"He said: "I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe."

They wish they could feel like the old Jews of Europe,, unlike Muslims these old Jews actually contributed to civilization and society before the Nazis rounded them up ...they were publishers, muscians, doctors, lawyers, watchmakers and jewelers, barbers, tailors, manufacturers, carpenters, plumbers, artists, and so many other useful talents..

Todays Muslims have more in common with the Nazis who slaughtered the Jews...so much so that the Muslims are still trying to slaughter the Jews...this they will tell you..

Posted by: pulsar182 at July 5, 2008 6:22 AM

You're right they are having a laugh.

Especially now that it is the anniversary of the UK's 7/7 bombings.

And after all the failed plots to continually try to bomb, kill and poison us.

The Jews of Europe never attacked anyone – not like this!

Even after the bombing Muslims told us how they were sorry for the carnage - but understood why we were bombed - perhaps we can understand now why they are not liked.

It's easy - Muslims should change their behaviour - this is the free world. And it's going to stay that way!!

Posted by: Cole at July 5, 2008 6:37 AM

Priceless.

The best retort ever.

Shahid Malik, the face of apes & pigs. The 'martyr' in dhimmi hands.

vomit bag. Quick!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 5, 2008 7:15 AM

A lengthy piece in the Daily Mail yesterday entitled "Is Britain anti-muslim?" Basically an advert for a Channel 4 Dispatches programme (8pm 7/7,...yes seven/seven)'It shouldn't happen to a muslim'
After the programme a pamphlet will be on offer. Muslims under siege: Alienating a vulnerable community.

Posted by: grobari at July 5, 2008 7:21 AM

This picture is worth more than a thousand words, a fully clad women whose cult is taking her identity away, and she is proclaiming more violence to take away your rights as a non muslim. l have come to the conclusion as disgusting and ridiculous their cult is, their need to push forward their religion has proven to take away their humanity for reasoning, l mean how can you justify murder from a so called religion of peace, whose prophet was a thief, rapist and murderer, it boggles the mind.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 5, 2008 7:26 AM

"Nice try at taqiyya, though—trying to subtly conflate race and religion."

A rare chance to correct a posting on this site - that should read:
"Nice try at taqiyya, though—trying to subtly conflate race and **ideeology.**"

One of the insidious aspects of Islam is that, unlike Nazism, Bolshvism and other inhumane, dehumanizing ideologies, it has claimed the mantle of "religion" and, tragically, has gotten that to stick.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at July 5, 2008 8:01 AM

People, I saw the grossest thing on TV last night.

Oprah was interviewing a Muslim woman, and it was a total farce. Oprah didn't know that, however, because she's completely ignorant and uninformed about Islam.

Here's the Muslim woman covered from head-to-toe, except her face showing, and apparently that was just fine with Oprah. The MW said the Koran ordered her to dress covered, and O did not challenge that or ask for the verse. It was obvious that O has never bothered to open a Koran. The MW starts in with "the Prophet Mohammed" and "we believe in only one God who has no son" and "Jesus is revered as a prophet, but is not God" and O is reacting as though this is the first time she's heard these things. I was shocked at her pliancy and complacency concerning whatever the MW had to say. It was a gross display of ignorance and obsequiousness.

O is so ignorant she actually came out with boiler plate propaganda such as "I hear there's many myths about your religion," to which the MW readily agreed, of course! And then there's always the famous, "I hear Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion?" Well, just watching this puke-worthy exchange I thought I might lose my dinner, but I labored on.

MW told O about how in Islam engaged adults are not allowed to be in the same room together, or even talk on the phone together, without a chaperone. O didn't blink an eye. Apparently such barbaric idiocy is just fine with her. No challenges whatsoever. O was the perfect Dhimmi. Not questioning, not criticizing, not challenging.

But, this was the grossest part: This MW likes to run, all covered of course, and after 9/11 she gained 15 pounds because her husband wouldn't let her run. Why? Because of the "backlash." The BACKLASH? WHAT BACKLASH? O did not challenge this "backlash" comment, but just shook her head as though in agreement. So, we're supposed to feel sorry for the MW because she gained 15 pounds after 9/11! NOTHING about the 3,000 Americans who died untimely deaths and in a horrible manner - NOTHING! It's as though 9/11 was just some trivial event that - BOO HOO - caused the poor Mohammedan woman to put on weight! Oh, and the backlash! How terrible for the poor Mohammedan woman! Of course no offering of sorrow about 9/11 was forthcoming from the MW - indeed, SHE was the victim! And the brainwashed O mush-for-brains audience just smiled away while this puke-worthy exchange was taking place...Americans, mostly women, with stupid smiles on their faces and compassionate expressions because the poor Mohammedan woman gained weight after 9/11 and suffered from a "backlash" that O did not see fit to have her explain. Just let the "backlash" comment pass with absolutely no challenge. Disgusting.

Really, my blood was boiling. Finally, it's over, and the lobotomized American audience is clapping for the covered Muslim woman - oh, isn't it terrible? - she gained 15 lbs after 9/11 because her husband wouldn't let her run due to our mean and cruel and barbaric "backlash" against the poor Mohammedans! A backlash that didn't happen and never existed. In fact, it's the complete opposite! Indeed, Bush is proclaiming Islam a "rop" the very next day! And we continue to appease the Islamic Barbarians to this very day, to our own detriment. Western Europe is committing suicide there's so much kowtowing to and appeasement of the Islamic Barbarians.

