Almost all the speakers at the event "Should we be afraid of Islam?" organized in the halls of the Czech Parliament four days ago were giving the answer "No, they are or we are friends". Klára Samková gave the answer No, we should fight which has become well-known, at least to the readers of Breitbart.
The only other speech that was unequivocally arguing against the Islamic immigration (albeit a bit less loudly than Samková) was one by Benjamin Kuras, a British writer, playright, and translator who was born as Miloslav Kuraš in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in 1944 (not easy for an ethnic Jew!), has practiced Judaism since 1974, six years after he emigrated to the U.K. in 1968. Here is my translation of his speech. (It's likely that he has an English version somewhere but let me practice.)
Benjamin Kuras: Should we be afraid of Islam? Or the suicide of the Western civilization
Czech Parliament, Prague, May 18th, 2016
Our main enemy isn't Islam as such but the suicide of the Western civilization that has been ongoing for several decades and that is only using Islam as one of its suicide tools. Unlike the other weapons, this particular weapon may turn out to be lethal, however.
"Should we be afraid of Islam?" is therefore a correct question. And the right answer is that we shouldn't be afraid of Islam because by doing so, we would be awarding the victory to the radical Islam i.e. Islam that is returning to its roots in the 7th century and whose precise goal is to terrify us, according to the Quranic verse "bring horror to the hearts of the kafirs". Instead of fear, we should defend ourselves because Islam is waging war against us – and by us, I mean the Western civilization and culture, most urgently those in Europe. It is understandably not the whole Islam but only a "tiny minority" whose numerical estimates range from 0.1% according to President Obama to 10-15% according to respected survey organizations such as Pew Research and Carnegie Endowment for Peace. So the number may be anything between 200 thousand and 200 million, i.e. a genuinely tiny minority. [LM: I can't imagine that he isn't sarcastic (tx, Dan) here.]
This war, referred to by the Arabic word jihad, is waged not only through the means of war i.e. terrorism, but also through peaceful venues such as promotion, education, influencing, acquiring converts and advocates, which is known in Arabic as dawa. We could call it the political or cultural jihad, to separate it from the armed jihad. Many Western intellectuals participate in that fight. Some of them do so willingly because of their honest sympathies for Islam, others for the money, the majority is doing it unwillingly because of their being insufficiently informed or because they are stupefied by the political correctness, fascinating exotic scents, hatred towards the Western civilization, feeling of guilt for the ancestors' deeds, and the pseudo-humanism of the pseudo-love towards everything that is alien to the detriment of everything that is one's own – they act in the role of Lenin's infamous "useful idiots".
This "tiny minority" of the Muslim radicals is waging a war not only against the infidels but also against the majority of the Muslims who are moderate, democratic, or liberal and who are being exploited and treated in two ways: First, their democratic character and liberal credentials are being used to penetrate into democratic structures of the government and other influential institutions; second, they are being considered insufficiently Islamic so at the right moment in the future, they must either be radicalized or liquidated. In countries ruled by the Sharia law, they are already being liquidated know. The Islamic caliphate, several staunchly Islamic countries, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, and their likes have already murdered tens of thousands of moderate Muslim men and women in our era and the number integrated over the whole history reaches tens of millions.
Recently, a widely publicized victim known to the readers of the British media was a Glasgow-based newsagent and devoted Muslim Mr Asad Shah who was murdered by a radical Muslim because he (Shah) has wished the Happy Easter to the Christian customers. The fact that the killer was no nutty lonely wolf became clear a few days later in London where fliers were vowing death to a whole branch of Islam named Ahmadi where Mr Shah had belonged and that was labeled unIslamic by an influential Muslim organization.
In France, police has to guarantee protection to moderate Muslims such as journalist Zineb El Rhazoui or the anti-radical imam Hassen Chalghoumi. The British police has to guard the Muslim journalist Ms Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
Democratic and tolerant Muslims – and let's believe that most of the Czech Muslim community including its president Mr Alrawi belongs here – are therefore threatened by this war just like we, the infidels, and other kafirs. That's why it would be sensible to consider them to be allies, not enemies.
