Conversations with a "Moderate Muslim"

Allan Greg hosts half hour interviews with notable members of the public. Recently, he interviewed Globe and Mail writer Sheema Khan about her life in Canada. Greg was infinitely respectful towards Khan, who calls herself  "A Canadian Hockey Mom," while permanently wearing her hijab. She talked about her children's integration in Canadian culture, and her unabashed support for her adoptive country.

Things got interesting near the end of the interview when Khan carefully said that one of the ways for Muslims to live peacefully in Canada is to carve their own Muslim place in the country. Greg didn't even blink an eye, let alone ask her to expand on this statement. She is simply saying that the best possible life in Canada for Muslims like her is if they live apart as Muslims. So much for moderate Muslims, and there goes the "integration" she talks so eloquently about.

Was David B. Harris the Very First Canadian to Go Through Attempted Censorship by Muslims?

David B. Harris is the former Chief of Strategic Planning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). He is now the Director of International and Terrorist Intelligence at INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc.

In April 2004, while on Ottawa's CFRB radio, he asked this question:

"Shouldn't someone be looking into CAIR-CAN's relationship with its more-troubling American relative, CAIR?"

CAIR-CAN's then Chair Dr. Sheema Khan sued both Mr. Harris and the Ottawa radio station for libel. Mr. Harris and CFRB radio didn't back down after these accusations. And in 2006, CAIR-CAN "dropped their suit, cold. No damages, no costs, no apology, no clarification."

This is very similar to what happened to Ezra Levant, except that rather than being sued for libel and brought before the court system, he was charged with "promoting hate" and brought before the Human Rights Commissions. Three years later, the complainant Syed Soharwardy also withdrew his case.

Perhaps in 2006, CAIR-CAN was not yet familiar with the intricacies of the HRCs, and went the legal libel route. In any case, both incidents show that Muslims are more than ready to silence anyone who speaks truthfully about the problems in their religion and its organizations. We have so far seen a court case and a HRC case come to nothing. (That doesn't mean though that the accused suffered lost time, lost money and endless months of frustration). But, I think that Muslims will continue to manipulate all the possibilities to silence discussion and debate, and most of all disagreement, when it comes to their religion.

Muslim Student Is Not an Assimilated Canadian Despite Her Conventional-Looking Facebook Site

Here is the Facebook page of the University of Western Ontario Muslim woman, Fatima Al Dhaher, who asked Ann Coulter to expand on her comment about Muslims flying off on their magic carpets that Coulter made a few years ago.

Bloggers have scoured the Internet to find out more about her, and landed on her Facebook page, which is of course deleted now. Blazingcatfur has screensavers of her Facebook pages, including the one I have above.

So, this is what an "assimilated moderate Muslim" looks like. She's a regular college student, likes John Mayer, watches Glee,  and has a bunch of innocous-sounding Facebook friends like Katy Clarke and Ashley Murray. But wait, what's that about "It's called Palestine, not Israel!!!!"?

Here is another screensaver from her now-deleted Facebook with the Israeli flag crossed out, next to the Palestinian flag. And yet another of a comment written on her Facebook by someone who hasn't a mainstream Canadian name, who talks about zionazis and kikeroaches.

The delusional division of radical vs. moderate Muslims is showing itself to be a sham on a regular basis. More Fatimas are in the woodworks, who appear to be regular Canadian girls going to college and are fans of pop stars and TV shows. But they always show their true colors at some point.

Canadian "Moderate" Muslim's Loyalty Does Not Lie with Canada

I am always wary of ex-Muslims or "moderate" Muslims, or even non-Western critiques of Islam, who write about the dangers of Islam.

Salim Mansur, who is a Ismaili Muslim, has written an article on the Wilders trial in the Toronto Sun (not to be confused with the ultra-liberal Toronto Star).

I have written about Mansur previously to discuss his recent book: Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim. He got rave reviews from all the "right" bloggers and columnists in Canada, but I found some serious flaws in it. One of the biggest is where he writes that the "true" Islam was sabotaged by a violent and murdering sect hence sealing its violent nature from then on. I write that it is not a branch of Mohammedans that sealed the fate of Islam, but the Koran itself.

