Jihad and European Multiculturalism

The jihadists are clearly winning their battle over the British people. In the UK, the Labour government has shown that it is more than willing to jeopardise national security in favour of its oppressive multicultural agenda. Violent Muslims – a hotchpotch of infantile soul-searching converts, theocratic barbarians and permanently incensed and uneducated nobodies – who are supposed to be living as British citizens are intending to kill the people they live among. Clearly, the European multicultural project is failing to such a degree that citizens not only possess a visceral hatred of one another but they are now at war with one another.

Western European multicultural programmes, which traditionally structured themselves around a liberal governance of individuals regardless of religion, race, colour and creed, are no longer sustainable for the societies they govern. They are gently becoming the human societies fit for different herds of religious savages, equipped with rights but not responsibilities, provided with authority but no elective legitimacy, administered with intensive social policing without a true realm of private activity, filled with a countless number of illegal and unmeasured migrants far removed from common social mores of both work and leisure. Such societies seemed condemned to tragedies on an apocalyptic scale.

An ongoing trend is the social disaffection brought by the infusion of Muslim immigrants into those European societies. The most disquieting of all those immigration (mis)measures is the pockets of private space given delivered to violent Muslims, or jihadists, unable to withstand opposition to the Islamic doctrine – and frequently so uneducated as to no longer understand the meaning of their doctrine and how the modern world relates to it – hoping for the devastation of the society which originally contracted each of them the right to live freely. In the hands of fundamentalist Islam, Western society and all its fruits have become pearl before the swine.

In recent days, counter-terrorist officials undermined a British terror plot by Islamic terrorists to blow up nine transatlantic airlines. The Metropolitan police estimated that the terror plot would have come at the cost of 3,000 lives. Immediate arrests ensued for 24 Muslims living in the Walthamstow, High Wycombe and Birmingham regions. The exposure of these arrests seemed to be related to the detainment of a British man in Pakistan, Rashid Rauf – but as yet, the exact relationship has not been clarified. MI5 claimed that the suspects were planning to smuggle bombs aboard up to nine airliners to be detonated over the Atlantic or over American cities. It also believes that up to 400,000 people in Britain have sympathies for a violent breed of jihad around the world and as many as 1,200 are actively involved in a terrorist network. The devastation of the current attack would have been unimaginable.

The creed of Islam, supported by its jihadist interpretation, cannot be supported by European multicultural programmes – perhaps, more to the point, we may have arrived at that point that we must now face that our multicultural programme can no longer afford the Islamic deviancy. Unlike other valuable and rich cultures and religions that integrate successfully, modern Islam seems steadfast in its principles of war and violence. Islam carries with it a powerful political and religious history. This violence, which the editor of The Asian Age, M. J. Akbar, once called the “Medina Syndrome,” imparts the belief that Islam is under such a significant threat from its enemies that its only response is to be gripped by collective unity, faith, violence and war.

The history of the Islamic project has always been a political project – the actions of the Prophet Muhammad begin with the battle of Badr and the slaughter of the Quraysh. Jihad is derived from the Arabic, jahd, meaning striving. It does not matter if there is success in jihad since death immediately qualifies one for martyrdom and paradise. As the Prophet warns Muslims – ‘al Jannat-a tahata silal es sayoof’ – ‘Know that paradise is under the shade of swords’. If there are doubts as to the success of Islamic violence, the success of jihad ensured the spread of Islam – from Muhammad’s first conquer of Medina, through to Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, Alleppo, Qadisiyya, Madain, Nehawand, Hamadan, the Caspian, Basra, Isfahan, Nishapur, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Sind, the Indus valley, Fustat, Alexandria (Egypt), the Maghreb, Gibraltar, Cordoba, Toledo and Sargossa.

In spite of denials at empire-building, jihad ensures effective empire-builders fixed on the subservience of all to Allah. Jihad is the most effective assurance that the Islamic people die for its cause(s). To note, this is severely at odds with the making of Christian political development, of which, modern liberalism is a legitimized extension. Islam occupies no such place in this development. In striving for a heroic persona and international martyrdom, knowing that paradise is under the guidance of swords, Islam is capable of enforcing a public, political and personal belief in its creed. The future governance of a multicultural Europe, creating domains of private activity justified by rights, cannot withstand such violence and will continue to suffer at the hands of Islam, effectively making the rightful citizens of European states homeless within their own homes.