The part of the Islam that is against them and against us in the war is the part that is promoting a struggle to conquer the world and impose the Sharia law on it, a part that is reducing the infidels to an inferior civic, political, and economic status, that is restricting the laws of women, raping underage girls, mutilating their genitalia, punishing ex-Muslims by death, restoring slavery and medieval punishments such as beheading and cutting of the head, stoning, crucification, burning alive – and introducing a strict censorship of any criticism of any aspect of Islam including the true criticisms.
The European Court for Human Rights has repeatedly identified Sharia as incompatible with democracy, a severe violation of the human rights and the European constitutions. According to the Czech and European laws, many duties described by Sharia are classified as crimes and even their very promotion counts as the criminal act of the promotion of a totalitarian ideology. In spite of that, these crimes are never being punished and their critics are sometimes punished instead. The worst crime according to the Sharia law is the departure from Islam. The death penalty for that "crime" violates the basic European laws about the freedom of belief, not to mention that the punishment itself is a premeditated murder. This punishment is an inseparable part of the radical Islam, nevertheless, and as the main ideologue of the radical Islam Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi recently admitted, this punishment is the main building block that allows Islam to survive.
In several Islamic countries the Sharia law applies. The percentages of citizens who agree with the Sharia-style laws approach 100% in several additional countries, and the fraction is mostly between 2/3 and 3/4. Indonesia belongs among the countries with the lowest support, 49%, and it's where four additional religions enjoy the constitutional protection. This example disproves the view held by many that the Sharia law is unavoidably associated with Islam. Despite its 90% Muslim majority, Indonesia has avoided the Sharia law for 8 centuries.
Given the oppressive and murderous character of the Sharia-style laws, it would be reasonable to extend the definition of the radical Islam on those who are defending and promoting these laws even if they don't participate in terrorist acts – because they are actively participating in the political jihad. That category currently includes 23% of the British Muslims who self-identified as Sharia supporters in the latest nationwide survey sponsored by TV Channel Four, 17% of French Muslims sympathizing with Daesh, 47% of Danish Muslims who refuse to place the Danish laws above the Islamic ones, 47% of German Muslims. Similar numbers describe the state of affairs in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden, according to the WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
On the other hand, Mr Alrawi along with a great majority of the Czech Muslims don't support the introduction of the Sharia law and they don't belong to the radical Islam. This majority would do a great service to themselves, us, democracy, and the country where they are citizens if it were taming the Sharia supporters among themselves, if it were handing them over to the investigation for the illegal promotion of a totalitarian political system and for the encouragement to liquidate the democratic system, or – which could be even better – if it were sending these people to one of the 57 Islamic countries in the world.
If the organized Czech Muslims publicly vowed to deal with the issue in this way, it could calm down the Czech public and persuade everyone that there's no reason to be afraid of Islam, at least not of the Czech Islam. The mutual confidence would benefit from a similar commitment of Mr Alrawi on behalf of the Czech Muslim community. He could give a speech here in the Czech Parliament.
In this context, it's appropriate to remind Mr Alrawi – but also the Czech lawmakers – about one tiny minority of the Czech Muslims that must be unfamiliar to Mr Alrawi, a group named the Islamic Foundation in Brno [islamweb dot cz], that orders the Czech Muslims to "firmly remain faithful to the laws that appeared through the revelations and to overlook all other legal systems which were invented by the people". In other words, they want the Muslims to ignore and violate the laws of this country.
Those Muslims who are afraid of a punishment by Allah for the violation of the "laws found through revelations" should learn that the Sharia law wasn't a part of any "revelation" but, as the historians found out, a result of a 150-year-long debate of the Islamic scholars known as the Ijtihad and they were only codified 150 years after the Quran's founding messenger died. They are consequently "laws invented by the humans", too.
In order to simplify the guarantee of the democratic character of the Czech Muslim community and its loyalty towards the Czech statehood and to preserve its security and the democratic character, the Muslim immigration should be stopped entirely because we don't know anything about the individual migrants except that we can't estimate the degree of democratic thinking and tolerance of each migrant, we can reasonably think that the Czech Muslim community could be threatened, and it's always better to err on the safe (and careful) side. Otherwise even we would be absurdly throwing the Muslims – who escaped here in their search for a free and safe life away from the radical Islam – to the same danger here from which they were escaping in the first place.
