Spørgsmålet er ikke, hvornår vi vil opleve et massivt terrorangreb i Europa, men hvornår det sker.
De fleste europæiske lande har allerede veletablerede og hurtigt voksende muslimske diasporaer, og som vi kan se af den seneste debat, har Hamas og Iran mange herboende tilhængere. Se blot på reaktionerne på facebook, hvor hadet til jøder, kristne og Vesten i det hele taget knap nok lader sig skjule. Morderne vil tilmed kunne glæde sig over at blive mødt med sød forståelse fra store dele af venstrefløjen, som uanset, hvad der sker, vil kaste skylden på Israel og på de vestlige regeringer, som har nægtet at imødekomme islams rimelige krav om en ny samfunds(u)orden.
Der verserer allerede påstande om, at Hamas’s groteske mord på 1400 i Israel og 199 gidsler, der er slæbt til en uvis skæbne i Gaza, er en ”false flag” operation. Vi må altså forstå, at voldshandlingerne ikke er begået af Hamas, men af nogen, der optræder som Hamas. Det kan næsten kun være israelerne selv, der har klædt sig ud som hellige krigere og er gået fra hus til hus for at massakrere Israels egne indbyggere i den hensigt at hænge Hamas ud og dermed retfærdiggøre den jødiske stats overfald på sagesløse arabere.
Det lyder vanvittigt, men så sent som i dag har jeg fået en mail fra en højtbegavet, tidligere ven, som vil have mig til at tro på den historie – og selvfølgelig udbrede den på min væg.
Engang troede jeg, at hvis folk ikke lader sig påvirke af argumenter, vil de i det mindste blive overbevist af begivenheder. Det har vist sig at være en naiv opfattelse. Mennesker, der ikke VIL se, ser ikke noget, uanset om det foregår lige for øjnene af dem. Hvis folks hjerner er hard-wired med en bestemt virkelighedsopfattelse, vil intet – kendsgerninger, argumenter eller tildragelser – gøre indtryk på dem. Vi ser det udmøntet i den danske indvandringspolitik. Danskerne behøver blot at gå en tur på gaden for at opdage, at Danmark på ingen tid er blevet forandret til noget, som vore bedsteforældre ville have forsvoret. Men da vi i årtier har fået indbanket, at vi ikke har ret til at forsvare landet, går de troligt hen og stemmer på de samme politikere, der har bragt os denne tilstand på halsen.
Hertil kommer et andet socialpsykologisk fænomen, nemlig at vold ikke nødvendigvis får folk til at fordømme voldsmanden, men lige så godt kan medføre større beundring for krigere, der tror så meget på deres sag, at de vil dræbe for at fremme den. Brutale handlinger vækker respekt, og når halsoverskærerne tilmed kan glæde sig over en venstrefløj, der altid står klar til at ”forklare” og retfærdiggøre selv de værste udskejelser, har de hellige krigere intet at betænke sig på. Så længe vi har Enhedslisten og Radikal Ungdom, kan terroristerne slappe af, når de ikke lige er ude for at ombringe nogle flere.
Når intifadaen når Danmark, vil politiet intet kunne stille noget op. Så spørgsmålet melder sig: Hvad gør vi, når staten ikke kan beskytte os? Tror vi, at Allahs mænd vil nøjes med at ombringe mænd, kvinder, børn, babyer og gamle i Israel? Hvad skulle få dem til at handle anderledes i Danmark, hvor 77 pct. af de herboende muslimer foretrækker islamisk lov frem for den danske grundlov?
Det er på tide, at du og jeg tænker over, hvad vi skal gøre, når samfundsordenen snart bryder sammen.
Jeg ved godt, hvad vi skal gøre og fortalte om det under et foredrag i i Sverige i 2006*. Det foreligger på tryk, og hvis nogen skulle være interesserede, finder jeg det gerne frem. Men om Facebooks censorer vil tillade det, er en anden sag.
