How to Debate the Left on Islam

First Edition

by Paul Nielsen

Copyright © 2016 by Paul Nielsen

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.

First Edition

5th of December, 2016
Belgium, Europe

Dear reader,

Thank you for having purchased this book. This is the First Edition of How to Debate the Left on Islam

This book is dedicated towards my two dear sisters C. and K.; my parents, uncle, aunts and nieces; and my friends, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Finally, this book is written for the peoples of Europe and the West: the Swedes, the Germans, the Americans, the French, the British, the Canadians, the Austrians, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Australians, the Danish, and those who are not named, but share the same interests and concerns, regardless of race, sexual orientation and country of residence.

With kind regards from Belgium,

Paul Nielsen

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Western Values versus Political Correctness

1.1. The Enlightenment

1.2. The Politically Correct Mind

1.3. Politically Correct Behaviour

1.4. Inconsistencies in Politically Correct Thinking

1.5. The Fall of Freethinking in Academics, Education and the Media

2. The Facts: Muslims in the Muslim World

2.1. Attitudes and Opinions of Muslims

2.2. Debunking Politically Correct Myths

3. The Facts: Muslims in Europe and the West

3.1. Case Study: United Kingdom

3.2. Statistics and Events Related to Muslims in the West

3.3. Case Study: Sweden

3.4. Debunking Politically Correct Myths

4. Unpacking Islam

4.1. An Analysis of Muhammad

4.2. Sharia

4.3. Deception and Lying

4.4. Debunking Common Examples of Islamic Deception

4.5. Modern-day Muslims

5. The Untouchable Islam

5.1. The European Muslims

5.2. Incorrect Reasoning

5.3. Language Games

5.4. Debunking Politically Correct Myths

6. Conclusions, Predictions and the Solution

6.1. Three Predictions

6.2. The Solution

6.3. Debating the Left on Islam

Bonus Chapter 1: Islamic Signalling in the Public Sphere

Bonus Chapter 2: Islamist Infiltration in The Netherlands

Bonus Chapter 3: Cultural Relativism and the Fictitious Religion of Loplism

1. Western Values versus Political Correctness

We, human beings, are a fascinating species. Throughout our lives, we carry along a collection of beliefs and ideas about the world. This is how our brains work. There are numerous ways in which we can view this world. This is not only the case today, but throughout all of history. Many different peoples, such as tribes, kingdoms and entire continents, have seen the world in an endless amount of different manners. Many peoples in history have experienced a so-called paradigm shift. This is when the perspective about the world changes, often throughout a period of a few years. Old beliefs and ideas will be proved to no longer work and will therefore be replaced with new ideas.

History has shown that it is the best to change paradigm based on facts and evidence. This will usually lead to the best results, such as a new scientific revolution and an increase in quality of life for the entire society. There have been many moments in history, in which facts have been ignored or put away. Even during the European Enlightenment, there have been numerous instances of facts being ignored in order to maintain an incorrect worldview.

In this book, there are two ideologies that will play a central role, both of which no longer function in the current world and can even be dangerous. These ideologies are: Political Correctness and Islam.

In addition, Western values will be discussed throughout the book. These are the values upon which the Western world is built and that are the reason for our success in science, quality of living, intellect and moral progression. Those values are more in danger now than they have ever been.

Congratulations for having purchased this book. I would like to ask you to be open to have your paradigm challenged. The Western world is in the eve of the next paradigm shift. The victory of Donald Trump and Brexit was a sign of it. But a paradigm shift cannot consist of just one or two great moment. It has to be a period of multiple years or even decades.

I assume you are living somewhere in the Western world. Perhaps you are from the United States, perhaps you are from Canada or Australia, or perhaps you are a European, just like me.

There is a chance that you purchased this book because you feel that something is wrong. This whole Islam-thing just doesn’t feel right. You might feel that something is going the wrong direction, but whenever you try to talk about it, people call you a “racist” or a “bigot”. I can assure you that you are neither of these things and that what your gut feeling has been telling you is correct. I can assure you that your intuition has been working correctly, even though many people around you still seem to be sleeping.

This book will give you the necessary insights to effectively use the tools of freedom of expression and reason in order to debate the Left on Islam.

Fasten your seatbelts, take a macchiato or cappuccino and make sure it is an authentic European one. Allow yourself to be told a story: a story about Europe and the West.

