really accurate, just because you colonize another region doesn’t mean you create a situation where your own native population will become a minority in their own country in the future, heck most of the W.European countries flooded by immigrants now never even had colonies. Mongolia was the largest empire on earth and there are not millions upon millions of non-Mongolians flooding into Mongolia, same with Turkey, Iran, Japan.. Having empires is nothing unique to W.Europe, and a automatic consequence of empires is certainly not that the countries that kept the colonies begin to be flood their own countries with foreign populations.
The reason the western world is flooded by immigrants is because there is a detailed plan by the elite to exterminate European people, culturally, religiously, historically, but also physically, it is an old plan, but it really gained influence in the 1970 and after ww2. It is openly state by many liberals and indeed EU’s founder himself states that this is his vision for EU.
And of course, once the European people are destroyed, the same future awaits for all other people on earth.
Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1925 in Practical Idealism predicted: “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.
You of course are correct to a certain extent, however, having lived a long time in France and Germany, speaking both languages and knowing the history rather well it is clear to me, in my humble opinion, that the present immigration crisis could not have existed, had not the infrastructure of non, or at best semi integrated muslim communities already existed as a result of failed policies of decolonisation (and in the case of Germany need for workers as most German men were either dead or invalids) in the aftermath of ww2 when Europe was a destroyed mess and there were more pressing issues than being able to foresee what these new muslim communities would be the place where today hundreds of thousands of the “new asylum seekers” would be able to disappear into, with unforeseen results in our future … Of course the US is guilty for the waves of asylum seekers, that however is another story …
US is guilty? Not according to the US MSM. By Rachel Maddow and Co. lights it is Putin who unleashed the immigration wave. And even chronology of events be damned.
The established migrant circles did help and still do with this “migrant crisis” (read occupation). But it would have been done without them anyway. I bet the ruling elites thought that the already “integrated” migrants and their kids would lead to more acceptance within the local people. However, while you can find the one or other migrant or their kids from back then, there never has been integration. What has happened, is that they formed a sub-culture. And no one likes that and there was never acceptance of it, and for VERY good reasons.
Anyway, the old myth of: “Germany needed this people to rebuild.” Is a lot of, excuse me, bullshit. You can´t let in a bunch of under-educated migrants and think they have the know how to rebuild Germany´s infrastructure and industry districts. They were there for the lower work.
Most important though, this was NOT what Germany wanted or asked for in the first place. They had no saying in this. It was part of the ERP, the European Recovery Program, or Marshallplan if you will. The goal was clear, build up Germany (with its vast industry complex and location) and wield it as a sword&shield against the USSR. (and they still own Germany to this day) Churchill, the disgusting pig, even wanted to integrate the rest of the German troops into the Allied Army and start WW3 rather soon, which is why he was “let go”. Because that was even too crazy for the rest of the criminal allies.
History, the more you know. Wie man so schön sagt ;)
You forget the bit where he proclaims the Jews as the aristocracy and natural rulers of that mixed race….
… heck most of the W.European countries flooded by immigrants now never even had colonies.
The UK had colonies, as well as did Spain, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, Denmark and Germany.
Well, if you’re Romanian, then the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Poland may look like a Western European Country to you…
The reason the western world is flooded by immigrants is because there is a detailed plan by the elite to exterminate European people, culturally, religiously, historically, but also physically, …
You want to make us believe that it’s not bombs (many dropped by Western military planes, for example more than 26000 bombs dropped in Syria by the US) and takfiris the immigrants are trying to escape?
I don’t want to minimise western crimes or those of the Takfiris. But I do believe these most of these “refugees” are bogus.
I come from a country that was bombed (and dismembered). I will never forget what I saw on the Hungarian-Serbian border many years ago: Women, children, livestock, elderly..but there were practically no men.
The men stayed behind, guarding the farmhouse, the harvest, or were at the front. Even if there was a cease fire they had to stay.
Fast forward now to the present: most “refugees” are all hard-faced military age men with the brand new cell phones. These are no peasants! More like mercenaries…
I don’t know of your family background (it’s none of my business either), but I would like to ask you three questions?
Aren’t military aged man sons, brothers, grandsons, nephews and cousins?
If you had a son of military age, would you send him into war (maybe to the front line)?
Would you even try to send your son to another country where he would be “safe”?
Many years ago I had been quite patriotic. I was proud that both of my grandfathers didn’t join military of their own (they had to serve) and I was proud of the cultural diversity of the country that I had been born in. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union everything changed. With the years (since around 2000 and ongoing) I learned about many of the dirty things that had been going on behind the scenes. The patriotism vanished entirely and was replaced with disgust at the politicians who have been / are selling us off to large international corporations and finance.
If I had had a son, he would do what men do: stay, protect and fight.
There’s a point where politics don’t matter anymore: when your family is about to be murdered, your women raped, your kids blown up, and your house burnt.
It’s complicated. My own family had that situation. During the war, there were rumours in Serbia that the Serbian government would introduce the draft to send young men from Serbia to fight the war in Bosnia. In the end it never happened. My male cousin who lived in Belgrade came of military age at that time and there were fears he would be sent to fight. The war was right on our doorstep, but his family insisted he leave. In the end he did, and we all agreed with that decision.
I would like to point out two things, though:
1. When he left, we were all safe. The family was not any danger. I doubt he would have left if he thought any of us were at risk.
2. He never qualified as a refugee when he left Serbia. He did not get any free housing, free language courses and an allowance of 1000 Euros per month as these current “refugees” are getting..
From a purely legal perspective, conscientious objectors are not automatically refugees. If these young men arriving today in Western Europe are objectors, then why are they being provided for as if they were refugees?
”an allowance of 1000 Euros per month as these current “refugees” are getting..”
Serbian girl, where did you get this number? we should all become refugees if its true. I met refugees in Sweden and they are getting 1500 kr a month, thats equivalent of 150 euro.
That’s before they are regulated. After acceptation for entry to the EU the sums of aid can go well over 1500 euro for a family. Soros NGO’s inform immigrants where to go and how to get the most in the country of choise. Some settled immigrants who were interviewed did change country 4, 5 times to finally end up in Sweden where they were allowed free housing, car, and mentioned monthly sum.
I don’t know about migrants in Sweden, but in the Netherlands, in addition to the free housing and healthcare, they get a gift of up to 10 000 Euros for shopping.
Whilst RT is more objective than Western news outlets, they’re following an agenda as well. The European far right is in favor of normal relations with Russia. So, why shouldn’t RT try to stoke the flames even more in order to get those parties elected? With regard to this particular subject I can only say: Shame on RT, you can do better!
In Italy the government provide 35 euros a day as budget to cover for food, housing accommodation and small pocket money for each immigrant (fake refugees). Add cost of free medical treatment, rescuing them at sea, law enforcement due to high rates of crime committed by illegal immigrants, and so on, it all adds up to several tens of billions euros in a country that is already burdened with some 2300 billions of euros of debt (some 130%+ of GDP) which requires some 100 billions of yearly interest payment to service, moreover unemployment rate is chronically quite above 10% reaching up to 30% among the young generation.
Affirming that 1000 euros per month is an exaggeration means that you aren’t knowing what you are talking about.
Fighting is heroic in movies only.
He never qualified as a refugee when he left Serbia. He did not get any free housing, free language courses and an allowance of 1000 Euros per month as these current “refugees” are getting..
That’s some nice propaganda in order to divide the citizens of the host countries – and it works perfectly. Even natives on welfare don’t get that ridiculous amount of money, so where should the countries get that large amount of money to provide for refugees.
Woman are also capable of operating arms.
If I would decide to fight I would do so by those who’ve reached my home, but I wouldn’t want to go into the trenches on the front lines. All wars are banker wars. Shall the bankers sacrifice their children (boys and girls) and their lives first.
If I may answer the second and third questions you asked.
I do have military age sons. They are adults (military age) and I am not in any position to “send” or “not send” them anywhere. They will decide where their responsibilities lie.
Will I try to send them somewhere safe? No. Refer to the answer above.
I do not nag my sons, nor do I try to influence them by playing the “mother” card. They will not stand for it. We, as a family, will discuss and argue the matter through, but my fear for them has no place in the discussion. Fear does not make for good or moral decisions.
I will probably be charged with the safety of their families and they will send the family to a different country if necessary. My sons will do the sending, not I.
But then, my sons are men and they take the responsibilities of men.
ChristineG is correct.
The thousands of Africans, Pakistanis and Afghans entering Europe are not fleeing the Syrian conflict.
You’re correct, Afghans are not Syrians, but you forget to mention that NATO is in Afghanistan. In theory your statement is correct, but it omits the deaths of Afghans due to the involvement of NATO.
Pakistan isn’t free of Western violence either. Who is sending drones into the skies above that country to hunt down and kill alleged terrorists?
With regard to Africans: Are you aware of all the meddling of Western countries (US and Europe) that causes misery in several African countries?
Gen. Wesley Clark remarked around the time the war (against Serbia) began that, “there is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.”
Saker is right (IMO) that expulsion is impossible today, but every assessment has a context it is made in. It might be that this is not possible today while leaving current arrangements in place.
Historically, it was possible for the Spanish to expel the Moors (and Jews) shortly before AD 1500.
Interestingly, here in the US there is reverse flood of illegal immigrants going back to Mexico, from word having gotten around that the attitude of Americans against the is crystalizing. Commentators are even joking that Trump’s wall is already a success without even having been built.
What is different (and intriguing, IMO) about the example of Russia is that Islamic and Christian people there have lived side-by-side for centuries, agreeing to differ but also — importantly — agreeing to not annoy each other unnecessarily.
Anyone got some info regarding the Safe-zone USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria apparently agree to created? I have not seen it mention in any pro-Russian sites.
“Russia, Turkey, Iran sign deal to set up Syria safe zones”
Reported on RT:
RI posted a good article about it
“This is the same deal they have rejected with US and Turkish encouragement numerous times in the past. It is eerily similar to the Lavrov-Kerry deal of September 2016 which then the Pentagon sabotaged by bombing to pieces a hundred Syrian soldiers in the ISIS-encircled city of Deir ez-Zoir.
It is a great deal for Damascus which was quick to express support. It means that rebels must sit tight and observe a cease-fire while the government eradicates Tahrir al-Sham which represents close to one half of the fighting strength of the rebellion. Once that is accomplished they get final peace talks, but by that time their leverage will be even less than it is now.
It is a big thing for Russia that Erdogan now agrees that al-Qaeda must be defeated, especially if he will actually stick by his words (which is not something he is known for). So it is understandable that Putin in return claims the relations are now as good as they ever were. That is not necessarily a terribly high bar to clear however.
Indeed Erdogan probably left Sochi in a less than ecstatic mood. Just days ago Russian troops ended his probing attacks against the Syrian Kurds in the Afrin enclave. Erdogan made it a point to tell the media he had shown Putin pictures of Russian soldiers fraternizing with the Kurdish YPG militias which Turkey demonizes as terrorists. (The photos which Russians took deliberately and RI readers saw this Tuesday.)
