Inkomna asylansökningar per mÄnad under de senaste Ären.
MÄnad 2008 2007  2006 2005  2004
januari 3194 3362 1556 1426 2310
februari 2210Â 2897 1579 1405Â Â 1942
mars    1650 2969 1878 1336 1980
april     2894  963  1246 1798
dertil 29 .515 opholdtilladelser p.g.a. familjeanknytning 2007, Migrationsverket. Hvor lÊnge endnu er dette et internt svensk anliggende ? Spill-over effekten er allerede betydelig. Seneste er kun fÄ uger gammel: Spor fra Danmarkhistoriens stÞrste rÞveri peger mod Sverige. En komprimeret motivanalyse af dette tilsyneladende vanvid:
“Sossarna importerade valboskap, moderaterna importerar s.k. flyktingar och blivande lĂ„glönearbetare som ska konkurrera ned lönerna. Allt för arbetsgivarna och om det Sverige som vi kĂ€nner gĂ„r förlorat spelar ingen roll, bara arbetsgivarna gör sĂ„ stora vinster som möjligt.” GH
“Manden med det gigantiske skyldbehov”
hedder Thomas Bredsdorfs anmeldelse af endnu en Bergman-biografi. Problemet er let klaret, man skal bare opfÞre sig som et rigtigt rÞvhul, sÄ er den i kassen:
“En af hustruerne, mor til 4 bĂžrn, forlod han lidt hastigt. Efter flere mĂ„neders fravĂŠr fra hjemmet smuttede han forbi en eftermiddag for at meddele, at han var pĂ„ vej til Paris med en ny. »Det var forfĂŠrdeligt«, sagde han, hver gang han kom ind pĂ„ episoden. Men ellers ser han ikke ud til at have fortrudt noget pĂ„ det familiĂŠre omrĂ„de. Bergman var til arbejde, ikke til familieliv.”
Eslövs kommun har anmÀlts till justitiekanslern, JK, för beslutet att stoppa konstnÀren Lars Vilks deltagande i konstbiennalen i Eslöv förra Äret. Projektledaren Fredrik Axwik och ytterligare tvÄ personer vill att JK prövar om Eslöv brutit mot grundlagen. SkÄnskan
KĂžnsapartheid – statsfeminismen hejser det hvide flag
I paradeligestillingens hjemland trumfer “race” naturligvis kĂžn, og islam trumfer alt og alle. Hvilken fuldstĂŠndig, men forudsigelig ynk. Signalet er oversat: NĂ„r man er statsfeminist, er det ok at bĂžje sig for patriarker, ellers ikke. Ordet “salamimetode” har vĂŠret kendt i Danmark lĂŠnge. NĂ„r Sverige engang fĂ„r et sprog pĂ„ dette omrĂ„de, vil det vĂŠre anvendeligt pĂ„ en hel del derovre. Dette er kun begyndelsen. Shariakravene – det Ă„bne brev til alle partier, 2006 – er kun hvilende:
Det finns nÀrmare 200 unga kvinnor med invandrarbakgrund i UmeÄ som inte tillÄts gÄ pÄ en fritidsgÄrd som Àr öppen för bÄde pojkar och flickor. Av oro och personlig osÀkerhet sÀger deras förÀldrar nej. Nu finns ett förslag som kanske kan Àndra pÄ detta, TjejgÄrden.
– Problemet Ă€r stort och pĂ„verkar mĂ„nga familjer, sĂ€ger Annika Zschau som via invandrarföreningen Medborgarservice vill fĂ„ till stĂ„nd ett projekt som ska visa om det finns behov av en fritidsgĂ„rd i UmeĂ„ enbart för tjejer. […]
– De stannar hemma och uppfostras enligt den tradition som deras förĂ€ldrar tagit med sig frĂ„n hemlandet. UtifrĂ„n svenska vĂ€rderingar Ă€r de isolerade i sina hem, sĂ€ger Annika Zschau.