I think I'm going to copy this post and send it to Oprah. Maybe she'll learn something.

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 8:37 AM

If Geert Wilder held up a sign like that, it would hurt muslims feelings and they would have a tizzyfit. (Another one). That sign could be interpreted to be a terrorist threat of genocide, guaranteed to get you arrested in Grass Valley, California. (Fogel).
But since it is being held by a muslimah, it just comes under 'freedom of expression'. Muslims are free to express themselves in ways the rest of us dare not. I'm not sure what the Grass Valley police reaction would be to a muslimah holding up that sign in their district. (Reach for their guns probably. I kid you not). I am not even sure they know what a muslimah is, and don't know that its 'probably' a woman under that mask (veil).
While the government seeks to force us into dhimmihood, condition us to bow, scrape, and make 'donations' to Allah's causes, some of their agents have not yet received the memo. I think I may call the GV police chief and ask him what he knows about Islam. I am sure he has heard of Islam, but has never seen one...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 5, 2008 8:48 AM

Here's the Muslim woman covered from head-to-toe, except her face showing, and apparently that was just fine with Oprah. The MW said the Koran ordered her to dress covered, and O did not challenge that or ask for the verse. It was obvious that O has never bothered to open a Koran. The MW starts in with "the Prophet Mohammed" and "we believe in only one God who has no son" and "Jesus is revered as a prophet, but is not God" and O is reacting as though this is the first time she's heard these things. I was shocked at her pliancy and complacency concerning whatever the MW had to say. It was a gross display of ignorance and obsequiousness.

I have no doubt that O has heard this millions of times and it sounds like the whole encounter was staged.

O is so ignorant she actually came out with boiler plate propaganda such as "I hear there's many myths about your religion," to which the MW readily agreed, of course! And then there's always the famous, "I hear Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion?" Well, just watching this puke-worthy exchange I thought I might lose my dinner, but I labored on.

O is not so much ignorant as she is manipulative. Clearly, she put this out for public consumption and from what you are saying I would speculate that the MW was an invited guest planted as a member of the audience.

Don't forget, O is the $$$ behind BO who has body guards hired from the nation of islam.

O seems to be more new-age in her thinking but I suppose that her spirit guides will be like the angel Gabriel who talked to mohammad.

When it comes to cash, there is no telling what kind of "divine revelations" people like the 0's will have next; when you see her sporting a hajib one of these days, you'll know what I mean.

Posted by: witness at July 5, 2008 8:57 AM

"The 40-year-old [Shahid Malik, the UK's first Muslim minister, and MP for Dewsbury, West Yorkshire] said he had himself been the target of a string of racist incidents, including hate mail, the firebombing of his family car and an attempt to run him down at a petrol station."
-- from the article above

Did Mr. Malik give to the police the "hate mail" he claims to have received? Did he report the "firebombing of his family car"? Did he report the claimed "attept to run him down at a petrol station"? If he did, and if the police investigated, what were the results of their investigation?

There have been so many false claims, made in this country by Muslims determined to prove -- CAIR urges them on -- that they are being subject to abuse, including several cases of claimed arson that turned out to be Muslims themselves, burning down their stores for insurance money, that this sort of thing, the sort of claims piled on by the egregious Malik above, are sure to raise a skeptical eyebrow, and should.

Meanwhile, of course, the British press is full of stories of attacks by those primly described as "Asians" (but they are not Hindus, they are not Chinese, they are always Muslims, usually from Pakistan) on non-Muslims -- the beating to death of a man who dared ask boys to stop swearing loudly in front of a woman on a bus, for example, that I'm sure a British visitor to this site could supply a dozen, or a hundred, stories of the daily horror that has, despite the propaganda by the government and the media to disguise or hide what the large-scale presence of Muslims has meant, has at long last forced so many, who did not want to recognize the meaning and therefore the menace of Islam, the ideology of Islam, the texts and tenets of Islam that, if accepted, naturally give rise to the attitudes, and then to the behavior, of Muslims toward non-Muslims, not only in Great Britain, and not only in every other country of Western Europe -- where, uniquely, it is the Muslim immigrants who present a permanent problem that no other immigrant presents, in its scope, and in that very permanence.

Posted by: Hugh at July 5, 2008 9:09 AM

This is what I've decided to do. I'm so disgusted and revolted and depressed by the Oprah/MW exchange last night, that on Monday I'm going to send her my book "Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out"(2008), along with a copy of my above comment about the farce. Oprah loves books, you know, well, she needs to read this one.

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 9:23 AM

This is what I've decided to do. I'm so disgusted and revolted and depressed by the Oprah/MW exchange last night, that on Monday I'm going to send her my book "Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out"(2008), along with a copy of my above comment about the farce. Oprah loves books, you know, well, she needs to read this one.

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 9:23 AM

I would keep the book if I were you and not waste the postage. Assuming she actually did get your articles I doubt she would actually read them at all -- if she did, I don't believe she would be pursuaded because she does not want to be persuaded.

If you happen to be in Chicago sometime for other reasons, you might try to get tickets to see her show and then hand deliver them -- but good luck on that one.

It's like Hugh's comments about the UK press -- they know alright, but like O they want to downplay islams ills and playup the myth of the religion of peace.

