• Doug Saunders is telling porkies

    [EDIT: Formatting fixed on the long excerpts]

    So I take a few months off to deal with personal and business matters – and somehow, in that time, it’s been decided to throw the doors open and let my home be invaded and overrun.  So we have bombs going off in the EU’s capital, and mass sexual assault on the streets of my fatherland, and, naturally, the usual crowd is storming off to defend Islam.

     

    I’ll write a more in depth post on this, but for the moment I’m going to focus on a skirmish on the struggle to restore sanity.  Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage were at something called the “Munk Debate”, squaring off against Simon Schama and Ann Arbour.  As both Schama and Arbour are feminists they, naturally, mocked concern about sexual assault as either fake (Arbour) or a product of sexual frustration on the part of Steyn and Farage (Schama).  Steyn struck back with some vim:

    “Mme Arbour scoffs at the ‘newfound feminists.’ I’m not much of a feminist, but I draw the line at a three year old … and a seven year old getting raped.”

    In the follow up to this on Twitter, one Doug Saunders weighed in with a long sneer:

     

    I’m German.  I read the German newspapers.  And I assure you, those are not “urban myths” to Germany’s media, to its people, to its police, even if two of those are under pressure to hush things up.

    I know this guy.  I’ve got a very long “Anti-Islam F.A.Q.” on the way.  To write it I engaged with Saunders’ book, “The Myth of the Muslim Tide”, because you should read the best arguments against your own position.  Here’s an excerpt:

     

    ***********************************************************************************************

     

    1.9 That’s just Muslims in the Rest.  In the West, Muslims quickly adopt the same liberal worldview as Westerners.  What you are seeing is cultural, not Islamic.

    At the start of this, I referred to Doug Saunders’ book as surprisingly dishonest, and this is the reason.  In his book he makes a lot of hay with studies showing that, e.g., such-and-such a percentage of Muslims in this or that European country only rarely go to the Mosque.  He doesn’t address questions like this one, the extremely widespread support for things like killing apostates, and I think I can guess why: it is an unarguable threat to a liberal state, and it isn’t one that can be simply hand-waved.   According to the Policy Exchange study, thirty-one percent of British Muslims support murdering apostates.  Furthermore, a majority of British Muslims (78%) want to see the Danish cartoonists prosecuted and 68% say that those who insult Islam should be prosecuted.  This means that a clear majority of British Muslims are opposed to the most fundamental rights of a free society.

    Saunders blithely states that:

    The facts are unambiguous here.  Across the Western World support for violence and terrorism among Muslims are no higher than that of the general population, and in some cases it is lower.

    This is flat out false.  Just to completely underline this, take a look at this.  One in seven ‘young Britons’ likes ISIS.  I think that not even the most depraved lefty (okay, yes, maybe the most depraved lefty)  or conservative likes ISIS, so this is probably restricted to young British Muslims .  That means up to eighty percent of young British Muslims are sympathetic to a group so evil, al-Qaeda kicked it out.

    Isolated incident?  How about this poll?

    Support for ISIS across Europe
    Support for ISIS across Europe

    Once again, this isn’t a survey of Muslim opinions, but of ‘Germans’, ‘French’ etc.  You make the adjustment and you find that the Islamic State has a majority support by European Muslims.  In other words, a straight reading of this means huge numbers of European Muslims are in favour of this:

    Slaves being sold by the Islamic State
    Slaves being sold by the Islamic State

    For the record, I think this has to be out of whack somehow, the business of polling being what it is.  But it does reveal a large support for the worst crimes, as long as infidels are the victims.  Here’s a study of young dutch Turks: while only 8% support the idea of a Caliphate, 80% are down with jihad against infidels,

    Here’s another poll result – 72% of Dutch Muslims say fighting in the Syria jihad is defensible.  Here’s another one:

    Opinions2

    Muslim and Christian attitudes
    Muslim and Christian attitudes

    This is from a widespread study of attitudes of Muslims and Christians in Europe.  The pink bars indicate Muslim opinions.  So from this we f ind that 58% of Muslims in Europe want a return to fundamentalism compared with 20% of Christians, 65% say that religious law is more important than secular compared with 12% of Christians, 58% do not want any homosexual friends compared with about 11% for Christians, 45% say they can’t trust Jews, compared with 8% for Christians – and so on. And so on.

    But forget the polls for a second and just think about how Muslim communities in Europe actually act.  List to the recordings from Undercover Mosque of Imam’s calling for the death of Jews and Hindus.  A simple test would be the following.  Try launching, in a moderately well read newspaper, a competition for whoever can produce the best cartoon making fun of Islam’s Prophet.  You know what will happen, and you know that murderous, hateful frenzy that you’ll see.  You also know that nothing comparable is ever elicited by the slaughters of ISIS, the Islamic rapes etc.

    So how on earth can Saunders possibly claim that Muslims in Europe are not supporters of totalitarianism?  In part, it’s to do with polls that stress generalities that are misleading.  For example, he cheers the fact that Muslims in North America say they are “Muslims first, Americans second” in a somewhat similar percentage as Christians say they are “Christians first, Americans second.”  But that misses the fact that Islam does not recognize any division between religion and state, while Christianity more or less invented the concept of secularism.  He also makes much of a poll finding saying that Muslims in Europe have the same level, very low, level of support for attacks on civilians, a level of support he pegs at 1-2%.