The Czech political sphere should return the favor by an uncompromising support of our democratic Muslims and their protection against the radical ones and by making sure that all the restrictions of the democratically oriented Muslims' freedom, whether it's through violence, threats, societal manipulation, of brainwashing, would be not only forbidden by the law but also punished. In this way, the politicians could avoid those conflicts that have spread in Western Europe because of the insufficient support for the democratic Muslims and because of concessions to the radical ones.
Also, any promotion of Islam attempting to obfuscate its totalitarian aspects such as the restrictions on the rights of women and people of a different faith should be punished by the law, but especially the denial of the fact that the Sharia law wants to punish those who depart from Islam should be outlawed. By obfuscating this fact, the advocates are putting the converts to the risk of death because at some moment in the future, they may change their mind and switch from Islam to another religion or irreligion which would be more compatible with their soul, culture, or education. The ban should apply particularly strictly at schools – where easily manipulated children may be left unaware of the death penalty for the desertion and those who hide this punishment are therefore threatening the lives of the children or minors.
Our Arabists, Islamologists, and advocates of Islamization could help to reduce the widespread concerns if they stopped their lies about the compatibility of the Sharia law with democracy in this world where a majority of the imams and Islamic politicians makes everyone sure that the law isn't and can't be compatible with democracy because it is coming directly from Allah and is therefore placed above the democratic laws. In particular, it seems appropriate to mention the activities of foundations such as HateFree which recently claimed that to practice the Sharia law is entirely compatible with democracy. Similarly, authorities should investigate the potential participation of particular Czech politicians on these activities and determine whether they are committing the criminal act of conspiracy to liquidate democracy or launch a cultural genocide. Islamophiles should also stop the lies about the problem-free integration of Muslims in the Western Europe when, after the third generation of the Islamic immigration, spectacularly shocking facts such as those from the recent TV Channel Four probe must be visible to their naked eyes:
Only 7% of the British Muslims consider their British citizenship to be more serious than their belonging to Islam. Only 21% of British Muslims have visited a non-Muslim home in their lifetime. 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with terrorism including the suicide attacks. Only 3% of the British Muslims believe that the freedom of speech is more important than the Muslim sensitivity or an insult. 18% of them agree with the punishment of criticisms of Islam. 78% demand a ban on the visualization of Mohammed. One-third wants polygamy to be legalized. One-third doesn't denounce the stoning of women for an extra-marital affair. 45% want schools with a staunchly Islamic flavor for their kids.
In Belgium, a whole Muslim neighborhood has been hiding the main mastermind of the Paris November attack for whopping 4 months before he was captured by the police after he was sloppy while ordering a pizza.
Already since 2001, the French government has been acknowledging the existence of 750 "zones urbaines sensibles" i.e. sensitive city areas over which the law enforcement authorities don't have a full control and where Islam reigns supreme. Additional 1,400 neighborhoods are classified as "priority areas" due to their high crime rate, high dependence on the welfare system, and parallel Muslim communities are living there who are nicknamed "territoires perdus pour la république" by the French which translates as the "territories lost for the republic". According to the police estimates, up to 5 million Muslims live in these areas. Their youth is capable of destroying 40,000 cars annually, 1,800 of which were ended just during the 2015-2016 New Year's Eve celebrations. In Denmark, 20% of men and 5% of women granted asylum 5 years ago are at work, the rest lives from the welfare. The Swedish police recently published a list of 55 suburbs controlled by immigrant gangs where policemen or firefighters don't dare to enter. The German police has recorded 208,000 criminal acts committed by the new Muslim immigrants just in 2015.
Surveys similar to that on Channel Four TV could also be performed in the Czech Muslim community in order to bring some clarity to the question how many of them are loyal to the Czech statehood and its laws and how many want different laws.