************* Det er især i slutningen, at jeg fortæller, hvad der vil ske med vore vestlige samfund, nemlig statens sammenbrud og en opdeling som i Libanon. Heraf kan man slutte, at danskere, der vil videreføre vores kultur og livsform, må forberede sig på at kæmpe.
The Growth of Islam in Denmark and the Future of Secularism
June 16, 2006
Af Lars Hedegaard
In view of the importance that is justifiably attributed to the growing presence of Islam in Denmark — of which the recent Muhammed crisis is but one emanation — surprisingly little is known about the country’s Muslim population as a sociological phenomenon, although considerably more information has been produced in the wake of the crisis.
Characteristically, this new knowledge has been generated by newspapers and private newsletters. Official bodies such as Statistics Denmark offer absolutely no reliable information on Muslims as a group. The politically correct rationale appears to be the claim that Muslims are no different from anybody else and that it would be discriminatory to treat a second-generation Somali any differently from a Dane whose ancestors have lived in the country since the time of the Vikings.
Of course, it has been hard to conceal the fact that “immigrants” or “new Danes” are vastly overrepresented among in the prison population, that a disturbing number of convicted rapists and other men of violence bear Muslim names. Or that Muslims appear to receive vastly more than their just share of social expenditures. A few months ago, a government-appointed Welfare Commission manned by our best university experts concluded that Denmark’s immigration policies cost somewhere between 30 and 50 billion Danish kroner a year. An enormous sum for a country of 5.4 million people.
The government is currently considering ways to increase the immigrants’ participation in the job market. And no doubt the situation is serious. It is estimated that the number of “new Danes” will triple over the next 15 years, and if their socio-economic behaviour is not brought into line with that of the “old Danes”, the welfare state is likely to crumble under the pressure of having to finance a vast third-world population for which it was never intended.
But again the extent to which these socio-economic anomalies can be described as Muslim problems is a matter of conjecture. We are basically left to rely on anecdotal evidence. However, it is a striking fact that one never hears of any disproportionate burdens on the state coffers caused by the presence of a great number of Buddhist Sri Lankans or Vietnamese, Hindus, Sikhs or Chinese. Nor do we hear stories of second- or third-generation immigrants from these groups filling our prisons.
Even the number of Danish Muslims is unknown. Statistics Denmark does not keep track of religious affiliation and estimates vary wildly — anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 or more. The now famous daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten recently estimated the number to be 217.000 although it didn’t specify by what method it had come to that figure. However, I am inclined to believe that the number — slightly over 4 per cent of the population — is correct. It corresponds well with the figure I reached in August 2004 based an a count of male first names. I came to 191.000 as of January 2004 — a figure that had risen by 33 per cent since 1998.
My method would also include Danish converts to Islam, as it appears customary for such converts to change their first names to something Muslim. One example being the controversial imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen and the well known agitator for Hizb ut-Tahrir Musa Kronholt.
Incidentally, the number of converts is insignificant. It was long believed to be around 5.000, but just a few weeks ago the Copenhagen daily Berlingske Tidende reported that the true figure is probably closer to 2.500. So we are by no means in the middle of a mass conversion to the creed of Muhammed.
As I already hinted at, the problem of lack of knowledge is compounded by the unwillingness of most politicians, academics, journalists and opinion leaders to use precise language. It is considered politically incorrect to talk about Muslims as a distinct group, which means that in Denmark we are using all sorts of nebulous expressions, such as “immigrants”, “new Danes” and “bilinguals”. In that way one lumps together all immigrants and asylum seekers and their descendants from non-Western countries though very little can be said of them as a group. This attitude has very serious consequences. Not only are the decision-makers and the voters prevented from getting a grip on the problems and what can be done to solve them. Equally detrimental to our societal well-being is the fact that we are getting a sort of double discourse. Even in Denmark, which is probably the country in the Western World with the highest degree of free speech.