    But how can that coexist with the previous results showing support for ISIS?  How does it gel with the finding that 6% of French Muslims say that terrorism against civilian targets is ‘often justified’ and a further 10% say it is ‘sometimes justified’?

    Here’s a thought: Saunders says that he doesn’t care what Islamic doctrine is, he isn’t interested in theology, Islam is whatever Muslims say it is.  He should have been more careful.  Having done any serious study of Islamic doctrine, he’d have come across the idea of the kafir, the infidel.  Islam divides the world sharply into Muslims and  kafir, and it regards us  kafir as sub-human.  So what is more likely is that Muslims are opposed to violence when it is directed against Muslim civilians, and in favour of it when it is directed against infidel civilians.  Similarly, Saunders makes much of the low support for the death penalty amongst European Muslims: I have no doubt they are against the death penalty for Islamic jihadists, and this coexists with the large number that want to see apostates killed.

    I also have to add that part of the reason that Saunders can argue this way is that he’s not being entirely straight with the facts and figures.  I offer a small but salient example.  On page 66 of his book he writes,

    Muslims in Germany have become even more tolerant of homosexuality, with 47% of German Muslims (versus 68% of Germans in general) finding it morally acceptable, according to a large-scale Gallup survey.

    You can find that Gallup poll here.  The actual finding is in figure 32, which reports that 68% of the general German public finds homosexuality morally acceptable, while only 19% of German Muslims do.  It’s also hard to credit that Saunders doesn’t know about all these other poll results that don’t fit with his picture of a happily integrating Muslims community that is no different from other immigrant communities.

    However all of this still misses the basic argument about the different circles back in 1.2.  The claim isn’t that clear majorities of Muslims in the West want to reduce us to the level of Islamic theocracy.  The claim is that significant numbers – double digit percentages – of Muslims are in favour of Islamic totalitarianism and the remaining Muslim community does next to nothing to stop them, and just whines whenever Infidels speak up against this.  The lunatics are running the show in the Ummah. I’m German and trust me: thanks to the Islamophiles I cited at the start of this piece, we know perfectly well how easy a bunch of crazies can end up running the show. The Nazis only ever got 33% of the 1933 vote.

    That the nutters are running the show isn’t that surprising.  You know from personal experience how difficult it is can be to take a stand against bullies even in the workplace.  Imagine what it is like trying to do it when it can get you ostracized or killed, and your holy book is saying the bullies are right. I’m very happy to find out that 35% of French Muslims are fine with homosexuality (and hope this isn’t taqqiya), or that 38% of French Muslims apparently support a ban on the hijab in public places (Saunders cites the following book that I don’t have – if anyone can send me a scanned copy of that result, that’d be great).  Those are hopeful statistics, for reasons I’ll explain in the final section.  However, we can’t get away from the fact that at the moment the lunatics are in the driving seat in the Ummah.

    1.10  What about the fact that so many Western Muslims seem fine with drinking, premaritial sex etc.?

    The high level of support for abortion, premarital sex and pornography are striking.  Yet, I’m sorry to say, that doesn’t fill me with any sort of hope.  Pre-maritial sex, abortion etc. are self-indulgent things.  Notice that when you ask the question about homosexuality, which requires acceptance and tolerance of the other, the poll numbers drop substantially.  During his travels through Pakistan, Naipaul noted that the place was lousy with pornography, including child pornography – and more troubling from an Islamic perspective, gay porn.

    If Muslims are willing to compromise their faith when it comes to their own self-indulgence, it does not follow that they are willing to compromise it when it comes to tolerating infidels and respecting human rights.  Indeed, it is perfectly possible that they will react with far greater fanaticism in West than in Islamic lands, out of overcompensation.

    Samuel Huntington wrote about Islam’s bloody borders.  Where Islam touches the infidel world, it typically becomes much more fanatical and violent. The fanaticism is a response to the fear of contamination – it’s how Islam has managed to maintain its cultural autarky for so long.  Saunders pretty much admits this – on page 108 he cites a study of all the Muslims in Britain charged with terrorist offences that found that

    77% of them came from neighbourhoods where less than 11% of the polulation was Muslim and more than half (56%) came from neighbourhoods with less than 6% Muslims.

    Here’s a line from the late Christopher Hitchens:

    Mongia Souaihi cheerfully explained to me the many reasons why the veil is not authorized by the Koran and why she is in danger for drawing this conclusion in print. “The fundamentalists from overseas have declared me to be kuffar—an unbeliever.” This I know to be dangerous, because a Muslim who has once been declared to be an apostate is also a person who can be sentenced to death. “Which fundamentalists? And from where overseas?” “Rachid Ghannouchi, from London.” Oh no, not again. If you saw my “Londonistan” essay, in the June Vanity Fair, you will know that fanatics who are unwelcome in Africa and Arabia are allowed an astonishing freedom in the United Kingdom.

    Saunders points out that terrorists often appear less pious – taking drugs, going to prostitutes, drinking etc.  That makes the opposite point that Saunders thinks he’s making.  This is why it’s a good idea to have some knowledge of religious doctrine if you are going to discuss it.  It’s applying Western standards of piety to where they have no place.  In Islam, there is no ‘salvation’ the way there is in Christianity – all deeds and words are supposedly weighed at the end, deciding whether you go to heaven or hell.