In his Sun article, he correctly identifies part of the problem as:

the Amsterdam Court of Appeal conceded[ing] space to the Islamists by accommodating, in practical terms, their demand for acceptance of Shariah (Islamic law) within secular society.

But he goes on to say write a new paragraph headlined as "Abandonment."

This can only mean abandoning those Muslims, especially women, who escaped from Islamic countries seeking freedom. They will become vulnerable once again to Islamists enforcing Shariah rule inside enclaves where Muslims reside within Europe.

And a Europe that appeases official Islam, while punishing its critics, will also be uncaring about the struggle for reform inside the Arab-Muslim world as in Iran. Such a Europe, as Fallaci so passionately raged against, will be then sliding into a new dark age.

He focuses the important conclusion of his article on Muslims and Arab-Muslim countries, and not on the West itself.

I don't think Mansur can ever say: "Stop Muslim immigration to Canada, including those women living under sharia in Muslim countries."

He will also probably be less accepting of true military actions (as in using firearms rather than "country-building" missions) to confront virulent Muslim countries like Iran.

In his own way, Mansur is a Muslim appeaser. He is saying that since the majority of Muslims in Canada and around the world are non-violent, then the world should focus on them and try and liberate these Muslims from the violent Muslims who are "inseparable from the power and sweep of the sword."

No, the West's role is to save its own societies, not to act as freedom fighter and social worker for the world's non-violent Muslims. Furthermore, these apparently passive Muslims never denounce the sword-bearing jihadists, since they are clearly following the mandates of the Koran. And the Koran is what the majority of people who call themselves Muslims (unlike Mansur) believe in and follow.

Clever Calgary Imams Playing it Safe

Some clever imams have signed a petition for Canadian and American Muslims (and imams) to denounce terrorism.

Of course this is a ploy to get Canadians to exclaim: even imams don't like terrorists!

Firstly, the petition never explains who these extremists are. They could be Tamil Tiger terrorists, for all they care, or abortion clinic bombers.

Second, and related to the first, they don't denounce jihad, which is what Muslim "terrorism" is all about. They of course do not see jihad as terrorism, as this frank (for a change) Muslim announced here. So jihad can continue, but terrorism is out.

Third, they are simply lying. Taqqiya is a common strategy by Muslims in times of jihad and war with infidels and infidel countries to gain the upper hand.

Finally, they make very clear that Canada and the U.S. have already accepted Muslims, who entered these countries and are infiltrating them through the original strategy of Hirja or immigration - which is how Mohammed entered and converted Medina into a Muslim city. As the petition says, Muslims can observe every aspect of their religion, from Ramadan to building mosques, in absolute freedom.

All this petition is doing is to try and avoid angry retaliation by Canadians and Americans after the recent bombing attempt on Christmas day by the Nigerian Muslim.

Don't rock the boat, for now, is the message. But, tomorrow, or the next day, or at any other unpredictable moment, Muslim jihadists can (and will) resume their violent incursion into these countries. It is written in the Koran, after all. And it is not terrorism.

We Will Pay Dearly for Having Left Our Spiritual Foundations

This is paraphrasing the Archbishop of Prague, Cardinal Miloslav Vlk. He goes on to say:

Europe has denied its Christian roots from which it has risen and which could give it the strength to fend off the danger that it will be conquered by Muslims, which is actually happening gradually.

At the end of the Middle Ages and in the early modern age, Islam failed to conquer Europe with arms. The Christians beat them then. Today, when the fighting is done with spiritual weapons, which Europe lacks while Muslims are perfectly armed, the fall of Europe is looming.

This is what I've been saying, and the reason for which I put the cross at the top of this blog, to indicate that this not only a military war, but also a spiritual one.

The fundamental strength of the previous generations who fought off Islam has always been spiritual. Without that, I think it is impossible to defeat Islam. These generations defeated the Muslims precisely because of their spiritual, Christian, confidence. Arms and religion do go together.

This Is Exactly Right!

Via the ever-diligent blogger at Creeping Sharia:

Virginia Muslims: "We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism"

The First Canadian Case of Dhimmitude

On December 6, 1989 Mark Lepine/Gamil Gharbi entered the École Polytechnique in Montreal and shot dead fourteen women, and injured ten other women and four men. He later killed himself with a bullet through the head. The Canadian media, and especially feminists, commemorate December 6 as a day to bring awareness to violence against women. It is quite a sacrilegious day.