The Western European polity, its cultural way of life, its historic religious grounding in Christianity, is, without a shadow of a doubt, fundamentally different from that order created under Islam. The treatment of Islam in modern society has been, in spite of many complaints of political correctness, radically different. It might be thought that we could ignore the differences between Christianity, underpinning the Western way of life, and Islam, and instead, concentrate on their similarities. Yet, this is to ignore that there are fundamental differences – between Islam and Western culture, state, values, and way of life. Moreover, Islam falls into Western Europe already equipped with its own internal model of theocratic governance and the necessary values of its citizens – if we do not clarify those issues of governance, then the citizens of Islam, going by the name of “Muslims”, will be in constant confusion over its rightful place in a modern liberal society.

A justification of the liberal order and its inherent personal freedoms cannot afford to be based upon the ignorance of difference or the pretence that the differences can be glossed by dwelling only on similarities simply provides a philosophical façade. Certainly in the UK, the New Labour Third Way philosophy hopes to achieve such a façade through its perverted multicultural programmes but it is obvious that they do not work. There are clear differences between Islam and the West, when we conceive of both concepts as cultural, religious and political entities.

It should be clear to the West that Islam, as a doctrine and practice, is a different religion from Christianity. Islam, when translated from the Arabic, means “submission”, and should be understood as submission to God. A Muslim is one who surrenders or “submits” to God. In the West, it is certain that that the requirement of a complete submission to God makes it incredibly difficult for Islam to sit comfortably alongside a model of free expression, requiring discussion through rational belief. For Islam, Allah, or God, delivered his word to Muhammad through the archangel Gabriel between the years 610 and 632. Although there are many prophets for Islam, the true and final prophet is Muhammad. It is set against Christianity and Judaism most deeply because it holds fundamentally different doctrines and practices as important to its faith. For Islam, the only record of written revelation is the Qur’an, not the Bible or Torah (which it holds to have been distorted). The common beliefs of all Muslims are: the belief in the one God, a belief in all the messengers – the most essential of which is Muhammad – a belief in the angels and prophets sent by God, a belief in the books delivered by God, a belief in the day of judgement, the resurrection, and fate.

The Christian doctrine of God as the trinity – the father, son and the holy spirit – is fundamentally wrong for Islam, since God’s oneness cannot be challenged. On the Muslim view, the trinity represents a kind of polytheistic doctrine in which God is decentred. As such, “Moslems pride themselves on being the only Unitarians. Christians are Trinitarians.” Beyond religious texts, there are also expectations of Muslims to uphold the practices of Islam: the faith in the oneness of God, prayer for five times a day, giving help to the needy, fasting and also if one is fit and able enough, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Subsequent to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the early Muslims constituted a set of sacred Islamic laws, which were intended to guide them in their everyday lives. This Islamic law is known as the Shari’a, and for modern Muslims in contemporary societies, its value remains debated. However, regardless of the place of the Qur’anic law and the Hadith within Islamic thought itself, it is Islam – unlike Christianity – that is a lay religion with no sacraments, hierarchy of persons or clergy, capable of preaching practical and attainable ideals for the lay person.

Over the ages, the true interpretation of the verses in the Qur’an has often been a source of inconsistency and controversy for Muslim scholars and interpreters in general, since the meaning may have been lost over time, during several periods following the death of the Prophet. This might be seen as a basis for why Rushdie’s Satanic Verses reaches the heart of Islam, which has taken the Qur’an as its one true text but has itself been internally disputed by Muslim scholars, with regards to its purity and authenticity.

It should also be apparent to the West that Islam is also a different political entity from that of Christianity. The Prophet Muhammad, after leaving Mecca as a young despised visionary returned as a military leader to establish Islam in this new religious capital and conquered Mecca in the year 630. He had summoned 10,000 warriors and followers to achieve this power. Two years later, Muhammad had died and the first caliph (leader), abu-Bakr felt assured by the success of heroic and violent conquest that no religion would exist other than Islam. The battle over the rightful caliphate succession to the Prophet Muhammad split Islam in two, reflecting the contemporary divisions between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Islamization began in the little-known Arabia but in the generations after Muhammad’s death, it ended ruling over extensive parts of European soil.