Clearly Erdogan was not happy that Russians inserted themselves between him and the YPG, but it is also clear Moscow doesn’t particularly care, or it wouldn’t have ordered the mission just days before Erdogan was due to arrive.
In return for backstabbing his al-Qaeda proteges Erdogan no doubt wants assurances that Syrian Kurds get as little as possible in the post-war settlement, but Russians won’t go as far as to allow him to take matters into his own hands. T”
-It was legal for USSR to expel Muslims to Siberia, it was legal for Germany to expel any group they desired. If you asked anyone in Europe 50 years ago if it would be legal to import millions of Muslims and other ethnic groups to make the native population a minority, they would have said no.
“Second, I submit that neither Muslim immigrants nor Islam itself will ever leave Europe: like it or not, they are here to stay. Why? Simply because while some groups, such as illegal immigrants, can be expelled from a country or even from the European continent, others, such as Muslims holding European citizenships or local/native converts to Islam are simply not expellable: this is impossible legally,”
The laws you reference were written in order to make the expulsion of unassimilable aliens impossible. But laws can be changed.
So Iran and Saudiarabia doesnt execute homosexuals? Iran mind you is kinda soft, compare to say Saudiarabia, Qatar and so on.
“Iran executes three men on homosexuality charges ”
“Of course not! This is a silly caricature of Islam created and promoted by the AngloZionist 1%ers”
The Russian examples of Tatarstan and Chechnya cited suggest that, in today’s Western Europe, equilibrium and co-existence could eventually come about but, given the current tensions (Gladio-inspired or not, the number of Muslims in Europe cheering those attacks is much larger than those who participate in those attacks), Western Europe will have to go through a bloody phase of civil war first and the winner of that war would have to be far-sighted, firm but also generous in his victory. After all, Tatarstan is more peaceful than Chechnya because the former was conquered hundreds of years earlier and Tatars and Russians have lived many more common struggles together since then than Chechens and Russians have.
Tatarstan is more peaceful than Chechnya
This is not quite true. Chechnia is now more peaceful than Kazan and Moscow. In fact, it is MUCH safer for the Takfiris to recruit outside Chechnia than inside. The latest arrests of Takfiri recruiters were in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. There were also cells in Ekaterinburg. As I said, in Chechnia Takfiris are in extreme danger of being found out and shot.
I notice that in looking up “Kazan” that it is in the “Republic of Tatarstan, a semi-autonomous region”.
Question: what is the nature of a ‘semi-autonomous’ region in the Russian context and can this model be seen behind the developments of ‘peace’ zones in Syria?
How do these semi-autonomous regions work — are they equivalent to ‘states’ in the US?
That is, is it a tier of government in a federation or confederation?
Actually, that is a weakness of Russia: ethnicity-based zones. Very dangerous shit, thankfully Putin handles this very well. But the roots of that system are in the Soviet Union which claimed to turn Czarist Russia (“prison of nations”) into a ‘free’ Soviet Union and in the horrible 1990s when nationalism was rampant everywhere. This is a real problem, but so far everybody has handled this pretty well. The example of Chechnia helped as a deterrent for sure.
But, politics being the art of the possible, the Russians will have to learn how to deal with this potentially dangerous setup.
It is simply history recycling — a return to a new ‘old’ normal.
Research the history of Spain:
Islamic rule in the Iberian peninsula lasted for varying periods ranging from only 28 years in the extreme northwest (Galicia) to 781 years in the area surrounding the city of Granada in the southeast. While the three major monotheistic religious traditions certainly did borrow from one another in Muslim-ruled Spain, benefiting especially by the blooming of philosophy and the medieval sciences in the Muslim Middle East, recent scholarship has brought into question the notion that the peaceful coexistence of Muslims, Jews, and Christians — known as the convivencia — could be defined as “pluralistic.” Moreover, the appearance of Sufism on the Iberian peninsula is especially important because Sufism’s “greatest shaykh,” Ibn ‘Arabi, was himself from Murcia.
The ‘problem’ is not the return of an Islamic theme — the loss of balance is due to the decay of the Christian and Jewish modes of thinking and action.
Today’s re-“Reconquista” is driven by the Wahhabi crazies (and oil money) and Zionist apartheid Israel — the European faithless have little other than failed 19-20th century ideologies, while the Christian orientated have a resurgence of Orthodoxy in Russia or Steve Bannon’s fascist Catholic order Opus Dei.
Moorish Spain was a highlight of learning and culture in Europe — perhaps it is returning now that 21st century capitalism is all but bankrupt and dead. Of course the real EU ‘issue’ with this trend is the negative impacts on pig production, alcohol and usury based economies. That is where the squealing is really coming from.
Interesting outline of the process by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
“The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority
How Europe will eat Halal — Why you don’t have to smoke in the smoking section — Your food choices on the fall of the Saudi king –How to prevent a friend from working too hard –Omar Sharif ‘s conversion — How to make a market collapse”
Yes,but its important to remember that in Islamic Spain most of the Muslims were ethnic Spanish. Only religion and the culture inspired by the religion separated them from the Christian Spanish peoples.History records that comparably few Arab or Berber (Moors) Muslims immigrated to Islamic Spain. Their great increases in population came from conversions of native Christians to Islam. And the intermarriage of those converts with the small immigrant population.
Today’s immigrants are different. And the number of European converts is small.Its not Islam itself that is the problem. Its the reluctance of the immigrants to assimilate into the general European population.Some do certainly,but many form ghetto’s of their own people in the cities. And create a separate World of their own in the countries they come move to.
In Russia the Muslims are mostly “Russian World” Muslims,native to the land . They have lived with Russians for centuries. And under the Soviets a common secular culture was created among those peoples.The “rebirth” of traditional Islam only really came about after the USSR’s breakup.And the problems of terrorism in places like Chechnya is because of that revival of Islamic feeling among those peoples. Coming from a secular society,where their grandparents and parents were the same as what is known in the West as “Sunday Christians”. Who go to church on Sunday (sometimes) and follow the holidays. They call themselves Christians. But its really only “a name”.It was the same for Muslims in the USSR (at least the European region ones).Their knowledge and practice of Islam was limited at best
After the breakup the Saudis (and some other states) sent people to the Muslim regions to spread their Wahhabi style of Islam. And people that wanted to “reconnect” to Islam were subverted by that type of Islam.And it was from that, that we saw the rise of jihadi terrorism in those regions.There is an old truism that converts to a belief or in many cases much more fanatical than long time followers of a belief. Its not a coincidence that the Caucasian jihadis,and European born jihadis seem more extreme terrorist killers than most of the other jihadis (except maybe Wahhabi true believers). Its the fanaticism born of new believers.Thinking that to prove they are “true” Muslims they need to be more extreme.
Uncle Bob 1:
For the most part I agree with your comment., but I’ve some hard time accepting the second paragraph.
Its the reluctance of the immigrants to assimilate into the general European population.Some do certainly,but many form ghetto’s of their own people in the cities.
Do they have many choices? I know a lot of people who avoid Muslims, who don’t like them (based on stereotypes, without even knowing many) and who don’t bother to reach out to people from other cultures – this includes immigrants from non-Muslim countries as well. It’s mainly the natives who “block” any form of contact with immigrants.
What’s the problem with Russians in the US. Why did they create “Little Odessa” in New York? Aren’t those Russians able to assimilate? How about those many China Towns, Black neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods and especially the Amish population? Especially the Amish (of Swiss / German origins) population resisted assimilation for a very long period of time. Even European immigrants to Brazil miserably failed to assimilate (look at Pomerode).
To sum it up: Ghettos are a result of mistakes made by both sides – Immigrants and Natives.
With regard to the involvement of Saudis spreading Wahabism/Salafism I would like to add that this happens in Western Europe as well. None of the usual suspects (politicians) who are shamelessly accusing Islam of everything evil objects to the missionary activities of oil rich Saudi Arabia.
Yes,its not a “one way street. I’ll agree there.But a few facts. Little Odessa,while Russian,is actually Jewish Russian. Its interesting that the “Russian” neighborhood is called by the name of a city in Ukraine (actually Novorossia,but when nicknamed the NYC neighborhood was named for a city considered part of Ukraine).The reason it was nicknamed that was Odessa was a large Jewish center in the USSR.Its an error to compare “settler countries” with old nation states. The settler countries are nations made up of settlers from all over Europe (and in many cases the entire World).Certainly they had a founding ethnicity and founding culture.But from early on large groups of immigrants diluted that base.And so you have in all those countries groups of peoples separated into hyphen names (in the US,Italian-Americans,Irish-Americans,German-Americans,Mexican-Americans,African-Americans,Chinese-Americans,etc,etc). In some countries the multiple immigrant groups may make up majorities.An extreme example would be Argentina where its said,in that Spanish speaking country, “every second family name is Italian”.
Those countries are very different than, thousands of years old nation states.Where the national minorities are made up of ethnic groups native to the region.Mostly as old there as the majority people (Basques in Spain and France,Sorbs in Germany,Frisians in several countries,etc,etc). A massive influx of peoples, not native to those states (and not even related to the native peoples of those states) is a huge culture shock. When you couple that with many of the immigrants not being of the same race,religion,and totally different language, as the native peoples. You are asking for nothing but trouble. Add in that the newcomers are in large part single males.And have little desire to assimilate to the native host culture.And you have a witches brew.Certain to poison those nations.If it was a trickle of immigrants,and they were assimilating,it would be different.But that isn’t the case at all. So realism needs to be accepted,and not a dream World. No its not possible to expel all those people. That I’d say most people realize. But the first step would be to stop making the situation worse. Stop accepting more people you can’t assimilate.And follow Putin’s advise. When asked about immigrants wanting to change Russia’s culture. He said if immigrants wanted to become “Russians” they were welcome. If not,they should go to another country (I’m paraphrasing). So European countries should evaluate the immigrants in their countries. And encourage them to assimilate. Those that won’t,send them home or to another country that doesn’t care if they assimilate or not.That might not fully solve the problems. But it would certainly decrease them to a manageable level. Making it much easier for the remaining immigrants to assimilate into the host societies.
“Add in that the newcomers are in large part single males.” —
A German professor (name forgotten) once analysed this and noted that these ‘sons’ were more often the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc — i.e., rarely the 1st. The 1st son stays and inherits the family assets and responsibilities for the parents etc. The other sons traditionally go find their ‘luck’ in other places and ventures. It would be interesting to see if his view holds here. His view was that risk of war correlated with the number of ‘surplus’ sons (not daughters). Peace normally dominated when the family son/maintainer was at risk.
His name is Gunnar Heinsohn. His theory – in simple words – is that if there is a growing quantity of young males without any place in society / perspective (as the 1st born takes over the place of the father), there is a growing chance of war and civil unrest. War is a valve to get rid of the surplus. I read his books and he is greatly influenced by Gaston Bouthoul, who coined the term and science of polemology (polemos – war).
Ghettos are not necessarily mistakes. Even children six months old prefer their own people to others.
It is only recently that attacking this, as a knee-jerk reaction, has come to be advanced as “decency/morality/virtue.”
Of course, it is the people engineering the blending of all peoples into one low common denominator (so that they, with about a B- grade) can rule. So consider the source.