Inga mÀn
Verksamheten pÄ TjejgÄrden kommer inte att skilja sig frÄn andra fritidsgÄrdar, utom pÄ en punkt.
– Inga andra mĂ€n Ă€n flickornas pappor fĂ„r tilltrĂ€de, sĂ€ger Annika Zschau.
Egen gÄrd för tjejer som inte fÄr trÀffa mÀn via Mitt Sverige
Sverige et europĂŠisk centrum for proformaĂŠgteskaber
Svenska myndigheter blundar för att tusentals utlÀnningar fÄr uppehÄllstillstÄnd i Sverige via skengiften. Det hÀvdar polisintendent Marianne Paulsson i Halmstad.
Ă
tta av tio fĂ„r ja. Migrationsverket fick i fjol in 20.584 ansökningar om uppehĂ„llstillstĂ„nd i samband med ânyetablerade anknytningarâ. Sydsvenskan
Bruce Bawer: “An Anatomy of Surrender”
Bawers essay er hovedsageligt deskriptivt. Det er straks vĂŠrre , nĂ„r man som El InglĂ©s sĂŠtter fantasien i sving, og begynder at spekulere i fremtidsscenarier. Hans essay Surrender, Genocide⊠or What? har nu fĂ„et Pajamas Media til at bryde med Gates of Vienna, der publicerede det. Heraf kan man lĂŠre meget, bla at visse tanker og fremtidsfantasier, er sĂ„ forfĂŠrdelige at de ikke mĂ„ tĂŠnkes, ikke skrives og slet ikke af hvemsomhelst. Heller ikke selvom der ikke er tale om propageren for denne forfĂŠrdelige fremtid. Vi holder af “good to know” og “good to think” og Ingles er ikke den fĂžrste fantasier er “bad to think”. Han indgĂ„r i en stolt engelsk tradition, der omfatter George Orwell, Antony Burgess, William Golding , Winston Churchill og Jonathan Swift, hvis epitafium kunne gĂŠlde dem alle:
Swift has sailed into his rest.
Savage indignation there
cannot lacerate his breast.
Imitate him if you dare,
world-besotted traveller.
He served human liberty
Bawers og InglésŽvirkelighedbeskrivelser stemmer stort set overens:
Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.
Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take warâholy war, jihadâto bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801â05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadistsâ weapon of choice has usually been the terroristâs bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.
What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeiniâs 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, KhoĂÂmeini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societiesâ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.
The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particularâthe 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islamâs oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaperâs 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammedâhave had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideologyâwhich teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressiveâpeople at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmisâinfidels living in Muslim societies.
Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowlyâor not so slowly, in Europeâs caseâbeing absorbed into the House of Submission.
The Western media are in the driverâs seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that weâre the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europeâs Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuynâs views on Islam, the killer insisted, were âdangerous.â
Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchesterâs top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shockâand the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of âgay deathâ slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of âother orthodox religions, such as Catholicismâ and complained that focusing on the issue was âpart of demonizing Muslims.â
In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Donât Panic, Iâm Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This âstunning whitewash of radical Islam,â as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, âhelped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and busesâ in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentaryâs subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacksâand that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.
Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoonsâpublished in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Goghâs murderâwere answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El PaĂs in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he âknew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ârestraintâ was simple fear.â Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norwayâs leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)
Last year brought another cartoon crisisâthis time over Swedish artist Lars Vilksâs drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps âVilks should have known betterâ because of the Jyllands-Posten incidentâas if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldnât be taken âtoo seriouslyâ and noted approvingly that Swedenâs prime minister, unlike Denmarkâs, invited the ambassadors âin for a chat.â
The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: âIf youâre wondering why you havenât been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, itâs because there havenât been any.â Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned themâand when they did, they de-emphasized the riotersâ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of âAllahu akbar,â for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.
When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombingâeven though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Todayâs american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britainâyet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.