Barabara Kay, in her December 30th National Post article, writes that this day has finally lost its lustre of "blame the men day," and cultural trends are indicating the demise of feminism - at least the "hate men" variety.

Here is a take on the incident by Mark Steyn:

M. Lepine was born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, whose brutalized spouse told the court at their divorce hearing that her husband 'had a total disdain for women and believed they were intended only to serve men.' At 18, young Gamil took his mother’s maiden name. The Gazette in Montreal mentioned this in its immediate reports of the massacre. The name 'Gamil Gharbi' has not sullied its pages in the 12 years since.

The Canadian media, which still insists on calling Gharbi by his French name Lepine, missed the point, as does the usually insightful Barbara Kay. I've always associated Gharbi's killing spree with Muslim/Arab misogyny, something he learned from his father. What gives it away, in my opinion, is the chilling way in which he separated the men from the women - a practice common in Arab/Muslim culture in all aspects of society from mosque attendance to private parties - before shooting them.

Here’s where the dhimmis come in. He ordered fifty men in one class to leave, and shot dead the remaining nine women (and later on five more in his rampage around the building). Fifty men meekly left the room as a single man with a single gun ordered them to do so. Not one man risked his life for his fellow countrywomen, not one had it in him to disarm this murderer.

This is the story that Barabara Kay should be writing about, linking it with the Arab/Muslim story that it surely belongs to, and how it is symbolic of Canada’s first (at least, first public) dhimmitude. Yes, feminism may be on the wane (although I doubt it), but dhimmitude is on the rise, with its accompanying increase in Muslim boldness.

Keeping Our Eye on the Ball

The Human Rights Commissions (I have a special link for all my posts on the HRCs at the right hand column of this blog) are associated with the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They were, as were the other institutions, installed to dampen the effects of diversity and the conflicts that multicultural and diverse communities can incur. They predictably arrived right after the amended immigration policies of 1967, which allowed non-white immigrants to enter into Canada without any restrictions.

Recent high-profile cases have involved pastor Boissoin and his letter to his local Alberta paper on homosexuals, and Marc Lemire who was put before the Commissions for comments on the website that he monitors. But the most vocal and belligerent cases have by far been by Muslim groups trying to silence writers and commentators on Muslim issues and news.

I have written here that while the task of dismantling these HRCs should still continue, (and also the repealing of hate speech laws, although I am not sure if that is even possible), we should not ignore these most aggressive of opponents that exposing the wrongs of HRCs has unveiled for us.

One way or another, Muslims are determined to push their culture and religion into Canadian society. If kangaroo HRCs courts won't work, they will go through normal legal procedures; if overt measures are pushed back, they will continue with their ever-covert activates of taking over one square inch at a time.

One of their most effective measures is to use the current systems and institutions to further their cause. The HRCs are one, multiculturalism is another, and diversity is the way in which they can hide behind, and soften, their effects. Immigration is what adds fuel to this fire.

These battles of the last few years on the "freedom front" have actually disclosed clearly and unequivocally a hostile force. As I wrote in my previous post, it is important to straighten out these institutions, but alongside that, we have a difficult and deceptive opponent to contend with in Islam, and we shouldn't lose sight of it.

Tying together the Use of Hate Speech Laws and the HRCs with Muslims and with Immigration

I got a response from Rebekah of The Miss Marprelate Tracts to my last email about the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium in Ottawa in early December.

She writes regarding the accuracy of her liveblog (which I didn't doubt, I just wanted clarification on a few points):

My liveblog, although not a word for word transcript, is substantially accurate on all or most of the main points and solutions offered by speakers. If I didn't mention something it is probably because it was not covered or at least not covered in any substantial way.

And in response to my question about free speech as it relates to Muslim groups, this is what she had to say:

I am, however, reasonably certain that most free speechers would place the chief, and most disturbing, blame for the current situation on the system which enables and submits to radical agendas rather than on those who would themselves seek to advance such a radical agenda. The world will always have people, of varied stripes, who seek to subvert or take advantage of the justice system. It is for the justice system to ensure that they do not succeed. That is why there is a tendency to focus on legal and political challenges to hate speech laws and public education on the issue.