    With one exception.  The shahid who dies in Allah’s jihad is guaranteed a place in paradise (Bukhari, 1206).  So it’s not surprising to see a combination of personal indulgence with fanatical intolerance and violence.  Moreover, Saunders notes that two-thirds of British jihadists have criminal records, and many were radicalized in jail.  That’s to be expected.  Any Muslim who wants to rob and rape infidels has absolute authority to do so according to the strictures of the Koran and the example Mohammed who personally lead razzias for booty. It’s the perfect pitch – you go to some hapless sod of a shoplifter in jail, tell him that he’s justified to feel angry and resentful, that he had every right to rob, as long as he gets with the jihadist program.

    ***********************************************************************************************

    From my introduction to the F.A.Q.:

    ***********************************************************************************************

    0.2  On the denial of bigotry and oppression

    This is the second F.A.Q. style post I have done.  The previous one was on racialism, and one thing I learned about was denial.  I had a tussle with the blogger Radish about his denial that slavery was that oppressive, or the legacy of the deep South, in regards to its blacks, was that bad.  I was surprised to find how much denial there was; one comment I didn’t have time to make hay with was from the writer Daniel Sanders’:

    […]nigger, a neutral term for non-whites tolerated, albeit sometimes roughly, in the Southland

    And he backed this up with a reference to the famous historian Louis:

    As for Sambo, whose wrongs moved the abolitionists to wrath and tears, there is some reason to believe that he suffered less than any other class in the South from its “peculiar institution”.

    And who also said that the prospect of their children of becoming a house slave was coveted by blacks in the Confederacy, so much that whites were envious of this fate.

    Okay, that last bit is made up.  What I am in fact referring to is the writer Douglas Saunders’ book The Myth of the Muslim Tide in which he refers to:

    dhimmi, a term for non-Muslims tolerated, albeit sometimes roughly, in the Muslim world.

     

    ***********************************************************************************************

    And I ended with:

    To take Saunders again, in his cavalier dismissal of the nature of dhimmitude he dismisses Bat Ye’or’s work – Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations CollideThe Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, and The Decline of Eastern Christianity: From Jihad to Dhimmitude.

    One reason these books are fascinating is their compendiums of primary source material.  Eyewitness accounts and descriptions, from Muslims and Infidels, of the cruelty, degradation and slaughter dealt out to kafirs living under Islam.  So Saunders is in the position of those racialists who tried to insist, against the evidence, that blacks had it good in the Southland – or David Irving claiming that the diary of Anne Frank is a hoax.

    In the actual F.A.Q. I’m more generous to Saunders than I am being here, because of both his nasty imputation of the worst motives to his opponents, and his highly suspect and loudly trumpeted concern for “brown people”.

    If Saunders could pay any attention, he would realise that brown people are among the victims of jihad – and far far more “brown people” are its victims, than white people.  I’m not like Farage and Steyn – I think they are way too moderate and conservative.

    Re: my Anti-Racialist Q & A, Scott Alexander wrote:

    It’s astounding because I have no idea what the author’s political leanings are even though he seems to go through great trouble to explain them. One minute he will seem like a raging leftist, the next he will be talking about how racism […] keeps people of all skin colors from uniting in brotherhood against the real enemy, Muslims.

    By George, I think he’s got it!

    […]

    Internationalism is a mental readjustment.  It is common to hear complacent people in America saying things like “we haven’t” been attacked since 9/11.  Well, no, actually, if you take the view of internationalism, we have been attacked almost every single day since then.  When ISIS rounds up Yezidi slave women to sell, we are attacked.  When Al Shabab assaults Kenyan malls, we are attacked.  When Boko Haram tries to erase the Christian South, we are attacked.

    This isn’t “Islam vs the West”.  It is Islam vs Everything – including itself.  As you can see from the news in Syria and Iraq, when it has nothing left to destroy, it turns on itself.  This isn’t just a struggle to preserve the West – it’s a struggle for the future of the human race.

    So whether we are white Atheists, black Christians, brown Hindus, yellow Buddhists, or any of the hundred variations and combinations of Infidel – we’re all in this together. We are all Infidels, we are all subhuman to Islam.  So for those of us lucky enough to be born free and rich in the West, it’s not enough to simply look to secure our own lands – if we are going to survive, we need to look to our brothers and sisters in distant lands.  In Asia, and above all in Africa, in the great looping border that divides the Christian world from the Islamic – these are the frontline against the jihad.   They deserve all our support – and if we fail them, we will deserve what will happen to us.

    Category: atheismInternationalismIslamJihad

    Article by: The Prussian

    2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • ronmurp

      FYI – Formatting with blockquotes mistake?

      • ThePrussian

        The formatting in them is quite difficult

        • ronmurp

          Maybe it’s just me not recognising the boundaries between what you’re saying now and what you’re quoting from yourself quoting others. Great content; I was just trying to figure who said what when.

          • ThePrussian

            I decided to underline quotes within the quotes – hope that helps!

    • ronmurp

      The BS from Islamic apologists is so crazy it really makes you go back, time and time again, to make sure you’re not the insane one. Logic is the first victim.