When the academic elite, the press and the politicians talk about second- and third-generation youngsters, everybody knows that they are not talking about people from Chile, Russia or Tibet. When we hear of the increasing problems of “bilingual” pupils in city schools, it is well understood that this does not refer to kids whose parents speak Chinese, English or Swedish at home.
We are living with problems that are very clearly associated with the Muslim zuwanderung (to use Bassam Tibi’s excellent expression) but whose precise relationship with Islam as a belief system and world view cannot even be discussed. Merely to ask whether there is such a relationship is considered disqualifying and is usually met with the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace, love, tolerance and understanding and therefore by definition cannot give rise to antisocial behaviour.
This is all very strange. When — during the 1990s — Serb fighters would engage in mass rapes of Bosnian Muslim women, is was quite acceptable — and of course true — to say that the reason was religious or ethnic hatred. When Christian girls in Western Europe are raped by Muslim men — whereas the rape of Muslim women by non-Muslims is unheard of (at least I have never heard of such an incident in Denmark) — it is explained by poverty and social exclusion.
The politically correct attitude in Denmark — and I believe that the picture is not much different in other European countries — that “religion” is a strictly private matter that cannot have any impact on people’s behaviour as citizens and members of society has been detrimental to our integration efforts. It has blurred the fact that non-Western immigrants and their descendants are at least as internally different as are “old” Danes, Swedes and other European populations.
As an upshot, no nationally recognised spokesmen for the Sri Lankan, Vietnamese, Chinese, Buddhist, Hindu, third-world Christian or other recently arrived communities have emerged. This may be partly explained by the fact that in many cases their integration into Danish society has been unproblematic. (Interestingly this is a powerful argument against the widespread tendency to accuse the Danes of being an especially vile, xenophobic and racist people.)
As a result, Denmark’s “ethnic minorities” became synonymous with the country’s most vociferous Muslim groups and more specifically with their self-appointed champions. Until a few months ago, we therefore found ourselves in a situation where a few imams — most of whom had amply demonstrated their fundamentalist leanings — and radical ethno-politicians and leaders of Islamic organisations were recognised as the legitimate spokesmen for all Muslims in Denmark (and in practice as the only ethnic representatives ever consulted). Undoubtedly, a great number of Danish Muslims — the so-called “cultural Muslims” or Muslims of liberal persuasion — do not feel represented by the media imams but little was known pf their number, attitudes or aspirations.
Until recently, only outcasts from polite society dared question the claim that the vast majority of Danish Muslims had exactly the same attitude towards their religion as most old Danes have towards Lutheran Christianity, which is still the predominant religion in the country with over 80 pct. of population being members. I.e. the vast majority of Muslims were believed to take religion lightly.
Opinion polls conducted after the explosion of the Muhammad crisis following the daily Jyllands-Posten’s publication of 12 cartoons of the prophet on 30 September 2005 make this basic assumption highly dubious. Among the notable findings is that few Danish Muslims appear willing to throw their weight behind the newly created “Democratic Muslims” that was set up by the Radical Liberal and very popular MP Naser Khader at the beginning of 2006. His wide support among non-Muslim Danes does not appear to be matched by his organisation’s natural constituency.
On June 6, 2006, the daily Berlingske Tidende created a stir by publishing a poll showing that Naser Khader’s “Democratic Muslims” could count on the support of 14 per cent of Danish Muslims and could only boast a paid-up Muslim membership of 1,137 (in addition to 16,000 non-Muslim supporting members). Since then there has been a debate as to whether 14 per cent is a lot or very little. Naser Khader himself pointed to the fact that one of the salafist ring leaders of the imam conspirators that went to the Middle East in order to stir up anti-Danish trouble and were therefore instrumental in creating the Muhammed crisis, Ahmed Abu Laban, only has support from 3 per cent of the Danish Muslims. In spite of the fact that he is leader of the Danish Islamic Faith Community claiming to speak on behalf of tens of thousands of families.