I responded:

You write:

The world will always have people, of varied stripes, who seek to subvert or take advantage of the justice system.

Until now, no group of people has tried so radically to take advantage of existing Canadian laws and systems in order to aggressively advance itself within the country as have done the Muslims.The very public incidents such as the Maclean's HRCs case, and the one against Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed cartoons, have allowed us to see what we're up against. Muslims, I believe, are now the biggest threat to freedoms of all kinds (speech, expression, of the press, etc.).

I thought that someone like Bjorn Larsen, who has been involved personally with many counter-jihad groups and individuals, would have brought this insight (or relationship) in his presentation. He did mention Muslims, but didn't tie all this together. I think that hate speech laws, in and of themselves, should be fought against, but what they have exposed in terms of Muslims (and multiculturalism, in general) should also be the focus.

How Bjorn Larsen Could Have Presented a Multi-Faceted Solution to Problems Facing Free Speech

Larsen focused his speech at the Free Speech and Liberty symposium on hate speech laws. His solution is that we should simply repeal them. In Canada, these laws are enforced through Section 13 of the Human Rights Act and its corresponding Human Rights Commissions, which state:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Or through the Criminal Code of Canada which has three sections:

- Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide against an identifiable group;

- Section 319(1) makes it an offense to communicate statements in a public place that will incite hatred against an identifiable group, and thereby lead to a breach of the peace; and

- Section 319(2) makes it an offense to communicate statements, other than in private conversation, which willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Read about the differences between the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act provision here.

In 2003, David Ahenakew, a First Nations politician, was charged by the Saskatchewan Justice Department (not the HRCs) with inciting hatred against Jewish groups when he justified these comments on the holocaust "That's why [Hitler] fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world" by saying "How else do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" He was convicted and fined $1,000, but the charge was later overturned.

The focus may be on the HRCs for now, but there is room in the Criminal Code for belligerent and aggressive groups to use the hate speech laws to continue to silence legitimate discussions. These hate speech laws are very much present, and are not simply gathering dust in some drawer.

Larsen states in this symposium (which focused purely on free speech) that we must repeal them. I have no law background, so I have no idea how possible this is.

The other solution is to reduce, and strategically remove, the group that is now most likely to put these laws into effect, which is the Muslim group. Even in Holland, it is the Muslims that are bringing Wilders to court.

I have maintained throughout Our Changing Landscape that the high levels of minority immigrant groups, who will cry "racism" and "discrimination" at opportune moments, will also continue to be problematic when it comes to the HRCs and the hate speech laws. So the aim should be to reduce immigrations levels in general.

Thus, the problem should be viewed as a combination of aggressive Muslim groups, high levels of non-white immigrants, and toxic hate crime laws. Larsen, with his ample experience with prominent counter-jihad individuals, should have provided a multi-faceted solution to the problem that includes the reduction of Muslim immigration. Currently, free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press cannot be discussed separately from the Muslim problem specifically, and the immigration problem in general.

Respected Muslim Family Man Now in a Canadian Jail

Respected Muslim family man now in a Canadian jail

Here is an exemplary family man, community organizer, leader in his professional group, and a "modern" Muslim, who has been jailed for threatening to kill his daughter.

His whole family (minus the daughter, who has been hiding for two years now), who say that he was simply a strict father and nothing more, apparently see nothing wrong with him pressuring his daughter into an arranged marriage. Of course, threatening to kill her could simply mean that he lost his temper when his daughter disobeyed him. His fellow-workers think he's an exemplary colleague, and he even has been offered to keep his job while in jail.

Such is the fate of the "good Muslim family men" in the West. Why don't we give these people a break and simply say:

By coming into our countries, your children will change, you will have a hard time keeping your family together, and anything that you try to do to retain your culture and your religion could be misconstrued as criminal. So, just stay home, in your Islamic countries, where you will live much more peaceful lives and where you can maintain your beliefs and your families intact.

This is surely the least we can do to alleviate all this hardship and heartache.

Who are the Real Muslim Anti-Semites?