I believe it comes down to ideology for ideology's sake -- it defys reason so reason will be of no use.

Posted by: witness at July 5, 2008 9:39 AM

Hi witness,

Thanks for your comments.

Well, the book does cost $25 but I consider sending it to be a worthy cause. You're right she may never see it, but, she might.

Concerning her show, I visited Chicago about 8 years ago, and have no current plans to visit again. At any rate, I'm not an Oprah fan - I only happened upon that charade last night by channel-flipping.

I'm also going to print this out and send it with the book:

http://www.blackapologetics.com/blacknorafrican.html

Oh Oprah - Mohammed owned black slaves! He was a slave-owner! You like? Funny how your MW guest failed to mention that little fact on your show! "The Prophet" was a slave-owner, Oprah, and of course true Prophets of God own slaves, right? In particlular, there was one black slave upon whom he placed the most burdens! Why don't you ask your next Mohammedan guest about that? In fact, why don't you ask best-selling author Robert Spencer to be on your show? Poor Oprah - yet another slave to Islam.

P.S. Jesus, a true Prophet, never owned slaves.

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 9:56 AM

MOHAMMED OWNED BLACK SLAVES

Mohammed referred to blacks as slaves. He even owned several black slaves. Bilal, Abu Hurairah, Usama Ebn Zayyed, and a "Ghullaam" (youth) named Rabbah, were among Mohammed's slaves.

Even in modern times, in Saudi Arabia the homeland of Islam, the common word for "black" is "Abd" meaning slave.

What was Mohammed's position on freeing the slaves?

In one instance, a man freed a slave that he kept as a sexual partner. When Mohammed heard what happened, he auctioned the boy and sold him for 800 derhams to Na-eem Ebn Abdullah Al-Nahham. (Sahih Moslem vol. 7, page 83)

According to Mohammed, the punishment for committing adultery is different between a free man, a free woman and a slave-woman. The man is to be flogged one hundred stripes and be exiled for one year. The woman must be stoned to death. But the slave-woman (since she has monetary value) will not be exiled or killed, she is to be flogged one hundred stripes. If the violation is repeated, the slave-woman is to be sold (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 8:821 & 822)

ISLAM LOOKED DOWN ON BLACKS

Islam is a religion, whose sacred Scriptures contain explicit denigrating remarks about blacks.

Mohammed referred to black people as "raisin heads". (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9 no. 256).

In an authenticated Hadith, Mohammed is quoted as saying; "Blacks will steal when hungry; when cloy (full) they are promiscuous" (Sahih Moslem).

In another Hadith Mohammed is quoted as saying, "you must obey the Imam (leader) even if he was a pug-nosed slave" (in reference to blacks). See Sahih Moslem vol. 9 pages 46 and 47.

Think O will enjoy reading the above? (from article I linked in previous post).

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 9:59 AM

Think O will enjoy reading the above? (from article I linked in previous post).

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 9:59 AM

No, she will probably accuse YOU of spreading hate-- anyway, good luck.

Posted by: witness at July 5, 2008 10:05 AM

Muslims are not "the new Jews." In Western Europe all of the non-Muslims, both the indigenes and other, non-Muslim immigrants, are "the new Jews," though, it must also be added, it is especially, for the moment, Jews in Western Europe who are "the new Jews."

For the most powerful current carriers of antisemitism in Europe are Muslims - 50% of the antisemitic attacks in Western Europe have been attributed to Muslims, who make up less than 5% of the population. and of course Arabs, from Rashid Ali in Iraq, who staged a pro-Nazi coup, to Anwar Sadat, who was jailed by the British for his pro-Nazi plotting (while Nasser's brother-in-law distinguished himself after the war by publishing an Arabic edition of "Mein Kampf"), to the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who met with Hitler, expressed his enthusiasm for the Endlosung and, what's more, helped raise an S.S. brigade of Bosnian Muslims.

It is Muslims not only in Great Britain, but in every country of Western Europe in which they have been allowed to settle, because of the ignorance, negligence, and simple-minded belief that "everyone is essentially the same and wants the same thing" of the political and media elites. The people pay first for that madness; the elites will pay later on. Those Muslims do not accept the legal and political institutions of the countries -- far more advanced and better-run, in every respect, than the Muslim lands they come from, lands whose failures, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, are a direct result of Islam itself. No, they come, essentially fleeing that Muslim disarray and misrule, but unlike those who fled the Nazis, or the Communists, they are not grateful, and what's more, they bring with them, undeclared, in their mental baggage, the very thing that was the main cause of the failures of their own societies, with their despotisms, and their inshallah-fatalism, and their encouragement of mistreatment of women and all non-Muslims, and everything else that makes Islam, in practice, what it is, and what we Infidels, though we may not quite understand the relationship of Islam to the behavior and attitudes of Muslims, yet recognize as the hideous mess it all is.