To sum it up: Ghettos are a result of mistakes made by both sides – Immigrants and Natives.
As someone born and raised in western Pennsylvania (USA) where probably the highest density of immigrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries was effected, I an well familiar with “ghettos” — neighborhoods (in Pittsburgh) and mining towns.
Contrary to assimilationalist propaganda (that nothing can be OK until everyone marries everyone else), these ethnic enclaves were overwealmingly mono-ethnic by choice. People simply prefer to live with others they regard as their own kind.
Where, for example, mining companies settled two different groups (say, Italians and Poles), they commonly lived on their own side of the same common street, with the RC church on one end and the parochial school at the other being common ground. The teenage boys were very territorial — defending “their” side against adolescent interlopers from the other side.
This perhaps agrees with nobody’s theory but is the experience of anyone familiar with the actual situation. People simply prefer to form communities with those they regard s like themselves.
“This perhaps agrees with nobody’s theory but is the experience of anyone familiar with the actual situation. People simply prefer to form communities with those they regard s like themselves.”
Yes,you are right. That is only a human (animal?) trait. We like to be among our own.It is possible to assimilate individual people that join another group. History is full of stories of that. Even settling larger groups in vacant areas (the frontiers or deep interiors of states) can work. Especially if the groups are similar ethnically. And over centuries they intermarry and assimilate (unless there is a reason, like religion that hinders that).But what we are seeing with immigration today is,maximizing the differences between peoples,not minimizing the differences. And with the rise of the multicultural ideology, we see countries trying to force square pegs into round holes.And telling us they fit “just fine”. Even though our eye’s tell us differently.
Uncle Bob 1:
German expellees (Sudeten German, Germans in Silesia, etc.) didn’t fully assimilate as well. They kept their language and traditions for centuries (no assimilation, but some intermarrying) until they got kicked out after WW II.
Taleb : What a fantastic article/thinker !!!!!!!!!
Thank You !
I wonder, if he replace the “intolerant” with a bunch of positive words e.g., uncompromising, unwavering, unyielding, determined, or righteous. If his article will prove the opposite thesis.
His understanding of “Halal” is faulty, Halal does not require any skin-in-it. Halal is everything which is not forbidden, 4 things are expressly forbidden in Qur’an: 1. Meat of pig (not playing with pigs) 2. Consumption of blood 3. Dead animals. 4. Animals which have been sacrificed to anyone other than God.
The last is the source of great confusion, who never bothered to look it up. Sacrificing to gods negates the unshared sovereignty of God–a basic precept of monotheism.
So if you do not know if something was sacrificed to some gods, you can go ahead and consume it, unless it is Pig flesh, or the animal you happened upon was dead, or drink blood (like the Count).
That is the sum total of Haram (not Halal) things, people confuse “zabiha” with Halah. “Zabiha” is that, which is sacrificed to the God, as opposed to sacrificed to gods.
Although the author appears to be erudite, his logic is faulty, and with minor changes to the rhetoric it can mean exactly the opposite. His propositions are faulty, although his rhetoric is eloquent.
One can state will equal justification that, everything stems from a minority. All matter, all knowledge, everything is the result of a minority beginning which overtakes false perceptions.
Getting rid of shrines, is not necessarily a bad thing. It is to dis-empower the keepers of these shrines. Imagine that instead of anything useful, a large part of Egyptian revenue is due to tourism of the tombs. Thailand earns a large fraction of its GDP from child prostitution and sex tourism. People used to visit Amsterdam for open drug policy.
Of course purveyors of vice, will defend their professions until their dying breath, with full conviction, but one has to view the negative influence on their patrons (victims?). I believe that not eating something is a personal choice, it is not a demand, no one is US wanted things to be declared kosher, or with little circle in U or the little k. The truth is that it is meant to line the pockets of those rabbis who run the “kosher declaring institutes”–basically it is a shakedown. Just like Mafia charges for protection.
Muslims never demanded any koshering, they just chose not to eat things which did not suit them. To hang this around the Muslims necks is dishonest. To claim that Sunni do not believe in letting people be, is another disingenuous and completely false premise, which again is the result of selective flourish rather than even close to factual.
A Sunni believes what the Qur’an says.
Also, the requirement to be Muslim at birth is false, malicious, and result of careful mischief. I would like the author who is making such wild accusations to provide proof.
Writing well with malicious intent should not be confused with enlightenment, it is pure exploitation.
What an amazing essay that is ! Thank you for alerting me to him.
One cannot recommend warmly enough Nassim NicholasTaleb. He is Orthodox and his thinking is influenced by the Orthodox perception of realities.
Its weird, when knowledge is simply not there, even when its written down so clearly, without any limits, and scope, when the Books state that God is love, merciful and benevolent, to those that is true to human nature, and followers of the path of light.
My gravest moments is when some few people, because they are indeed few, even in de facto number thru out any society, incl mammals, what happens, and what really is the truth is this man made “moral” quest and what man thinks our Creator is doing.
Our Lord, the all knowing and all seeing.
Consciousnesses beyond our comprehensions and knowledge.
Any human, whom lives an good life, don’t kill, don’t steal, dont misbehave, think seven generations, and treats everything with the proper respect, and love, all this, even when they aren’t in any way or form, an bad person, is sentenced to death because of been Gay.
Do you, really think, our Creator whom is all knowing and all seeing, have created an thing witch is not meant to be.
Do you then assume, that by that way of having sex, when its done, not to harm, but an expression of love to another person, and thereby making love spread thru the community, do you think that isn’t on the persons scale as your own life would be in the hall of judgment
In the end, people, we reap what we sow it goes both ways, its all written down, you have it all right in front of you, but somehow you refuse to see.
I do not judge, I never judge an man/woman based upon nothing else than Love, did you spread it, did you repent, forgive, respect, against crimes, violence and plundering/steel.
Do you understand.
And to those that did judge, be aware, so shall you be judged, as Yeshua said it, be those without sin to be the first to throw an rock.
And when Crusifyed, what did He do there, even at the very end.
Hypocrites, is the greatest threat you can do to your self, its soul damaging, it kills in both ends.
You have made an grave sin, humans by judging basing on Your perspetions of our Lords will.
You have lost your sight, in the valley of darkness.
I warn you, so now you do know.
Because you don’t understand, the truth, and the truth is Love.
Be the light.
The trouble is that gays spread HIV rather than ‘love’. Don’t let people deceive you with their hypocritical ‘love’ and ‘peace’ that Jesus did not condemn Sodom.
Actually Saker…i think you can wish with starry eyes all you like for peace but you do your self a disservice…war comes and there in naught you can do about it…the vlash is the entertainment…but the positioning is relentless…a large group believe in a demiurge…others a messiah…others a return…time runs short now.
Muslems used to pray towards the dawn…
Christ gave Sol credit too…no.?…for is not Amen an Egyptian gid…and did he not say…amen amen…the dawn and dusk.?
The Zionist landlords of the USA and Europe (named, by the way, after a Phoenician (!) princess) have always had a problem: being such a tiny minority they always found it difficult to farm their property efficiently. Millions of court-goys help, as does ruling by fake news, fake history and all other form of deceptions. And yet.
No wonder, therefore, that the plan to ethnically cleanse the vast goy-lands by forced ‘Umsiedlung’ (migration) arose almost automatically, as documented in dozens, if not hundreds of readily available Soros/Rand-type white papers – think Kalergi plan, think of the Deltas in Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, etc.
To think that this master plan has anything to do with Christianity and Islam, with kraut and kebab, with baseball caps and burkas is itself the sorry result of successful Zionist miseducation and disinformation.
Don’t blame the inbred for this. Blame the eyes wide shut attitude of the ‘western’ multitudes. Once they gather the courage to understand what is going on and to admit how they were fooled big time, this whole farce will fall apart over night.
Jewish people have never been the problem, Elite driven, weaponized Judaism is.
Christian people have never been the problem, Elite driven, weaponized Christianity is.
Islamic people have never been the problem, Elite driven, weaponized Islam is.
There’s another very dangerous tendency. Those Muslims who have in real life stopped practicing their religion tend to become more and more criminal behaving individuals and very easy targets for recruiters of ISIS and Al Qaeda. So if secularism among Muslims are causing these horrible consequences there should be only one solution: these Muslim enclaves need responsible, skillful and social Imams and teachers guiding them to decent, humble antimilitant behavior of Muslim. But i’m afraid post modern decadent western anti religion society (where Christians too are actually persecuted) is not ideal place for that. As an Christian myself i can easily understand why millions of Muslims actually are shocked when facing this western decadence. But things were not these kind during my childhood of late 1950’s and 1960’s. Things went worse after early 1970’s and sad to say – there is no return. Christians and Muslims are facing rather similar dangers in western world. No wonder why decent Christians in Middle East understand that moving to west will destroy their faith too.
The decline of culture is a huge process. And the worst of all is that we can’t stop it when it wind beneath the wings. Western culture is now in free fall.
There’s another very dangerous tendency. Those Muslims who have in real life stopped practicing their religion tend to become more and more criminal behaving individuals
VERY good point. I should have mentioned that. Yes, absolutely. You can ask any cop in Europe and they will tell you that the Muslims who go to mosques are not the problem. It’s the 2nd generation, those not really here not there, who are not practicing Muslims but who feel like a separate group called “Muslims” who are a huge problem. In France Alain Soral calls them “Islamo-Racaille” or “Islam-thugs”. But as Soral says, there are no Muslims who first go to Friday prayers and then engage in collective rape. That is a myth.
But yes, ‘lapsed’ Muslim youth are often a very real threat to their environment. This is also true for Russia where Chechen thugs were a major issues in many Russian cities. Again, Putin’s (and Kadyrov’s) solution is clear: return them to *real* Islam.
Any ‘facts’ to back up this assertion?
We of course see a few isolated instances, where Muslims become radicalized and wage violent attacks. But, is there any factual evidence that says that Muslims “tend” to follow this path? There are what, millions of Muslims in Europe? What percentage become violent terrorists? Is this greater than the percentage of Christians that join hate groups?
We all have to be careful about letting the corporate propaganda into our heads. This may be an instance of this. We are all subject to a constant barrage of propaganda about how dangerous Muslims are. But is this any more accurate than the rest of the constant BS?
So, in a world, especially in Europe, where all religions are becoming weaker and have fewer adherents, is there any factual evidence that says the Muslims “tend” more than other religions to follow a path into violence and extremism? More so than other religions?
In the US, we have a large problem with Christians becoming radicalized, then attempting the murder of physicians who perform abortions, or conducting bombing attacks or other terror attacks against abortion clinics. In fact, every terror attack that has happened near me in my life time has occurred from such radicalized, extremists Christian terrorists. One was uncomfortably close to killing me.
So, perhaps I have a different view of who provides the greater danger. The US has a long history of violent Christian groups. The example from the southern US where I grew up is of course the Ku Klux Klan, which not only attacked African-Americans but also Jews and Catholics.
I do find it interesting that the facts of my life tell me that I should be most afraid of Christian terrorists, while the TV set bleats on constantly about the dangers of Muslims.
