London Elects Muslim Mayor, Succumbs To The Global Islamic Empire

If Westerners had been shown two decades ago the impact of Islam we all see (and are so wearied of we go back to watching our favourite television programs), I am pretty certain that they would have taken action.

Too late now though.

London has elected its first Muslim mayor – a milestone in showing tolerance to a culture and an empire that has sought for 1,400 years to conquer Europe in the name of Allah.

Bill Muehlenberg’s assessment of the situation is a sound one:

Ten years ago English commentator Melanie Phillips wrote a very important book entitled Londonistan. It was a prophetic volume, a jeremiad against a sleeping England and an aggressive Islam. British self-loathing and loss of confidence coupled with advancing Islam is a recipe for disaster. As I wrote in my review of this vital volume:

Its thesis is that Britain has largely created a culture which breeds Islamic terrorism. British authorities have certainly done very little to discourage it, and in many ways have actually aided and abetted home-grown terrorism. Indeed, “London has become the epicentre of Islamic militancy in Europe”. That is, it has “become the major European centre for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism”.

This book examines how and why this has happened. Two broad reasons are given: First, Britain no longer believes in itself, no longer cherishes its founding values, and no longer thinks it has a role to play in the world.

Second, British authorities have seriously misjudged the threat of Islamic terrorism. Therefore Britain is engaged in a policy of denial, appeasement, blaming itself, and hiding its head in the sand. These two major factors have led to London becoming the “hub of European terror networks”.

Let me offer just a few more quotes from the book:

Britain has become a decadent society, weakened by alarming tendencies towards social and cultural suicide. Turning upon itself, it has progressively attacked or undermined the values, laws and traditions that make it a nation, creating a space that in turn has been exploited by radical Islamism….

The attempt to establish this separate Muslim identity is growing more and more intense, with persistent pressure for official recognition of Islamic family law, the rise of a de facto parallel Islamic legal system not recognised by the state, demands for highly politicised Islamic dress codes, prayer meetings or halal food to be provided by schools and other institutions, and so on. No other minority attempts to impose its values on the host society like this. Behind it lies the premise that Islamic values trump British ones.

This was fully true a decade ago and it is even far truer today, especially after the first ever Muslim has just been elected as London’s mayor. This is a very significant and ominous development indeed. Here is how one news report discusses this development:

Sadiq Khan, a practicing Muslim and Labour Party politician, has been elected mayor of London, marking a political milestone in the Western world. Londoners voted in Khan, 45, as the first Muslim mayor of a major Western capital city. He will take office in a metropolis where his fellow Muslims comprise about 12% of the population. His victory followed an unusually bitter campaign against Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith, the son of a billionaire, in which race and religion have proven ugly flashpoints.

Other news reports noted his apparent anti-Semitism:

During a heated parliamentary debate on Wednesday, British Prime Minister David Cameron accused Khan of sharing “a platform with an extremist who called for Jews to drown in the ocean” Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in turn accused the Conservatives of “smearing” Khan. He said one of the men Cameron had accused Khan of sharing a platform with had also been close to Goldsmith….

The former human rights lawyer has also had to distance himself from Corbyn after a row over anti-Semitism. The Labour leader ordered an inquiry into charges of anti-Semitism after suspending Ken Livingstone, a political ally and a former London mayor, for saying Adolf Hitler had supported Zionism.

And incisive article just out speaks more to these very real concerns and is worth quoting from at length:

Kahn’s rise is a testimony to the fact that major sections of the city are already close to 50 percent Muslim, and critics say many of its non-Muslim residents seem comfortable with turning the top elected post over to a man with questionable connections to terrorists.
With most of the first round votes counted, the Labor candidate had a lead of around 9 percent over Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith. Voting came amid fresh accusations from London’s chief rabbi that the British Labor Party has a problem with anti-Semitism.

Khan was accused of being unfit to become London’s next mayor after footage emerged of him describing moderate Muslims of being “Uncle Toms.” Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said Labor had a “severe” problem with anti-Semitism that would get worse if the party’s inquiry into the issue turns out to be a whitewash.

“This is part of the Islamization of Britain,” Pamela Geller, the activist-author of “Stop the Islamization of America” and editor of AtlasShrugs.com, told WND. Khan’s ties to so-called “radical Islamists” such as Yasser al-Siri, a convicted terrorist and confidante of the notorious preacher Yasser al-Siri, should give pause to any sane Briton, she said. When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron exposed some of these ties on the Parliament floor, he was shouted down by chants of “racist!”

“That a man who has shared a platform with open Jew-haters could still be elected mayor of London is an indication of how far gone Britain already is,” Geller told WND. “In Sadiq Khan’s campaign, his opponents brought this up as a blot on his record. Soon enough in Britain, however, it will be a selling point for candidates appealing to an increasingly Muslim electorate.” Yet even as Cameron attacked Khan’s background and connections to “radical” Islam, the prime minister was advocating for the importation of more Syrian Muslim refugees.

The article continues:

Dr. Mark Christian, who grew up in Egypt the son of a Muslim Brotherhood father and became a child imam by the time he was 14 only to later renounce Islam and become Christian, said the rise of Muslim politicians in major European cities is inevitable given the brisk pace of Islamic migration. “This is definitely a historical event, a historic moment,” he said.

He noted that Cameron and Goldsmith, Khan’s opponent, have tried to connect Khan to “radical” Islam. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam and its long-term goals, Christian said. “The narrative that he is connected to radical Islam is by itself something the West invented, trying to differentiate between regular Islam and radical Islam. Islam is Islam,” he said. “The mindset of Muslims, whether Mr. Khan is devout or not, is such that he will be used by other Muslim leaders to accomplish things that have never happened through the sword.”

What’s happening in Britain is “civilization jihad” in action, Christian said, as defined by the Muslim Brotherhood in its 1991 “Explanatory Memorandum.” This document, seized by the FBI in 2004, laid out the Brotherhood’s plan to infiltrate Western societies and destroy them from within “by their own miserable hand and the hand of the believers.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is now deep into its strategy to infiltrate and deceive Western politicians into thinking they are the “good Muslims,” Christian said, the “peaceful Muslims.”