1.1.      The Enlightenment

Many people seem to be afraid of the idea of a paradigm shift. In fact, there is no reason to be afraid of it. As already mentioned, paradigm shifts based on good reasoning has always led to good things. Paradigm shifts based on bad reasoning or an irrational ideology, have always led to bad things. There a bad ideas and good ideas.

Throughout history, progression hasn’t always gone forward. Many empires of relative prosperity and even scientific advance have fallen and have been followed by periods of pure insanity. After the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire, the progress of Europe went backwards for many hundreds of years. Even though in a large part of the Middle East, the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire was transformed into the new Byzantine Empire, in Europe itself many hundreds of years of progression were cancelled out. Hordes of barbarians flooded Europe, leading to a Europe consisting of multiple tribes and ethnic groups, such as the Celts, the Saxons, the Vandals and the Franks.

Europe had been thrown back into the dark ages and progress went slowly. Europe ended up being divided into many little kingdoms. During these years, Christianity spread into Europe, which at first worked as a means of unification. This led to some sense of control within Europe, regulated by the church. On the other hand, Christianity also lead to activities such as torture, bad treatment of many different types of people and the beheading of thousands of Jews after the black plague broke out. What started out like a nice way to put people on the same page, quickly ended up being a disastrous psychological virus that many Europeans just couldn’t seem to get rid of.

During the majority of the Middle Ages, Christianity was not helpful in maximising human happiness and prosperity. The Church was very intolerant towards sexuality, and it motivated people to treat women very badly. Some women were even accused of so-called “witchcraft” and burned to death. Additionally, the Church worked hard to leave as little room as possible for science and free thinking. Some civilisations that existed long before the Middle Ages, had made notable advances in this area, but the Christians of Europe were stuck in their dysfunctional ideology.

Around the 1350’s, the black plague spread into Europe, leading to an astonishing dead toll of 50 to 60% of the entire population, an event that the Christians of the Holy Roman Empire blamed on the Jews. This motivated them to engage in the type of practices that we today can only see when browsing the internet looking for ISIS videos. Somewhat contradictory, the 1300’s was also a very positive period for the development of Europe. There are two events that happened during the 1300s that led to a massive introduction of ancient knowledge and art into Europe.

First, the Byzantine Empire fell to the Turks. Therefore, scholars and intellectuals from the Byzantine Empires had to flee from the Byzantine Empire towards Europe. They sailed the Mediterranean Sea and ended up in Italy, which then led to an enormous release of information into Europe. This was information from the Ancient Greeks, which had been contained within the Byzantine Empire after the Western Roman Empire had fallen in Europe. It is really amazing how knowledge of more than 1000 years ago can have such a great impact on a region. It says a lot about the value of free thinking and reasoning and how timeless the importance of those values is. As Europe recovered from the black plague, this massive input of architectural and scientific knowledge flooded from Italy towards the north.

Second, around the same time period, an additional large amount of information came from a very different direction, which was the direction of China. In Asia, the Mongols had been working their way throughout the entire region to establish an empire. This empire didn’t last long, because the Mongols weren’t really as good at ruling as they were at conquering, but they did manage to enable a temporary trade route between Europe and the Chinese Dynasties. This led to an enormous amount of Chinese knowledge into Europe.

These two events turned out very beneficial for Europe. However, the change from theocracy to Western values didn’t happen overnight. It was a long period of around 600 years in which the change from backward theocracy to Western values was made.

In 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the “New World”, kicking off the Age of Discovery which challenged the paradigm of the Europeans (and also that of the discovered people on the other side of the ocean). However, between 1618 and 1648, The Thirty Years' War took place in Central Europe. This was a long battle between the Catholic and the Protestant within the Holy Roman Empire. This war is still one of the longest conflicts in all of European history. It is interesting to note that the reason of this conflict was not the Renaissance. It was not the influence of ancient knowledge that led to this war.