      “Saunders says that he doesn’t care what Islamic doctrine is, he isn’t interested in theology, Islam is whatever Muslims say it is.”

      Ha! I’ve just had this thrown at me: a site with posts by an atheist, who has post after post of Christianity, the mythicism/existence of Jesus debate, that also includes posts wondering what could possibly explain the psychology of disparate Islamist (not Islam, obviously).

      After much denialism, refusal to answer specific points (what has death of Farkhunad for supposedly damaging a Quran to do with US foreign policy, and yet not with Islam?) he tried comparing the Bible and Quran (the whataboutism move). I explained the difference (single source, inerrant, valid for all time, theological, political, judicial guid to life?) I was finally told that he, the poster, wasn’t interested in the Bible or the Quran, so stop banging on about it – on his post about what Muslims believe.

      And “Islam is whatever Muslims say it is” – yep, very same move by this guy. So I said, yes, I listen, and what I’ve said they believe is what they tell me they believe. Obviously what they tell you they believe isn’t what they actually believe. His response was I need to understand psychology better and should consult psychologists and anthropologists who study Muslims. So much for “Islam is whatever Muslims say it is”. These people are totally nuts.

      As I read your post realised how common this BS is, when engaging with these people. It’s as if one witnesses some bizarre event and you’re just left there, wondering, WTF just happened? It’s bewildering at times. Makes you wonder how they can string a sentence together and yet not see the clear logical failures they come out with.

      • kraut2

        “Islam is whatever Muslims say it is”

        hereby admitting that Isis and all the other groups are Islam. Thanks for confirming that. Since they are totally part of Islam then they prove that Islam advocates destructing the Kafir.

    • WFC

      Regarding the numbers, you may be interested in this article – which refers to Britain: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/

    • Great to see you back at it!

      • ThePrussian

        Great to be back, mate, it’s great to be back :)

    • Arizona Gunowner

      There is only one 1 way to save the US –

      http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html

      read it all but here is the money quote –

      Article III

      Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

      The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

      The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

      Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
      —–
      For Europe the only plausible solution now is war and genocide.
      I don’t want to see America get to that point.

    • john lord

      Malaysia is regarded as that rarity, a progressive Muslim country. There was an interesting documentary on it lately on telly. I find out first that it is, for a Muslim country only 64% or so Muslim, so it must be great for the other 36% of the population to have their country described as such.
      I then learned that this, go ahead, Muslim country practices sharia law, but only apparently for the Muslim 64%. But these laws which can carry penalties including imprisonment are enforced by the entire state which of course includes the 36% tax paying non Muslims. It’s a right unsustainable mess and makes a mockery of the notion of equality under the law. Malaysia may be way down the terrorism index, but I have a feeling that many non Muslim Malaysians are quietly abandoning ship. Will it be a 100% in a 100 years to the you know who’s?

      • Richard Quinn

        Malaysia exports Islam and Islamic terrorism to Southern Thailand (which it is physically joined to) and across the narrow straits of the Celebes Sea to the Southern Philippines avoiding much of the carnage themselves. They do this simply by being wealthier than their neighbors (except for Singapore) and finding ways (usually involving large amounts of cashola) to encourage the nuttier islamists in their midst to depart the country for greener pastures nearby (much like Saudia Arabia does to the rest of the middle east). Islamic-motivated suicide bombings occur across the Philippines so frequently these days that it doesn’t even rate a mention in the international media (cf. the wikipedia entry for terrorism in the Philippines and see the absurdly long list of terrorism incidents with multiple civilian fatalities that have occurred in just the last 10 years). And in Malaysia the minority Indian and Chinese populations, despite being the main drivers and participants in commerce, are endlessly discriminated against by the ethnic Malays in virtually every aspect of life and non Malays and non Muslims hold no elected or civil service positions.

    • Pingback: Are Islamophobes just Racists? • The Prussian()

    • Stan

      If you aren’t being called an islamophobe or a racist you aren’t doing it right.

    • NN

      “Furthermore, a majority of British Muslims (78%) want to see the Danish cartoonists prosecuted and 68% say that those who insult Islam should be prosecuted. This means that a clear majority of British Muslims are opposed to the most fundamental rights of a free society.”

      But are they really so different from non-Muslim Britons? The UK is, after all, a place where a man was threatened with arrest for displaying a sign saying, “religions are fairy stories for adults.” (http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/update-police-now-issue-statement-on-boston-pensioner-s-religions-are-fairy-stories-poster-1-3962839) That’s far from an isolated incident either, look up the various abuses of the UK’s libel laws sometime. So wanting the Danish cartoonists to be prosecuted doesn’t seem that different from the general “free speech” norms of British society.

      “One in seven ‘young Britons’ likes ISIS. I think that not even the most depraved lefty (okay, yes, maybe the most depraved lefty) or conservative likes ISIS, so this is probably restricted to young British Muslims . That means up to eighty percent of young British Muslims are sympathetic to a group so evil, al-Qaeda kicked it out.”