Khan, for instance, presents himself as a liberal-minded leader. He even confided in a speech that he secretly fears his two teenage daughters could be groomed to join ISIS. “When you look at what is happening in England, this has been building up for more than three decades now,” said Christian, who lived in Britain before emigrating to the U.S. “You have seen in the streets of England the rise of the real jihad, I would call it the violent kind of medicine. As the West has been subjected to Islamic violence and agitation, it has responded with political correctness, and the result is a Muslim mayor of London.”

Writing three months ago about the ever increasing Islamic demographics in the UK Robert Spencer wrote:

In five or ten more years, when there are majority-Muslim areas in Britain, do you think there will be beautiful multicultural harmony? Or do you think Muslims will be making increasingly aggressive demands for implementation of Sharia provisions? If you think the latter, you’re a greasy Islamophobe, and the British government hates you. You’re also correct.

We all know about bloody jihad, with bombs being detonated and heads being lopped off on a daily basis. But there are other forms of jihad, including what we call creeping sharia or stealth jihad. Taking over the UK and the West by force may be a daunting task, but it looks like taking it over from within is a walk in the park.

As Phillips wrote in the last two paragraphs of her book:

Britain is the global leader of English-speaking culture. It was Britain that first developed the Western ideas of the rule of law, democracy and liberal ideals, and exported them to other countries. Now Britain is leading the rout of those values, allowing its culture to become vulnerable to the predations of militant Islam. If British society goes down under this twin assault, the impact will be incalculable – not just for the military defense of the West against radical Islamism, but for the very continuation of Western civilization itself.

The West is under threat from an enemy that has shrewdly observed the decadence and disarray in Europe, where Western civilization first began. And the greatest of all is in Britain, the very cradle of Western liberty and democracy, but whose cultural confusion is now plain for all to see in Londonistan. The Islamists chose well. Britain is not what it once was. Whether it will finally pull itself together and stop sleepwalking into cultural oblivion is a question on which the future of the West may now depend.

Barring some sort of miracle, it now seems that we can say goodbye to London and the UK.
billmuehlenberg.com/2006/08/31/a-review-of-londonistan-how-britain-is-creating-a-terror-state-within-by-melanie-philips/

edition.cnn.com/2016/05/06/europe/uk-london-mayoral-race-sadiq-khan/

ca.news.yahoo.com/britains-labour-set-london-bitter-mayoral-campaign-101122139.html

http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/london-poised-to-elect-1st-muslim-mayor/

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/05/07/londonistan-is-now-here/

Advertisements

Muslims Offer $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Demonstate That The Qur’an Promotes Terrorism: Robert Spencer Wins $10,000

Comedy gold – except for the Qur’an promoting terrorism.

Should I use the money to buy a good used car or take an extended vacation?

March 28, 2016 Robert Spencer 56

Dear Omar Alnatour:

Thank you so very much for offering “anyone $10,000 if they can find me a verse in the Quran that says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror.” My 1999 Toyota is on its last legs, and your generous gift will enable me to replace it with a modest but fully operational used midsize sedan. Or maybe (since it has been years since I’ve had a break), if I can keep the jalopy going for awhile, I will use your ten grand take a vacation to Paris and Brussels — before it’s too late, you know?

Anyway, here is my entry, which I am confident will win the $10,000 prize. I’ll make sure of that by giving you even more than you asked for: you wanted just a single Qur’anic verse that “says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror,” I’ll give you more than one of each, just so there is no doubt:

The Qur’an says it’s ok to kill innocent people

“Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Qur’an 9:5)

The verse says to kill the idolaters – mushrikun – those who worship others besides Allah. Now I don’t know, Mr. Alnatour, if you might think “idolaters” are by virtue of being “idolaters” are not innocent and therefore worth killing, but I’m with Thomas Jefferson: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I don’t think my neighbor to have forfeited his innocence if he prays to gods I don’t recognize, and I hope you don’t, either.

Now I expect that you will say that this Qur’an verse refers not to all idolaters, but only to one very specific group of idolaters, the polytheist Quraysh tribe of Mecca that was making war against Muhammad, and that this verse has no force now that they have been conquered and Islamized, and doesn’t apply to any other idolaters. It would have been nice for Allah to make that clear in the pages of his perfect book, but who am I to question the will of a deity?

What’s more, classic Muslim commentators on this Qur’an verse give no hint that it has long expired. On the contrary, Ibn Juzayy notes that it cancels out peaceful verses; he says that it abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). As-Suyuti agrees: “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except death or Islam.” He is offering this as instruction for Muslims in his day; he seems to have no idea that this verse doesn’t apply to them.

Neither does Ibn Kathir. He writes that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191

So there you are, Mr. Alnatour: the Qur’an calling for the murder of those who are innocent, except for the crime of being “idolaters” – a “crime” that requires earthly punishment only in the Qur’an.

And there’s more:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29

The “People of the Book” are Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. The verse doesn’t provide any reason why they should be fought and made to submit to the Muslims except that they are People of the Book and don’t acknowledge Islam. Here again, you might consider them not innocent on that basis, but I hope you don’t, as I’m sure you would agree that people may differ on key questions in good faith.

Ibn Juzayy, however, does believe that the People of the Book should be fought simply because they are not Muslims. He says that this verse is “a command to fight the People of the Book” and explains that they must be fought because of their “denying their belief in Allah because of the words of the Jews, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah” and the words of the Christians, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah’” (cf. Qur’an 9:30). He adds that Muslims must also fight them “because they consider as lawful carrion, blood, pork, etc.” and because “they do not enter Islam.” 

So the Qur’an says that the People of the Book must be fought because they believe differently from the Muslims. But that is not a crime. These people are innocent.