It wasn’t until the 17th century that the departure from ideology based thinking really set off. Even though the process of the Renaissance was set off by an inflow of knowledge coming from regions outside of Europe, the Enlightenment was solely based on the efforts of important European individuals between the 16th and the 19th century. The Enlightenment and the birth of Western values was a real authentic European product. Let’s name a few of those important individuals.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was an English philosopher, scientist and statesman. He is called the father of empiricism and induction. Then, there was John Comenius (1592–1670), a Czech philosopher who, after the Thirty Years’ War criticised the concept of war and emphasised the importance of education and tolerance as an alternative for war. René Descartes (1596-1650) was a French philosopher, scientist and mathematician, called the founder of modern Western philosophy.
An especially noteworthy figure was Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), an Italian physicist, mathematician, engineer and astronomer who ended up playing a major role in the scientific revolution. He debunked the theory that the Earth is at the centre of the universe by skilfully using his faculties of freethinking and reason. He was imprisoned for the rest of his life for heresy, but his spirit lived on in Isaac Newton (1642-1726), who was born the same year that Galilei died and who was an English mathematician and physicist who is now recognised as the most influential scientist of all of human history. He established the laws of motion and gravity. Another great European was John Locke (1632-1704), an English philosopher who promoted the concept of secularism, the division between church and state. Locke found that the government should not interfere in the mind of the individual and that therefore religion and government should be two separate entities. However, the church still continued to be a disaster for Europe. Voltaire (1694–1778), a French writer, probably felt the same when he used the power of satire to mock religion when he said "nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense”. Then, where was Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) the influential German philosopher on the areas of reason and morality.

There were many more great European individuals and descendants who contributed to the birth of Western values, such as Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) and Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677).

(Democracy and Empiricism were invented by the Ancient Greeks, flooded (back) to Europe during the Renaissance and were further advanced by the Europeans)

Slowly, the influence of the church was diminished and replaced with Western values. People no longer took the books of the Bible that seriously. Something very typical in the Age of Enlightenment were the open arenas of debate, which in which important topics were discussed with reason and logic. The church succeeded to maintain an influence on family lives in many regions of Europe, but this is something that has largely disappeared during the last century. Even though we often say that our Western culture is based on so-called Christian or Judo-Christian values, you should note that we really don’t have to thank the Church for anything. The Church has NOT facilitated the Enlightenment. Instead, it has actively tried to stop it. The Enlightenment was a pushback AGAINST the Christian tradition as forced by the Church. Two perspectives of the birth of Western values and western culture can be distinguished. The first interpretation is that Western values were born as a pushback against Christianity and that most Europeans today can therefore not be described as Christians anymore, which is then seen as a good thing. Western intellectuals Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris argue that even people who call themselves Christians today, actually aren’t really Christians. Harris and Dawkins argue that today’s culture is the result of people engaging in freethinking and reason rather than Christian literature and the Church. The second perspective is that the Christian tradition has simply been reformed. Western culture and therefore the identity of Westerners is based on Greek philosophy, Roman law and also Judo-Christian values (irrelevant of which specific group within the tradition of Christianity). The idea that a person is actually an individual is a Christian invention. In Spain, there was a time in which only Christians were referred to as “people” (as in “individually thinking person”). Today, even Western atheists are seen to be Christians in some way because their entire cultural foundation is based on the Judo-Christian tradition, whether they realize it or not. People who follow this interpretation argue that even if you don’t see yourself as a Christian (a Catholic or a Protestant), but instead simply as a “soccer fan”, a “mother who loves to read”; or even proudly take on the identity of an “atheist”, you still are a Christian. Is the current society based on the Judo-Christian tradition or based on a push-back against this tradition? Most people’s perspective lies somewhere in the middle, even though it is impossible to argue that the Church facilitated progression. What we do know for sure is that the culture(s) of Europe and the West have always been evolving. We have continuously developed ourselves, based on new input from European philosophers as well as information from outside of Europe. This development always came in the form of a gradual process in which some parts of our culture were reformed while others remained intact. The development never came in the form of a rapid total make-over (such as Communism in Soviet China).

What we today known as “Western values” is basically a combination of principles that is the result of the development that we, as Westerners and Europeans, have went through. Western culture is based on these values. These are values such as: individualism, freedom of expression, secularism, freedom of conscience, democracy, equality before the law, reason and empiricism, etc. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America basically took these values as a basis upon which to build their new country. But the development wasn’t done yet. Slavery wasn’t really made illegal until the mid-1800s and women weren’t allowed to vote until the 20th century.

Note that the evolution that we have gone through, from Christian theology to current Western culture, was a hard-fought battle. It was a slow and difficult process. Galileo Galilei was put in jail for heresy for revolutionising our understanding of the cosmos. It might seem like an open door; but today, things like this don’t happen anymore. You can even sit at the square in front of the St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City with your laptop and write an article about the child sex scandals conducted by Christian priests. There is a very big difference between being allowed to do this and getting burned to death at the market square of some medieval town, while being hysterically screamed at by a crowd of indoctrinated lunatics.