In the US, we have a large problem with Christians becoming radicalized, then attempting the murder of physicians who perform abortions, or conducting bombing attacks or other terror attacks against abortion clinics.
This is almost humorous. One of Christ’s parting commandments to his followers was “Occupy ’til I come (back)” This necessarily implies administration, and enforcement of laws.
And what did Mohammed say ? Was it not that one should stop evildoing with his own hand whenever this was possible ?
If nobody stops it, it keeps happening. This alternative is, in your view, the “moral” one ?????
In the US, we have a large problem with Christians becoming radicalized, then attempting the murder of physicians who perform abortions, or conducting bombing attacks or other terror attacks against abortion clinics.
Correct me if I’m wrong, OK ?
One of Christ’s parting injunctions to his flock was “Occupy ’til I come (back again).” This would necessarily include administering territory under their control, would it not ? And, if nothing else, prohibiting murder for profit.
Similarly, Mohammed said (as I have read) that anyone able to stop an evil act with his own hand should do so.
But why leave out Jews ? I recall the institution of the Phineas Priesthood in commemoration of an act of vigilante justice in the Old Testament.
Only if the issue of human abortion has no reference to “religion” is “religion” irrelevant to it (as the social engineers teach).
Your thoughts remind me of all of the hardworking, first generation Mexicans who sneak into the USA to work low wage jobs in the factories and to pick lettuce. The second generation Mexicans tend to drop out of school and join street gangs. The culture of Mexico is an anti-intellectual one, to be sure. How many Middle Eastern societies hold Education in higher regard than the Mexicans?
This reminds me of what Reza Aslan, a persian Christian Scholar. He said “The only answer for Religious Violence is Religious peace. I believe the same Religion that has the power to impell Violent action, has just as much power to promote peaceful action. So for me as a person of faith, and as a scholar, the answer to the problem of Religion; is Religion”. ~ The Wrath of God: Reza Aslan on Faith, Islam and the Media [India Summer Festival Canada YOUTUBE] Very interesting stuff
Depressing and deceiving article.
Is the author muslim?
No he is not muslim, he just can see thru the BS told MSM
Are we allowed to link to this/share this on Facebook? if so how
all of Saker’s articles are published with the ‘copy left’ which means that you can copy it and repost it as you like. As to facebook .. you will need to ask a facebook knowledgeable person….. mod-hs
Thank you! Great article. I’ve been saying these things for over ten years now and I’ve been shunned and received nothing but hostility from both factions – the “refugee welcomers and teddy bear throwers” and the Islamophobics. The only ones who really were on my side and sometimes even thanked me for defending them were Muslims, both from Europe and abroad.
Takfirism – or Wahabbism/Salafism/jihadism – has the support of the Western Atlanticist political establishment in absolute terms. There is no doctrine of belief, or ideology, that could be said to serve the purposes of the Anglo-Amero Empire in the Middle East, Central Asia, Caucusus & Balkans more than this insane psuedo-religion. The main reason is that it serves two key requirements of any power system, 1. control, 2. division. Wahabbism maintains the Arabian peninsula under an iron grip, which in turn allows the West with its oil conglomerates to exploit the resources of the region without limitation. Then, if & when problems occur, it sows the seeds of division, of sectarianism, in order to prevent regional unity. A more sinister component of Takfirism has also been its instrumental role in the implementation of the Yinnon plan, which essentially will be realised through the incitement of an inter-Arab inter-muslim genocide, carried out in the name of Islam. They themselves are preparing for the apocalypse, armageddon, according to the propaganda that ISIS puts out, the ‘malhamma’ which they believe will result in their take over of the world but in fact would spell the final death throws for Islamic civilization in the Middle East. From the ashes Greater’ Eretz’ Israel would be born, which is the single most important project of the Anglo-Amero Empire, an imperial entity which would not only control the bulk of the world’s oil & gas reserves, but would also control the major transportation routes for international trade. It is the way that Mackinder’s proclamation of controlling Eurasia so as to control the world would ultimately be achieved. So Takfirism is an essential component of the ultimate imperial conspiracy, & this is why in the West there is no real serous move made against it, no closure of mosques propagating this poison, no real persecution of extreme groups & so-called ‘imams.’ Takfirism is way too important to put a break on it, other than the occasional criminal prosecution for publicity purposes, this is a movement that is essential to the NATO gladio stay behind operational network.
Takfirism – or Wahabbism/Salafism/jihadism – has the support of the Western Atlanticist political establishment in absolute terms. There is no doctrine of belief, or ideology, that could be said to serve the purposes of the Anglo-Amero Empire in the Middle East, Central Asia, Caucusus & Balkans more than this insane psuedo-religion.
Do you know what Kadyrov calls these guys?
”Yankee jihadists”- Sh. Imran Hosein
It is not even Islam, or only the Takfiri part of Islam.
It’s something wider, Some cultural difference which seemingly can not be over-bridged.
Let me give an example to see what I mean.
Just before the referendum in Turkey, the Netherlands stopped one Turkish politician from entering the Netherlands, and one politician got expelled.
To make a long story short, Erdogan called all Dutch people fascists and Nazi’s and a few hundred Turkish people went to riot in Rotterdam.
That is to say, they are not Turkish at all, they are 100% Dutch.
So then there comes a television crew asking some questions to these guys, and one of them answered, “I am third generation Dutch, being born here so many years ago, and I am still not respected.”
Can you believe this?
A foreign leader of a foreign country calls ALL Dutch people fascists, that is including him I suppose, and this guy runs to the streets, waving the flag of this foreign country.
How come that after three generations this guy is still not respected?
Probably because even after three generations he ain’t Dutch, and he will never be.
Mind you, Rotterdam is a city where the mayor, mr Aboutaleb is a highly respected (even among his biggest political opponents) first generation muslim born in Morocco.
Like this Turkish arshole, there are many many more.
They knit together in groups apart from us. everywhere.
It is them, who do not integrate, do not want to integrate, and blaming us.
Nothing to do with Islam.
Two armed robbers from North African decent rob a jewellery store, and got shot by the owners wife. Both dead.
And hops 200 North Africans demonstrating on the street against racism.
Can you imagine you, demonstrating with 200 people of Russian decent, when 2 armed Russian robbers get shot in your neighbourhood?
And the real problem is that i can go on and on and on with this kind of examples. :-(
[Quran Chapter 110]
In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.
1. When there comes God’s victory, and conquest.
2. And you see the people entering God’s religion in multitudes.
3. Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and seek His forgiveness. He is the Accepter of Repentance.
Great article as well as a great writer. Than you Saker
tl;dr – “In order to defeat Takfirism, you have to allow moderate Islamisation to happen”. Complete and total madness. This article is an exhortation to genocide. Well, let me give the Saker one of our own:
The future for Muslims in Europe can take two possible shapes: mass deportations or mass graves.
In that case it will be graves. Graves for all the imbeciles like you.
In theory, Europe could even re-introduce the death penalty for terrorism or even for apology of terrorism. I know, that ain’t happening anytime soon, but what matters is that this will depend on a political decision, the political will of the Europeans.
In reality death penalty already exists in the European Union. Read the treaty of Lisbon or watch the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MLtJNCB7Ac
In my opinion the mass influx of refugees was partially due to blowback of Western Foreign Politics, but it was welcomed by the usual political players on all sides.
1. The conservative could score points by ranting against refugees, whilst keeping quiet that some of the refugees will compete with unskilled / low-skilled workers for jobs and thus lowering the already low wages (which had been far “to high” for employers and conservative politicians all along).
2. The influx of refugees also served the purpose of further driving a wedge between the populations of several countries. Those who showed readiness to help refugees were regarded with hostility by “nationals” (French First, German First, …). The old game of divide and conquer still works. Whilst the citizens are engaged in infighting, they’re getting screwed by politicians.
3. Alleged spending on refugees served as an excellent excuse for – planned – spending cuts in other areas or raising taxes (putting another burden onto the shoulders of middle-class and people with lower incomes), thus driving another wedge between the citizens (and refugees).
4. Each “terrorist” attack (maybe a Gladio operation as hinted in your article) is / was an excellent excuse for further spying on citizens and slowly beginning to militarize police or changing laws permitting military assistance in case of an emergency.
For years, whilst the sheeple – citizens – had been sleeping European states have been working against their own populations, by forcing austerity upon them (in the name of international competition), union busting, destroying the “European model” of public health insurance and attempts of privatizing public infrastructure and schools. It can be summed up as neo-liberalism. It was just a question of time until people would wake up and start protesting. As long as the police state isn’t fully in place, the best solution is to divide the people by reinforcing xenophobia. In my opinion there are two possible outcomes. The first is that ultra-nationalist parties get to power and try what you can’t believe: mass deportation. The second is mass revolts or even revolution: https://qz.com/971374/europes-youth-dont-care-to-vote-but-theyre-ready-to-join-a-mass-revolt/ Anyone who’s prone to gambling should invest in guillotines, they may have some revival in the future.
Maybe, the zionised Euro-paeons will wake up and, realize they have been robbed blind by the usurious banking system they embraced; perhaps deceiving themselves that they too, could join the usurers and, make a fortune – now they reap the ‘rewards’.
If they can find a true Islamic bank in their country, it is better to renounce their ‘christianity’ (that joined the Beast who, allows none to buy or sell unless they have the $Mark), and, become Muslim, so, they can escape the shackles of debt, ‘The Great Satan’ (love that Persian idiom!) has hung around their necks then, they may find that; just as Jesus told the Sanhedrin of his day: “you are of your father the devil; he was a liar and murderer (does that sound like the Anglo-American-Zionist?) from the beginning” . . . “today the Kingdom has been taken from you and given to others”.
The Christians held the fort for a very short time before, they too, melded paganism with Christianity. Perhaps God/Allah – without prior announcement – handed the baton to Islam as, they at least banned usury! There never has been, nor ever will be, boom and bust ->> war, In Islam, provided they never use the system of Babylon.
You make an interesting point.
I believe another vector in the bankrolling of takfiri terrorism is to discredit Sharia law in relation to usury.
By exclusively marketing sharia law as a takfiri(‘Islamic ‘) objective, the prohibition on usury becomes either buried, or part of a’ nefarious ‘ attack on’ Western values/our way of life/freedom and democracy – choose your own bromide.
Just as Zio media regularly conflate Palestinian defence from Israeli ongoing genocide with takfirism/Muslim extremism.
That some stateless and impoverished Palestinians will inevitably become ‘soldiers of fortune’ is further exploited as ‘proof’.
And the architects remain in the shadows.
I believe that if the report of how Putin is deradicalising the radicals is accurate, he is doing it the right way. The missing ingredient is of course the economic development. Putin now has a window of opportunity to put Russia firmly on the path of sustained economic development. I think that a compounded growth rate of 5% to 6 % per year for at least 10 years, with an average gini coefficient of not more than 30, depending on the situation in various parts of Russia, would not only defeat Takfirism but also take the wind out of possible future returns to it by future generations. That is my hope for Russia.