The Qur’an says it’s ok to commit acts of terror

“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.” (Qur’an 3:151)

Now, Mr. Alnatour (may I call you Omar?), I know what you’ll say here: this is Allah saying he will terrorize the unbelievers, not commanding the Muslims to do so. Fair enough, although I can’t help but recall that the Qur’an also says: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands” (9:14). So if Allah is punishing the unbelievers by the hands of the believers, might part of that punishment involve casting terror into the hearts of the unbelievers? And that’s what terrorism is all about, right?

And yes, there is still more. “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.” (Qur’an 8:60)

Strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy. Now you no doubt have some explanation for this, Mr. Alnatour, but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers

So there you have it. Not just one verse, but four, and I have plenty more. You don’t have to pay me $40,000 even though I fulfilled your requirements four times over; I’ll take the $10,000, and thank you very much for your generosity. I must say that I very much enjoyed your article in which you made this offer, “Why Muslims Should Never Have To Apologize for Terrorism,” if it is proper to say that one enjoyed such a lamentable tale as your own. It is lamentable to read about how your wife screams at you and your children hate you for matters beyond your control, and that then on top of that, Infidels have the temerity to want you to do something about Islamic terrorism beyond issuing pro forma condemnations. 

My mind goes back, however, to those who were murdered by Islamic terrorists recently in Brussels, Paris, San Bernardino, and so many other places. I’m sure you would agree that the suffering of their families far exceeds that of Muslims who must suffer Infidels asking them (quite patiently, for over fourteen years now since 9/11) to clean their own house. I do hope that you will think a bit about them, and about your Qur’an. Instead of obfuscating its contents, as you’re writing out my check, you could do us all a favor by starting to ponder some strategies about how to limit the capacity of your holy book to incite murder and bloodshed. In light of my confidence that you will do that, I very much look forward to your next article.

With cordial best wishes from your fellow human being,

Robert Spencer

The Problem Of The West: Socialist Policy, Low Birth Rates And Growing Muslim Immigration

Daniel Greenfield sums up a lot of the problems in the West right here:

Daniel Greenfield: There’s an old Hemingway quote about going bankrupt. How did you go bankrupt? Two ways, gradually and then suddenly. Here in the United States, we’ve had a front row seat to gradual bankruptcy. What does that mean? Under Obama, good policies have been replaced by bad policies. Good money has been replaced by bad money. Debt has been piled up in every state of the union. We have the same speech. The state of the union is strong. We’re investing trillions of dollars in Muslim, green energy self-esteem. Of course, that’s not an investment because an investment is when you get money back. It’s just spending, but that’s how you go bankrupt. And at the end of the day, the bill comes due and suddenly it’s, “Where did all the money go?” “How did we suddenly go bankrupt?”

Now demographic bankruptcy is also a very real thing. Economic bankruptcy is when you have no more money. You wake up one morning. There’s no more money. Demographic bankruptcy is when you wake up one morning. There are no kids, and this is a very real problem. You’ve heard China is abandoning its one-child policy. It’s now going to be a two-child policy. Germany though has a one-child policy of its own. The German birthrate is 1.3. That’s a one-child policy. That’s a 1.3-child policy. There’s a slight problem here because if you’ve got a birthrate of 1.3, and you’ve got socialism, who is going to pay for all of this? The entire system is based on the idea that the next generation is going to pay in, and the next generation is going to pay in, and this whole thing can keep running along indefinitely, but the Europeans aren’t having kids. I grew up in Europe myself for sometime, and it wasn’t unusual. I was one of the few kids running around. There are a lot of elderly people. There were some middle aged people. There were not that many young people, and it’s actually getting worse these days.

So if you look at Germany, Germany is a very bad case scenario, but there are even countries that have lower birth rates. Now this is a problem because in the normal birth rate, you’re supposed to have a pyramid. The younger workers at the bottom. Then it gets narrower. There are the middle age, and then there are the elderly. In Europe, the pyramid is upside down. You have the elderly at the very top. You have a small wedge of people who are middle aged, and you have a shrinking wedge of people who are young, which means they are going demographically bankrupt. Now Europe has been going demographically bankrupt for awhile now because of its falling birth rates, so the socialists who run it have come up with an absolutely amazing plan, which socialist plans can’t possibly fail. They’re going to solve this demographic bankruptcy and this resulting economic bankruptcy when there’s nobody to do the work or pay the bills or even write the welfare checks by bringing in millions and millions of Muslims to fill in the gap. So you’re going to have people from high birth rate countries come in, and they’re going to be at the very bottom of the pyramid.

They’re going to do the work, so Hans and Fritz will retire. They can retire at 55 or whatever. He’ll get his pension, and that’ll be fine, and Mohammed will come in, and he’ll work hard, and he will have a lot of kids, and the whole socialist system will keep working great. There’s just one, tiny, little, minor problem with it, and I’m not talking about the terrorism, the Sharia, the no-go zones, the attacks on Jews, or all the other fun stuff. There’s just one other minor problem, which is that the people coming in don’t actually work. Muslim unemployment rates, yeah. I mean you can count on socialists to bring in more people who don’t work to a country where the problem is that too many people already aren’t working.

But Muslim unemployment rates in Europe, it’s not unusual to see unemployment rates in the 20 and 30 percentile range. Among youth, you see unemployment rates in the 50 and 60 percent range, and that’s not because, as the excuses go, they’re disaffected. They’re not given work. They’re not given opportunities. They don’t want to work, and why should they want to work? Because there’s a basic cultural difference between Europe, between the West, and Islam, the Muslim world. Europe, the West, we’re a work ethic culture. We believe in working. We believe in coming home and saying okay, honey, what did you do? I worked 8 hours a day. That’s great. The Muslim world, it does not work like that because the Muslim world is a slave culture. We’re in the south now. We’re in Charleston. We’re supposed to feel very bad about slavery, which is a 19th century thing in America. In the Muslim world, it’s a 20th century thing.