I really don't mean to focus on Ezra Levan't various attempts at deciphering the Muslim community which put his life on hold for three years when he published the Mohammed cartoons. But I don't think he understands the community. His articles mostly decry individual Muslims who attacked him. But, he has never put them together in the collective whole of Islam. It is not individual Muslims, radical Muslims, moderate Muslims, peaceful Muslims etc. ad nauseam, that are the problem, it is Islam as a religion which mandates the behaviors of all these groups and individuals.

Levant writes about Syed Soharwardy, a rabid anti-Semitic Muslim - who brought him to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Mohammed cartoons - almost as though he is the exception to the rule. But, according to the Koran, all Jews are enemies of Islam. However odiously Soharwardy may rant against Jews, and however hate-filled is his website, he is not doing anything radically different from what the Koran mandates.

If Levant is eager to educate his Calgary Jewish Community Council about the anti-Semitism of this one man, he should be more explicit and tell them that the whole Islamic community is required to believe the worst regarding the Jews, if these Muslims are true followers of Mohammed and the Koran’s writings.

Ezra Levant Awarded Prize For Which He Isn't Eligible

Ezra Levant has been awarded the blogosphere honor of Best Overall Canadian Infidel Blogger. But he has never written extensively about Muslims and their collective contribution to the Mohammed Cartoons censorship, which led to his three-year ordeal with the Human Rights Commissions. (Here is one brief article where he is much more direct, but I've never come across similar articles before or after this one). Sure, he blamed individual Muslims for this disruption to his life and to freedom of the press. But his whole battle was focused on the Human Rights Commissions' censorship agenda, rather than on the Muslims' strategic moves to change Canadian society to fit their sharia-based Islamic worldview.

Making such unequivocal connections between Muslims and the Mohammed Cartoon censorship case would of course lead to a drastically different direction in his battle against censorship. It would make him question the multicultural system that allows Muslims to openly declare their religion and mode of governance within a non-Muslim country like Canada. It would also require him to at least think about what to do with these specific culprits. As I've written many times on this blog, after (if) the HRCs are shut down, then what? Muslims will still be here. They will follow their Koranic mandate to instil a Muslim-based society. They have found many ways to infiltrate Canadian culture without the aid of quasi-illegitimate agencies like the HRCs. They may have used the HRCs to dissuade Canadians from satirizing Mohammed, but they can use a myriad of other strategies, including suing people like Levant in real Canadian courts, whenever they feel their religion and culture is being diminished.

This is the future Levant can look forward to, and until he consciously and deliberately connects these dots, his fight against the HRCs will have been in vain.

What To Do About It

I've done my rounds of conservative blogs and more mainstream sites. All are shocked and disgusted by the Fort Hood massacre. Perhaps this is a time to vent feelings of outrage, and hopefully cooler thoughts will emerge soon.

Still, I haven't read any say (or even mention) what to do about it. Not just "don't allow devout Muslims who attend their mosque daily into the military" but also to think about the bigger picture.

Lawrence Auster, as far as I've read, is the only counter-Jihad writer who has written about a concrete solution in his post "The massacre." He has also formulated several step-by-step plans in previous articles about what to do with Islam and Muslims, and as far as I know is the only to do so.

Perhaps a politician is the best candidate to pull this off the ground. Geert Wilders is one such politician who has come up with concrete solutions to this immense problem. Simply put, he says stop mass immigration of Muslims into the Netherlands, and to remove any Muslim who is actively involved in sharia or jihadi type of behavior from the country.

During my participation in Westergaard's tour, my question at an informal meeting in Manhattan was to ask if anyone like Wilders has emerged in Westergaard's Denmark. People didn’t initially understand my question, which was really "what’s being done about it?"

The question begs to be asked for America. I think that Tom Tancredo would be the ideal candidate, since he does have a platform on immigration, and that is one of the pressing issues when trying to find a solution to the Muslim problem.

In Canada, I thought it could be Ezra Levant, since he got hit by the Muslim censorship contingency. He has been a "conservative political activist" according to his Wikipedia profile, and worked as an aide to Reform Party leader Preston Manning in Ottawa. He also ran for local politics in Calgary. But he never connected the dots with Muslims and immigration, or more precisely Muslims as aliens.

Britain already has its leader from the BNP, Nick Griffin.