More indicative of Islam’s influence was an opinion poll published in late March 2006 by the trade union publication “A4” which showed that whereas only 25 per cent of grown-up Muslims said that religion played a significant role in their daily lives, the corresponding figure for young Muslims was 75 per cent.
The crucial question in this context is, of course, what Muslims understand by religion. And this again begs an even more profound and difficult question: what is Islam? Is Islam a religious faith in the traditional European sense, i.e. a personal relationship between the individual and God, or is Islam more akin to an all-encompassing ideology that regulates all aspects of human life including politics, the judicial system, philosophy, relations between the sexes, attire, modes of behaviour etc.? Or — to put it in simpler terms — is Islam the same as sharia or can there be a liberal, personalised and moderate Islam that does not lay claim to every aspect of the human existence?
Very little is known about Danish Muslims’ interpretation of their religion, but surveys conducted in Germany and more recently in Great Britain and The United States would seem to indicate that vast sections of the Muslim populations equate Islam with sharia, which may fairly be characterised as a totalitarian ideology of the same stripe as fascism and communism.
It would stand to reason that a sizable segment of Danish Muslims share the sentiments of their German, British and American co-religionists.
It is also important to point out that regardless of the actual support Danish imams have among Danish Muslims, we are yet to hear from a single moderate imam. Without exception every imam who has been questioned on the subject has stated that, of course, the full sharia must be implemented at some unspecified date in the future — including such punishments as the stoning of women and the killing of apostates. And as is the case in most other places, the sharia is not to be understood as a set of laws that may be voted in by parliament once the Muslims form a majority. It should be immediately implemented and is in fact being implemented to the extent that the authorities do not prevent it. For that reason Naser Khader — who is one of Denmark’s most popular politicians — has been living under police protection for several years because he has been declared an apostate and is therefore to be killed. Among Mr Khader’s offences against Islam is that he has given his daughter the Christian name.
As Bernard Lewis recently explained to Die Welt (April 19, 2006), the fact that Muslim religious authorities are claiming the right to punish Danish cartoonists for crimes that are not crimes under Danish law, means that they now consider Denmark to be part of the Dar al-Islam and its population to be dhimmies who should be subjected to the sharia.
One further point regarding so-called moderate Islam: I have not heard of any credible example of a moderate Islam in Europe that has gained any appreciable following or spiritual influence. If you scratch the surface of the so-called moderate religious leaders — and this is most certainly the case in Denmark — the difference between the moderates and the extremists is that the former seek to advance their goals by peaceful means whereas the latter will gladly resort to violence. But in both cases the goal is the same: the implementation of the sharia and the subjugation of the indigenous non-Muslims to a state of dhimmitude.
Two aspects in particular stand out when one considers recent developments in Danish-Muslim relations: Firstly, it is increasingly clear that a great many Muslims have never had the desire to integrate into Danish society in the sense that they wanted to blend into the Danish people, but have insisted on maintaining their imported culture and to a certain extent institutions on Danish soil. It was naive for the Danes to have believed otherwise.
The outcome of this “multicultural” — in fact bi-cultural — society has been a growing separation between the old Danes and the Muslim arrivals and their descendants — an actual separation that is becoming more pronounced as time goes by, whereas the ideology of integration, under whose auspices the massive Muslim immigration was carried through, would have predicted the opposite.
In spite of the many billions of kroner which the state has spent on “integration” over the past 30 years, our cities and schools — both public and private — are becoming more disintegrated.
Nor is there any indication that those wielding power within the Muslim community are willing to accept conversions from Islam or to grant Muslim women the right to marry non-Muslim men.
There is growing talk of “parallel societies”, i.e. a situation where the country ceases to function as a unitary polity due to the physical, cultural, religious and politico-judicial separation of non-Muslims and Muslims into incompatible and antagonistic enclaves. This would be akin to the recent experience in the Balkans and to Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
The other aspect, which is closely connected to the one just discussed, is the realisation that vast segments of the Muslim population may not consider themselves as a minority at all but rather as part of the world “umma”, i.e. the 1.3 billion strong global Muslim nation. The recent anti-Danish animosity over the Muhammed cartoons throughout the Muslim world has probably strengthened the feeling of many Danish Muslims that they are part of the world umma and not part of a minority in Denmark.
