French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Western Civilisation

Join Gab (@StFerdinandIII) Western Civilisation was and is superior to anything Islam has developed.  Islam has not aided in the development of the modern world; in fact civilisation has only been created in spite of Islam.  Raising the alarm about the fascism called Submission since 2000.  

Back

Islamic theology - Recent Articles

Islamic theology demands a takeover of Europe.

Will there be a civil war ? Or a cowardly surrender ?

Bookmark and Share

 

 

Is Bernard Lewis correct that Europe will become Muslim or Islamicized within, or before the end of this century? It appears that demography and fanatical motive force, including adherence to the regressive and unenlightened Koran, favour the Musulmans and perhaps support Bernard's languorous and dim view.

 

Islamic theology is remorselessly expansionist. We know this from history, the endless Jihad and Islamic liturgy. Koranic exegesis for example demands that the entire world submit to the moon deity Il, Al, Ali, or El-Allah. Individual Muslims like individual Nazis, or Communists in times past, might be indifferent to this imperialist philosophy and the demands, precepts and expectations of the cult. They might reject expansionism, war, Jihad, violence and hate. But their cult and most of its leadership, now and in centuries past, certainly demand and have impelled such expressions of will-to-power and supremacism. The problem with Islam, is simply Islamic theology and the merger of church, state, society, culture and rituals into an ossified, corrupt and natural-law denying despotism.

 

The Europe of our past and imaginations, the great flower of civilisation might well cease to exist between 2050 and 2100. Contrary to EU government lies there are about 40 million Muslims in Western Europe out of a population of 350 million. By 2050 the number of Muslims will be over 100 million out of a similar total population. Europeans are not reproducing. Muslim women have on average 3 to 4 children. European women 1.2. Immigration will still favour Muslim migrants. The Muslim ability to not only produce 4 offspring on average per woman, but to engage in what in essence is unfettered family based immigration means of course that in many European urban centers Europeans or 'Whites' [as the pejorative label would have it]; will be a minority. Only in the non-urban hinterland will non-Muslims still be in the majority by 2050.

 

Europe is now experiencing a new and novel but still vicious onslaught of unbridled Islamism. A main concern of any European should be Islam. Will Europe succumb to Islamic theology in toto, or in partis? The elite and media have certainly surrendered. Islam is a barren poli-cracy of power, control and oppression.

 

Demographic facts are stubbornly against White European culture. Will demography and the empty silliness of cultural Marxism force Europeans to finally succumb to Muslim depredations, in train since the 710 AD invasion of Spain ? Or will they actually summon some resolve and fight back to preserve what was once the unique genius of Judeo-Christian civilization ? If so will Europe experience a civil war?

 

Many in Europe are beginning to agree with Lewis and freedom fighters such as Geert Wilders. Anti-Koran and anti-Islamist parties now exist in many EU states. It might be too little too late however. Dutch politician and former EU Competition Commissioner, Fritz Bolkenstein said the obvious some time ago about Europe's Islamcization.

 

The second problem, Bolkestein warned, is that immigration is turning the E.U. into "an Austro-Hungarian empire on a grand scale." He alluded to certain great cities that will soon be minority-European--two of the most important of which, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, are in his own country--and warned that the (projected) addition of 83 million Muslim Turks would further the Islamization of Europe. It was this part of his speech--in which he referred to Lewis's projections--that made headlines around the world:

 

"Current trends allow only one conclusion," Bolkestein said. "The USA will remain the only superpower. China is becoming an economic giant. Europe is being Islamicized."

 

Bolkenstein's assessment that the US will still be a super-power in the future is open to question given the embrace of mind-numbing cults such as relativity, abiogenesis, Darwinism, Globaloneywarming, Climatechange, open-borders, LGBQT, socialism, and transnationalism.

 

Regardless his fears about Europe are accurate. Mark Steyn and others have written endlessly about the lack of reproduction in Europe. The welfare state neuters many cultural, social and economic artifacts – one being a cult of life. Why bother having children when the world revolves around your own hubristic desires and life is but one long joyful, sex-filled, coffee-addled vacation ? Raising little ones is so tiresome and so un-progressive.