Saudi Arabia abolished slavery, I believe, in 1962. 1962. The JFK administration came to the Saudis, and they said maybe you should give human rights to women, and let people vote and get rid of the slaves. Back then we had a little more leverage with the Saudis than we do now, so the Saudis grumbled and said all right. All right. Fine. We’ll get rid of the slaves. That was 1962. That was a great moment in Muslim human rights. The Muslim world has never really abolished slavery especially in the Middle East except because of European pressure. The English forced the Egyptians, for example, to get rid of slavery. The Saudis still have slavery, by the way. They just made it an even worse form of slavery. The original form of slavery, the slave owners would at least take care of the kids. They would take care of the old people. It was still evil, but it was slightly less evil. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis and the Qataris moved on to this kind of concentration camp slavery where you take workers at the peak of their lives. You take young workers. You burn everything out of them. In some cases, you downright kill them. Then you dump them back to the country where they come from with some pocket change. This is concentration camp slavery.

It’s what the Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, that’s what they’re built on. They have huge work forces. All these nice skyscrapers, you see all these paradises for the rich, they are built by slave labor. They are built by thousands of people just dying in the heat building this thing. They are built by this, and it’s like Sparta except we supply the military, and we supply the wealth, and they just sit around on their asses all day and own the slaves. That’s the Saudi — that’s all these societies. These are societies where the idea at the top is not to work. You do not work. You see all these leaders who are fat, who are ridiculously fat. They look like they have trouble walking across the room. The Saudi royals, Qatar, that’s because they don’t walk across the room. They sit on their asses all day, and they have these servants from Africa usually fanning them with palm leaves or whatever, and they’re not going to fan themselves with palm leaves because that’s what slaves are for. That’s how a slave culture works. Even the people who aren’t at the top believe that work is something you’re punished with. It’s not something you want to do, and socialists, by the way, believe the same thing. Work isn’t a good thing. It’s something you have to be forced to do.

This is a slave culture, and in the slave culture when people come into a country where it has generous socialism, that has generous welfare policies, they’re coming there not to work. In fact, you have the whole idea that these people are refugees. They are not refugees. They are not coming across the border from Syria, making it across the border into Germany, and saying, “Thank God, we’re in Germany now. We can be safe from the civil war.” That’s not how it is. They’re crossing into Jordan. They’re crossing into Turkey. In Turkey, there’s no war. There’s no war in Jordan. They stop being refugees the moment they leave Jordan or Turkey, and when they head to Europe, they’re no longer refugees. They are economic migrants. It is very important to remember that. There is no war in Turkey. There is no war in Jordan. They are not refugees once they leave Jordan or Turkey.

Now why are they going to Germany, for example? Why? What’s so great about Germany? Now I interviewed some of these guys, and they say you know what’s great about Germany? Hitler. We like Hitler. Germany is bringing in people to accord with tolerance and European values, and what these people admire most about Germany is Hitler. They may not have heard that he died awhile back, so they may be a little unclear about the details, but what’s so great about Germany? What’s so great about Sweden? Why are they all headed there? Welfare. It’s a great welfare state. You have a German teacher asking her students in class what they wanted to be when they grew up. Susie, what do you want to do when you grow up? I want to be an ecological engineer. Hans, what do you want to be when you grow up? I want to fly hot air balloons. Mohammed, what do want to be when you grow up? I want to be on Hartz IV. Hartz IV is Germany’s welfare. “Hartz” means “heart.” It’s because it’s very caring to give people free stuff, so they want to be on Hartz IV.

Germany has very generous welfare policies. So does Sweden. They don’t want to go to a lot of these countries. You have interviews with these refugees who are in Slovenia. They’ve never heard of Slovenia before. They’re not interested in Slovenia. They don’t want to live in Slovenia. Slovenia doesn’t have great, free stuff. They want to go to Germany for all the free stuff they can get, so Europe is dealing with its demographic bankruptcy by bringing in more people who don’t want to work, by bringing in more people who are going to take more out of the government than they’re going to pay into it. So the socialists have actually managed to take a crisis that they are responsible for and made it even worse. Now how did demographic bankruptcy happen in the first place? How did you get to a 1.3 child rate? That’s a ridiculous number. It’s not China. Nobody was forcing women to have abortions. Nobody was marching in at gunpoint forcing them to have abortions.

This was Germany. They voluntary did this to themselves, and it’s not just Germany. It’s across Europe. Why did this happen? This happened because they decided that their future wasn’t their children. There are two reasons that people have children. One’s slightly cynical. Children take care of you in your old age. The second one is that you care about children. Children are the future. Europe, of course, has no future because it doesn’t have children right now, so the first part, Muslims have high birth rates. They have very high birth rates, so when you have Muslims coming in to Sweden, you have Somalis, for example, coming into Sweden, they have a birth rate that’s three or four times higher than the Swedish population. Syrians are coming to Germany. Germany, as I said, has a birth rate of 1.3. Syrians have a birth rate twice that. Afghans, who are the second biggest group, forget about the Syrians. The Afghan refugee boom is now becoming very huge. It’s a country of 30 million. A quarter of them polled have said that they want to leave Afghanistan.

One hundred thousand are expected to try to get into Europe this year.

But their birth rate is much higher because this is an investment program. This is a retirement program. Their kids take care of them in their old age. In Europe, your kids don’t take care of you in your old age. The government takes care of you in your old age. Under socialism, you have a cradle to grave state. The problem is that Europe now has a lot more graves than it has cradles. It has a whole lot of people, who are elderly. It doesn’t have a lot of cradles. It doesn’t have a lot of kids. The Muslims are supposed to solve this problem, but, of course, their retirement plan is have a lot of kids, charge them for the government. It’s not a great plan because, again, you’re not producing any more workers.

Now the second idea was that in Europe the things you would care about were not your children. They would be progressive policies. People weren’t living to see — I want to see my kids get married. I want to live to see my grandkids get married. Hell, it’s I want to live to see the European Union. I want to live to see diversity, and they’re living to see it now. I want to see light rail. In the UK, they’re talking about it’s important to have no more than one child because of global warming. You can’t have too many children because of global warming. So global warming, leftist policies matter to them more than their kids. That’s why they have no kids. They have faced demographic bankruptcy because they faced economic bankruptcy, because they face ideological bankruptcy.