After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an âanti-Muslim backlashââthus neatly shifting the focus from Islamistsâ real acts of violence to non-Muslimsâ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Yeâor and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrongâs hagiography of Mohammed as âa good place to startâ learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito want to understand islam? start here.
Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliottâs affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didnât speak English, refused to shake womenâs hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. âIslam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmotherâs voiceâ; âMr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . âShe entered my heart,â said the imam.â Elliottâs saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as âright-wingâ and insisted that Shata was âvery moderate.â
So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are âmoderateâ (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesnât have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are âIslamophobes.â
The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but todayâs movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporationâs Little Mosque on the Prairie and CWâs Aliens in America. Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that thereâs no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.
Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Foxâs popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversyâs overwhelming impact on Denmark, ânot a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.â Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.
In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisisâbut Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. âWe were happy,â she told an interviewer, âthat they didnât try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.â
Then thereâs the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves ârespect.â Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. Londonâs Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was âspace constraints,â but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the galleryâs Muslim neighbors. Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of Londonâs White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though âvery few people have explicitly admittedâ it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who hasâand his reluctance isnât about multicultural sensitivity. âThe reason I havenât gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,â he told the Times of London, âis because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.â
Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to ârealize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.â
More recently, high-profile Europe experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced âaccommodation,â which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohenâs call for âaccommodation with the Muslims,â including those âwho consciously discriminate against their women.â Sharia enshrines a Muslim manâs right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.
Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britainâs best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K., what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, âa much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.â Gratifyingly, his proposal, short on specifics and long on academic doublespeak (âI donât think,â he told the BBC, âthat we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights, simply because it doesnât immediately fit with how we understand itâ) was greeted with public outrage.
Another prominent accommodationist is humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University, author of an August 2007 essay in the New York Times Magazine so long and languorous, and written with such perfect academic dispassion, that many readers may have finished it without realizing that it charted a path leading straight to sharia. Muslimsâ âfull reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected,â Lilla wrote. For the West, âcoping is the order of the day, not defending high principle.â
Revealing in this light is Burumaâs and Garton Ashâs treatment of author Ayaan Hirsi Aliâperhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihadâand of the Europe-based Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a âsimplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalistââthus implicitly equating her with the Muslim fundamentalists who have threatened to kill herâwhile Buruma, in several New York Times pieces, has portrayed her as a petulant naif. (Both men have lately backed off somewhat.) On the other hand, the professors have rhapsodized over Ramadanâs supposed brilliance. They arenât alone: though heâs clearly not the Westernized, urbane intellectual he seems to beâhe refuses to condemn the stoning of adulteresses and clearly looks forward to a Europe under shariaâthis grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and protĂ©gĂ© of Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi regularly wins praise in bien-pensant circles as representing the best hope for long-term concord between Western Muslims and non-Muslims.
This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described âthe Islamistsâ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of lawâ as âbold and noble.â
With the press, the entertainment industry, and prominent liberal thinkers all refusing to defend basic Western liberties, itâs not surprising that our political leaders have been pusillanimous, too. After a tiny Oslo newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the Danish cartoons in early 2006, jihadists burned Norwegian flags and set fire to Norwayâs embassy in Syria. Instead of standing up to the vandals, Norwegian leaders turned on Magazinetâs editor, VebjĂžrn Selbekk, partially blaming him for the embassy burning and pressing him to apologize. He finally gave way at a government-sponsored press conference, groveling before an assemblage of imams whose leader publicly forgave him and placed him under his protection. On that terrible day, Selbekk later acknowledged, âNorway went a long way toward allowing freedom of speech to become the Islamistsâ hostage.â As if that capitulation werenât disgrace enough, an official Norwegian delegation then traveled to Qatar and implored Qaradawiâa defender of suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish childrenâto accept Selbekkâs apology. âTo meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances,â Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi protested, was âtantamount to granting extreme Islamists . . . a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed.â
The UNâs position on the question of speech versus ârespectâ for Islam was clearâand utterly at odds with its founding value of promoting human rights. âYou donât joke about other peopleâs religion,â Kofi Annan lectured soon after the Magazinet incident, echoing the sermons of innumerable imams, âand you must respect what is holy for other people.â In October 2006, at a UN panel discussion called âCartooning for Peace,â Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor proposed drawing âa very thin blue UN line . . . between freedom and responsibility.â (Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether that line would strike through the First Amendment.) And in 2007, the UNâs Human Rights Council passed a Pakistani motion prohibiting defamation of religion.