Yes,that is the cure for a lot of jihadism in the MENA as well (that and stopping the spread of Wahhabism to those states). People with jobs,a future,are much less likely to turn to jihad.For the real fanatics that won’t help. But for the mass of their recruits it would.
How many Christian jobless (even secularized) turn to Crusade?
That is an Apples and Oranges argument firstly. But lets examine it anyway.We have few Christian countries (maybe none) in today’s World subjected to the violent attack and destabilization we see in the MENA Muslim states.The nearest one today would be Ukraine (at least a European one). And what do we see there.Gangs of “Christian” jihadis called “volunteer” neo-nazis (Right Sector,Azov,etc) rampaging around committing crimes . And the “regular” crime is off the charts. Both organized oligarch crime and petty crime. Most of the members of these groups coming from the unemployed and young with no hope for the future. Yet Ukraine compared to Libya,Iraq,or Syria, is a mild case.And we saw the criminal gang culture of the 1990’s in the post-Soviet countries. As well as in the Yugoslav wars.Where a lot of the fighting and the criminal gangs were manned by the unemployed and hopeless elements in society.
We can turn to the Christian states of Latin America. Where during the 1980’s in Central America,the wars of that period spawned the “death squad” fascist gangs.The immigration of a million or more people to the US. Where many of the young formed criminal gangs,such as MS13 among others. Maybe not “exactly” jihadis,but pretty close in their blood lust culture of violence.
But if we return to your comment itself. You might want to remember that it was the unemployed and “2nd son’s” (almost the same in having little for themselves) that made up the majority of the Crusader armies.While some were motivated by a “Christian jihad” ideology to reclaim the Holy Land for Christianity. Quite a few (especially the leaders) coupled that with the desire to gain lands and wealth from the Crusades.
So ,while Muslims are not the only ones that can spawn a “jihadi” culture. They are the ones in today’s World where it is most prevalent. Defeating and preventing that culture from spreading is a complicated problem. But one of the main measures that needs to be taken is to bring peace to those countries.So people will not flee those lands. And for the economies to be rebuilt to give the people a sense of “hope” for the future. That alone won’t solve the entire problem. But it would solve a great part of it.
You have to keep a sense of proportions. The criminal gangs are not motivated by any religious duty to kill infidels. Anyhow, the Crusades were no ‘jihad’, but a ‘counter-jihad’, a Reconquista.
We can differ on the crusades. In Spain it was different. Native Spanish peoples re-conquering Spain from what they considered an alien force. But in the Holy Land it was the opposite. Most of the native peoples were converted to Islam (mostly freely) over centuries. And the Crusaders were the alien elements (the “Franks” as they were called) going to that land to conquer it. And slaughtering the Muslims in doing that.
Religious reasons have been used in Europe and Russia to kill people as well. Muslims aren’t unique in that. The slaughters of Poles and Jews by Ukrainians had a large religious component. The Balkans saw the Croats slaughter Serbs over religion (and vice-versa as well). The Greek Independence wars,saw Greek Christians slaughter Greek Muslims. And that was true in both directions in all the Balkan independence wars.
You might want to remember that it was the unemployed and “2nd son’s” (almost the same in having little for themselves) that made up the majority of the Crusader armies.While some were motivated by a “Christian jihad” ideology to reclaim the Holy Land for Christianity. Quite a few (especially the leaders) coupled that with the desire to gain lands and wealth from the Crusades.
The purported motivation of the crusaders (“reclaiming the holy land) is an after-the-fact rationalization, believed by those who want to imagine something good about them.
The issue was the desire of Rome to rule the eastern Roman empire by conquest. The initial attack was thus against Constantinople. And when it succeeded the population was massacred indiscriminately — including Christians in their churches where they imagined they would not be molested by their “christian” conquerors. Jerusalem was a backwater place no one cared about until later.
One could even use the Crusades to prove, by example, that there is no new thing in the world. Richard Kelly Hoskins wrote :
In the Holy Land during the Wars of the Crusades, crusaders defended a seaport being besieged by Muslims. The siege had lasted almost a year. The fighting had been violent, many had died.
Suddenly, trumpets sounded. Instantly the fighting stopped. A camel train appeared, one camel plodding along in front of the next – a long line stretching back into the distance. The Arab armies parted; the gates to the city opened, the drawbridges dropped. One after another, camel after camel – an endless chain of camels plodded into the city. Two thousand of them.
It was a smaller camel train, all that was left of 20,000 animals that had arrived at a terminal city inland and had been divided into smaller trains and sent on to their final destinations. On the back of each animal rested a cargo so precious that it could have made a man rich for life – if he could but seize it. But few tried. Those who tried and failed were punished with a painful death.
Once in the city the camel drivers directed their charges through twisting, narrow streets down to the harbor. There their cargoes were off-loaded by sweating stevedores who re-loaded them on waiting Christian ships. Then, flying flags bearing the Christian cross, the ships set sail through the blockading Saracen fleet, which parted to let them pass. As soon as the last ship had departed, the Saracen ships re-established their blockade, the camels departed, the gates closed, the drawbridge raised, and arrows began to fly and large rocks again were catapulted against enemies as the fighting re-commenced.
How was it possible for both Christians and Saracens, enemies to the death, to suddenly stop their warfare and cooperate to protect and help the caravan owner taking his goods from the point of manufacture to the point of sale?
This is the same situation we have in the world today. It is a situation that takes careful planning and numerous private agreements . . .
The entire excerpt linked above is well worth two minutes to read. Very few (if any) people here will like him after reviewing everything he has written. This is fine. But it is obvious to anyone honest that he saw and understood exactly what the deal is, many years ago, and from a Biblical perspective (the only one whose operant concepts square with reality). Refusing to learn from someone disliked is not a trait of the intelligent.
A couple of points. First, the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was not the first Crusade. The ones conquering the “Holy Land” were over a hundred years before that one. Second,you are right about the Crusades being about gaining wealth. But the propaganda used to bring it about was the “reclaiming of the Holy Places in Jerusalem”. Just as today the West uses ,”to bring freedom and democracy” to a country to gain their own peoples support for aggression. They used the “freeing of Jerusalem” back in those times.
I’m curious about that story “the Caravan”. I don’t think I’ve heard it before. And the link didn’t give any details,such as when and where. I don’t doubt it “could” have happened. In those days warring leaders were even more open to bribes than they are today.But still to believe that is more than just an interesting tale. More needs to be told about it.
Interesting revelations about what security forces are up to in EU;
Fascinating. Can you explain again why Russia continues to sit idle while Israel attacks Syria?
Historically Muslims were expelled from Europe: Spain in 1492 after several centuries of a kind of range war/border war. Under different circumstances, it could happen again and the Spanish might very well be only too happy to show everyone how it is done. After all, their elite brigade is called the “matamorros” . Historical memory does run deep in the Iberian peninsula and Islam will always and forever be a minority religion there. period. And you can take that to the bank.
The Spanish rulers of the 15th C wanted it to happen so it did but the present elites want the Muslims in Europe now so they will stay to become just as dumbed down and angry as the European working class they have come to disenfranchise.
I see no glorious future peaceful coexistence per the Russian example—theirs is a different mind set having a different history. The Muslims living in the Soviet Union fought for their lives along side everyone else in the Soviet army in WWII which was terrible but a big bonding experience.
The Muslims coming into Europe now are young, unmarried, unemployed and angry. i.e. an invasion force coming under cover of neoliberal humanitarian appeal regardless of the fact that the internationalist ruling class created just this young, unmarried, unemployed and angry force by destruction of their societies. Everyone is being used.
Stop the mid East wars, send them back, help them to rebuild their countries, muzzle Israel, depose the Saudis. And yes, it does matter what kind of Muslim you are dealing with. I have been robbed in business by Muslims who use the Koran to justify cheating a non Muslim and I have been edified by Sufi Muslims who have shown me the true meaning of The Lord’s Prayer by dancing it with me and singing it with me in its original language–Aramaic.
So, those future mosques? Who will be in them and what will they teaching ? Will George Soros or the Saudis pay for them?
A fair and balanced article. Beautiful! Thank you.
Again, a very well written article. Thank you.
The latest Islamophobic trends in European or the West is actually nothing more than the manifestation of a negative self identification, a sign that a civilization cease to know what/who they really are, but only know what/who they are NOT. In other words, “We don’t accept Islam and Muslims because we are sure that is not our model, but we really don’t have any other certainty other than that”. In my opinion it is not a political problem, but a spiritual one. There is a spiritual crisis in the West and the only way they can deal with it is Islamophobia.
As my friend Hasan Spiker has put it:
In the alarming times in which we live, in which the post-Enlightenment Western world has once again, after the anti-semitism of the 1930s, chosen a universal scapegoat to serve as a negative self-definition – and this time it is Islam – nothing could be more topical than an analysis of the spiritual crisis within Western civilization itself, that persists relentlessly in inflicting such intense suffering on itself and the rest of the world. For in this strange post-9/11 world, the spiritual crisis of Western civilization is being acknowledged more than ever before by Westerners themselves, who having newly redefined themselves as “not-Muslim”, have sought after the positive content of their definition of themselves by having a fresh look in the mirror—and, to their indignant shock, have found nothing there.(end quote)
The latest Islamophobic trends in European or the West is actually nothing more than the manifestation of a negative self identification, a sign that a civilization cease to know what/who they really are, but only know what/who they are NOT. In other words, “We don’t accept Islam and Muslims because we are sure that is not our model, but we really don’t have any other certainty other than that”. In my opinion it is not a political problem, but a spiritual one.
Most esteemed Anwar —
An accurate and perceptive observation indeed. But there are details involved that (IMO) reward examination.
Context : I grew up in a rural area of the USA, and am aged 69. I can remember when it was easy to provoke a fight with “fighting words” — a disrespectful mention of someone’s mother, for example. Even a coward when so provoked would attack with intent to injure one who offered such an insult. Of critical importance in understanding this is that basic human instincts were uninhibited in daily life.
Now, time has passed, and the social engineers have succeeded in instilling the habit of intellectualizing everything — reducing such provocations to an abstract idea to be processed as one. “He is only angry because he is insecure” or some such rationalization.
The result — as intended — is that the linkage of instinct and behavior (response) is immobilized. By design.
And the same has been done with the linkage of instinctual behavior with the spiritual dimension which used to rule people’s lives. Beginning in primary school. “That is all very well for church, but here in the civil world, civil ‘values’ take precedence.” Operant conditioning, continued consistently enough, accomplished this. And without people even noticing the change (or attributing it to “progress” toward a better society).
The result here is that the Spiritual dimension, when people reach for it, is the collection of abstract ideas which no longer translate into action it has been transformed into. The ideas are still there, but being processed by the wrong element of being, where they come to nothing in practice (which is where it counts).
It is the anesthesia of the instinctive at the root of the condition you diagnose. And because this is not comprehended, people can only wring their hands about the inexplicable erosion of the spiritual component in civil and personal life today, without being able to meaningfully address and remedy it. The social engineers call it “learned helplessness.” (Very valuable insurance for those who would otherwise be identified as social pathogens and expelled).
As Wilhelm Reich observed, the way OUT of a quandry is the same way you got into it, only going backwards.