So increasingly, it appears, the real minority will be the Danes.
One may well ask if the same is not the case throughout Europe and in other parts of the Western world. In particular after the Iranian revolution in 1979, a number of powerful and well-heeled international Muslim organisations (especially the Saudi Wahhabi) have spent billions of dollars (I recently heard a figure of 65 billion dollars over the past 25 years) in order to ensure their ideological sway over the Muslim diaspora in Europe and elsewhere and prevent its integration into the Western mainstream. And with amazing success, it should be added.
There appears to be a growing realisation among demographers that despite the anti-immigration policies of the current Danish government, third-world immigrants and their descendants with or without citizenship will constitute the majority of the Danish population before the end of the century (see, e.g., the calculations of the Copenhagen University demographer Hans Oluf Hansen, Berlingske Tidende, August 21, 2005). A sizeable segment of this third-world population will be Muslim, and well before the middle of the century, the number of Muslims will be large enough to have irreversibly changed the composition and character of the country. As already discussed, it has proved impossible to integrate this growing Muslim population into Danish culture and there is no reason to expect any change as the number of Muslims grows.
This does not mean, of course, that it could not happen. History is full of surprises. All I am saying is that I know of no example of a sizeable Muslim population having become successfully and permanently integrated with a non-Muslim host population while sticking to its Muslim beliefs. The burden of proof rests with those who have claimed that the integration of tens of millions of Muslims in Europe would never be a problem but who have nothing to show for their claim.
Will Muslim non-integration spell the end of the secular state as we have known it? Most probably. Religion — or more accurately: Islamic ideology, which knows no distinction between religion and politics — is on the ascendance as the constitutive principle among Danish Muslims. And as Muslim institutions grow stronger, the Islamic “din” is bound to become even more powerful as the organising principle of the Muslim parallel society. How will the “old” Danish and nominally Christian population react to this metamorphosis? That will to a large extent depend on what organising principle will determine the character of the Danish parallel society. Two possibilities stand out: “Danishness” and “Christianity”. The former option would probably entail a society founded on a nationalistic or ethnic myth, whereas the latter might be more ethnically inclusive and stress society’s Christian roots.
In either case it is difficult se see how the secular state could survive because parallel societies within the confines of one nominal geographic entity will not be free to define themselves or determine their own political systems or modes of governance. They will constantly be forced to manoeuvre in response to “the other’s” long-term objectives and immediate actions — as has been the case in, e.g., Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Northern Ireland and the Basque provinces.
As there is nothing to indicate that Denmark is any worse off when it comes to the harmonious integration of its Muslim population than other European countries, we are probably going to see the same pattern repeated throughout the continent within a time frame of no more than 20-30 years (the recent uprising in the French suburbs is in all likelihood a harbinger of worse to come).
Under these conditions the modern system of sovereign territorial states is likely to break down although it is impossible to predict what will replace it. It seems highly unlikely that a European Union can fill the void if it is to be based on state structures that are no longer able to exert sovereignty over their own territory. The territorial states may not even be replaced by anything resembling a permanent structure or order.
Without order and democratically accountable governments able to deliver justice and good governance, it is also hard to see how the ideals of the Enlightenment can be preserved.
Jihadist dræber to svenske fodboldsupportere i Bruxelles
”Jag tackar Gud. Här är Abulsalam. Ni som gillar det eller ogillar är jag mujahid för Allah inom Islamiska Staten, IS. Vi lever för vår religion. Vi dör för vår religion. Vi tackar Gud. Er bror Abulsalam hämnas för muslimer och nu har jag dödat tre svenskar. Jag tackar Gud. Jag kommer att möta Gud och profeten med Glädje.”