In Great Britain, as in every other country of Western Europe, it is the Muslim immigrants alone -- not any others -- who pose a problem that is permanent, that will not go away, no matter how much tender solicitousness is shown them, no matter how much money is thrown their way, or how much bending-over-backwards to accommodate the most outrageous demands, or if not to accommodate them, at least not to treat them openly as outrageous, when everywhere, those demands are made, and keep being made. They range from special hours at public pools so that men and women may not be together, or that even non-Muslim men may not contaminate a pool when Muslim men are swimming, to demands for prayer-rooms at airports, at taxi tetes, in schools, at workplaces. They include demands for special treatment, that is, for Muslim workers (time off for prayers, or not being required to touch certain products, or not having to do this, or do that), and Muslim students. They include attempts, successful in some places, to rewrite textbooks so that the history of Islam is not merely sanitized, but turned into an appealing and glorious tale, while the history of Christianity becomes one of monstrously exaggerating, and misstating, the history of the limited-in-time-and-space-and-goals Crusades, and when it comes to Jews, in ignoring or limiting the study of what has come, a bit too glibly I'm afraid, to be called "the Holocaust."(Muslim students in France have refused to study this subject, just as they refuse to study the history of France itself, claiming it is of no importance to them -- mere Jahiliyya).

The point out these claims -- you can supply your own list, an ever-growing list -- is that even where the authorities sometimes come to their senses, and deny those Muslim demands, the demands will never end, because Islam and non--Islam are not compatible, in the Muslim view, and the ideal of Shari'a flatly contradicts not only the American Constitution, but all of the major principles and achievements, including the rights of individuals to free speech and freedom of conscience, of advanced Western democracies. Look at Muslim attempts to limit any critical discussion or comments on Islam. Several translators of Salman Rushdie were attacked; at least one was killed. Theo van Gogh was killed. A member of the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders, and an Italian journalist, Magdi Allam, and the celebrated apostates Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan, are all living with Muslim death threats, threats that require them to change their lives, and for some of them, to live in permanent hiding, under permanent armed guard. The entire population of Denmark was threatened with death if the government of that country did not violate the most solemn right, the right to free expression, and punish those who had drawn, and those who had published, some cartoons of Muhammad. The entire Muslim world threatened to boycott Danish goods, as they have Dutch goods because of the appearance of a fifteen-minute film, made by Geert Wilders, that save for a single question that he added, consists entirely of excerpts from the Qur'an and the Hadith, with not a word changed for effect, over accompanying videos from news stories showing Muslim behavior that corresponds to, and was no doubt prompted by, those very texts -- and hundreds of others just like them.

It is disgusting for Muslims, who have made it their mission in the Middle East to destroy Israel, and to kill, or expel, or reduce to the status of permanent dhimmis any Jews who remain, and who in the countries of Western Europe have been the main carriers and promoters of antisemitism, and also have been quick to exploit the pre-existing antisemitism to further their misrepresentation of the Jihad against Israel and Israel's attempts to merely defend itself from a malevolent, inexhaustibly vicious and cruel enemy.

There is no other an immigrant population -- not Hindus, not Chinese Christians or Confucians, not Vietnamese Buddhists, not non-Muslim (or casually syncretistic) black Africans, not Andean Indians, not Siberian Tunguz from the frozen North nor Aborigines from the sun-baked South -- that poses the same problem, one that cannot be remedied or diminished, as the immigrants who are Believers in Islam, members of the "Umma" to which, they are taught, they must owe their sole loyalty.

Some, a very few, those who call themselves "Muslims" but merely mean by this that they are not going to openly identify themselves as apostates but reject the ideology of Islam, and have no intention of attempting now or ever to change Infidel institutions, or to be hostile to Infidels, may -- but only "may" (because we never know when awareness of that "identity" may spur an embrace, a return, to what Islam inculcates), not represent a threat themselves. Nonetheless, and this is unpleasant to state but true, even those who may be the "moderate" Muslims of the only kind of "moderation" that could conceivably be of value to Infidels -- that is, those who exhibit a real and deep rejection of the tenets of Islam that support Islamic supremacism, and, therefore, support mistreatment of Infidels -- can nonetheless, by their very existence, that is by swelling the ranks of those who, in democratic societies, are assigned to the category of Muslims, may by that fact increase the power of the real Muslims by helping them, those real Muslims, exaggerate their numbers and therefore their ability to make pusillanimous politicians, the kind unwilling to see Islam as the permanent threat it is to the laws and customs of an advanced society, to art, and to science, and to individual autonomy, but all too willing to bend to the dictates of those who are perceived to vote as a bloc, to promote the goals of Islam.

And if Muslims all over the countries of Western Europe are a menace to the Infidels among whom they have settled in a way that no other group of immigrants has been, and do not cease to be a menace in the second or third generations but, rather, become ever-more militant (as has been seen in Germany, in France, in Great Britain), it is also true that Muslims have for decades enjoyed great favor in official circles. See, for example, Exhibit #1 in Great Britain, which is not The Guardian nor papers like it but, rather, the BBC, especially the BBC World Service. The BBC employs a very large group of Arab and Muslim staff members, and of non-Muslims who have, for ideological reasons -- antisemitism or leftist political views, or both -- been willing collaborators in the effort to present the Muslim view of things, above all in the misrepresentation of the Jihad against Israel). This bias had its effect. And elsewhere in the British press, and radio, and television, the apologists for Islam (who ordinarily overlap with the anti-Israel brigade) have been much in evidence, as they have in other countries of Western Europe.