(Even though his teachings didn’t prevent witch-burning, torture, the Inquisition and the Thirty Years’ War, a noteworthy individual who helped to steer Christianity as a whole in the direction of a much more positive ideology is Jesus Christ. Around 1500 years after the first book of the Old Testament, the teachings of Christ managed to embed a very positive message into the Christian tradition. Some thinkers argue that Christ was actually a Buddhist or that he was at least heavily influenced by Buddhists teachings (during his so-called “lost years”). Whether that is true we cannot know for sure. What we DO know for sure is that Christ’s input wasn’t based on the Old Testament. Jesus continues to be a source of positive inspiration for many Westerners today, especially Americans.)

1.2. The Politically Correct Mind

It is a good thing that we got rid of religious theology. People are having better lives now and women can actually go to school and become scientists. Meanwhile, many more things have changed. At a very rapid pace, the world has become incredibly small. Aviation, the Internet and globalisation have turned continents into countries, countries into provinces and cities into towns. In addition, we are suddenly dealing with incredible global overpopulation, global warming as well as new migratory patterns.

But there is more than that. In the West, something strange has occurred during the last couple of decades. A strange new religion has somehow emerged. The religion doesn’t really have an official name, but it is still there. It can be called Political Correctness. Some prefer to call it “Cultural Marxism”. A large part of the European and Western population has become infected by it, even though it doesn’t have anything to do with a belief in a higher deity.

In the Western World of today, the population is raised to be very “Politically Correct”. Therefore, a Pakistani, who praises his own country including the treatment of women and the disowning and killing of apostates, is applauded by the average Westerner. Meanwhile, a German who is proud at how his country emerged from the financial crisis is frowned upon. Suddenly, appreciation of the own country, culture and values has become something that the European societies see as “dangerous”. It has become something that is a taboo. A proud Brit is immediately dismissed as a “racist”, while a proud Egyptian does not receive the same treatment. Why is being proud of one’s own nation and own culture is linked towards being hostile towards other nations and other cultures?

This book is about debating the Left on Islam. Therefore, it should be clear how the Politically Correct Left thinks. The truth is that Politically Correct people do not all have the same opinions. Just like true liberals and freethinkers, Politically Correct people have different opinions on different topics. However, even though this is the case, the way they think is still based on certain principles and the way they behave in debates and conversations about certain topics is based on certain standard thought patterns. These thought patterns and behaviours will be explained in this chapter. Knowing the collective psychology the Politically Correct Left, will make it easier to understand how to debate them.

The original idea of Political Correctness was actually a good one. Caring about minorities is a good thing, especially when the society is prosperous enough to be able to care about minorities. Caring about minorities in this manner is really a First World phenomenon. The problem is that Political Correctness has gotten out of hand. It has turned from a good idea into a new major religion. This religion even has a so-called “original sin”. This original sin is the idea of white guilt.

White Guilt

In today’s world, all white people are believed to have to feel guilty about their past. This mostly refers to the colonisation, a time period in history involving large-scale slavery and even several genocides. That’s why white guilt can also be called colonial guilt. In World War 1, the colonised areas were dragged along in a horrific war. Europeans recruited many soldiers from their conquered colonies to participate in what is arguably still the most horrible war in human history. Then, there was World War 2, another horrible event in which many of the colonies were forced to participate.

What European colonial powers did to major parts of the rest of the world is unimaginable and the influence that they have had on these areas has been extremely negative. Slavery was not invented by the Europeans and happened everywhere and all throughout history, but the scale in which the Europeans carried this out is by far the largest one in human history.

Some of the facts about the colonisation are still largely unknown to most Europeans. For example, to whom does the name “Leopold the Second” ring a bell? Under the Belgian king Leopold the 2nd, the Belgians killed 10 million black people in Congo. Imagine the Belgians of today, perhaps one of the friendliest people on the planet with their culture of beer breweries and chocolates. Then, imagine their forefathers being responsible for a genocide that was twice as large as the Holocaust. This seems unreal, but it is still true. Imagine the English, who were responsible for the complete assassination of tribes and perhaps even complete races of indigenous people in North America. The statistics regarding this can never really be discovered. Imagine the Germans, perhaps the most polite people on the planet today, responsible for the systematic killing of 5 million Jews as a result of an evil ideology (Nazism). And look at the countries of Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela. These people are mostly mixes of several indigenous races with “white people” and sometimes black Africans. Note that this interbreeding probably didn’t take place on a voluntary basis at some point, especially at the moment the “white” piece of DNA was added to the mix.