“As Wilhelm Reich observed, the way OUT of a quandary is the same way you got into it, only going backwards.
I used to think that social engineering has led to almost complete defeat of public “intellectual honesty”. Other than Saker, honest intellect has become slim pickings on public fora. Until today, I had almost accepted that honesty had lost the battle practitioners of hate who only reacted to memes of their control.
For a few hours yesterday morning, I was afraid that some people were going to declare Saker a Takfiri himself. However, I see with great hope that this mobbing was beaten back by rational thought and thought.
As a proof: your sentence that I quoted, would have most assuredly resulted in a charge of “fundamentalism”. This shows that the conditioned reactionaries had no wind left in their sails by this point :-)
I am happy to learn that Saker attracts high caliber people who will not be scared of frothing mobs who are educated by TV to react to keywords like Pavlovian dogs.
I hope we will abstain from contributing to this conditioning from using loaded terms like Takfiri, Carzy, Wahabi, etc. Not co-opting these terms is the first step to deeper thinking.
Everybody seems to know that Sharia law is something really evil: who then will tell me what it is? I hope someone tries to explain this in more depth than the FOX news.
Esteemed Nasir —
If I have mis-named you in my reply, kindly forgive my flickering memory. Advancing age and previous concussions are formidable challenges :-)
I had trouble remembering the word “premise” yesterday ;-) I hope the holes in the memory do not take away from wisdom of experience–for my own sake:-)
The Muslims of post Soviet states are different because of the legacy of Soviet Union, but still there seems to be problems in Russia because of increased immigration from these areas.
The rise of Islamic extremists in Caucasus and central Asia started after the dissolution of USSR. The living standards plummeted, state control of religions was relaxed, CIA operatives and funds flooded the post Soviet states. With a successful Islamist insurrection, Russia could have been dismembered by losing control and access to Caucasus.
Many regimes in middle and North Africa were secular and socialist in orientation. Baath party in Syria and Iraq, nasserism in Egypt, Gaddafi In Libya, the Marxist regime in south Yemen, secular Algeria and Tunisia etc. Even Somalia and Afghanistan had communist oriented governments. The West did not approve of these regimes as they nationalised oil and many important economic sectors and close many western military bases. These regimes were not good for business for the western multinationals and the banks.
The western elites have managed to get rid of all these regimes (with the exception of Syria) . After USSR was gone, it was the right time as there was no superpower to stand against USA.
After the staged attack of 9/11, they had an excuse to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq.
With the color revolution of the
“Arab spring” , they destabilised the whole Middle East and got rid of Gaddafi.
I constantly hear in the corporate press that ISIS is going to be destroyed.
Before anyone goes down that path, of thinking that such an idea can be destroyed, it would be well to remember this particularly bit of wisdom from one of my favorite movies.
“Ideas are bulletproof”
Even ideas that we don’t like or think dangerous. You can kill a man, but you cannot kill an idea.
Lets put aside our differences with respect to Islam, Christianity, Judaism and migration – and realize that we are all being played for fools.
Simply put; the chaos that has enveloped the Levant and Europe is driven by a desire for power. This power wishes to vacate the middle east of the Arab culture, and to replace the European culture with something else. Nothing more and nothing less.
And who is the power seeker? We ask: Cui Bono?
In Christianity there are no civil law recommendations. This allows for a separation of state and religious power.
Islam is a religion which proscribes very specific civil law guidelines I.e. what to eat, age of consent, how to divorce your wife, how to punish theft, custody of children in case of divorce etc. So what do you do if the Muslims all of sudden want Sharia law? Does this mean two legal systems within one country? One for the Christians and one for the Muslims? ?
Under the rule of islam in Spain (the caliphate) christians and jews had their own laws applied to them, they were not obliged to use islamic law.
Is that bad thing?
I think that Christians in Muslim countries should be allowed to have their own courts and legal systems for themselves.
It would, certainly, not be without other precedent.
In the Early Middle Ages the Germanic tribes in Europe used the personality principle in law. As a simple example, the relationship between Burgundian and Burgundian was governed by Burgundian laws, even when they found themselves in a different territory.
The idea of the law of a territory only came to the fore in the age of feudalism – after the time of Charlemagne.
Many states recognise the principle of personal law. In South Africa where I live, couples have a choice whether their marriage will be regulated by tribal law of civil law. Islamic marriages are also recognised. This can be compared with an ante-nuptial contract in which people can choose the system that will govern their marriage. In tribal areas, people live according to the law of that particular tribe. (All subject to the Constitution, of course.)
The difficulty is not people choosing the law that applies to themselves, but choosing the law they wish to apply to others.
Come to think of it, the Romans also had the ius civile for Romans and the ius gentium for peregrini.
Believe it or not, Kingdom of Yugoslavia actually had both Sharia law and Sharia courts in Bosnia. Application of Sharia law was limited to areas of family law and inheritance law and for Muslims only. For Christians, rules of Canon law and customary law were applied in the same areas. Other areas of civil law(property, obligations/torts) were the same for both Christians and Muslims, unified by (Austrian) Civil Code.
But it was supposed to be a stopgap measure, although it was quite elegant and efficient solution.
I think that Egypt has quite similar civil law system today(different laws/sets of rules for Christians and Muslims in family law).
In Christianity there are no civil law recommendations. This allows for a separation of state and religious power.
A real can of worms. Under the “the law is done-away with in Christ” rubric, Christianity in the west consigned the laws governing civil life in the Old Testament to irrelevancy. (Except for usury, which the church exercised through its Judahist proxies and Calvin rendered moot when greed made his re-definition of usury as EXCESSIVE interest irresistible). (Far from irrelevant is that essentially all states took out usury loans, participating in it as borrowers — somehow this was not viewed as violating the injunction).
The other basis was Christ’s “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Complicating this, however, is the example of him scourging the money changers out of the Temple (in light of the fact that Temples of every religion in the ancient world were usury banks, the one at Jerusalem included [II Macabees, as I recall]). Food for thought.
Interestingly (and I believe significantly), in the Orthodox Christian realm, if Russia was representative, there were no private usury banks “serving” the general population in 1917. In light of the fact that the U$A’s big boogyman countries (Iran, North Korea) do not have Rothschild central banks, the “design of history” (hidden motivation driving events made to appear unrelated to it) comes a little clearer. One at a time . . .
Saker, thank you very much for the article, but I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that a Christian nation and an Islamic one can live together within the same borders and be truly at peace. While individuals may certainly have friends from across the divisions, the tendency from history seems to be one of conflict and strife.
In Kazan, religious differences are not pronounced because the number of devoutly religious people (Christian or Muslim) is actually very small, and Russian-Tatar ethnic divisions don’t weigh highly on people’s minds. In the past, judging from your article, locals in the area got tired of fighting with each other so they decided to put a stop to it and build a church and a mosque in the same Kremlin. This is not “unity”, but a sign of choosing peace over war. They usually see themselves as part of the broader Russian nation, and their religions are part of their own specific culture.
In the Caucasus region, conflicts are mostly between different nations, tribes and families. People prefer to do business with those of their own nations, and consequently of their own religions. They have friends across national divides, but mixed marriages aren’t common and if people do business with someone or hire someone, they prefer to work with people of their same nation (and consequently, of their same religion). Chechnya is peaceful because of the Kadyrov family and the efforts of the Russian state, and Dagestan is not exactly peaceful at all. Many Russians I know have no plans to travel to Chechnya or Dagestan, and people in these Caucasus regions also view the rest of Russia as somewhere else, practically separate from them.
My conclusion is that yes, Christians and Muslims can live in the same region but the only ways it can happen are: 1. functional, de-facto separation, 2. strong state power that forces peace to be kept and gives people a non-religious identity, or 3. secularization, so that religion isn’t very important.
As for predictions about the future, mine are not as rosy as yours. I predict intense conflict in Europe and elsewhere. People will desire peace, and a new hybrid beliefs system will be offered to them that will purportedly solve some of the intrinsic disunity problems.
I wan to suggest a further step: The spread of our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ’s Gospel of salvation among the Muslims of Russia. After all, God promised Abraham that Ishmael (ancestor of the Arabs and arguably the spiritual ancestors of the Muslims) shall live (Genesis 17:20).
Where you have Sharia law you have extreme Islam, pure and simple. Adonis nailed it.
Tell me what Sharia law is, am waiting….
Marie Le Pen is genetically related to arabs IoI:
Not that it matters at all. But that story is very “iffy” at best. And seems only to be another LePen-hate story.
Lessons to learn from untold history:
[Quran 2:62] Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and the Christians, and the Sabeans—any who believe in God and the Last Day, and act righteously—will have their reward with their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve. https://goo.gl/VpZHoh
Qur’an 41:34 “Not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. Repel with that which is fairer and behold, he between whom and thee there is enmity shall be as if he were a warm friend.”
Saker: The lesson here is simple: first, former enemies do sometimes become friends and allies…
Re: aggressive Islam has nothing to do with the Ottoman empire: to quote P. 107 from Twenty Decisive Battles of the World by Lt Sol Joseph B. Mitchell
“Exactly one hundred years passed between the death of Mohammed and the date of the Battle of Tours ( Potiers). During that century the followers of the Prophet in addition to conquering Persia, had torn away half the Roman Empire; they had overrun Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Spain in an apparently irresistible career of victory.”
OK. so the Franks whom certain commentators here dislike defeated Islam at this battle thus insuring the march of history in a certain way. So be it. I repeat. as regards the Iberian peninsula, there will be no encroachment of Islam at all. period. Maybe the rest of the EU will succumb but it will not take place, globalist sell outs or not, in Spain. Even when Hitler met with Franco, he left saying that the man gave him the creeps or words to that effect. You can rest assured that Muslim youth are not raping Spanish women and living long to boast about it or to post it on Facebook.
One Imam published a booklet in Spain on how to beat your wife without leaving evidence. The Spanish authority threw is -ss in jail muy pronto. There is zero tolerance for b.s. masquerading under the cover of Islam. in Spain….thank G-d.
this reminds me of the five dancing muslims on 9/11
‘Santiago y cierra Espana’. ‘Rubet ensis sanguine Arabum’.
Europe should take again to ‘El Camino de Santiago’. Santiago with his brother, the Boanerges (the Sons of Thunder) were the closest friends of Jesus, allowed to see His Glory on this earth and hear the voice of the Father coming from the cloud: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him”.
This is the only way.
…Hegelian dialectics to understand that the outcome of this crisis will not be the return to a status quo ante or the creation of an absolutely new reality.
The thesis is Western civilization, the antithesis are all the forces actually undermining the Western civilzation, such as overall dominance of finance, collapse of family values, widespread acceptance and advocacy of all kind of perversions, the all-pervading narcissistic syndrome, globalism and multiculturalism, crime impunity generated by idiot do-goodism, the unstoppable savage immigration, the internet revolution, growing prevalence of robots at work, the replacement of socially aggregating churches by socially divisive banks, and so on.
Nobody can foresee what the synthesis will be. I can only agree with Dostoevskij: In a world without God, everything is permitted.
But one still has the capacity to choose good over evil and virtue over vice.