Now we’re not immune to this stuff. We’re going slower than Europe, but we’re also going gradually, politically bankrupt. We’re going economically bankrupt, and we’re going demographically bankrupt. The Muslim population in the United States has increased 67 percent since September 11. It’s a great way to commemorate September 11. Sixty-seven percent increase. The Muslim population in the United States is younger. Their birth rate is higher just like in Europe. In the UK, you can look at the sea at the bottom level. When you hear that Mohammed is the most popular name in the UK for children or the most popular name for children in Oslo — so Oslo is 10 percent Muslim, but it’s Muslim at the bottom where it matters, where the children are. And England and Wales it’s 4 percent Muslim, but if you look at the children under 4, 9 percent are Muslim, and that is the future.

We think economic bankruptcy, the numbers sometimes sneak up on you because we don’t pay attention to the numbers that matter. When it comes to demographic bankruptcy, the numbers that matter are under 30, under 20, under 10, under 4. The median age in Germany is 46. The median Muslim age in Germany is 34. They are a much younger population. They’re having more kids which means they define the future. Now this is important for us to realize because this immigration thing is not just a problem of borders. It’s a problem of values. It’s important for us to have the children. It’s important for us to raise the children that are going to be the future because if we fail to do that, if we do what the Europeans do then we turn it over. At some point we’re going to be facing an economic crisis, and we’re going to do what the Germans did, which is say we can bail ourselves out with 5,000, 10,000 Muslims. Germany expects 1.5 million Muslims, according to a leaked government document, but with family reunification that can be up to 7.3 million people, and that’s just one country.

They’re promising that this is going to solve our demographic problems. This is going to be the future, but what they’ve really done is said that our future, socialism, matters more to us than our country. It matters more to us than our people. It matters more to us than our children. We can’t allow our United States to go that route. We can’t allow refugee resettlement to fill our cities, to fill our towns with people who are supposed to be our future, who we are told are going to do the work that we don’t want to do. Socialism is the underlying problem here. The migration we’re seeing is caused by socialism. It’s caused by left-wing policies, and now the left wing as it always does manages to make a crisis that they caused even worse. The United States is now going to be facing the same crisis. We saw that again with Obama recently. We’re going to be seeing more and more of it as time goes by. If we don’t recover the birth rate, if we don’t fundamentally change the demographics, we’re going to go the way of Europe.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261007/muslim-migration-europe-eurabia-come-true-frontpagemagcom

Female Genital Mutilation Rates Out Of Control As Muslims Pour Into The UK: One Reported Case Of FGM Every 96 Seconds

Who would have thought it?

Where are the American and European Feminists? Are they going to speak out for the 137,000 women who have had their genitals permanently mutilated? Where are the “moderate Muslims” speaking out against this?

As we have noted before, according to Islam:

Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, “It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, “A virgin feels shy.” The Prophet; said, “Her silence means her consent.” Some people said, “If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage.” (source)

Notice how the numbers go from October 2014 to September 2015. It was in October 2015 that the “refugees” began arriving in droves to Europe. One can only wonder how much higher the numbers will be this year.

From the UK Daily Mail:

A case of female genital mutilation is reported in England every 96 minutes, according to official health figures.

Some 5,484 instances of the ‘brutal’ and potentially lethal practice were reported from October 2014 to September 2015, and experts say many other victims go unreported. 

Tanya Barron, chief executive of Plan UK charity which campaigns against female genital mutilation (FGM), said: ‘FGM has been a hidden danger – only now is the full scale becoming clear. 

‘Recognising that FGM is a fundamental abuse of girls’ rights is the first step to ending the practice.’

http://shoebat.com/2016/02/05/every-96-minutes-thats-how-many-reported-cases-of-fgm-happen-in-the-uk-each-year-and-its-going-up/
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=86&translator=1&start=0&number=101#101
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3432799/Case-FGM-reported-UK-96-minutes-5-500-instances-uncovered-year-fears-unreported.html

Islamic Terror In Indonesia: As Unexpected As Fish In The Sea

Islamic terrorist attacks happen literally every day in Islamic nations.

In fact, there’s been about 26,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001 and by far the majority of those have been in Islamic countries.

It’s just one more reason why you don’t want Islam comprising a significant portion of the nation you live in.

Here’s the story:

Five attackers, including two suicide bombers, are dead after a terrorist attack in central Jakarta, Indonesian police say.

A foreign national and a police officer were also believed to have died, taking the death toll to seven, Deputy National Police Chief Budi Gunawan said.

Look back over our live coverage on the blasts in Jakarta

Seven explosions rocked the area, including one at a Starbucks cafe in the city centre, near a cluster of embassies and the United Nations offices.

Authorities said the policeman was killed in a suicide attack on a police booth on the median strip of one of Jakarta’s busiest roads, before shots were fired at bystanders.

Jakarta police said a Canadian was killed in the attack.

Two attackers were killed in a shootout with police, while two others were suicide bombers, Mr Gunawan said.

Jakarta police spokesman Muhammad Iqbal said five police personnel, one foreign civilian and four Indonesian civilians were injured.

He said that the situation was now under control.

Police spokesman Iqbal Kabid said a gunfight between the attackers and police took place in a cinema that is in the same building as a Starbucks cafe.

Bodies were seen lying in the streets as security forces moved in, with reports of gunfire and warnings of snipers in the area.

Police earlier said the blasts were caused by grenades, not bombs.

Todd Elliot, a terrorism expert in Jakarta, said his police sources indicated none of the attacks were suicide bombers, contrary to other reports.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo said the blasts were “acts of terror”.

“Our nation and our people should not be afraid, we will not be defeated by these acts of terror, I hope the public stay calm,” he told MetroTV.