All I can say is that the facts are out. There is no denying who Hasan was, and why he did what he did. Politicians and liberals may hide behind words, but I truly think the ordinary people - for example, those that got wounded (too late for the killed) at Fort Hood - instinctively know what's going on. That is why Wilders has such a popular following, as I described in this post.

Someone needs to get the ball rolling. And seasoned politicians should be encouraged to come forward for that purpose. I think the popular following will be great. Are a bunch of mainstream newsmen (CNN, ABC, NBC and even FOX) going to dictate how the world should be run?

Pamela Geller's Incessant Charity

Sometimes I think that people like Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs have a need to be running around all the time. I do not diminish her charity work, and it takes a lot of energy to perform such acts. But has Geller really thought about what she's doing with her vocal and active support of Muslim victims of honor killings?

The West is now being inundated with such honor killings, where a young girl will stray from her Muslim culture and family either through a non-approved boyfriend or her style of dress and behavior, and the father or brother (or both) will hunt her down and kill her.

There are many points to these types of stories.

* Would such a girl behave this way if she had lived in a Muslim country, where such straying into a foreign culture would have been impossible?

* Are the behaviors that some (many?) of these girls adopt - slutty clothing, heavy make-up, late nights out, and the general narcissistic behavior of many Western girls - really something we as Westerners should condone and support?

* Do these girls really become Westernized and truly Christianized, or is this just a way to escape the undeniable restraints their families put on them?

One solution is for Geller to advocate dramatic reductions in Muslim immigration to America (in her case), so that Muslim girls will be Muslim girls in their own Muslim countries, and not be tempted by some of the less desirable fruits of Western society. Even we are trying to get rid of these unpleasant temptations. That way, there will be less futile departures by these girls from their families and their ways of life, and no one will emerge dead.

Below is a photo of Aqsa Parvez who was killed by her father and brother in Mississauga, Ontario. I wonder where she got the idea for cornrows - usually done by girls who have been on a hedonistic Spring Break trip to one of the beaches in Mexico?

Aqsa Parvez

Here are some comments from her friends (via the National Post):

"She wanted to live her life the way she wanted to, not the way her parents wanted her to."

"She just wanted to be herself, honestly she just wanted to show her beauty, and not be pushed around by her parents telling her what she has to be like, what she has to do. Nobody would want to do that."

"She just wanted to dress like we do...She just wanted to look like everyone else. And I guess her dad had a problem with that."

Levant Finally Admits the Root Problems of the Human Rights Commissions

Levant is finally admitting clearly and unequivocally who and what the root problems are in the HRCs. Here he is quoted in the Canadian Jewish News:

Levant [says the] human rights commissions...have fostered a climate of censorship, media chill and political correctness that’s now being exploited by those he calls enemies of the West, Israel and the Jewish People.

"The Jews should have known better,” Levant said. “We know about the ‘hard jihad,’ but the ‘soft jihad’ is far more effective and clever – it says to find the weakness in the law."

At the commission, however, Soharwardy [the Muslim complainant] found a far more sympathetic ear – in Levant’s view because he is Muslim.

Because of the pervasive climate of political correctness that infuses human rights commissions, Levant asserts, little heed is paid to Jewish or Christian complainants...

Regarding Muslim groups that file complaints with human rights tribunals, "the Canadian Islamic Congress did far more to destroy western freedom than 9/11 did,” Levant said. “Nine/11 did not change how we live, but [the Canadian Islamic Congress] got editors to censor ourselves."

Levant quibbles a little with the reporter - that it isn't the CIC that did the damage but the cartoon threats in general. But he is using heavy language to talk about a specific group and their specific modus operandi to shut him and others up in the name of their religion (I've bolded these emphatic words).

After Levant has clearly identified the problematic group, labeled it as an enemy of the West, described its strategy, and the force of its destruction, what more does he have to say? Nothing.

He surely has read enough online views, blogs and immigration restriction advocates to realize what the remedy is, even if he couldn't come up with it himself? What use is someone telling me that there is a wolf in the neighborhood ready to eat small children and pet dogs if I, and the neighborhood, don't lay out strategies to get rid of this intruder?

Perhaps Levant's next battle will be with himself, to pull out these logical conclusions from of his arguments.