The expansion of the religious ideology in the early conquests was based on economic motives and self-interest, justified under the doctrine of “holy war” (jihad). Those Christians and Jews utterly dissatisfied with life under the Byzantine tyranny did not take long to convert to Islam. In fact, even from the very early conquests, there was not even a forced conversion, since Christians and Jews still attained the protection of their property, rights and lives as long as they paid tribute to Islam. Scholarship still remains divided over the treatment of Christians and Jews in the historical epochs that followed. In its politics, one could quite easily argue that unlike Christianity, Islam is not willing to recognise the distinction between the sacred and the profane, the spiritual and temporal, and ultimately, between din (religion) and dawla (state). It is clear that the Islamic faith will continue to be bound in enforcing its religious faith through the practices of the state.

It should also be clear to the West that Islam has also been held as a different cultural entity from that of Christianity. Islam has been treated as fundamentally different if one observes the history of Western literature. St. John of Damascus (d. 749) and Theophanes the Confessor (758-818) were amongst the first to depict Muhammad as a false prophet. The bishop of Cordova, Eulogius, was killed by an Islam caliph in 859, following his voluntary martyrdom, and earlier claims that when Muslims were waiting for angels to descend to the Prophet’s dead body, no angels had descended but dogs arrived and ate the corpse. An infamous missionary of medieval Europe, Raymond Lull (1235-1315) had also shouted in the streets of Tunis that Christian law was holy, whilst the Muslim law was false – he was quickly stoned to death by a mob.

From the fourteenth century through to the nineteenth century, a widely circulated Western myth was that a white pigeon sat on the shoulder of the founder of Islam, and it was mistaken for an angel dictating the word of God (a myth that Shakespeare refers to in Henry VI). Dante (d. 1321) had asserted that the rightful place for Muhammad was in the ninth hell, designed for the makers of schisms. In the seventeenth century, Western scholars of the Arab world understood Islam, on the whole, to be a fraudulent project. The first Arabic professors at Cambridge (Simon Ockley in the eighteenth century) and Oxford (Edward Pocock in the seventeenth century) Universities dispelled some myths of Muhammad and Islam, portraying Arabic texts in the context of the world setting, rather than as purely religious. By the mid-nineteenth century, English and French professors, in addition to German poets and philosophers, had developed a more enlightened, tolerant and careful approach in their treatment of Muhammad, particularly noticeable in Carlyle’s acceptance of Muhammad as a heroic figure. The portrayal of the differences began wild and mythical, but they did not disappear – the chief reason being that there are fundamental differences between Islam and the Western way of life.

Even though we cannot take Islam to be strictly opposed to Christianity – since in their historical realities they have often crossed paths – the modern personal freedoms, entrenched within the territories of former Christendom, appear to stand posed against many Muslim group’s requirement for respect towards the Islamic faith. The differences must be taken seriously, if the continued threat of jihad in Eurabia is to be understood as a genuine plot in the destruction of Western way of life – I understand that the jihad loyalists offer a genuine position on the West and a reaction to their position ought also to be rational and sincere.

fighting a war with a law [nostro]

there is no doubt that we are at war with islam, ok, so what shall we do ?.........first we see if there a technicality in the law so we can possibly give them a fair trial, but hey, lets dont offend the muslims, we are at war [or rather we are the victims of war] but lets not be offensive to a racial minority becouse we may end up in the dock ourselves [those that are not dead or maimed of course]

Religion of Hate.

May i suggest that followers of Islam take a new path for there religion to follow. To follow our cultur means to accepth others with out blowing them up or by killing them. Keep up the good work with this site.

Will Europe be a better place tomorrow?