Other Western government leaders have promoted the expansion of the Dar al-Islam. In September 2006, when philosophy teacher Robert Redeker went into hiding after receiving death threats over a Le Figaro op-ed on Islam, Franceâs thenâprime minister, Dominique de Villepin, commented that âeveryone has the right to express their opinions freelyâat the same time that they respect others, of course.â The lesson of the Redeker affair, he said, was âhow vigilant we must be to ensure that people fully respect one another in our society.â Villepin got a run for his money last year from his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who, after meeting with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the Vilks cartoons, won praise from one of them, Algeriaâs Merzak Bedjaoui, for his âspirit of appeasement.â
When, years after September 11, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged publicly that the West was at war with Islamic fascism, Muslimsâ and multiculturalistsâ furious reaction made him retreat to the empty term âwar on terror.â Britainâs Foreign Office has since deemed even that phrase offensive and banned its use by cabinet members (along with âIslamic extremismâ). In January, the Home Office decided that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be described as âanti-Islamic activity.â
Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the âspirit of appeasement.â In 2005, Norwayâs parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that countryâs most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because itâs arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our societyâs norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim womanâs request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.
Those who dare to defy the Westâs new sharia-based strictures and speak their minds now risk prosecution in some countries. In 2006, legendary author Oriana Fallaci, dying of cancer, went on trial in Italy for slurring Islam; three years earlier, she had defended herself in a French court against a similar charge. (Fallaci was ultimately found not guilty in both cases.) More recently, Canadian provinces ordered publisher Ezra Levant and journalist Mark Steyn to face human rights tribunals, the former for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the latter for writing critically about Islam in Macleanâs.
Even as Western authorities have hassled Islamâs critics, theyâve honored jihadists and their supporters. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth knighted Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, a man who had called for the death of Salman Rushdie. Also that year, London mayor Ken Livingstone ludicrously praised Qaradawi as âprogressiveââand, in response to gay activists who pointed out that Qaradawi had defended the death penalty for homosexuals, issued a dissertation-length dossier whitewashing the Sunni scholar and trying to blacken the activistsâ reputations. Of all the Westâs leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlandsâwhere Muslims will soon be a majority in major citiesââit would be a disgrace to say, âThis is not permitted!â â
If you donât find the dhimmification of politicians shocking, consider the degree to which law enforcement officers have yielded to Islamist pressure. Last year, when âUndercover Mosque,â an unusually frank exposĂ© on Britainâs Channel 4, showed âmoderateâ Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into actionâreporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, ârevealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.â Only days after the âUndercover Mosqueâ broadcastâin a colossal mark of indifference to the reality that it exposedâMetropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair announced plans to share antiterrorist intelligence with Muslim community leaders. These plans, fortunately, were later shelved.
Canadian Muslim reformist Irshad Manji has noted that in 2006, when 17 terrorists were arrested in Toronto on the verge of giving Canada âits own 9/11,â âthe police did not mention that it had anything to do with Islam or Muslims, not a word.â When, after van Goghâs murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction). In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid âracist backlash.â And in August, the Times of London reported that âAsianâ men (British code for âMuslimsâ) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of âwhite girls as young as twelveââbut that authorities wouldnât take action for fear of âupsetting race relations.â Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the âAsianâ menâs contempt for the âwhiteâ girls was a matter not of race but of religion.