      Except that the French poll that you post directly after this (http://7347-presscdn-0-17.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/prussian/files/2014/11/Screen_Shot_2014-08-25_at_4.16.57_PM.0.png) supposedly found that 16% of French people support ISIS. Even the highest estimates put the percent of France’s population that is Muslim at only 10%, so we know that *at least* a third of the people who responded to the French poll with a “yes” were not Muslim. So your assumption that “this is probably restricted to young British Muslims” is completely baseless.

      The most likely explanation for what happened with these polls is that a large portion of respondents didn’t understand the question, either because they heard the pollster say, “…the Islamic State of Iraq…” and assumed that they were referring to the current official government of Iraq, or because they paid so little attention to the news that they had never heard of ISIS (the poll was conducted in August of 2014).

      “Here’s another poll result – 72% of Dutch Muslims say fighting in the Syria jihad is defensible.”

      Assuming that Google Translate accurately translated the linked news article about this poll, what 72% of Dutch Muslims actually said is that fighting against the regime of Bashir Al-Assad is defensible. Considering that Al-Assad is a brutal dictator who has massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, I have a hard time objecting to this, even though I’m certainly not a fan of any of the rebel groups that are actually leading the fight against Al-Assad.

      “How does it gel with the finding that 6% of French Muslims say that terrorism against civilian targets is ‘often justified’ and a further 10% say it is ‘sometimes justified’?”

      The problem with polls like this is that there is no baseline to compare this to. We don’t know how many French non-Muslims support terrorism against civilian targets, because no one bothered to ask them.

      However, one Gallup poll conducted in America did ask both Muslims and non-Muslims whether they supported violence against civilians (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx). The results found that Muslims were less likely than any other religious group in America to support “attacks on civilians by individuals or small groups”: 11% of Muslims said that such attacks were sometimes justified compared to 26% of Protestants, 27% of Catholics, 22% of Jews, 19% of Mormons, and 23% of people with no religion. The poll also asked for their opinions on whether it is ever justified for the military to target and kill civilians (note that the phrasing is “target and kill,” so this isn’t just referring to collateral damage), and the differences there were even more stark: 21% of Muslims said that military attacks on civilians were sometimes justified, compared to 58% of Protestants, 58% of Catholics, 52% of Jews, 64% of Mormons, and 43% of people with no religion.

      So while we don’t know about French non-Muslims, we can say that French Muslims are much less likely to support terrorism than American Christians.

      “Try launching, in a moderately well read newspaper, a competition for whoever can produce the best cartoon making fun of Islam’s Prophet. You know what will happen, and you know that murderous, hateful frenzy that you’ll see. You also know that nothing comparable is ever elicited by the slaughters of ISIS, the Islamic rapes etc.”

      Except for the mass protests in Jordan in January of last year is response to ISIS burning a Jordanian pilot alive (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6rZhnOuEP4), and the time in November when thousands of protestors stormed Afghanistan’s presidiential palace in response to ISIS beheadings and the Afghanistan government’s perceived failure to protect the public (http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/asia/afghanistan-unrest/), and the anti-terrorrism march in London that drew thousands of British Muslims in December (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-anti-isis-march-not-covered-by-mainstream-media-outlets-say-organisers-a6765976.html), and a protest in Tunisia against terrorism last year that drew thousands of people (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/africa/tunisia-terrorism-protest/). All of which I found with less than 20 minutes of Google searching.

      • ThePrussian

        In reverse order,

        1) Those protests are against ‘Muslims’ being killed by ISIS. Not Infidels. Never about infidels being murdered – or raped or robbed or driven out of their lands. Then a hush falls.

        And even those protests against ISIS you mention are nothing compared with the seething, howling frenzy that blasphemy produces.

        2) “So while we don’t know about French non-Muslims, we can say that French Muslims are much less likely to support terrorism than American Christians.” If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. You completely missed the problem of what a “civilian” is in Islam. Anjem Choudry was famously interviewed saying that, of course, he’s against killing innocents. But infidels are not innocent, by definition, under Islam.

        3) “So your assumption that “this is probably restricted to young British Muslims” is completely baseless.” Right, the assumption that muslims are the ones likely to support the Islamic state, is baseless. This is wishful thinking. I did say I thought the polls had to be out of whack somehow, but you’re making a leap that is completely unfounded.

        4) “But are they really so different from non-Muslim Britons? T”

        31% of British Muslims think apostasy merits death. Got a way to handwave that?

        Further, 50% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. 0% think it is morally acceptable. 1 in 3 is fine with stoning adulteresses – a category that includes rape victims – to death. 1 in four British Muslims say the 7/7 bombings were justified. 12% support suicide attacks against british civilians, 20% against British troops. 28% want Britain to be an Islamic state. 27% support violence against cartoonists in the direct aftermath of Charlie Hebdo.

        And so on and so on. These aren’t isolate polls. This is only an _excerpt_ of my F.A.Q. which in turn contains only a subsection of all the information like this that is out there. It’s not isolated to this or that poll – if you look at the overarching picture, the support among Muslims for these fascist views is horrific.

        • NN

          1) “Those protests are against ‘Muslims’ being killed by ISIS. Not Infidels. Never about infidels being murdered – or raped or robbed or driven out of their lands. Then a hush falls.”

          The Tunisian protests were in response to a terrorist attack that targeted non-Muslim tourists (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/20/world/tunisia-terror-attack-victims/ ). The London anti-terrorism march was against terrorism in general.