The failure of Israel, and of its supporters to recognize this, has of course contributed to the steady blackening, over the past few decades, of Israel's image. That has had consequences for Israel, obviously, but has also helped to confuse the understanding of those Infidels who, having been steadily misinformed about the Arab and Muslim Jihad against Israel (so that it has been accepted as a "nationalist cause" by these soi-disant "Palestinians" rather than what it not only is, but always has been and always will be, an attempt to deny a non-Muslim people a state of their own, whatever its size, and whatever its inoffensiveness or even repeated demonstrated willingness to aid the economic well-being of its neighbors, as if that would somehow overcome what even successive Israeli governments did not realize cannot be overcome in such a way, not now, and not ever.

Every single country in Western Europe, whether it be ruled by the Common Law (Great Britain) or by Civil Codes, whether it have a long tradition of enshrining easygoing Tolerance as a kind of state religion (The Netherlands, Denmark), or possibly have become so solicitous of human rights because of a keen awareness of a fascist or quasi-fascist past (Germany, Spain, even Italy), has had the same problem, differing only in intensity and scale, but in nothing else, with its Muslim population. Muslims who believe in Islam do not and cannot accept the political and legal institutions of non-Muslims. It is not what Islam teaches. It is not what Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, prescribed long ago -- and what he prescribed long ago, 1350 years ago, remains valid for all time and for all places.

Surely the people of Europe, despite their governments, and despite the Esdrujula Explanation -- the timidity and stupidity and rigidity and cupidity of their ruling elites -- have to act on this now, and not later. Either they will preserve their own ways, their own superior ways, their free and skeptical inquiry, their modes of artistic expression, either they will preserve, and protect, and defend, all of the material and spiritual achievements of their own civilization, against those who have only contempt and even hatred for that civilization (without knowing quite why, but knowing in some cases only that, as "Muslims," they must have such contempt, must act on such hatred), that is, they will defend the civilizational legacy that they have so far done so little to deserve, or they will not. And if they do, they are going to have to recognize that the main threat is not "qitaal" or open warfare, but the slow and steady stillicide that drop-by-drop of Muslim demands, based on an unopposed and growing Muslim presence, that works away at, eats away at the foundations of Europe.

It is demographic conquest by Muslims that can undo Western Europe. It is only by halting all Muslim migration, cutting off the use, by rich Arabs abroad, of the Money Weapon that helps deepen the Muslim presence, as it pays for mosques, and madrasas, and communal institutions to strengthen Muslim power, and of course, especially among powerful former diplomats, and journalists, and academics (in some cases buying up whole departments, or setting up whole "centers" of Islamic or Middle Eastern Studies), or gaining the cooperation, and more, of corruptible members of the intelligence agencies, the armies, and the police forces, of Western Europe. The governments of Western Europe have to cut off all such aid, or at least do as best they can, and not make the mistake of themselves supporting, with government funds, mosques or indeed any Muslim institutions, in the vain hope that a tame imam or ten or a hundred will make a difference, when it is the immutable texts of Islam itself, and the hold they have over the minds of men, that are the problem. And campaigns of Da'wa must be checked, by banning them if possible, and if not, then by monitoring them vigilantly, and attempting to immunize, in advance, the populations -- such as black prisoners -- who are most frequently targeted by Muslims for such campaigns. All those who can be identified as economically or psychically marginal are likely to be especially susceptible to the siren song of Islam; such groups and people should, as a matter of national security, be identified, and campaigns specifically tailored to such groups should be instituted. For example, black ministers might be employed to describe to prisoners what the role of slavery is in Islam, and of the length and nature of the Arab slave trade (which began sooner, and ended -- where it did end – much later, than did the Atlantic slave trade), which was particularly cruel and violent (with young black boys castrated in the jungle, and then taken by slave coffle and dhow to the slave markets of Islam, with scarcely 10% surviving the journey). The slave trade in the Persian Gulf was ended by the Royal Navy. The slave trade in North Africa was ended by the French. There never was, there never could be, a Muslim William Wilberforce. And even today, blacks are enslaved by Arabs in West Africa and in the Sudan and, many believe, slavery still continues, hidden from Western view, in the Arabian Peninsula. Remember, in 1962, when under Western pressure Saudi Arabia officially ended slavery, there were still hundreds of thousands of black slaves in Saudi Arabia.

Another point of purchase to render people less susceptible to Da'wa is to show how almost all forms of music are banned in Islam (there is no Islamic religious music, for example, no Bach, and no Muslim equivalent of gospel music). Note how the Islamic rebels in Algeria murder the singers of Rai, or how in Afghanistan the Taliban killed the traditional wedding-singers, or of how Muslims, such as those in Hamas blow up or smash music stores in Gaza. This is the kind of thing that helps make an impression.

But are the governments of Western Europe prepared, as yet, to see Islam, to see the spread of Islam, and the growth of a Muslim population, as the security threat it is, or will they remain frightened of the implications of that recognition?

It's still hard to say, but there are signs of sanity breaking out. The evidence mounts up, and up, and up. The texts of the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira are there. Muslim defenders never mention those texts, stay far away from what those texts inculcate, prefer always and everywhere the strategies of Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque (which google).

To sum up, as has been done a hundred times before, with the exact same sentence:

"The large-scale presence of Muslims in the countries of Western Europe has led to a situation, for the indigenous Infidels, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without such a large-scale presence."

Though long, that oft-repeated sentence is meant to be lapidary. But the stone on which it is meant to be inscribed is that which should hang in public places all over Europe, or in the mental equivalent of such public places, so that something effective will at long last be done -- implacably, relentlessly.