The story of the Europeans colonising major parts of the world is a story of conquering, looting, exploitation, rape, genocide and slavery. Therefore is entirely justified that many Europeans and Westerners in general feel a sense of collective guilt regarding this story of the past. Today, the degree in which this guilt is felt varies per country. The exact factor, upon which the intensity of this guilt is based, is unclear. Generally speaking, all white people have the collective guilt of European Colonialism, even when not all whites were part of the exact centre of power that carried out the colonisation itself. In reality, the concept of white guilt is actually only based on a very superficial understanding of human history. Many people in Europe and the West seem to believe that human history consists of white people mistreating brown and black people. Especially the younger people today seem to have this idea in their head.

In reality, human history is way more complicated than that. For example, looking at countries like Finland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, there isn’t really much reason for white guilt, even though they are very “white”, so to speak. If you compare the English to the Irish, the latter where actually the victims of the former, even though they are “white”. The Polish were in an extremely bad position during World War 2: they first got invaded by the Germans from one side and later by the Russians from the other side. The Germans mostly feel an extremely strong sense of guilt as a result of World War 2 and the Holocaust and then translate this into the concept of white guilt, even though the European Jews were “white” and the people who stopped them were also “white”. Going further, Eastern European countries actually didn’t participate in the colonisation. The Austro-Hungarian Empire didn’t have colonies. Later, parts of Eastern Europe were taken by the Ottoman Empire, who happened to be “brown people”. After that, Eastern Europe had to live under the rule of the Soviet Union, who were “white people”. Going back even further, the Russians had to live under the terrible rule of the Mongols, who were “Asian people”. The Mongols killed so many people that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere went down. Their ruler, Genghis Kahn, and his sons, raped so many women that around 8% of the people living in the area that used to be the Mongol Empire are the direct descendants of Genghis Kahn. Speaking about Asia, the history of that region is filled with violence. For example: 55 million people were killed during the Mao Era. The Japanese colonised Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia and Korea.

So, human history is incredibly complex and interesting. It is not a simplistic story that can that be used to justify something like white guilt. This is even more so because there is currently no such thing as “Chinese Guilt”, “Mongolian Guilt”, “Japanese Guilt” or even the guilt of those who enslaved “white people”. That’s right, white people were also used as slaves. During the 16th, 17th and 18th century, African Muslims (“brown people”) enslaved 1.5 million Europeans (“white people”) of which the women were used as sex slaves. Of course, it is intellectually dishonest to even suggest that the scale of this can even be compared to the scale of slavery by the Europeans. But it is still interesting to know these facts, especially because most Europeans are not aware of them. It is also interesting to emphasise that the number of young European men who died during both World Wars does NOT suggest that Europeans were having a good time during the first half of the 20th century (not even mentioning the number of young men who died in the Soviet Union). Nazism was a horrible ideology that mostly “white people” were the victim of, and that other “white people” had to fight against. For the “white people” in the Eastern parts of Europe, the drama didn’t end until the late 20th century, because they had to live under the Soviet Union.

Even though historically speaking the concept of white guilt does not make much sense, it is the foundation upon which Political Correctness is built. Let’s continue by explaining the additional concepts that are strongly present in the Politically Correct mind.

Cultural Relativism

This is another extremely influential concept in the doctrine of the Politically Correct. Cultural relativism is the idea that no culture is superior to another culture in terms of morality and values. According to this concept, all cultural beliefs are equally valid and truth itself is all relative and subjective. Cultural Relativism is similar to Moral Relativism, which is the idea that ethics itself is simply a relative social construct. Relativists say things like: ”there is no absolute truth”, “all truth is relative” and “what is true for one person, can be false for another”. This all is related to Postmodernism, a late 20th century movement which among other things propagates the idea that there is no objective reality. Please note that this movement is completely absurd. Postmodernism contributes nothing to empirical knowledge nor to common sense reasoning. It is a shame that it even exist after the European Enlightenment we’ve just discussed. A statement like “there is no truth, but only interpretations”, is the type of statement that would make the European philosophers roll over in their graves.