          2) “If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.”

          A survey finding that a quarter of Protestant and Catholic Americans believe that it is sometimes okay for individuals or small groups to deliberately target and kill civilians, and that a majority of them believe that it is sometimes okay for the military to deliberately target and kill civilians isn’t enough for you?

          But I’m sure that those answers are purely hypothetical. It’s not like leading candidates running for President of the United States have openly advocated that the US military should deliberately target civilians. Oh, wait…

          http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

          http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/16/ted-cruzs-call-to-carpet-bomb-the-islamic-state-draws-scrutiny/

          “You completely missed the problem of what a ‘civilian’ is in Islam.”

          I suppose it is theoretically possible that the Muslims who responded to the polls in question had a different definition of “civilian” than the Christians who responded to the polls, but before I buy into that I’d like to see some evidence more compelling than a statement by some guy who isn’t even a French Muslim.

          I also think that, if you’re going to ask questions like that, it is also worth asking how the non-Muslim respondents to those polls define “civilian,” considering that the US government has been known to define “militant” as “a military-age male in the strike zone of a drone strike.” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/

          3) The French poll found that 16% of respondents supposedly support ISIS. At the very most, 10% of the French population is Muslim (most estimates put it around 7-8%). So we know that significant portions of the respondents who said that they supported ISIS on the French poll were not Muslim, because even if 100% of Muslim respondents said that they supported ISIS that would only produce a result of at most 10% (unless the sample was non-representative and included a disproportionate number of Muslims, which would mean that the poll was seriously flawed in a different way).

          I agree that genuine ISIS supporters are extremely likely to be Muslim, which is why I think that this is strong evidence that the French poll was indeed out of whack, Which in turn casts doubts on other polls like that.

          • ThePrussian

            “A survey finding that a quarter of Protestant and Catholic Americans believe that it is sometimes okay for individuals or small groups to deliberately target and kill civilians, and that a majority of them believe that it is sometimes okay for the military to deliberately target and kill civilians isn’t enough for you?”

            No it isn’t. Not when until there are something like several hundred American Christian terror groups that commit war crimes as a matter of course. To take one example, Islamic jihadis murder more people every day than the KKK has done in the last fifty years, combined.

            If you still don’t see the difference, try the following: wander through any American city – you choose – with a sign saying “Christ was a fraud. Christianity is a lie.” Now try wandering through the Muslim ghettos around Paris with a sign saying “Muhammad was a fraud. Islam is a lie”. You know what’ll happen.

            That’s the bit that just can’t be handwaved. We can argue about “terrorism”, and people can say, well, war is horrible, war by other means… But no one can explain how a willingness to murder blasphemers, apostates, gays and adulteresses is motivated by anything other than religious totalitarianism.

            “I suppose it is theoretically possible that the Muslims who responded to the polls in question had a different definition of “civilian” than the Christians who responded to the polls, but before I buy into that I’d like to see some evidence more compelling than a statement by some guy who isn’t even a French Muslim”

            This isn’t something Chaudry has made up. It’s completely mainstream Islamic teaching – been expounded for hundreds of years. But, look, don’t take my word on it. Please just wait until I post the full F.A.Q. I think you’ll see a lot of these points are answered in it. :)

            To the protests then – yes, the London protest was against “terrorism”, and against ISIS. It was organised by Shia who have their own reasons to hate the new Caliphate, but let’s roll with it.

            It had a few hundred protestors.

            There was another anti-jihad protest in Ireland. Fifty people showed up.

            There was one in France also. Thirty people showed up.

            Compare that with the millions who rioted against cartoons, against Charlie Hebdo… In Chechnya alone, eight hundred thousand poured onto the streets.

            Again, I’m having to do this on the fly – please stick around for the full document. It’ll answer all these points, I promise.

            • NN

              I just said that American Christians were more likely than Muslims in America or France (or a bunch of other countries, as shown by the worldwide Gallup poll that I posted above) to say that they are okay with attacks on civilians when asked by a pollster. I never said anything about them being more likely to *commit* acts of terrorism. My intention is to make an apples-to-apples comparison with poll results finding that X% of Muslims in whatever country are okay with attacks on civilians.

              I also never once mentioned American Christians’ levels of tolerance or intolerance towards blasphemy, so I have no idea where you are getting that from.

              And if you don’t see any problems with comparing the entire world to a single country, specifically a country that is a first world democracy which hasn’t seen significant political instability or large scale conflict on its soil in 150 years, then I’m afraid that I don’t have very high expectations for your FAQ.

            • ThePrussian

              “I also never once mentioned American Christians’ levels of tolerance or intolerance towards blasphemy, so I have no idea where you are getting that from”

              Because that is central. If this were _just_ about terrorism, I wouldn’t be worried, and nor would anyone else. It’s not. It’s about the very, very widespread hostility to the most fundamental freedoms we have come to take for granted.

              And, unfortunately, the figures on those questions do not support your attempts to handwave this. Support for Islamic totalitarianism is huge throughout the Ummah. As I say, just try wandering through Paris or London with a sign denouncing Mohammed and Islam. Good luck with that.