“We all are grieving for the fallen victims of this incident, but we also condemn the act that has disturbed the security and peace and spread terror among our people.”

Police said they believed the attack was inspired by Islamic State and that the attackers were connected to a terror cell that was disrupted just before Christmas.

National intelligence agency chief Sutiyoso said there were no indications Islamic State militants were behind the attack but said “this is definitely terrorism”.

One witness filmed the moment one of the blasts took place, in a car park out the front a commercial building.

Indonesian media reported at least one of the explosions was caused by a suicide bomber.

The ABC’s South-East Asia correspondent Samantha Hawley said armoured trucks, the head of intelligence and bomb squad officers had joined police at the scene of the blasts.

Earlier, officers at the scene told AFP news agency reporters to “get back” because there “is a sniper” on the roof of a building.

What we know:

Several initial blasts struck central Jakarta shortly before 3:00pm AEDT

Bombs were thrown at a popular Starbucks cafe, then a suicide bombing at a police checkpoint

Blasts struck outside the Sarinah shopping centre and the UN’s country office

Shots were fired outside Starbucks as security forces moved in

Police say five suspected attackers are dead, including two suicide bombers

A foreign national and a policeman are also believed to have been killed

Police said the attackers were part of the terror cell from Solo and in communication with Syria

Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack
Editor-in-chief of the Jakarta Post, Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, said the targeted area was quite popular.

“It’s less than one-and-a-half kilometres to the palace, it’s basically where the centre of government is,” he said.

“Five hundred metres away is the central bank building, you have multiple government buildings, major, major centre of government area.”

Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said officials in Indonesia were making enquiries to determine whether Australians had been involved in the attacks.

Ms Bishop said the Australian Government condemned the attacks, and that she had spoken to her Indonesian counterpart and offered any support the country may need to respond to the attacks.

Attorney-General George Brandis issued a statement saying the “Government has offered law enforcement and intelligence assistance to Indonesia” following the attacks.

Australia’s ambassador to Indonesia, Paul Grigson, tweeted: “All Australians should stay clear of these areas, limit their movements and follow the instructions of local authorities.”

Prime Ministers Malcolm Turnbull tweeted: “Australians’ thoughts, prayers and resolute solidarity are with the people of Indonesia as they respond to the terrorist attacks.”

United Nations regional representative Jeremy Douglas, speaking to the ABC from the UN office in Jakarta, said the building was in lockdown.

He said he had been in a car when the first blast went off.

“We got out of the car and we heard a second bomb. Then we heard a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth and then gunfire in the street. A lot of gunfire,” he said.

Some other buildings in the area were also evacuated.

Starbucks said all of its stores in Jakarta would remain closed until further notice.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-14/jakarta-bombing-suspected-civilian-terrorists-dead-after-attack/7089218

Feminists Launch Jihad Against Sportsman Chris Gayle, Forget To Make Any Public Response To Gangs of Muslim Men Raping And Sexually Assaulting Women All Over Europe

I read an article over at the ABC about how it wasn’t a good start to the year for men because some politician and a crickets made some sexist remarks.

You would think that the ongoing rape and sexual assault epidemic in Eruope by Muslim men would somehow get a mention in said article.

You would be left confused because it did not.

Feminists should be all over this specifically because women are the conspicuously only victims here and they are victims not of silly pick up lines but sexual assault and rape!

Like I have written before, multiculturalism clearly trumps feminism in the hierarchy of cultural Marxism. Simply, women’s rights will be ignored before Muslim’s rights, which works out quite nicely given Islam’s treatment of women.

Consider Lara Prendergast’s take on the mainstream media’s grand hypocrisy:

Regardless of the background of the men who carried out the attacks in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, it is a pretty horrific story. A series of sexual attacks took place in the city centre by a group of around 1,000 men. More than 150 women have filed criminal complaints, three-quarters of them for sexual assault. Two cases of rape have been reported. It is the kind of story that should make headlines – and should provide ample fodder for writers who like to tackle feminist topics head on. After all, surely this is the very definition of ‘rape culture’? And if the actual attacks aren’t enough to merit a reaction, then how about the suggestion by Cologne’s female mayor that women should adopt a ‘code of conduct‘ to prevent future assault. Is that not the very definition of ‘victim blaming’?

But the headlines have been conspicuous by their absence. So far this year, the main ‘feminist’ topic covered by Guardian comment writers is Chris Gayle’s cricket sexism row, which involves the sportsman chatting up a female journalist. There is not one mention of the Cologne attacks, aside from in news reports. Why is that? Is it because they are not deemed important? Perhaps we don’t care about vicious attacks against German frauen? Or is it because the details of the story – that the men appear to have been of ‘Arab or North African origin’ who did not seem to speak German or English, and that there is a possibility they are some of the 1.1 million migrants to have entered Germany last year – make it too controversial to touch? Feminist writers are not famed for holding their tongues – as individuals who have been hanged, drawn and quartered by them can attest. But in an article for Prospect, Jessica Abrahams offers this measly explanation for the silence:

Feminists are necessarily concerned with the protection of minorities and marginalised groups. If some of them are finding it difficult to speak up about the event because of concerns it might be used to encourage aggression against refugees, I can’t say I blame them. The fault lies not with the feminists but with those making them nervous to speak–the very same people, often, who are expressing outrage that they aren’t.

It is usually the task of feminists to make enough noise about incidents of sexual assault that they can no longer be ignored; the Cologne attack was big enough that it received a huge amount of attention across Europe and further afield. We can only hope now that the police are successful in bringing those responsible to the courtroom and preventing further attacks, and that the women involved are given enough support.

I do not wish to get into a debate about migration, but it seems fair to suggest we face facts: many North African and Arab countries are not famed for their exemplary treatment of women. And many of the people entering Europe are young men from these countries, who may well have never come across the concept that women are equal to men, and do not deserve to be threatened, molested or raped. If we are too scared to say this, for fear that it might look uncharitable towards migrants, then we land ourselves in all kinds of trouble. Eventually we will have to say it though, so we might as well start now.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-06/donoughue-a-poor-start-to-the-year-for-the-men-of-australia/7070222
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-are-feminists-refusing-to-discuss-the-cologne-sex-attacks/

Tony Abbott: “All Cultures Are Not Equal” 

So true.