Everything is permitted, does not mean anything goes.
Thank you Saker for publishing this post. It has certainly generated lots of thoughtful comments.
You have certainly hit the nail on the head with your take on the “Takfiris”. Takfiri thought is perhaps the most potent armament the Wahhabis (I don’t like to use the word “Salafi”, and I’ll explain why in a moment) have to subvert Islam in service of the Anglo-Zionist agenda.
With respect, a non-Muslim will not appreciate the pernicious way in which Wahhabism is subverting Islam and causing enmity not only between Muslims and others, but among Muslims as well. It is doing so in Muslim societies where now Muslims argue with each other on whether it is permissible to celebrate the Prophet’s (pbuh) Birthday; whether to say supplications after prayers; whether it is permissible to wish Christians a ‘Merry Christmas’, to attend a wedding in a church or temple — all matters which have been resolved in Islam’s 1400 year history by the ulema.
I agree with you that the Takfiri doctrine is dangerous. But there is another factor that is equally dangerous and that is the Wahhabi disdain for traditional Islamic jurisprudence.
A bit more about ‘Takfir’ and Wahhabism. During the conquest of the Arabian peninsula ibn Saud had to wage war on the Muslims of Arabia, and importantly the people of Makkah and Madinah, the two most holiest cities for Muslims. Being Muslims, his soldiers were initially reluctant to wage war on Muslims inhabiting Arabia, there being a Quranic injunction against the killing of Muslims. The priests of his congregation, the adherents of the teachings of Muhammad Abdul Wahhab, came up with a simple solution: the Muslims who were opposed to ibn Saud, the bearer of ‘true Islam’ ie Wahhabism, were ‘kafir’ (apostates) and therefore it was permissible for Muslims to kill them. Freed from this religious shackle, Ibn Saud waged war on Makkah and Madinah with a vengeance, to the extent of bombing the Prophet’s (Peace be upon him) Mosque in Madinah, with the help of the British Royal Air Force, it has to be said.
An important feature of this new creed is its antipathy towards the four traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Madhab) although Wahhabis claim they hold to the Hambali school, the youngest of the four schools. The upshot is, without the guidance of jurisprudence, now anybody — even a person who has been a Muslim only a few months and who doesn’t speak a word of Arabic — can make up his own mind about what the Quran and Hadith mean and thus makes him qualified to judge who is a kafir and who is not (for Muslims), and to declare ‘jihad’ or holy war on anybody he wants (for non-Muslims). This underlies the barbaric, murderous behaviour in Syria. Frankly, they’ve become no better than animals.
Presently, the Wahhabis have ‘fused’ with the ‘Salafis’ who originated outside Arabia, mainly Egypt, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The ‘Salafis’ were disenchanted with the state of Muslims at that time and wanted to return to the state of ‘pristine Islam’, ie Islam as practiced by the Salaf, the first three generations of Muslims.
A popular writer and Salafi by the name of Rashid Rida supported ibn Saud’s conquest of Arabia and stated that in fact ibn Saud was a Salaf in creed. Henceforth, slowly but surely, the word Salafi and Wahhabi became interchangeable.
Wahhabism has come under bad press at the moment. Defenders of Wahhabism outside Arabia, and even Saudi Wahhabis, are now more than happy to use the term ‘Salafi’ because it obscures the fact that far from being ‘pure Islam’, ‘Salafism’ is in fact Wahhabism, a grotesque interpretation of Islam. Unsuspecting Muslims, new, lapsed or old, who are keen to practice Islam properly are attracted to the word ‘Salaf’, an emotive word amongst Muslims, and fall into the trap.
I think Putin and Kadyrov are on the right track in tackling Wahhabism and that is by ensuring that Islam is taught correctly (traditional Islam, ‘winning the hearts and minds’) and coming down hard on any attempt by the Wahhabis to foment violence (‘security operations’). May God grant them success in both.
Peace in Chechnia is posssible only because of the heavy payments Russia does.About 85 % of the Chechnia’ revenue comes from the Russian federal budget (and is used to build mosques and stables for Kadyrov’s elite horses). Exactly what general Djohar Dudaev initially wanted. It unpleasantly reminds me the payments Russia did for a long time to the Orda. The only solution I see is a strong secular state, religion to be totally separated from the state, like in Soviet time.
For the West- it is true, muslims will not go anywhere and will not assimilate. Once in history this problem was solved in Spain, parts of Italy and parts of France by forcing eveyone to convert to christianity or leave.
You know what happened after the attack on US sept 2001? copies of holy quran were sold in books stores in Germany and elsewhere in the west, converts to islam multiplied…..so good luck with your dreams.
I don’t dream, just giving examples, but who knows how it will turn at the end.
Swiss antagonist of minarets embraces Islam:
Far-right Dutch Politician – Arnoud Van Doorn – Why I converted to Islam:
These are few to mention,..
It was mentioned already on a post above:
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 (How Europe will eat Halal). It explains to the ‘tolerants’ why they would inevitably loose.
I just had a phone from a close relative in Paris. The butchery at the corner of her street, where we buy our meat whenever we stay in Paris, became overnight a ‘halal’ butchery. You have to go a long way to find pork.
Many and many french people buy halal meat, because it is cheap compared to other meat.
That’s why you risk to see more and more French doing what the Swiss or Dutch brain dead did. Finding that Christianity can’t anymore offer them ‘logical’ responses to their ‘problems’ and find them in the ‘logical’ Islam. French are great ratiocinators and they would find easily a ‘logical’ explanation to their betrayal.
With regard to Halal some hilarious incident came to my mind. In order to show those pesky Muslims who is ruling Germany a judge once ruled that circumcision of minors is identical to causing bodily harm. This legal finding caused for quite some uproar amongst the Jewish community.
I’m waiting for someone trying to outlaw butchering animals in a Halal way or outlawing Halal food in general. There will be another great outcry, because the hatred towards Islam causes many to forget about something called Kosher.
Regarding the issue about pork I’m undecided. Some Christian communities point out that it’s wrong to eat pork (there are also debates about Saturday/Shabbat and Sunday). Probably my indecisiveness is similar the one of Muslims. There exist quite a few who’re eating pork as well. In some countries they’re “hiding” pork inside noodles (like tortellini).
Circumcision is not required by Qur’an. It was Judaic construct adopted by Muslims for unknown reasons–without any support.
During Spanish inquisition, circumcision was used as a test to torture and punish Jews. Fast forward a small historical time, and the Jews who are now in control of medicine in the West (at least the US), were easily able to demonstrate through the alluring power of “statistical science”, that circumcision is good for your health ;-)
After 80s (AIDS) circumcision started taking off , and at by start of the current century the doctors recommended circumcision as “medical recommended” choice. A few more years, and it is not even a choice. People now have to ask not to have their babies circumcised at birth, to the snickering and eye-rolling staff.
This is one case, where the Jews have taken their revenge in an in your face manner. This should perhaps serve as a cautionary tale for those religious zealots who judge others–Karma is a bi*ch! :-)
When some people feel superior to others just because of personal beliefs, they are usually in for a surprise.
One reason Islam is not a problem in todays Russian Federation is that there’s been six centuries of interaction. Russia expanded from the Principality of Moscow by conquering the adjoining Islamic Khanates. Qasim Khanate, Kazan Khanate, Astrakhan Khanate, a large section of the Crimean Khanate, Siberian Khanate and finally Crimes itself, all fell to Russia and brought in large muslim populations. Forced conversions frequently occurred both to and from Islam and to and from Orthodoxy.
The ruling elites from the Khanates were incorporated into Russia’s ruling elite. The populations intermingled and over the course of the centuries intermarried. Have a look at the population of Tatarstan for an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan#/media/File:Ethnic_map_of_Tatarstan_(2010).PNG
The main reason that Islam is not a problem for Russia is that it has always been kept in check.
I wish this article were true, but its main point isn’t. Even “Liberal” Muslim countries are intolerant
of other religions. InMalayisa, for example, Muslims have rights and opportunities not allowed to the 33% non-Muslim population. Muslims who attempt to convert Christians to islam are acceptable. Christians who try to convert Muslims go to jail. A non-Muslim politician in Indonesia is going to prison for “blasphemy.” Around 500,000 Indonesian Muslims demonstrated against the politician simply because he quoted the Koran. Mainstream Muslims still do not respect women and keep them in a second-class condition. need I go on?
keep in mind there are no and I say no so called islamic/muslim countries that apply islam as it should. So for any reason you noticed muslims or non muslims in so called muslim countries, it has no and I say no connection to the teaching islam.
So called muslim countries today are islamic as so called christian countries are christian. Hope its clear.
Who can determine who applies Islam as ‘it should’? Is there any ‘branch’ of Islam that does not set as the ultimate goal of Islam the ‘submission’ of the whole world to the ‘true religion’ of Mahomed?
Was Milosovic wrog tosay – ‘When they start chopping off your heads, then yoo’ll understand’?
Check out what security forces are up to in Germany;
“I submit that neither Muslim immigrants nor Islam itself will ever leave Europe: like it or not, they are here to stay.”
Few thoughtful people in Europe want this. What they want is security and no threat at all of Islamisation/Arabisation.
What can be done is to impose laws like those the Chinese are imposing in Xinyang. These laws do not impose on Muslims’ religious devotions, but they do aim to restrict severely the public, in-your-face expression of Islam.
There is an attempt to formulate such a program here:
Note that it’s an anti-sharia strategy, specifically not an anti-Muslim strategy.
If it is evil it is bad bad bad islam is evil it is bad bad bad to be a muslim is evil it is bad bad bad
You are right. It actually is.
I’m not really sure about this. History has shown that wherever and whenever Islam was practiced by the ruling class and was implemented as a state religion and followed by the majority, oppression of non-Muslims and endless violence followed.
Expansion of Islam and destruction of non-Muslims seems to have been and continues to be a core feature of mainstream Islam.
Islam needs to be reformed.
History has shown that wherever and whenever Islam was practiced by the ruling class and was implemented as a state religion and followed by the majority, oppression of non-Muslims and endless violence followed.
You are arguing against 1,200 years of history in the middle east.
History wins this one.
Christians lived in peace and security in the Levant under Islamic rule. This was not the case for Islamic people in Europe.
How can you reform the devil?
An excellent article and I completely agree with the idea that “only Islam can defeat takfirism” because it is an internal problem after all, but I would like to point something out. The west will have a hard time admitting this because they think that their ideology and only their ideology is the most superior and the bestest in the whole wide world. So to tell them that they can not defeat a group ideologically is a death blow to them. Russia can do it because its identity isn’t based on believing that they’re the only ones that exist in the universe. They understand that they are a part of a bigger world, and that they are one of many. Westerners, and especially Americans, don’t understand that.
And yes takfirism has been a great tool for western intelligence agencies in destroying the Muslim world.
What I find very interesting is the warped and damaged psyche of most European making comments below: just about every irrelevant thing as been discussed with regards to the current Refugee tsunami in Europe but not a single person has brought up the real reason so many people are displace from their native homelands.