Even military leaders arenât immune. In 2005, columnist Diana West noted that Americaâs Iraq commander, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, was educating his staff in Islam by giving them a reading list that âwhitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Espositoâ; two years later, West noted the unwillingness of a counterinsurgency advisor, Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, to mention jihad. In January 2008, the Pentagon fired Stephen Coughlin, its resident expert on sharia and jihad; reportedly, his acknowledgment that terrorism was motivated by jihad had antagonized an influential Muslim aide. âThat Coughlinâs analyses would even be considered âcontroversial,â â wrote Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, âis pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global terrorism.â (Perhaps owing to public outcry, officials announced in February that Coughlin would not be dismissed after all, but instead moved to another Department of Defense position.)
Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which theyâre determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.
The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that theyâre incapable of defending it when itâs imperiledâor even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passivelyâand some, approvinglyâwhile their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.
But we certainly canât expect them to take a stand for liberty if we donât stand up for it ourselves.
Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at BruceBawer.com.
NÄr det vigtige ikke kun er hvad der bliver sagt, men ogsÄ hvem der siger det
Jeg ved ikke om lĂŠserbreve som dette, forfattet af en der kender islams kvindefĂŠngsel indefra, vil flytte stuerenhedens grĂŠnser, og udviske stereotype opfattelser af kritikere som os her, men man kan altid hĂ„be. Man skal ikke vĂŠre blind for at apologeternes verdensbillede opretholdes af stĂŠrke mekanismer til undgĂ„else af kognitiv dissonans: Ayaan Hirsi Ali der affĂŠrdiges som ‘oplysningsfundamentalist’ (… sĂ„ hun er ikke bedre selv), eller Wafa Sultan der sĂŠttes i bĂ„s med vestlig hĂžjrepopulisme, uden at hendes udsagn gendrives faktuelt. Men det er altid oplĂžftende at se lĂŠserbreve som dette her af Nahid Riazi (LFPC):
[…] Ved at tillade religiĂžse manifestationer og religiĂžse symboler pĂ„ selve Folketingets talerstol lukker man religionen ind i politik ad bagdĂžren. Man Ă„bner dĂžren for enhver religiĂžs manifestation pĂ„ den politiske scene og der, hvor politikerne skal holde deres religion og religiĂžse overbevisninger og symboler adskilt fra politik. […]
Det er naivt at tro, at man ved at tillade religiÞse symboler i Folketinget skaber mere plads for forskellige befolkningsgrupper eller bidrager til fÊrre konfrontationer mellem dem. Man legaliserer en opdeling af befolkningen pÄ baggrund af dens etniske og religiÞse tilhÞrsforhold. Man forstÊrker pÄ den mÄde de religiÞse fÞlelser hos folk og giver mere plads til de religiÞse konfrontationer.
Folketinget og ikke mindst de offentlige arbejdspladser skal vÊre og forblive religiÞst neutrale. Alt andet er et tilbageskridt i forhold til kampen for at blande religionen uden om politik. Tilladelse af optrÊden pÄ Folketingets talerstol med religiÞse symboler er desuden en sejr for de religiÞse politiske bevÊgelser, herunder den islamiske bevÊgelse.