 

Muslims see the world differently. In Muslim theology the entire planet as Dar-al-Islam – the house of Islam. Islam can't defeat the West through military and economic competition. But it can surely out-breed it. The Muslim 'Millett' system, established during the Ottoman empire, represents the Islamic attitude to 'rights'. Once Muslims become a majority in an area they assume that they should own title to the land and implement Muslim Sharia law in opposition to infidel law. Throughout Europe this fact is emerging in almost every major urban center where Muslims claim ghettoes and Arabicized or Islamicized enclaves as beyond the powers of the host society.

 

As Muslim demands on the welfare state increase – more state money for mosques, Muslim only schools, recognition of Muslim holidays, institutions of Sharia Law – some Europeans will react. When Muslims and their political puppets begin to distort European political and foreign policy, some Europeans will react. When Muslim culture comes to dominate and over-ride that of the indigineous European culture, some Europeans will react.

 

The question is how many Europeans will react to the Muslim takeover of the Continent and what will happen?

 

One path will lead to civil war. In this scenario the military still controlled by the Europeans, along with para-military citizen militia will declare a war of survival and physically assault Muslim mini-states, strong-holds, and urbanized redoubts. This would be an asymmetrical war, an urban war, one premised on the viciousness of Stalingrad and one which would take years to play out.

 

Another path is political and cultural appeasement and surrender. In this scenario Europeans accept their existential and social Dhimmitude, bowing low to Islamic cultural and intellectual fascism as being stronger, more vibrant and even 'liberating'. In this scenario Muslims and their political slaves take over political high offices including the military. In such a case we will have a world in which for example, French nuclear power is controlled by Muslim politicians or their paid acolytes.

 

A few years ago Daniel Pipes stated it well: “One can virtually dismiss from consideration the prospect of Muslims accepting historic Europe and integrating within it.” U.S. columnist Dennis Prager agrees: "It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for Western Europe than its becoming Islamicized or having a civil war."

 

Both are correct. The European civil war might be hot or it might be very tepid and cold. It could include violence, or it might just be an unconvincing display of resolution by a radical few against a Muslim takeover, followed by a quick surrender. No one knows. But Europe is in dire straits. Between a debt implosion and financial collapse; and Islam, the future looks decidedly unsettled.

 

The world is very often not grey and it is usually quite black and white. Europeans have only two choices 40 to 50 years hence. Fight Islam and Muslim fascism to safeguard the remnants of European high civilization. Or meekly embrace an Arabian moon cult, and make excuses and engage in cognitive distortions as to why that is an enlightened and 'intellectually sophisticated' choice.

 

 

 

There is no 'misinterpretation' of Muhammadism. Moslems themselves say this.

Ein volk. Ein Reich. Ein Muhammad (und ein Koran).

Bookmark and Share

 

Great essay by Michael Copeland in The Gates of Vienna Blog below, about ‘mis-interpretations’, or the painfully ridiculous ‘Islamist’ label; applied to the 100 or so violent Moslem Jihad groups and the millions of Moslem world-wide who support a Caliphate, ISIS, and Global Hegemony of the Al-Lah Muhammadan cult (in Mein Koran, it is hard to tell the difference at times between the Moon idol Hubal or Al-Lah, the ‘God’ or ‘Lord’ of Mecca and mad Mohammed, whose family were the caretakers of the Hub’Al shrine).

But in the low information, stunted IQ of the modern world and within the Western-Secular Religion of relativity, historical rewriting, scientific atavism, factual ignorance and reality-avoidance, the poor little Muhammadans are always the victims, the sufferers, the poor, the blighted, or perversely, the genius, the innovator, the inventor, the creator, the expert.

The cult of Muhammad is rarely viewed for what it is – a supremacist, intolerant, racist, fascistic cult of power and blood.

But saying the Truth today means you are an Alt-right, bigoted, Nazi, KKK, Phobe who denies Science.

Colour is mine.

 

“It’s Their Interpretation of Islam”

by Michael Copeland

 

“Ah, but it’s their interpretation of Islam”, we are assured by smooth-talking muslim speakers. Journalists have picked this up, and dutifully write about “an extremist interpretation” that lies behind the latest atrocity. This assurance about interpretation is surprisingly successful. It is designed to make us doubt what Islam’s source texts mean, including — and this is the crafty part — those whose meaning is clear and obvious. We can easily be taken in by this appealing and fair-sounding assertion. It puts us off the scent. That is the idea.