And I know that everyone agrees with this statement because I just can’t find anyone who will make the case for equality between life under the Third Reich and life in Australia today.

Given that Islam has killed far more than the Nazis ever did (240,000,000 versus 50,000,000 respectively and that’s only if you lump all the war dead together, both in Europe and The Pacific, at the feet of the Nazis).

On the topic of Tony Abbott’s bold and perfectly accurate statement though, man is he right!

You can tell because the mainstream media is trying to tear him to pieces, much like when he was Prime Minister. 

Some things never change!

Unfortunately, Abbott’s underlying understanding of Islam is seemingly as deeply flawed as everyone else in denial about the long doctrinal and historical record of Islam, as well will get to.

Here’s the report:

 Former prime minister Tony Abbott has called for a “religious revolution” inside Islam, declaring “all cultures are not equal”.

Key points:

Tony Abbott says Muslims must reform Islam

Abbott says a tolerant culture is preferable to one that kills in name of God

Former PM also defends 2014 budget policies

Abbott to further discuss Islam and extremism in speech in Singapore tonight

In a wide-ranging interview with Sky News, Mr Abbott also defended some of the most controversial measures from the 2014 federal budget, which put forward billions of dollars in cuts from health, education and foreign aid.

On Islam, he said: “We’ve got to work closely with live-and-let-live Muslims because there needs to be, as president [Abdel Fattah] Al-Sisi of Egypt has said, a religious revolution inside Islam.”

“All of those things that Islam has never had — a Reformation, an Enlightenment, a well-developed concept of the separation of church and state — that needs to happen.

“But we can’t do it; Muslims have got to do this for themselves. But we should work with those who are pushing in that direction.

“All cultures are not equal and, frankly, a culture that believes in decency and tolerance is much to be preferred to one which thinks that you can kill in the name of God, and we’ve got to be prepared to say that.”

Mr Abbott will make a speech in Singapore tonight and will further discuss Islam and extremism.

There’s at least a great point in there but I cannot stress this any more than by using capital letters:

REFORMING ISLAM MEANS MAKING ALL MUSLIMS LOOK LIKE THEIR FOUNDER MOHAMMED – A BLOOD-THIRTY, PAEDOPHILIC WARLORD WHO STARTED A RELIGION THAT MOTIVATED MUSLIM ARABS TO CONQUER THE ENTIRITY OF CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY IN A MERE DECADE!

You may know Classical antiquity as that place we call “The Islamic World” but the fact is that it was once the home of Western civilisation.

To clarify, Muslims sacked the place and forced its women into sex slavery.

So who really wants to see Islam reform?

Islamic State is the reformation of Islam and people don’t seem to like all the rape, crucifixions, torture and brutal murdering taking place!

If you though Islam was lukewarm Muslims who look and behave like atheist, please reconsider just how stupid that sounds.

Westerners are so self-absorbed with their own narcissistic nihilism that their first assumption is that all other peoples, cultures, and religions must want to be exactly like them.

Guess what?! They don’t!

Real Muslims want to look like Mohammed, just as real Christians want to look like Jesus.

And neither of them, though polar dichotomies, were atheists.

Reform Islam and you make your enemy much more dangerous.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-09/tony-abbott-defends-controversial-2014-budget/7012190

Islamic Law Obligates Muslims To Lie And Decieve In Order To Spread Islam

Time for some schooling that we all need on Islamic doctrine.

Be aware though that nothing herein is new – this is classical Islam:

A discussion in the comments on yesterday’s post about the San Bernardino massacre brought up an important topic: lying and sacred misdirection under Islam. According to Islamic law, lying is not only permissible under certain circumstances, it is mandatory if the goal it serves is obligatory upon Muslims and cannot be accomplished by other means.

Spreading Islam over the entire globe is an obligatory goal for Muslims. For that reason there is absolutely no doubt that Muslims are sometimes lying to us in furtherance of that goal.
I am indebted to Major Stephen Coughlin for the sources and analytical framework used in the following examination of lying and sacred misdirection under Islamic Law.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In September of 2006 Pope Benedict XVI gave a lecture in Regensburg on the reconciliation of faith with reason. In his address, the pope, speaking in German, quoted an unfavorable remark about Islam made in the 14th century by Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor. Muslims heads of state described it as an “outrage”. Dawah organizations[1] such as the Muslim Brotherhood called for a “day of rage”, which actually occurred the same day across the entire Muslim Ummah[2] — a day when people died.

Exactly one month to the day after that happened, an open letter[3] to His Holiness the Pope was written in English by thirty-eight Muslim clerics and posted on the internet. So who was the primary audience for this? Who were its expected readers?

The English-speaking world, of course. We were the intended audience:
What is “Holy War”?

We would like to point out that “holy war” is a term that does not exist in Islamic languages. Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily a “war”.[4]

In effect they were saying that Islam has no understanding of holy war, and jihad just means struggle and nothing else. One of the signatories to this document was Sheikh Nu Ha Mim Keller.

It just so happens that we actually have a text of Islamic law that defines jihad. It is called ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

The Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994) is “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ’Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”. This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

Book O, “Justice”, § 9[5] begins the section on jihad. Jihad is similarly defined in Book X “The Book of Jihad” from Ibn Rushd’s book The Distinguished Jurist,[6] and in Book XIII “Siyar (Relations with non-Muslims)” of the Hidayah:[7]

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying war to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.

Reliance of the Traveller is a book you that you can get in virtually any Muslim bookstore. It is available on Amazon. The primary target audience for the book is English-speaking Muslims.

And its translator is Nu Ha Mim Keller.
So Nu Ha Mim Keller translated relevant sections of Reliance of the Traveller, a book for Muslims, to the effect that jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, which signifies “warfare to establish the religion.” Yet at the same time, in a message meant for non-Muslims, he says that he would like to point out that Islam has no understanding of holy war at all!