OptrÊden med tÞrklÊde pÄ Folketingets talerstol i Danmark er ikke en sejr for hverken demokrati eller menneskerettighederne, det er blot en sejr for den islamiske bevÊgelse, som i de senere Ärtier har skubbet menneskerettighederne tilbage til fordel for religionens magt, religiÞse manifestationer og synliggÞrelse af de religiÞse symboler pÄ den politiske scene. Nahid Riazi, socialpÊdagog: Religion ad bagdÞren
“Her uncles spat in her grave to show their disgust”
Vi fĂ„r ofte at vide fra apologetisk side, at de sĂ„kaldte ‘ĂŠresdrab’ ikke er et specifikt islamisk fĂŠnomen, men er kulturelt, og ogsĂ„ forekommer i fĂžrmoderne ikke-muslimske kulturer. Ud over at denne forklaring ikke begrunder hvorfor vi derved skulle vĂŠre forpligtede til at modtage tilvandrede medlemmer af fĂžrmoderne kulturer, nĂ„r dette er en af de medfĂžlgende konsekvenser, sĂ„ bliver problemet yderligere vanskeligt at udrydde fordi det rent faktisk i islamiske kulturer opfattes som religiĂžst begrundet. MĂ„ske en opgave for JĂžrgen BĂŠk Simonsen og Kate Ăstergaard at tage ned til Basra og forklare politichefen der at han tager helt fejl med hensyn til denne religiĂžse ‘kontekst’:
An Iraqi teenage girl was brutally murdered by her father in an “honour killing” after she fell in love with a British soldier in Basra.
Seventeen-year-old Rand Abdel-Qader told her best friend how she had fallen for Paul, a 22-year-old she met at a charity where she worked as a volunteer.
When her father learned she had been seen speaking to a foreigner he rushed home and butchered her, strangling and stabbing her while screaming that he was “cleansing his honour”.
He was arrested, but Iraqi police took no action. His wife has since left him and is in hiding. […]
Recalling Rand’s murder, her weeping mother Leila Hussein said: “I screamed and called out for her two brothers so they could get their father away. But when he told them the reason, instead of saving her they helped him end her life.”
Abdel-Qader Ali stood on the girl’s throat until she suffocated and then stabbed her, all the time shouting that his honour was being cleansed.
He was arrested and released within two hours. Sergeant Ali Jabbar of Basra police said: “The father has very good contacts in the Basra government.”
Because her family considered her impure, Rand was given only a simple burial. Her uncles spat in her grave to show their disgust.
Two weeks later her mother demanded a divorce from Ali, and she now campaigns against honour killings.
She lives in fear of reprisals. “I was beaten and had my arm broken by him,” she said. “No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq.” Teenage Iraqi girl who fell in love with BRITISH soldier in Basra is murdered by her own father in honour killing
MÄske skyldes det ikke politisk korrekthed og berÞringsangst (the Daily Mail er en af de mest Äbenmundede aviser i Storbritannien hvad angÄr islam), men denne interessante sÊtning er ikke lÊngere med i onlineudgaven af artiklen der citeres fra her (LFPC):
Sgt Ali Jabbar of Basra police said: “Not much can be done when we have an ‘honour killing’. You are in a Muslim society and women should live under religious laws.”
Bliver Danmark sĂ„ ogsĂ„ ‘skilt’ fra kone nr. 2?
Regel #1 for multikulturalister, apologeter og dhimmier: Konkrete mennesker mĂ„ aldrig udvises af Danmark. Der kan altid findes gode grunde til at vi skal hĂŠnge pĂ„ dem samt pĂ„ eksponentielt voksende slĂŠgtsled af efterkommere. Alt andet ville vĂŠre ‘uanstĂŠndigt’ og udtryk for et ‘rystende menneskesyn’ (LFPC):
Meget tyder pÄ, at den irakiske tolk med de to koner vil lade sig skille fra den ene af dem for at undgÄ en opslidende retssag.
Det oplyser hans advokat, Marianne VĂžlund, efter at Familiestyrelsen tidligere i dag bebudede en retssag mod tolken, hvis han ikke frivilligt lader sig skille fra den ene af sine koner.