There is another sort of stone, however, on which the same lapidary sentence might be written, and then read, in quite another spirit, a spirit of triumphalism, by not Infidels but by Muslims, at some future date. For as a famous writer once began a novel, there is "plenty of space on a gravestone, bound in moss" to "contain" -- well, to contain all sorts of things, including that would-be lapidary sentence above.

One hopes that such a sentence would not have to be placed on the tombstone of Western civilization, a civilization that could be undone by the initial indifference and ignorance and negligence of its political and media elites, and then further undone by the failure of the governments and peoples involved to do what they need to do, coute que coute, in order to defend and protect their own civilizational legacy, out of stupidity, or timidity, or cupidity, or rigidity, or some, or all, of this mnemonically-sdrujula'ed list.

Numbers, "mere numbers," alas, do count. Demography turns out be a very large part of Destiny.

Posted by: Hugh at July 5, 2008 10:15 AM

Hugh

"I'm sure a British visitor to this site could supply a dozen, or a hundred, stories of the daily horror that has, despite the propaganda by the government and the media to disguise or hide what the large-scale presence of Muslims has meant"

I am afraid they would not dare because the thought police are everywhere. At the last General Election, or the one before a candidate for the right wing BNP issued a leaflet saying the muslims in one English city had done such and such. He was prosecuted for "Incitement to racial or religious hatred”. His defence was that what he said was true but the judge informed him that while it might be true, it was still likely to cause racial or religious hatred and therefore illegal. I think he got 12 months imprisonment.

Interesting that we have now a “democracy” where it can be a criminal offence to tell the truth in an election leaflet.

Posted by: Fred at July 5, 2008 10:16 AM

No, she will probably accuse YOU of spreading hate-- anyway, good luck.

Posted by: witness at July 5, 2008 10:05 AM

Of course I realize that, witness. Stating indisputable facts about Islam, mo, qu'ran has become "spreading hate," and the person knowledgeable of the facts is reviled as a hate-monger. You know, like RS and all other non-Dhimmis who speak the truth about Islam.

How are facts "hate?" Concerning Islam, facts are only "hate" when you know too much about your subject...

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 10:17 AM

"Nice try at taqiyya, though—trying to subtly conflate race and religion."

Another practitioner of this gambit is UN Special Rapporteur "on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance" Doudou Diène, as I note in some detail at

http://greenspiece.blogspot.com/2008/07/blurring-line.html

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at July 5, 2008 10:18 AM

Numbers, "mere numbers," alas, do count. Demography turns out be a very large part of Destiny.

Posted by: Hugh at July 5, 2008 10:15 AM

Well, of course.

Everyone knows the old adage "There's power in numbers."

The Stealth Jihad is making progress every day, and we are letting it.

Also, "Majority rules."

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 10:22 AM

The perceptions among soulless Muslims is that the unworthy Jew has advanced his cause in the world mainly through the steady application of false propaganda (Zionist media manipulation) and constant claims of victimhood. Lacking in the original idea department, and believing as completely in their nasty delusions as they do, many Muslims have decided to parrot the methods of their imaginary Jew in order to advance the cause of Islam.

I argue that this is the same way Muslims parasitize other aspects of our society and exploit them for the advancement of Islam -- whether it's the stealing of airplanes and turning them into bombs, the hijacking of our constitional rights to freely practice their religious war doctrine of Islam, the use of cell phones, computers, and Western engineering to plot their treasons, or build their weapons of mass murder. None of these things were invented by Muslims, or ever could have been invented by Muslims, but Muslims are uniquely equipped to pervert these things in order to advance their cancer among us.

Posted by: jsla at July 5, 2008 10:22 AM

Well, who knows after all? All the Jewish women who were enslaved by the early Muslims and then their offspring were considered Arabs after the father, yet the Jews consider a man a Jew whose mother was a Jew.

"What, they feel like infidel pigs and monkeys?"

This aspect of Mahometanism always amuses me, since both Jews and Arabs count Abraham as their racial patriarch. It is akin to the brother calling his brother a son of a bastard as a way of insult, blind in the moment to the selfabasing nature of the comment.

The pol would have a true point and not merely a piece of overblown rhetoric if in Europe Muslims are being rounded up to extermination camps, otherwise the comment is another example of asinine agitprop.

the malevolent, malcontent malik also adds this gem of chutspah. "this has the negative effects of segregating society and undermining efforts to deal with extremism and terrorism."

Truly amazing all the Imams efforts and the OICs program to make sure that Muslims in the west do not assimilate to their society and pols such as Maliks manufacturing victimhood for their clients are not part of any problem. Instead it is the imaginary extermination camps and invisible race laws that cause the Muslims to feel as if they are being denied their birthright of superiority over the dhimmi Europeons.

Thanks for the oppurtunity for a laugh this morning Malik.

Posted by: stickman at July 5, 2008 10:39 AM

I am glad JW is addressing this article. I was just about to go look for it again to send it in.

I got as far as about the fifth paragraph before I felt sick.

****

Darcy -

Thank you for the information about the Oprah program. I can't stand watching that show so I did not know about it.

This is very disturbing. Oprah has a hypnotizing effect on people. (I don't understand it, but you know what I mean!) Anything she says is taken as gospel, anything she endorses goes through the roof in popularity. The damage this will do will be great. Because of course if Oprah says so, it must be true.