Is Sheikh Keller being dishonest? No, not really; not from an Islamic point of view. There is a message that Muslims are required to know and there is a message that you, the non-believer, are allowed to know. And those two messages are not the same.

It is important at this point to note what Islamic law says about lying. Reliance of the Traveller, Book R “Holding One’s Tongue,” tells us that lying is forbidden:

Lying

Primary texts from the Koran and Sunna say it is unlawful to lie… because of the scholarly consensus of the community that it is prohibited. [section §§r8.0, r8.1]…

…our only concern here being to explain the exceptions to what is considered lying, and apprise of the details.

Ah, the exceptions! §r8.2 explains the exceptions, citing the words of the prophet to back up the law:

He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.

And:

I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him. (in smoothing over differences.) [emphasis added]

So lying is permitted when a Muslim is engaged in war. But Islam is, by its own definition and understanding, always at war with us, the non-believers. Therefore, in his interactions with the kuffar, a Muslim is given a wide latitude about what he may utter that is not factually true.

Section r8.2 on “Permissible Lying” cites the iconic Islamic legal jurist Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali:

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest…When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e., when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. [emphasis added]

Other excerpts from the same book are also applicable:

Giving directions to someone who wants to do wrong…

It is not permissible to give directions and the like to someone intending to perpetrate a sin, because it is helping another to commit disobedience. [§ r7.0, r7.1]

This is disobedience as understood under Islamic law. Al-Misri gives this as an example:

Giving directions to wrongdoers includes:

1) showing the way to policemen and tyrants when they are going to commit injustice and corruption. [ §r7.1 (1)]

Besides lying, there is §r10.3, giving a misleading impression:

Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law.

Thus Islamic law permits statements that are not completely truthful to be uttered if doing so would accomplish a purpose approved by sacred law. And if that purpose is an obligation required of Muslims, then misleading others is obligatory, provided that full candor will not accomplish the same purpose.

In a modern Western country, full candor about the nature and purpose of Islam would definitely not serve the interests of Islam. If Westerners ever fully understood what Islamic law requires, the practice of Islam would be circumscribed, suppressed, or forbidden.
Therefore we know that Muslims are lying to us.

They are not always lying. But we have no way to detect which statements are lies and which are true. A general rule might be this: If a Muslim says something that is soothing and makes Islam seem harmless and beneficial in a Western context, he is probably lying.

In yesterday’s post, Hesperado made a comment about the impossibility of knowing whether any given “moderate” Muslim is in fact sincere.

This the central problem for non-Muslims in dealing with Islam, and one to which there is no easy and palatable answer. Any attempt to devise a meaningful solution leads into the sort of ugliness that the average Westerner prefers to avoid thinking about.

The unavoidable fact is that there is no reliable way to determine whether any given Muslim really believes everything in Islamic scripture and law, and is therefore dangerous. He may be a nice guy; he may drink beer and eat bacon and hang out with the kuffar. Yet, since the core tenets of his faith require him to lie, dissemble, and mislead in order to advance the cause of Islam, there is no way to determine his sincerity.

To make matters worse, we have numerous examples of Muslims in the West (often second- or third-generation) who seem fully “integrated”, but who suddenly become more religious and are rapidly “radicalized”. Then come the bodies lying in pools of blood in the street, with all the neighbors saying, “I can’t believe it! He was such a nice, quiet, polite man.”

The problem arises because we have imported millions of Muslims into our midst en masse. Now they are here. They’re not going to suddenly decide to make hijra to Somalia or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. So what are we to do?

Ordinary citizens can do nothing, of course; and by the time our governments take action, the situation will of necessity be very ugly indeed.

The only “safe” Muslim is a former Muslim, but even that can be tough to determine for certain as long as the fellow is still alive. A public repudiation of Islam, the profession of another faith, and multiple death fatwas against the murtad for apostasy are fairly reliable indicators. But Muslims who no longer believe in Islam are understandably reluctant to go that route.

It is difficult to envisage a peaceful and humane solution to this problem. There is an inherent horror to it that makes most of us shy away from discussing it, or even thinking about it.

Notes:

1. Dawah means proselytizing for Islam, According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, Dawah is also described as the duty to “actively encourage fellow Muslims in the pursuance of greater piety in all aspects of their lives,” a definition which has become central to contemporary Islamic thought. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood apply an aggressive version of Dawah that includes jihad.

2. Ummah is an Arabic word meaning “community” or “nation”. In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or “Community of the Believers” (ummat al-mu’minin), and thus the whole Muslim world, including Muslims in non-Muslim countries.

3. ammanmessage.com/media/openLetter/english.pdf

4. OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI, Concerning his Lecture in Germany on September 12, 2006, http://www.duaatalislam.com/english_letter.htm 12 October 2006. (also in Italian, French, German, Arabic, Swahili, Spanish, Bosnian, Albanian, and Russian).

5. Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law), rev. ed. trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Beltsville: Amana Publications, 1994).

6. al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid (The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer), vol. 1, trans. and ed. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, (Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd, 2002), 454-487.

7. Burhan al-Din al-Farghani al-Marghinani, Al-Hidaya: The Guidance, vol. 2, trans. and ed. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, (Bristol, England: Amal Press, 2008), 285-348.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/12/islam-lying-and-sacred-misdirection/#more-38096

Ten Years’ Captivation with the Mahdi’s Camps: Essays on Muslim Eschatology, 2005-2015 by Timothy R. Furnish: A Must-Read Guide To Islamic Understandings About The End Of Your Future

Ever wondered exactly where you factor into the Islamic view of the future?

Hint: You don’t.

If you want to know why, Timothy R. Furnish PhD is the good doctor who can prescribe the crazy reasoning.

You can purchase his book here.
http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Years-Captivation-Mahdis-Camps/dp/0692586547/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448916788&sr=1-4&keywords=timothy+furnish