“Han har ikke truffet nogen endelig beslutning endnu, men han vil nok vĂŠlge at lade sig skille,” siger Marianne VĂžlund til jp.dk. […] Irakisk tolk regner med skilsmisse
[…] public links >> moderaterna Tik- tak, tik-tak, tik-takâŠâŠâŠ. Saved by ajj888 on Thu 06-11-2008 Moderaterna: KlĂ„fingrigare Ă€n (s) Saved by creaid on Mon […]
Det minder lidt om debatten om muslimernes antal. De fleste danskere vil nok betakke sig for at leve i et samfund med en muslimsk majoritet. Alligevel er vi pÄ vej derhen, hvor muslimerne udgÞr flertallet, men det nÊgter folk at forholde sig til. De tror, at det nok skal gÄ alt sammen, og at danskerne nÞdvendigvis vil vÊre i flertal i fremtidens Danmark.
Europa er fremtidens Kosovo.
Magnus Linklater, krönikör i The Times, försvarar och bagatelliserar Àrkebiskop Williams uttalanden om sharia:
“In retrospect, Mr Phillips may conclude that this was an Archbishop of Canterbury moment rather than a Powell moment. Rather as the Archbishop found himself charged with urging the adoption of Sharia in Britain, when all he had been doing was suggesting equality of treatment for Muslims…
No! Not another immigration debate! – Trevor Phillips was naive to talk about racial cold war. He may be open to misinterpretation
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article3799161.ece
Det er ogsĂ„ vĂŠrd at bemĂŠrke, at El InglĂ©s ikke pĂ„ nogen mĂ„de er i stand til at ivĂŠrksĂŠtte et folkemord, og at bĂ„de han og GoV pĂ„ det skarpeste pointerede at der var tale om en rent ‘deskriptiv’, i modsĂŠtning til ‘normativ’ diskussion. Yderligere konkluderer han jo, at udryddelsesprogrammer som under nazismen ikke er mulige i dagens verden. Kan man sĂ„ distancere sig mere end der er gjort her? Og alligevel kom reaktionen. At LGF ville springe ivrigt til er selvfĂžlgelig oplagt – og de regnes ellers til at tilhĂžre den neokonservative hĂžjreflĂžj. BemĂŠrk ogsĂ„, at der (naturligvis) ikke… Read more »
At Pajamas Media bryder med Gates of Vienna pĂ„ grund af El InglĂ©s’ essay er en smule overraskende. For eksempel Daniel Pipes har i flere omgange berĂžrt de samme emner. Der synes at vĂŠre en modvilje mod, at worst case scenarios ridses op. Sandsynligvis fordi de fleste finder disse scenarier dybt skrĂŠmmende. Men nĂ„r Europa har vĂŠret vidne til amoklĂžbet i det tidligere Jugoslavien, er det rimeligt at forholde sig til alle aspekter af en mulig kommende konflikt. Ikke at tage det ekstreme konfliktpotentiale, som civilisationernes sammenstĂžd rummer, under debat er virkelighedsfortrĂŠngning i lighed med den, venstreflĂžjen og multikulturalisterne lider… Read more »
Heter du Abdullah eller Tran kan du ta in en ny fru var tredje Ă„r utan frĂ„gor frĂ„n Migrationsverket. Ăr du svensk och vill gifta dig utav kĂ€rlek trakasserar de dig med avslag efter avslag och anklagar dig för skenĂ€ktenskap. Detta kan de göra helt ostraffat eftersom man som utlĂ€nning blir krĂ€nkt om man misstĂ€nks för att fuska. Svenskar kan diskrimineras hur mycket som helst.
Apr 28
“KĂžnsapartheid – statsfeminismen hejser det hvide flag”
“HvornĂ„r er der mĂždre og fĂŠdre der rejser sig og i samlet flok tager afstand fra den form for diskrimination og mistĂŠnkeliggĂžrelse af drenge?”
HvornÄr er der mÞdre og fÊdre der samlet rejser sig og i samlet flok tager afstand fra den form for diskrimination og mistÊnkeliggÞrelse af drenge?
[…] Box Turtle Bulletin wrote an interesting post today on Kønsapartheid – statsfeminismens kapitulationHere’s a quick excerptI paradeligestillingens hjemland trumfer âraceâ naturligvis kĂžn, og islam trumfer alt og alle. […]