Thanks for nothin', Oprah.

And thank you, darcy, for fighting on. Every little bit helps.

Posted by: Mo at July 5, 2008 10:46 AM

darcy,
You are to be commended for staying with O, once you found her. I would have popped in a dvd of something I'd seen before rather than watch her. Objective is not a word that comes to mind where O is concerned.

Still nothing at WSJ. I expect nothing.

Posted by: PMK at July 5, 2008 10:50 AM

This is what Muslims think of Jews from a poster at another article of JW:

Death and destruction are more like the testaments to Jewish presence, not really Muslim ones.

I dare any reader to name any place that Jews have not brought death and destruction too. You cant.

Jews are f*cking up America in every possible way, from every possible arena.

Here is a short list of the Jewish dream team:
- Jack Abrahhoff
- Paul Wolfowitz
- Eliott Spitzer
- Samuel Israel
- Monica Lewinsky

Jews are a virus.
Posted by: marcadams99 at July 4, 2008 10:00 PM

Posted by: savsiv at July 5, 2008 11:44 AM

"Surely the people of Europe, despite their governments, and despite the Esdrujula Explanation -- the timidity and stupidity and rigidity and cupidity of their ruling elites -- have to act on this now, and not later."
by Hugh

But can they? Do they want to? Projections based on current demographics indicate that Europeans not of an Islamic heritage are bound to be overtaken by Muslims unless they are willing to prohibit further Muslim immigration and begin deporting the rest.
This means the much-vaunted social programs which Europeans pride themselves on, and which they fault Americans for not instituting, will have insufficient financing. Europeans will be required to give up some of their benefits in return for freedom. Which matters more to them? Are European couples willing to have more children without a government "safety net"?

Posted by: PMK at July 5, 2008 11:59 AM

When the next Crystal Night(intefada)happens we know who will be holding the stones.

Posted by: Ruebacca at July 5, 2008 12:26 PM

It's been said that the only inventions native to Muslim peoples have been coffee and the suicide bomb. But we should not discount the 'invention' of Islam itself. It is truly sad that Islam is regarded as a religion rather than recognized as a political ideology. If the West wasn't blinded and hobbled by the notion that Islam is a religion it would be so much easier to stop its spread within our own political framework.

Muslims persecuted? Hardly. Incredibly, Joe Smith picked up on the effectiveness of Islam in his 'invention' of the Mormon 'religion'. He even likened himself to Muhammad in a speech that the Mormons would like to forget.
The Prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that Smith's prophecies are superior to the laws of the land. I have heard the Prophet say that he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword.' So should it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the Sword.' These last statements were made during the last summer. The number of armed men at Adam-ondi-Ahman was between three and four hundred" (History of the Church 3:167).

See:
http://www.mrm.org/topics/joseph-smith/joseph-smith-second-muhammad

The parallels are uncanny. Google finds many pages of links to articles comparing Islam to Mormon. The real difference between the spread of Mormonism (their jihad, if you will) and the spread of Islam is that the leaders of the Mormon Church recognized the need to moderate their doctrine in order for their ideology to survive. For example by outlawing polygamy in order that Utah could achieve statehood. Thus, to some degree, the Mormons became the appeasers. As they became more moderate, and make no mistake - they spilled the blood of non-believers back in the day, the persecution of their ideology lessened. Conversely, there is no direction toward moderation in Islam and it is the non-believers who are the appeasers.

So if the so-called persecution of Muslims has the effect of moderating their 'religion', or better yet - sending them back to their Islamic countries, then I say persecute a Muslim today. All of you should do something to persecute a Muslim today. Or how about all of Islam? I persecuted all of Islam this weekend by barbecuing some pork spare ribs and having a few beers. It was easy.

Posted by: Richard at July 5, 2008 1:04 PM

Muslims are attacking Jews all over Europe. They are the new Nazis, not the old Jews. But leave it to Muslims to work every angle on the Dhimmi-wit infidels of Britain.

BTW, I saw Oprah, too. She asked no questions about honor killings or the mandated execution of those who choose to leave the Religion of Peace. Oprah doesn't want to touch those topics and expose Islam to scrutiny. I'm not sure of her reasons. She always presents the official, sanitized version of Islam, accompanied by audience applause.

If our Muslim populations in the U.S. were ever to reach the percentage of those in Britain or France we would have the same horrendous problems they do.

Hopefully, British Muslims will feel unwelcome enough to pick up and leave. Of course, there is always the option to act graciously and engender goodwill in your adopted country, something the Muslim community as a whole can't fathom.

Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at July 5, 2008 1:25 PM

Muslims do not want to assimilate, they want to dominate. It is why they are flooding the lands of the free people..only to conquer and dominate. They enemy is lands troops behind the lines..

Posted by: pulsar182 at July 5, 2008 1:30 PM

"I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe".

I find this attempt at competitive victimhood both deeply offensive and deeply stupid. I am too angry to say anything else about it.

Posted by: M Al-Content at July 5, 2008 1:34 PM

Here is a link to a blog called Doc's Talk that has some interesting statistics based upon percentage of Muslims to a population of infidels. Be sure to book mark this when you need to reference it in the future. Oh, I can't backup his method of statistics but it sounds reasonable to me.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at July 5, 2008 2:43 PM

Darcy,

When you send that stuff to the O show, be sure to "ask" why there was no guest on to rebut. Like maybe someone from the book, Why I left Islam. Ask why the show was so unbalanced, and be sure to say that you are offended and "disappointed" by such a blatant one sided show.