So, how does this concept work in the mind of the Politically Correct? Well, it basically disenables any critical thinking towards another culture. For example, in our Western culture, men and women have equal rights and our laws support this. We know for a fact that this is better than having it any other way. Meanwhile, in certain non-Western countries women have to endure a great amount of suffering. The Politically Correct will then strongly support the equality between men and women in the West, but will not support the same in non-Western countries, because of cultural relativism. They say things like: “perhaps in OUR culture, equality between men and women is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that this is also the case for such-and-such country”.
For example, in our own Western culture, a woman is free to choose her own man. Then, she is free to divorce this man if desired. In India, things are not like that. A young woman is often given to a young man by arranged marriage. Then, she often has to play housewife. Divorce is heavily frowned upon by many families. According to National Family Health Survey 3 (2005-2006, Mumbai), 41% of women in India believe their husbands are justified in slapping them. 35% of women believe that a brutal beating is also justified in case they neglect doing the household or don’t do a good job looking after their children. Also, marital rape very likely plays a large role in India. In the West, this kind of behaviour would be considered to be immoral, because of the suffering this inflicts on the female. However, we will not condemn these practices in India, because of cultural relativism. “Perhaps for us in the West, this behaviour would be immoral, but perhaps in India, this behaviour is not immoral because the Indians have a different VIEWPOINT on these practices than we have”. The Left strongly believes we shouldn’t judge.

Limitless Tolerance

Tolerance refers towards one’s ability to tolerate the existence of opinions and behaviours that one dislikes or disagrees with. In light of the concepts explained above, the concept of tolerance practically makes sure that when minorities behave in a way that one would NOT accept from our native population, that this behaviour is not judged in a negative way. For example, when hundreds of Muslims in Paris cause a traffic jam in the middle of the city by praying on an intersection, the police are ordered not to interfere because of the concept of tolerance. If French (white) Christians would have done the same, the response would most likely have been a completely different one. In Europe the concept of tolerance has reached such a high intensity that it really does not have any boundary. It has become tolerance without limits.

Moral Superiority

This is the idea that the thoughts, words and actions of the Politically Correct Left is morally superior to the thoughts, words and actions of any other group of (native, white) people. The Left believes that because of the fact that their ideas on morality are based on the concept of white guilt, that their ideas on morality are superior to any other ideas on morality. This causes the PC to see themselves as “the good guys”, so to speak. Naturally, anyone who has a different opinion than the “the good guys” must be “the bad guys”. This makes sense, right? In a world of “good” and “bad”, when you are “the good” and you have a certain way of thinking; anyone who has a different way of thinking must be “the bad”.

This feeling of moral superiority causes the Politically Correct to have a heightened sense of entitlement. This sense of entitlement then permits them to exhibit certain behaviours that would otherwise be seen as rude, childish or even scandalous.

1.3. Politically Correct Behaviour

As a result of their strong sense of moral superiority, the Politically Correct Left believes to be entitled to exhibit certain behaviours towards others. Let’s take a look at these behaviours.

Virtue Signalling

This is based on the signalling of certain characteristics that, according to the doctrine of Political Correctness, are seen as virtuous. Certain character traits are thus seen as “good” while other character traits are seen as “bad”. For example, tolerance and openness towards other cultures are seen as very virtuous traits. The opposite of those traits must be intolerance and closeness towards certain cultures. These are “bad” traits. Signalling those “bad” traits generally leads to social rejection, while signalling the “good” traits generally leads to social approval. It is very important in the current Western world to prevent being seen as someone who holds ideas that are seen as “good”. We are social animals, so we care a lot about being accepted by other people. Being seen as virtuous is a way to do this.

This leads to the following behaviour by the Politically Correct and thus by a large part of the Western population. Imagine that a terrorist attack takes place. Two gunners kill 100 people while screaming “Allahu Akbar” in a shopping mall in Paris. The two men get shot dead by the FBI. Later, a video is found on the internet in which the two men quote verses from the Quran. They can be seen and heard claiming to be participating in the holy war of Jihad and talking about Paradise. The video turns out to have been uploaded on the internet 2 hours before the attack took place. After taking note of this act of religious insanity, you login on Facebook and watch the newsfeed. What you are very likely to see is that many of your friends share and like articles about how not all Muslims do these kinds of things, or about how this attack might lead to an increase of popularity of such and such right-wing party, or “Tag a Muslim Friend Who You Love”. Then you see that one of your closer friends has responded on someone in an open Facebook discussion about how “racism leads to Hitler” and that we should not go that way. These are all examples of virtue signalling. It basically tries to communicate the following to the rest of the world: “Look! I am a very good person, because I am very open and tolerant!”.

Labelling Opponents with Labelwords

The Politically Correct feel a heightened sense of entitlement. Therefore, they feel like they have the “right” to use certain tactics that would otherwise be very rude. Labelwords are words that are very unvirtuous. The most common labelwords are: “racist” and “bigot”. In addition, the following words are used on a regular basis: “Nazi”, “right-wing extremist” and “Islamophobe”. Sometimes the Politically Correct simply place the opponent in a certain category such as an X voter, in which “X” is a certain right wing political party. This right-wing political party is then believed to be similar to Hitler’s party.