 

First, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by an “interpretation”. If an instruction says “give away one tenth of your income to charity”, that does not require an interpretation. The meaning is quite clear, and the instruction can be exactly followed. An “interpretation” is different. Say a politician repeatedly evades an interviewer’s question with some bland generalisation. Eventually the interviewer says, “I’ll take that as a ‘No’”. That is an interpretation. It is quite a different matter from the straightforward following of what a text says.

 

Bearing in mind that the Koran — all of it — forms part of Islam’s law, how does the “interpretation” allegation stand up to the test?

Let us see. We can take commands and instructions from the Koran and Hadith and compare them with what muslim leaders and speakers say.

Hatred

Koran 60:4 praises the “excellent pattern” shown by Ibrahim when he said (to the Jews):

“Between us and you enmity and hatred forever….”.

 

How do the spokesmen treat that?

·         Osama bin Laden: “Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us.”

·         Osama bin Laden: “Battle, animosity, and hatred — from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”

·         islamqa.com: “Muslims in the West must have … enmity and hatred of the kaffirs.”

·         Alminbar.com: “You should hate them, disown them and their religion.”

·         Abu Usama, Birmingham: “No one loves the kuffaar. We hate kuffaar.”

·         Anjem Choudary: “As a muslim I must have hatred for everything non-Islam.”

·         Yousuf Makharzah, muslim cleric: “Animosity towards the Jews is an obligatory religious duty, and one of the signs of the believers.”

 

 

Killing

The Koran commands:

·         “Kill the non-muslims wherever you find them” 9:5

·         “Kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from wherever they have expelled you….” 2:191

 

What do the clerics say?

·         Ayatollah Khomeini: “Islam says: Kill all of the kafirs. Put them to the sword. Cut them in pieces. Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels.”

·         Haj Amin al Husseini: “Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”

·         Mufti M Hussein: “Islam’s goal is to kill Jews.”

·         Al-Aqsa TV: “Allah, strike the Christians… count them and kill them to the last one.”

·         Prayer on Mecca loudspeaker: “O Allah vanquish the unjust Christians and the criminal Jews, … end their lives in humiliation and oppression…”

 

Forced conversion

The Koran commands muslims to force kafirs to convert on pain of death:

·         “Kill the non-muslims wherever you find them. ….but if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakat, let them [go] on their way.” 9:5

·         “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” 9:29

·         Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt: “Muslims must kill kafirs wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.”

·         Abu Askar: “Convert or be killed.”

·         Ibn Khaldun: “…a religious duty to convert everybody by persuasion or by force.”

·         Osama bin Laden: “Does Islam or does it not force people by the power of the sword to submit…? Yes!”

·         Abu Qaqa, of Boko Haram: “…all Christians must convert to Islam. Allah has tasked all Muslims in Quran 9:29 to continue to attack Jews and Christians who refuse to believe in him and his messenger, Prophet Mohammed.”

·         Al Baghdadi: “Conversion to Islam or death.”

 

 

Terror

Mohammed is recorded as saying: “I have been made victorious with terror.”

The Koran commands muslims:

“Terrorise them!” 8:60

What do muslims say?

·         Ragab Hilal Hamida MP: “The Quran directly commands us to commit terrorism…”

·         Gen. S. K. Malik: “…to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies”.

·         Abu Izzadeen: “Terrorism is part of Islam!”

·         Nassim ben Iman: “Every Muslim is a potential terrorist.”

·         Zakir Naik: “Every Muslim is a terrorist.”

·         Islamic State manual: “The Management of Savagery”.

·         Child with dagger, singing: “Our terrorism is blessed, a divine call”.

 

Impose Islamic rules on all mankind

The Koran commands muslims to “fight” — that is, slaughter — non-muslims until all the “deen” — the governance — is Islam, namely Sharia law. The Arabic word “deen” is normally and artfully translated “religion”, but that is inadequate. In the West, quite unlike in Islam, religion is understood to be restricted to private conscience: it is not government. In Islam from Mohammed’s time to the present there is no distinction between religion and governance: religion is government. The mosque is an arm of the state:  “Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims.” Dr. Ja’far Sheikh Idris, Sudanese Muslim Philosopher

The Koran’s instruction is at 8:39:

Fight the kafirs until the “deen” [governance], all of it, is Islam.

 

What do Islamic clerics say?

Musa Cerantonio, Australia “The answer is, as the Prophet said, to fight the infidels until the religion belongs to Allah.” Jihad Watch, December 2012

What is the conclusion to draw about the “interpretation” assertion? It is a red herring, and a dishonest one at that.