If we look at what is going on in the EU, we must have doubts. Having doubts may encourage more people to take a better look at their lives and what their children's lives will will part of. My view is saddened, for we have lost (losing) our identities, from who we were, with unclear visions of who we will be. With out some strong common visions, we may fall to some one else's social pressures.

and with a whimper .. its the fault of THE WEST

From time to time, we hear various solutions to the "Muslim problem." Islam is so profoundly anti-life, anti-human,
anti-knowledge, anti-reason, anti-progress, anti-reality, anti-, anti-, anti- EVERYTHING, that it has become a serious pest. All the rest of us in the infidel world are beginning to tire of always having to turn around to clean up after some mess some Muslim or other has made.

They make the messes, and yet they blame all of us infidels for them. They have the emotional maturity of two-year-olds; they do not play well with others, they're in a constant state of pique--which they discharge by throwing temper tantrums--they seek immediate gratification, they want what they want and they want it NOW, all their problems are ALWAYS the fault of others, they NEVER consider taking any responsibility for themselves, they have no insight, they are professional victims who blame everyone else in the world for their hideous way of life, their unhappiness, their frustration and their hostility--all because they have a total disregard and antipathy for the requirements that reality places on them. Reality is, for them, the enemy; they don't understand anything about it; when it comes to reality, they are slow learners who just can't grasp the fact that reality always wins in the end, and that it won't change to accommodate them and their whims, wishes, and desires.

There is no question that

There is no question that Islam is different from Christianity, and certainly it does not have the universal cosmopolitanism of Christianity. However, Christianity itself did not produce liberal democracy, rather its fusion with Greco-Roman knowledge did. During the Dark Ages, when Christendom was "fundamentalist" and Islam was the most advanced civilization on Earth, Muslim scholars attempted to wed Ancient knowledge with their religion; this failed, and religion took precedence over the scientific method. In Europe, the reverse happened, with religion subordinating itself to science yet providing the basis for egalitarianism and individual liberty...

As Islam remains, IMO, a Pan-Arab ideology on a Judaic model, using its past to explain its present and future is as inappropriate as using the Crusades to explain the War on Terror. Without Islam, the Arabs and Arabized peoples would devolve into tribal warfare, so contemporary Islam can largely be analyzed w.r.t. geopolitical pressures on the Arabs and Arabized peoples.

There has never been an Islamic Civilization

Islam was the most advanced civilization on Earth

When? What dates? Where? No, you are making the same mistake so many other people make, including many so-called scholars. You need to go back to the Library and study history in more detail.

Islam has never created anything, except chaos and destruction. You are confusing the creative impulse with over-lordship. Islam has indeed ruled areas and people's who were civilized, and created things, and developed science, etc., but only via the conquering route. Throughout the centuries, Islam has taken over hitherto thriving areas and then claimed the glory of achievements already accrued.

History shows that very soon after Islam took over areas as dispersed as North Africa, Middle East, and Northern India, civilization (as we understand it) came to a halt, and a slow decline set in. So, do not make the mistake of confusing a creator with a thief.


Your belligerent rhetoric is not made fact by throwing in such terms as "hitherto" and "accrued," nor are you a "so-called scholar;" for if you were, you would be debating such issues before panels of your peers, in publications, etc.

Islamic civilization included the original caliphate created by Muhammad and his successors(Ummayads and Abbasids), the regional powers of the Fatamids, Seljuks, and Mamlunks, and the three empires of the Ottomans (Turkey), Mughals (India), and Safavids (Persia).

During the Dark Ages, Islamic civilization was known for its advances in science, technology, commerce, and for its tolerance of other religions. In addition, while Ancient Greco-Roman knowledge in Western Europe was being preserved from harm in Irish and Italian monasteries, Muslim scholars were actively studying the Ancient texts, and attempting to apply them to Islam long before Thomas Aquinas.

Around 1500 AD, the Ottoman Empire was the most advanced and the strongest of the world powers; Western Europe, in contrast was the most stagnant and weakest. Ultimately, Islamic civilization would decay due to its own internal problems, turn away from the scientific method, and pursue a path of intellectual retreat rife with victimhood and hatred.

I suggest YOU hit the library bud, or better yet, take some Medieval courses in history and political theory. Your lack of knowledge of the basics of Western civilization is appalling, and so is your rhetoric.