The European Muslim communities' statistics imply that the increase of the Muslim population leads to the radicalization and silencing of the democratic Muslims. And that the radicalization has been increasing rapidly since the moment when the Muslim community surpassed the threshold of 2% of the population. The following Western European countries already belong to this category according to Carnegie Endowment:
France has surpassed 10% in 2016. Germany is approaching 8%. Both Austria and Belgium are above 6%. Above 5%, we find the U.K., Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland. Denmark is above 4%. Italy, Spain, Norway, and Luxembourg have surpassed 3%.
In isolation, these overall numbers don't look terrifying. They only become alarming when we learn that e.g. according to local statistics obtained in Vienna and Brussels, Muslim kids represent 50% of first-graders who are just starting the basic school. A similar situation exists in dozens of big Western European cities, from Marseille to Rotterdam and Birmingham to Malmö. Within 20 years, Western Europeans will be a minority in their cities.
What was starting as immigration is turning into colonization. The difference between these two concepts is the following: Immigration is a transfer to a country into which we want to adapt. The colonization is a transfer to a country that we want to be adapted to us and that we want to take control over. The Western European multicultural experiment, so promising in its beginnings when it involved the immigrants from numerous corners of the world and when their cultures and cuisines were enriching the domestic cultures, has collapsed thanks to the Islam that – as Trevor Phillips, an ex-chairman of the Committee for the Racial Equality, said on the Channel Four TV program – is building a state within the state, refuses to integrate with others, and it is getting increasingly radicalized in its thinking and acts every year. Let us not repeat the Western Europe's experiment that has failed; we have already experienced numerous failed experiments that we started ourselves, anyway.
Those people who are immediately using words such as "xenophobes" (extremists, Nazis, fascists, brown scum etc.) are logically and automatically showing that they are either dreaming about Islamization or that they at least consider it just fine. It is up to these people to explain why they do so to us. We should be asking the relevant questions to these people.
What progress in science and technology do you expect from Islam? Which great economic or environmental improvements are you finding in Islam? What do you imagine that Islam may bring us to make the relationships between humans more cordial, to improve the quality of the political system, to refine the social justice, to guarantee civic freedoms? How will it improve our infrastructure, schools, or healthcare system? What ideas or discoveries will it give us to increase our spiritual well-being? How will it beautify our architecture, city planning, design, clothing, visual arts? Which novels, poems, plays, or philosophical essays will it entertain and educate us with? What about operas, symphonies, and ballets? Where can you find some examples from which we could learn something? Which Islamic country could be taken as a role model we could follow?
Once you think about these questions, you are likely to realize that while in the recent 500 years or so, the Western civilization has been the author of almost all the inventions in the industry, technology, transportation, construction, telecommunication, electronics, physics, cybernetics, astronomy, astronautics, chemistry, medicine, agriculture, economics, human rights, psychology, and all genres of arts, Islam has provided the world with nothing useful since the 12th century when al-Ghazali banned all non-Islamic research because the study of the laws of Nature and the human creativity inspired by them were denying the omnipotence of Allah's.
When you realize these facts, will you really want the radical Islam to reign here and to destroy this fantastically creative civilization of ours in the same way in which it has previously ruined the Byzantine, Persian, and partially Indian civilizations? Do you really want this outcome after you have carefully thought about all these arguments? If you're not dreaming about this result, please stop committing suicide and join the defense of your home and your culture and don't help to destroy the civilization that even gives you the freedom to hate the very same civilization. If the hegemony itself is really what you want, be so kind and pick one of the 57 Islamic countries, happily move there, and leave Europe to its free creative life – Europe including its liberal and democratic Muslims who want to live in harmony with the European laws and who want to participate at Europe's creative enterprises.
Blue Danube (Czech: On the Beautiful Blue Danube) by Johann Strauss
Sunday night update:
In Austria, the 2nd round of the presidential elections saw a 61% turnout. Before the additional 11% of voters' mail votes are included, anti-EU and anti-immigration Norbert Hofer has a 52-to-48 lead over the ecoterrorist whose name I don't remember. If the first round is a good template, the 4-percent lead will drop by 3 percentage points or so on Monday when those 600,000+ correspondence votes are counted in, so the final results are really not clear at this point but I do believe that the probability that Hofer wins exceeds 95% now because Hofer would have to lose more than 40-to-60 in the mail votes to lose everything.