              Our freedom of speech has _already_ been taken away. That’s why I say what’s happening with Islam isn’t immigration. Immigration is when you move to a country and adapt yourself to it. When you move to a country and adapt it to you, that’s called _imperialism_.

        • NN

          BTW, here is a 2011 worldwide Gallup poll that checked support for both individual and military attacks on civilians in various countries: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

      • JB

        Here is a list of ongoing armed conflicts around the world wherein at least 1,000 people were killed in 2015. The list is ranked according to the number of people killed in 2015.

        Start Date Conflict Fatalities Are Muslims a Party?

        1978 Afghanistan Civil War Up to 2,000,000 Yes

        2003 Iraq War Up to 1,000,000 Yes

        2009 Boko Haram insurgency At least 21,400 Yes

        2011 Syrian Civil War Up to 340,000 Yes

        1984 Turkey–PKK conflict At least 45,000 Yes

        1991 Somali Civil War 500,000 Yes

        2003 War in Darfur At least 178,363 Yes

        2004 War in North-West Pakistan 59,577 Yes

        2006 Mexican Drug War At least 150,000 No

        2011 Libyan Civil War 13,549 Yes

        2011 Yemeni Civil War At least 7,400 Yes

        2011 Sinai insurgency 3,417 Yes

        2011 South Kordofan conflict At least 5,200 Yes

        2013 South Sudanese Civil War At least 10,680 Yes

        2014 Russian – Ukraine War 9,115 No

        Thirteen out of fifteen of these conflicts involve Muslims. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire!

        • kraut2

          Some issues:
          Russia is not in a war with Ukraine, it likely supports ethnic Russians in the Donbass fighting a Nazi influenced illegal coup in Kiev, which they took exception to. The same for Crimea, which decided (not once but at least twice before after the disintegration of the Soviet Union) to join the Russian Federation.
          The war was begun by he coup regime in Kiev after Russia did not accept the referendum in the Donbass that was very unorganized and barely managed to get above 50% approval. Russia advised Kiev and the separatists in the Donbass to come to an agreement for more autonomy – Kiev however did not discuss matters but sent in the tanks and started shelling houses, schools and hospitals. that forced the hand of the Anti Kiev Donbass rebels and they – likely with the help of Russia supporting their Russian brethren in the Donbass – began to fight back.
          I have followed that story pretty close from the beginning, relying on mainstream media first up until the story broke that suddenly a first relatively peaceful uprising turned violent when an almost equal amount of policeman and demonstrators were shot by unknown – after president Yanukovich had ordered non violent response by his Police officers when attacked with Molotow cocktails, rocks and sticks.

          Those that involve muslims but in the beginning were not triggered by religious conflict:
          Yemeni civil war is more ethnic than religious, with Saudi Arabian mercenaries fighting the Houthis : http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/01/yemen-crisis-201512010294461878.html

          The uprising against Assad was a political uprising that after a heavy handed response by Assad turned into a bloody civil war with heavy support by the interested parties of the Golf Region and the USA, who helped to arm and train the rebels.
          Isis, which began in Iraq https://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/1 subsumed quite a few of the original anti Assad rebels.

          The Libyan civil war was also originally against the rule of Qaddafi by rebel groups, who with the help of Nato turned the country into a quagmire – again, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          • JB

            The Russian–Ukrainian conflict isn’t relevant to my point other than that there was a conflict and people were killed.

            “Yemeni civil war is more ethnic than religious, with Saudi Arabian mercenaries fighting the Houthis” A lot of these conflicts are both ethnic and religious. This is a perfect case. The Saudi’s are of a different sect than the Houthis, and believe me, if you have spent much time with Saudi Sunni Muslims you would know that they hold their rivals, Shias in great contempt. So your nice little distinctions doesn’t matter all the much.

            And even if it did, the pattern is clear. You mention only few examples where you take issue with something I never said.

            The fact is these folks tend to behave badly. It’s a part of their socialization, much of which is dictated by Islam. It doesn’t matter to the point being discussed why they make bad neighbors. The fact is that they make bad neighbors.

            Take Assad, Yes, he’s a son of a bitch, but then again he’s a Muslim. And he’s another rival faction, an Alawite. And much of the reason why he’s a son of a bitch is that his sect is afraid to be a minority in a Muslim state. Given that since the dawn of the 20th century Muslims attempted 8 or 9 genocides, I’d say he has a pretty good reason to be afraid.

            Nothing you said really goes to the clear pattern in those stark statistics.

    • JB

      Hi Prussian,

      At the intersection of these two ideas is an important idea that you may be missing:

      “Across the Western World support for violence and terrorism among Muslims are no higher than that of the general population…”

      “The lunatics are running the show in the Ummah.”

      Aside from the fact that the first is not true, there is a good reason for the seemingly contradictory ideas that most Muslims don’t support terrorism and that they let the lunics run the show. You touch on the idea when you say that Muslims view infidels as sub human, but you never really say what I think is important to say.

      First, I’ll back up to say my relationship with Muslims and the Muslim world is bittersweet. I have spent some time in the Middle East and two young Muslim-Arab men call me their “American Father.” I’ve spent a lot of time with these people. And on one hand, they are the sweetest nicest people you will ever meet. On the other hand, Muslims are incompatible with Western Civilization.