Its these very Europeans who were playing the role of poodles for America and gladly sent their armies to Invade islamic land and start most horrible wars, its these very people who manufacture the most lethal wicked weapons and sell them to nations around the world to generate violence….Its these same very Europeans who possess most destructive nuclear weapons but behave like savages if others try to Aquire the same capability, for any smart person this is sufficient evidence to see where the real evil lies.
Just 70 years ago; it was these same very europeans who were murdering and butchering each other on a massive industrial scale in 1st and 2nd world wars…Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Eisenhower and Mussolini were not muslims from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran or Saudi Arabia and yet these men were responsible for murder of hundreds of millions of humans. Violence seems to be genetically ingrained in these people and yet they do their utmost to play innocent and point fingers at Islam and muslims. Hypocrisy at its peak.
It is true, that all human groups are guilty of some form of crime historically. However, using that as a rationalization will keep the feuds going for ever. The historical retribution–can never be decided to everyone’s satisfaction. It keeps the hate alive and diverts human resources and efforts from being used on addressing current problems, and laying a course for the brighter future for all.
Qur’an advises forgiveness for even crimes committed by living people against other living people. Justice and relief can be sought from some non professional person who is acceptable person from both sides. A punishment could be awarded by this person, however the advise is to favor forgiveness.
Persecution of Muslims at current times is actually a good thing, as those Muslims who were just cruising with cursory knowledge of their ethos, are increasingly taking a look at what Qur’an actually says as opposed to living life under false presumptions perpetuated by power hungry clergy.
After the breakup of soviet union, the Muslims were needed to keep the war making industry going. However, the narrative that pushed a rather evil caricature of Muslims necessitated the level headed people to reconcile travesties hung around their necks and their own conscience. More and more people are looking up Al-Qur’an to discover to their shock that the accusations do not hold water. These people are not Muslim always, a large section of honest academics also have started looking at the Book. The most sinister accusations are usually found to be twisted and tortured arguments, which are species in nature. When put under the microscope the charges reveal the malign hand of recidivist propagandists.
I hope that everyone her on The Saker knows that a beheading is the least painful and quickest deaths. guillotine was invented by a physician by the same name.
People these days have become so caught up in their own trap of civility that they actually try to pretend that they are oblivious to the realities of life. People who teach their kids that steaks come from the supermarket, instead of animals which have been killed at a mass level, in where they are raised in the most inhumane way. Being in denial does not change the facts. Killings, rape and torture which is the most distinguishing feature of American justice system should give people a pause before they become so divorced from reality that they become delusional. I wonder how people reconcile this blood lust with so called civility.
That is not to say that people who describe themselves as Muslims but do not follow the guidance of Al-Qur’an are some kind of gift to humanity. They are without question contributing to this narrative. No Islamic culture, None!, permits rape. The refugees in Europe, not all of them, are raping and looting people who tried to give them a place to be safe, where they can have a life. What kind of animals they are. They are just common criminals, and should be treated as such. Even if they got bombed and killed, they have no right to rape and pillage people who gave them refuge. That is criminal and it is evil.
Christians have spiritual inheritance, Muslims do not! So while Christian and Jews might want retribution and apologies, the Muslims have no such obligation and they do not have the power to apologize for the acts of someone else. It is not their to give. If they know it why do they pretend that they can give such hollow apologies. This is dishonest and deceptive–they will be judged by their maker for this deceit.
You thin when Pakistani soldiers raped women in Bangladesh, they were doing something taught by their religion (please check the WHO record that 400,000 Bengali women had to had abortions as they were victims of rape). Evil is humans’ animal nature, to control these urges makes people humanity. It is hard and it requires a lot of impulse control–That is the Jihad that is superior. It is not getting into territorial and secular disputes with the claim of jihad: what an evil distortion!
Anyway, I am still looking for someone to enlighten me to what this universally reviled “Sharia law” is. Everyone seem to be absolutely sure that it is evil, they just don’t seem to know what the darned thing is. These days one can easily topple governments by accusing them of secretly flirting with this evil “Sharia Law”–however no one knows it. I know that the systems in Iran and Saudi Arabia are most certainly not Sharia Law: because it it was, both will not be at the opposite side of spectrum about each others “Sharia law” ;-)
There is a lop-sided presentation of rational people on this Forum. As opposed to most other fora, people here do not engage in one liner hurling of insults. I am sure that there are some who might have asked themselves about this same secretive “Sharia law”. Islam is not a Gnostic religion, so Qur’an is know and available to all, there are no secret custodian of their maker’s guidance. So why the silence? What gives?
The real problem is not what Sharia Law is, but that the non-Muslim people do not want to live under it, but under their own laws.
Do not want to live under what?
Let me ask this then: is there something real which is called “Sharia Law”? Or is it just a hateful construct. A Pavlovian trigger to start frothing at the mouth.
Is it a Islamic construct (which must be directed by Al-Qur’an) or is it a hateful social engineering tool used to scare the masses (Muslims included)?
My expectation is more than knee jerk quoting of Media boogeyman–most people who bother to read Saker are expected to posses inquiring minds, have an independent mindset, and be logical.
Do not want to live under a law which interdicts consumption of pork and wine. Is that an Islamic construct which must be directed by the Quran, or a ‘hateful’ invention of people lacking an inquiring, independent and logical minds like me, who are frothing at the mouth only thinking at bacon and ham and a good glass of wine?
Muslims are not allowed to eat pork or consume liquor on individual basis. They cannot enforce it as a law. So Qur’an allows all people to eat and drink what they choose. A law which will enforce such a bane is not Islamic!
It is absolutely a hateful inventions of people: Muslims and non-Muslims both. You can eat as much bacon as you like–if your health permits, no one can tell you otherwise!
Does the Quran make ‘individual’ recommendations, or is a command to be followed by all?:
“He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful (Surah Al-Baqarah [2:173].
“O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful” (Surah Al-Ma’idah [5:90] –
Are these injunctions ‘a hateful inventions of people: Muslims and non-Muslims both’ (preachers who stray from the Quran)?:
“Quraan Prohibits Alcohol
Regarding Alcohol – The Holy Quraan states: “They ask Thee concerning Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.” (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)
The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all intoxicating liquor or drug.
The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: “O Ye who believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and (divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan’s handiwork; Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper.”
Take Heed – Oh Muslims!
Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of Alcohol. Allah – The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is best for us – His creation. We must abstain fully from all forms and uses of alcohol.
No – Drinking!
So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all. It is amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day of Judgement. Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the harms of this evil. This is one of the main roots of corruption in society. Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the fatal results of this disease. May Almighty Allah save us all. Ameen.
No – Selling!
The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden. It is completely Haraam for Muslims to be trading in this trade. It is also forbidden to sell alcohol as part of your business. Grocers, Newsagents and Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses. In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely Haraam. Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family members in such Haraam Environments.
May Allah give us the right understanding. Ameen”.
Can’t they impose it as a law? Fly any Muslim airline and you can’t have pork.
It is an individual requirement, but it is not to be enforced by humans. You can follow the guidance, or not–others cannot force you. It is between you and your creator. I think this is the thing that people miss: all people, but especially who proclaim they are Muslim but instead of learning truth from the book of Guidance for all humanity (Al-Qur’an), the just go by the hearsay.
For example, although a Muslim is required to give charity (Zakat) meant for poor people, it is a an act of supplication to God, not to man. A person may not pay anything to charity, no one can enforce it. However, it is a transgression against God, and the person will be answerable to God.
None of the things you claim as forbidden are actually that way, you will notice that in each case, it is a directive, but there is no enforcement part.
I am sure that you would agree that if there is a God with all the powers that he claims to have, he would not require the muscle of his creatures to enforce his dictates.
Find me a verse where someone is urged to enforce any of these guidelines? You will most certainly find none! You cannot accuse the guidance, for the actions of those who take it upon themselves to become enforcers. That is an attempt to infringe on the sovereignty of God, which is indeed a crime: yet again punishable by God himself.
We are getting into a discussion which may not not be of interest to most other readers, if you like we can talk about it separately.
you can contact me at:
[vineyard policy does not allow publishing personal contact information~mod. dg]
If we can keep it civil, we both might learn from each other.
Are you trying to say that the Quranic ‘forbidden’ is just a ‘recommendation’? That you may chose what to follow from the ‘book of Guidance for all humanity’? Are the precepts of Mahomed obligatory? Are they binding? If so it means that they should be enforced.
“When Allah and His Messenger have decided something, no believing man or woman has a choice about [following or not following] it. Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messenger is clearly misguided”. (Surat al-Ahzab: 36)
“But if anyone opposes the Messenger after the guidance has become clear to him, and follows a path other than that of the believers, We will hand him over to whatever he has turned to, and We will roast him in Hell. What an evil destination!” (Surat an-Nisa`: 115)
Notice at the end of each Ayah that you quote there is something which relates to the consequences: From today;
“…is misguided” and “We will roast…”.
and from yesterday:
“…is forgiving and merciful”, “…so that you may be successful”, “…sin is greater than benefit”, and “…That ye may prosper”.
People (Muslims especially, and non Muslims generally) just gloss over these ending words, which are related to the consequences.
You will notice that none of these are enforceable by any humans, in one of examples, “We..” is not any human, but The Almighty himself.
Even with rather bad translations that you quote, you can see that it is rather straightforward.
God is not vesting his sovereignty in any human, if someone runs afoul of Him, He is entitled to enforcement, some some misguided zealot running around spewing hate.
So “burning at stake” is personal crime by the enforcer for which he will be judged and disposed off by his Creator.
In other words you do not take law into your own hands–that is just for puny human law. Imagine if you are taking the ultimate law in hand!
I am glad that you are at least making more effort that your garden variety Muslim. They are entitled and they have done nothing to earn their Muslim hood. You cannot become a practitioner of anything without learning it first. A Muslim by birth only is a misguided individual.
The comparisons with chechyna are lame and so far removed from any possible parallels with other countries in Europe, England and France for two to mention, that I’m actually a little taken aback by the saker fumbling the thing so poorly.
There is no Muslim tradition or history in the lands I mention, whereas there assuredly was in Chechnya. There is also zero chance that what on some levels I will call very much more decent, the English and French would never accept the appallingly homophobic, brutally oppressive to women who are pretty much slaves or chattel system of fiefdom which kadyrov runs in Chechnya.
In other countries, yes, fine…that’s a separate discussion entirely.
And this is something I am very glad of indeed. The former not the latter. I am always positive towards systems which lessen oppression.
Other than which, a decent read…though somehow attempting to paint kadyrov as somehow decent, honrouable even! It’s a joke. He has helped hugely lessen the killings the terrorism the incursions into mother Russia of cia consider takfiri, but the system he has put in place is dn brutal, it smacks of the dark ages and cannot be held up as a model of anything but a lesser barbarism than what it replaced.
Thanks, Saker, for this useful essay. You might be interested in (and I’d welcome your opinion on) some recent posts on the subject of Islam by amateur climate scientist Willis Eschenbach at his new blog ‘Skating on the underside of the ice’. See for instance: https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/the-problem-with-islam/
All the best from Coldish in Munich, Germany
Globalisation, the Convergence of Religions
and the Perennial Philosophy
I hope to God you are right.