This is comparable to how the pre-enlightenment Christians used labelwords such as “heretic” for people who argued that the world isn’t flat. Likewise, if you show a Politically Correct person a study pointing out that India is actually not one giant “spiritual meditation paradise” but that it mostly consists of backward villages and towns in which women are generally treated in a horrible manner, you will be called a “racist”.

Shutting Down Opponents

This is a mode of behaviour in which the Politically Correct shut down a certain opponent’s message. They might not give the opponent time to speak, ignore the reasoning of the opponent, simply use more labelwords to shut the opponent down or simply start making more noise than the opponent, which is usually done in a group. You can often see this in talk shows on national television in many European countries: a person is speaking and the other participants shut the person down with an “ooooooooooooooh”. The Left often behaves in a way that would otherwise be very rude, but since they are morally superior, they feel entitled to behave in this way.

Misrepresenting Opponents Viewpoints

This is probably where the entitlement of the Politically Correct reaches its peak. This is a very dirty tactic which is used very frequently in journalism and public debates. Let’s elaborate it with an example: Frauke Petry of the Alternative for Germany party states that she thinks that Germany should exercise a common sense border control to prevent unidentified people to cross the border without registration. This is a very normal thing, because there isn’t any country in the world (outside of Europe) where you can just enter without registration. Everyone knows you have to go through specific checkpoints, show your passport and that you often have to fill in a registration form. Sometimes, you even have to show a retour ticket to proof that you are also leaving the country within the permitted time period. Because terror group ISIS admitted to have put a certain amount of soldiers in the stream of refugees, Mrs. Petry argued that it would be a good idea to exercise Germany’s right of border control. This right consists of certain rules and guidelines. These guidelines also give border patrol officers the right to use their weapon in case this would be necessary. This means that when a border patrol officer encounters a group of people who are trying to cross the border without registration, he should command them to go to the specific checkpoint where registration is possible. In case those people refuse to listen to the border patrol officer, he or she should first give a warning. Imagine something like “Stop! You are not allowed to pass!”. In case he or she then gets completely ignored, he or she has the right to exercise force by using his or her weapon. This might sound “extreme”, but it is actually a very standard rule that almost all countries on the planet follow. You cannot just cross a border without registration. That is the whole idea of having a border in the first place. If you are traveling through Central America and you are currently in Panama and you want to enter Costa Rica, you have to go through one of the specific checkpoints where it is possible to cross the border. After having arrived at one of these checkpoints, you have to go through the necessary steps, such as showing your identification, filling out a form, etc. If you would choose to not follow these rules, but instead just go to any part of the border and cross it, a border patrol officer will probably order you to stop. If you would then ignore him and would just keep walking, he will probably first repeat himself a few times. He will then evaluate the situation and consider if it would be a good idea to come closer to you to physically grab you or hit you with his bat. You are behaving in a very weird manner, so you might as well have a weapon yourself. Because the policeman probably has a family at home and doesn’t want to take any risk, he points his gun towards you and orders you to stop one last time. If you then still ignore him, he will probably shoot at your legs.

Now, imagine this scenario at the border of Germany, but then not with one single person crossing the border, but instead groups of hundreds of mostly young men, of which many will be screaming and yelling towards the border patrol officers. Terror group ISIS has admitted that some of these young men are trained Jihadists. So, what Frauke Perty has argued is very reasonable, to exercise a common sense border control, just like any other country.

So, how did the Politically Correct Left respond? Instead of debating this idea in a normal manner, by using the Enlightenment value of reasoning, they chose to use the misrepresentation tactic to sneer their opponent. “Frauke Perty wants to execute the refugees!”, they yelled, “She wants to turn Germany into an evil police state!”. Sadly, this behaviour by the Left is not that rare.

Why is this dangerous?

Do you remember the Western values of freedom of expression, secularism, reason and freedom of conscience? Somehow, these important values have been associated with the “white race”. In many Western countries, the idea of defending these values has somehow gotten connected to the idea of “white supremacy”. Defending Western values has become “racist”, so to speak. Of course, this is very dangerous. Someone who goes on the street to protest for the maintenance of Western values is often portrayed as an “angry white man”. Of course, this makes no sense whatsoever, but people are social animals, so the power of social approval and social rejection works very well to keep us in line.

So, how do we deal with this?