There is no question that Islam generally spread initially in a more warlike fashion than Christianity, but "Christian" civilization did the same things to pagans and other sects in Europe and elsewhere as well.



Could you provide specific examples of Islamic achievments in science, literature, mathematics?At length I have considered it, but cannot think of anything that would merit recognition in the whole of Islamic history.

Rome was in many ways far more advance than what eventually became Christiandom, but it is difficult to deny that the culture of Christianity, itself derivative of Judaism, husbanded the furtherance of "Western Civilization" through which its posterity has experienced individual liberty that had hitherto been unimaginable, and, to this very day is alien to any society imbued with Islam.

Again, I respectfully ask that you provide some specific examples to refute my thesis.


I'm not surprised

by such a canned answer, though I thought you would have thrown in the usual platitudes like "Islam is a Religion of Peace" and "Islam is against the killing of Innocents," but alas you figured that couldn't get you past this crowd.

Apples and oranges

It suprises me that "this crowd" substitutes opinion for fact and often confuses the two...

I don't believe Islam is a religion of "peace." Nor have I ever stated that it is "against the killing of innocents." Islam is a pan-Arab ideology based upon a Judaic model; it improved the conditions for the Arabs, who previous to its advent, were warring nomadic tribes. Of course this "improvement" must be kept in social and historical context...

Religion always molds itself to each ethnic group that accepts it, just as Protestantism arose in countries that were on their way to militarily and economically leading Europe and the world.

However, as far as FACTS are concerned, Islamic civilization existed as much as Christendom did. And at one time, WE were more fundamentalist and less advanced than they were. Does this mean we should be soft on Islamism? No. It's just something to bear in mind if we are going to constantly claim moral superiority.

Muslim's Posture as our Moral Superiors

I am always struck by the patronizing tone of most Muslim commentators. It is clear, they see themselves, and only themselves, as morally upright, just, and tolerant. Of course, we now know this is arrogance writ large. We also know that arrogance is a close cousin of stupidity.

The history of Islam tells us all we need to know. And the beauty of it is, it is not a history written by non-Muslims, with a hidden agenda, but by Muslims themselves. Islam is a faith, but it is not a religion. It is a Cult, predicated on lust, violence, murder, and pillage. Muslims worship Mohammed, they do not worship God, and as such, they are idolaters.

We in the West will not be dictated to by immigrants who have not even tried to integrate and modify their beliefs to suit their new home. It is they who have contempt for us, not we for them. Although, that dynamic is surely changing.

If we in the West deem it necessary to repatriate literally tens of thousands of Muslims back to their ancestral homes, then so be it. It has got nothing to do with Naziism (which we reject) but everything to do with a pragmatic response to a corrosive evil within our midst.


Since the 3 months I am following this blog I never read a hatephrase by Mr. Belien. Many others expressed pure hatred, but Mr. Belien only expressed concern and anxiety about the situation in Europe. Further there is an enormous difference between words of hate and hate-actions like we have seen in Europe since years. Myself I always try to find a balance between the good and the bad but when I read comments like yours, instantly playing on the man, I wonder if you couldn't start with: "I am a muslim and I apologize for what the criminals are doing in Europe in my name and the name of my religion". If after that you have a real comment to make people will gladly listen to you and respect you.

Islam Not a Race

Please remember, Emir Bachir, that Islam is not a race. While it is all very well to embrace the principle of no religious discrimination, it's time to make an exception if the principle is leading us to disaster. I certainly have no problem with "kick them all out," so eloquently voiced by Mr. Bachir. As for Mr. Belien, I only hope the USA will live up to the favorable impression he has of this, my country.

Theory of Hate

You seem to have devised a fine theory to justify hate. Do you not see the parallel with the beginnings of the Nazi regime? You seem to leave no room for any solution except a racist one: kick them all out or force them to become like you.

May I suggest that you stop traveling to the US for inspiration and try to learn a little bit about European Muslims before you go about your racist agenda? The Europe of tomorrow will be a different place for sure, but we can either lead it in a better direction or go down the neo-nazi route you seem to prefer. Its a choice we make and is not about interpretation of old texts and what someone may have said 1400 years ago.