The Impatient Muslims

If Muslims had any sense, they would be working out their take-over in stealth, creeping along with their sharia, and adding numbers and influence through immigration. They have been very successful so far. In fact, things are going much faster than expected. If one counts open mass immigration from non-Western countries to have started around 1965, that's a tremendous amount of work they've done in less than fifty years.

But, I've always maintained that they are impatient. But, it is not them that have this restless blood, it is the Koran that mandates it. They don’t trust their stealth strategy, unlike liberalism, which has taken over whole societies without even firing a bullet.

These recent events of terror plots (read jihad) in Detroit indicates that no matter how successful they may be with stealth sharia and immigration, or the hijra (as Sam Solomon has written about), it is inadequate to think of their strategy as simply these peaceful ones. If Mohammed had been smarter, he would have told Muslims to use violence very sparingly. The funny thing is that they've waited over five hundred years to make their come-back conquest of the West. If it seems to them that fifty years are an eternity, I wonder what these five hundred years were like?

Muslims' Organic Growth

It is a treat to be around more-or-less like-minded people. It often allows one to develop ideas and thoughts without negative and critical opposition, which usually cut off such thoughts and ideas at their bud.

One of the conversations I got into during my brief stay in New York was when I was describing the purpose of Our Changing Landscape. The blog started out, as I have previously written, as the surprised recordings of the changes I was seeing around me. As I was explaining the evolution of this blog, another revelation of the Muslims' strategy came to mind.

Muslims are changing things very organically. I don't think there is a centralized bureau planning a change here and a change there. The whole transformation of the societies Muslims are taking over is done with pushes forward and pulling back when gone too far, and a tentative reach there followed by a more decisive move. Stealth (jihad, sharia) is a popular word these days describing Muslims' activities. Stealth implies a certain strategy, a certain planning of events. I think Muslims are much less strategic than we think, and are simply pushing themselves into hostile environments, slowly encroaching into those territories for final takeover. This could take a few years or a few decades. That is why I think "organic" better describes their movement.

Muslims continuously test our resistance. When it is too strong, they wait for another opportune moment to introduce their change, often with much better success. Sometimes, they will just get overly aggressive, to see how far they can get away with things. They bargain for a higher stake, but are really going after a lower one, until another opportunity arises and the stake can only go higher.

This is the organic growth that "peaceful" Muslims are nurturing, with the full confidence that the end goal will be accomplished. But there are those moments which unfurl the Toronto 18 and the London Subway Bombers, condoned by all Muslims. Such violent acts (in conjunction with these organic infiltrations) are demanded by the Koran and have to be obeyed. It is all part of the growth.

Muslims have perfected the unobtrusive, organic growth. Suddenly, like ivy on a building, or algae in a pond, they are everywhere.

Westergaard's Bombshell, So To Speak...

The YouTubes of Michael Coren interviewing Lars Hedegaard and Kurt Westergaard are up [here]. Here is another interesting part of that interview for me. Michael Coren, who is a proponent of the "moderate Muslim," and who has many Muslim friends – all moderate, I would imagine – asks Westergaard the following, with Westergaard’s unexpected (to Coren) response:

[This section is around the 1:40 point in part 3 of the hour-long interview].

Coren: Did you hear from many Muslims who said to you: “I don’t like the cartoon, but I do defend you right to draw it and have it published.”?

Westergaard: Well I heard from many Muslims who didn’t like the cartoon, but they didn’t accept it as a part of the debate in a democratic society, in a secular democratic society. I was always greeted with curses. It’s very difficult, I think, for a Dane today to discuss a matter if the arguments from the other side are curses: "Go to hell and stay there, and so on."

Now, there is a fraction of a pause on the part of the agile Coren, who then fluidly goes on to ask Westergaard how he heard about the dangers to his life.

This is fascinating. I don't think Coren has a list of questions he follows to a "t." He is too independent and enjoys arguing too much to reduce his questions to pre-determined sequences. The most interesting follow-up question to Westergaard’s dramatic revelation would have been: "Why do you think no Muslim defended your actions?"

But, such an approach would have blown Coren's thesis that "moderate" Muslims exist out there, and would have directed the argument into another, much more fruitful, discussion. Of course, this didn't happen, and won't happen any time soon with Coren.