You need to get your stuff by her producer's assistants, because we know O doesn't read all that stuff she's sent. I often found that if I "ask" I get more than when I rant. Even though really I want to RANT, it usually get's one nowhere.

Just sayin'....

Gym ;o)

Posted by: gymgal at July 5, 2008 2:44 PM

This is what Muslims think of Jews from a poster at another article of JW: -- savsiv

What article is that, savsiv?

*

When you send that stuff to the O show, be sure to "ask" why there was no guest on to rebut. --gymgal

I'm going to suggest she invite best-selling author Robert Spencer. And if she doesn't, then I know she's too cowardly and PC to do so.

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 4:25 PM

Islam shall never completely govern the world via Sharia,due primary to the ongoing,seemingly everlasting Shia/Sunni conflict. Perpetual war from within along with such raised(raised perhaps as a direct result of demographic Sharia enacted in lands previously free of this belief) from Dar-al-Haab shall ensure an ongoing division descending into chaos beyond what is currently exhibited. This stain on humanity(actual "humanity" as opposed to well you know....) will remain to be opposed,in whatever form, by generations to come,perhaps up until our species culmination. What is at stake is providing some semblance of a life for future generations of Infidels which isn't akin to that of cannon fodder for a family feud that would make the Hatfields and Mccoys blush.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at July 5, 2008 4:32 PM

Darcy,

It was a comment left under this article on JW:

"When Christians kill Muslims, it's the Crusades. When Jews kill Muslims it's murder, and when Muslims kill Muslims, it's like talking about the weather. Nobody really cares about it"

It has since been removed. My comment may be a bit premature.

Posted by: savsiv at July 5, 2008 5:22 PM

Malik was interviewed by the BBC several months ago and was asked whether he would put the interests and wishes of Muslims ahead of the interests of the people of the UK. He replied that he only wanted what was in the best interest of the people of this country. I forget his exact words but it struck me at the time that, for a Muslim, his words could be taken as meaning that he would stop at nothing until this country was under sharia. It was a subtlety lost on his interviewer.
When Baroness Sayeeda Warsi was asked much the same question, her variation on what seems to be a standard reply, was that she wanted what was best for this country. Again, her listeners detected no open-endedness in such an answer.

Posted by: wallyUK at July 5, 2008 6:27 PM

The MP for Dewsbury, West Yorks, said many British Muslims now feel like "aliens in their own country" as society turns a "blind eye" to their persecution.

--

"Their own country"? - Now THAT's RICH!

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 5, 2008 6:58 PM

Matthew Parris has an interesting article in the Times Online, re Malik's inane comment....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article4272421.ece

Posted by: Meeker at July 5, 2008 7:16 PM

Oh, they've been playing that fiddle in Germany for a while now..

..all the while some of their brethren choose to beat up Jewish school children, desecrate Jewish gravesites and stab people wearing kippa right on the streets in full daylight.

moslem hubris is never-ending in its depravity.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 5, 2008 7:22 PM

Here is a very partial list of cases in the past few years--covered by JW/DW--where European Jews have been threatened or attacked by Muslims. It makes for very depressing reading. Here's what it is like for the true "Jews of Europe".

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/021491.php

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/020840.php
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/007500.php

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/021036.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012591.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001507.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003533.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002236.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002841.php

Posted by: gravenimage at July 5, 2008 10:20 PM

When Malik talks about "their own country" he is making an assumption, an assumption that those whose sole loyalty is to the texts and tenets of Islam, which are flatly contradicted by the letter and spirit of the Shari'a, could possibly consider Great Britain their "own country" -- the particular Infidel nation-state they inhabit is unimportant, for the world belongs to Allah, and to his people.

The point here is nnot that Malik talks about "their own country" but whether the natives of Great Britain, the inheritors of the civilizational legacy of Greatn Britain, its laws, its customs, its language and literature, its individual freedoms, can conceivably regard Muslims, whose loyalty is to Islam and to the umma, as ever being able to integrate successfully into British society or, for that matter, any advanced Western society, or even any Infidel society at all. They are everywhere in the Muslim-dominated lands intent on crushing non-Muslims, and in lands not yet dominated by Islam, they are always and everywhere, when they feel they can get away with it -- see India, see Thailand, see much of sub-Saharan Africa -- a turbulent minority whose presence disrupts.

Posted by: Hugh at July 5, 2008 11:04 PM

Wallyuk:

"He replied that he only wanted what was in the best interest of the people of this country. I forget his exact words but it struck me at the time that, for a Muslim, his words could be taken as meaning that he would stop at nothing until this country was under sharia."

People have to wake up to the double-speak of Muslims.

When they say 'we want only what's best for the country' they inevitably mean the country is better off with Islam under the sharia.

The same when Muslims say that jihad is only 'inner struggle' or 'to do good' or like 'Baroness' Warsi (what a ridiculous title for such a twit!) who says she only wants 'what's best for the country'-, it means nothing other than spreading Islam, making the country Islamic.

Because nothing else matters....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 6, 2008 4:23 AM