      I’ve come to realize that, in the western world, people tend to be a little selfish, but we are socialized to be better. Arabs are the sweetest most empathetic people I’ve ever known. I’ve seen them moved to tears merely at the sight of a disabled boy. But Muslim Arabs are socialized to be evil.

      I remember eating with this wonderful man we had met in Jordan. He was very kind, and when we talked about religion, he explained that he wasn’t much interested in the dogmatic aspects: “True religion,” he explained, “is helping all people—I don’t care if you’re Christian or whatever.” Later in the evening, as we ate, he began to talk about what a great leader Saddam Hussein was. I was so taken back that I was speechless. If I had my wits about me, I would have asked, “Do you mean the guy that fed children into shredders to punish their parents?”

      Anyway, I’ve had many an occasion to hear Muslim-Arab men denounce terrorism. In no case did I think they were being insincere. I have heard my two semi-adopted sons do it many times. And yet they would also denounce the US for Afghanistan, etc—and Israel for defending itself against Hamas. I’d engage them and ask, “I thought you were against terrorism.”

      “Yes,” they would reply, “but these wars are killing Muslims. That is very bad.”

      I’d try to explain that these are defensive wars against terrorist. That didn’t seem to matter. All that seemed to matter was that an infidel was killing a Muslim. In their minds, that is wrong. Period. Nothing Muslims do merits infidel’s killing Muslims. One of these young men had lost his brother to a murderer. He told me he took great pleasure in watching the Saudi authorities cut the murder’s head off. So I brought that up, but it mattered not a wit. They were very much against these wars.

      For a long time, this seeming inconsistency drove me nuts. I knew these young men respected me too much to lie to me. Indeed, they didn’t change their position even though they understood that I didn’t approve.

      In the end, I realized that they didn’t view infidel lives as equal to Muslim lives. It’s like you might scold your child for teasing the neighborhood dog. But you’d never let the dog bite the child. It may be wrong for a Muslim to commit violence against an infidel, but that doesn’t give the infidel the right of self defense against a Muslim.

      I also came across a verse in the Koran that says that a Muslim should never take an infidel as a protector, patron, or ally against an unbeliever. So even if a Muslim knows some terrorists are planning violence that he disagrees with. It would be wrong to turn the terrorist in to non Muslim authorities. Such an action would be siding with an infidel against a Muslim, which in Islam is a sin.

      Both these ideas explain a lot. You’re average liberal hears a Muslim denounce terrorism and doesn’t understand that such a denunciation doesn’t mean the same thing as it does coming from a non Muslim. They may think it’s wrong, but until we all convert it Islam, there’s nothing that can be done, sadly.

      • ThePrussian

        You’ve really put your finger on it. Thanks; you are quite right about this infernal in-group mentality that Islam inculcates. I might use this post as one of my “readers letters”.

        N.B. – the first thing you quote isn’t me, it’s from Doug Saunders.

        • JB

          Oh I know. I could have explained it better. My point is that even if that first statistic was true and even though most Muslims probably don’t support terrorism, it doesn’t matter. They aren’t going to take your side against the terrorists.

    • nicky

      Indeed, the lack of ‘integration’ of a majority of muslims in Europe is the big problem, much bigger than ‘terrorism’.
      Moreover, as you have pointed out many times, the apologising doormat attitude of the ‘left’, not just the ‘regressive left’, leaves only the ‘right’ and ‘extreme right’ to recognise the problem. And hence the rise of the ‘extreme right’, which comes with al the other things we do not want: racism, sexism, nationalism (not to mention jingoism), class distinctions, lack of democracy & freedom of expression, etc. etc.

      Do I have some suggestions about what has to be done?
      – Vet immigrants from Islamic countries severely about their commitment to democratic and Enlightenment type values.
      – Note, I would suggest to give women refugees from Islamic countries a default ‘accept’ status.
      – All those carrying placards “Death to Those who Mock Islam ” – a direct incitement to murder (and, as we know, not a vain incitement)- and the like, should be deported immediately, stante pede.
      – All those calling for or condoning the murder of apostates: deportation.
      – All those calling for the killing of homosexuals: deportation (if from a Muslim country, the others should stand trial for incitement to murder).
      – All imams preaching the destruction of the ‘degenerate West’ -whose hospitality they are using- even if only in Arabic: deport them.
      – Closing of all religious schools and madrassas (financed by the gov’t of the host country).
      – No acceptance of Sharia law, even in ‘designated ‘ areas.
      – All muslim rapists raping kufar females should be deported after sentencing.
      – Make harassment of females, kufar or not, an offence that is followed through.
      – And yes, ban Burqas and Niqabs from public places (c.f.. Harris’ ‘motorhelmet’ criterion).
      – Support for Muslim apostates, in the sense of protection and bursaries.
      – Make ‘honour killing’ an aggravating condition in murder cases.
      – Make FGM, and assisting in such, an offence like torture and cause of grievous bodily harm. Hence punishable by serious sentencing.

      Now there are probably more measures to take, but these will go a good long way.
      Note, if I were famous enough, I’d probably make it to the list of ‘Islamophobic’ extremists, but since Maajid and Ayaan are on these lists, that would be an honour.
      (And no, I would empathically not have voted for Donald).

    • Pingback: To Hell with Donald Trump • The Prussian()