Lt-Col Allen West sums it up succinctly: “They are doing exactly what this book says.

 

For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.

 

==END

Sura 109 and Moslem supremacism. It is not a verse about peace and tolerance.

The one-world Cultural Marxist wonders need to learn how to read.

Bookmark and Share

Sura 109 is held up in awe by the one-world wonders as an example of Islam's endless love and tolerance. It ranks up there with 2:256 in the pantheon of cultural Marxist worship, in which the reader is informed that Infidels will be fought, overcome and dominated by those who follow Allah [read the entire passage from 2:256 to 2:275]. Sura 109 is a short Sura, orally transcribed by Muhammad when his cult was weak, with few followers and harassed by Meccan authorities, who were tired of listening to Muhammad's gibberish that the Arab pagan pantheon was 'evil', and that the Hub'Allah demanded a stricter, totalitarian, and more ritualistic method of worship – with himself as the prime actor in the cult.

Here is Sura 109 translated by Hilali-Khan:

“Al-Kafirun In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)to these Mushrikun and Kafirun): "O Al-Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar, etc.)!

 

"I worship not that which you worship,

"Nor will you worship that which I worship. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.

"Nor will you worship that which I worship.

“To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism)."

 

Cultural Marxists and self-loathing Western idiots can't get enough of this Sura. You worship your Gods, I will worship mine. Oh wow, that is so tolerant. It proves Islam's superiority! But not really. There are three aspects to this verse that the one-world wonders miss.

1 ) Before Muhammad started Jihad, war, extermination, overt racism, and brigandage his small band of family members and cult devotees never numbered more than a handful. So of course someone who is being persecuted by the authorities is going to whine, 'please leave me alone, worship your 'Gods', and I will worship mine.'

2 ) More importantly, and rarely mentioned, is the fact that Muhammad is talking about Allah or Hub'Allah, being the main 'god' amongst many. In other words the import of this Sura is that it references Arab polytheism. What Muhammad is saying is that the Arabs can worship their many Gods, but he will worship only one – Hubal or 'ilah – namely the 'one Lord'.

3 )This Sura references a contract stemming from the above 2 points, forwarded by Muhammad to the Quraish elite.


Now some other translators have a different set of words for the 5th sentence, and all of them make it clear that Muhammad is denying polytheism and elevating his idea of that Allah is the main 'God' amongst all the Gods:

Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Pickthall and Ali

Nor will you be the worshipper of what I worship. Daryabadi and Dawood

Nor will ye serve what I serve;- Palmer

Nor will you ever worship what I worship. Khalifa

And neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship. Asad etc.

 

Sura 109 is not a celebration of multi-cultural harmony. It is Muhammad stating the obvious. You pagan Arabs will continue to worship your Gods [as long as your state and society are strong]; and our small cult will worship our one 'God'. So let's agree to disagree is what he is asking.

 

But notice the contradiction in this Sura. The Koran demands that you believe that Allah or Hub'Allah is the 'one'. Only he can be worshipped. Yet Sura 109 is clear – other gods were being worshipped including Allah. Allah is not unique, not connected to Judaism, and has no reference in Judeo-Christian theology. Allah was being worshipped by the pagan Arabs [in the form of Hub'Al] along with 359 other deities. Muhammad is thus confirming the paganism of this Allah.

 

Lastly, the Sura is a proposed contract from Muhammad to the Quraish elite. We know this from Moslem sources. Maududi the early twentieth century Moslem fanatic and supporter of unfettered Jihad states that Sura 109 refers to a proposed peace initiative from Muhammad to the Quraish elite. When you take this into account the Sura does not declaim for tolerance, but simply rejects the Meccan belief system. This fact eventually drove Muhammad from Mecca – at the threat of being killed by the Quraish. Tolerance does not exist in Islam, nor in Muhammadan theology. As Maududi confirms:

 

“....[this Sura] was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity. Although it was addressed in the beginning to the disbelieving Quraish in response to their proposals of compromise, yet it is not confined to them only, but having made it a part of the Quran, Allah gave the Muslims the eternal teaching that they should exonerate themselves by word and deed from the creed of kufr wherever and in whatever form it be, and should declare without any reservation that they cannot make any compromise with the disbelievers in the matter of Faith.”

 

So much for one-world, inter-faith tolerance. Sura 109 has nothing to do with love and hope. It is a clear statement of supremacism, and the innate Moslem belief of their own superiority.