Believe it or not, the Politically Correct are actually well-intentioned people. But well-intentioned people can do harmful things. Especially when backed up by a group, people can easily do harmful things without actually realising what they are doing.

Emotions always cloud judgments. Just like genuine racists who are blinded by their feelings of anger and hate towards people of different ethnicities are not able to think clearly on certain issues, the Politically Correct are equally unable to think clearly on these issues. This is the case even though the Politically Correct have better intentions than genuine racists. The Politically Correct are very capable to harm Western values such as the freedom of expression with their usage of labelwords and by shutting down opponents. This process has actually already started. The freedom of expression has already gotten damaged.

Emotions cloud judgment and the only legitimate way of thinking is the way of thinking based on the values from the European Enlightenment: to engage in reason and freethinking based on real facts. Especially the freedom of expression is extremely important, because it is the value that safeguards all other values. Without freedom to express yourself you cannot truly engage in freethinking and reason. The harsh truth is that tactics such as shutting down, misrepresentation and usage of labelwords indeed DO destroy the freedom of expression. The Left has slowly gained the power to destroy someone’s reputation without any real justification and this is a power they should not have.

The Politically Correct are very powerful, but they are also very weak. They are very powerful because the Politically Correct way of thinking has become ingrained into Western society. It has somehow become mainstream. Most people in the West are in some degree indoctrinated by Political Correctness. Schools indoctrinate children with it and universities no longer teach students HOW to think (freethinking, reason, etc.), but instead WHAT to think. Political Correctness has conquered the national TV channels in most Western countries and freethinkers arguing against the Politically Correct quickly and effectively get their reputation destroyed. The Politically Correct do not behead people, like Christian theocrats used to do, but they do behead your reputation. This is why the Politically Correct have become very powerful. They have the social power. They have the power of social approval and social rejection and because humans are social creatures, people are more inclined to just join the Politically Correct just to be included into the group than to engage in freethinking and deal with social consequences.

On the other hand, the Politically Correct are also very weak. This is the case in the area of actual facts and information. The Politically Correct do not engage in a fair debate because they cannot win. Politically Correct ideas do not survive the tests of scrutiny. Even the basis of their doctrine, white guilt, is flawed. Real facts do often not support Politically Correct ideas and the most noisy Politically Correct people (such as the ones you see on TV) actually know this. Political Correctness is about “narrative over fact”. They use the soft power of social pressure and not the hard power of fact-based reasoning. This book is about the latter.

1.4. Inconsistencies in Politically Correct Thinking

So now that you know which tactics the Politically Correct use, let’s talk about the inconsistencies and contractions in the Politically Correct worldview. Politically Correct thinking is full of weak spots and knowing exactly where those weak spots are will help you to expose them.

Moral inconsistency

The first inconsistency is on the area of morality. As already explained, cultural relativism leads to the idea that every culture is equal in terms of morality. This is based on the idea that there are no absolute truths in this area. This is completely wrong. Here is why.

Even though morality is not a hard science like physics, there are still certain things we are sure of to be true. We know that the best possible scenario in morality is the maximum possible amount of happiness for everyone. We also know that the worst possible scenario is the maximum amount of suffering for everyone. In addition, given what we know about the psychology of a human being, we know for sure that being oppressed, abused and treated like a subhuman leads to a certain amount of suffering. We also know that being treated with respect, being given the right to express oneself and follow one’s dreams leads to a certain amount of happiness. Also, we are fully sure that on the area of morality, the latter is superior to the former. We can re-verify this every day by comparing the emotional state of children who are getting bulled and humiliated at school to children who are having an amazing time there. We can also verify this easily by comparing the emotional state of a woman who is subject to marital rape within an arranged marriage to the emotional state of a woman who just voluntarily got married to a man who treats her with great respect and care. If we would take these two women and compare their emotional states, we would find that there is significant difference between these two emotional states. We could even confirm this difference in a different ways such as by conducting brain scans on these two women, or having them write extensive reports on their lives and scan those texts based for references towards certain emotional states. Because of the fact that forcing your daughter into an arrange marriage in which she gets abused and rapes leads to your daughter experiencing a great amount of suffering, we know that doing such a thing is immoral. Therefore, morality is not as foggy as moral relativists think that it is.

Still, the Politically Correct think that every person or culture has a very valuable perspective on what is morally right and wrong. They believe that there is no real right and wrong in this area and that every person is equally entitled to have their opinion about this topic considered to be “valuable” and “relevant”. Putting this in a different context, this basically means that you can go to a science meeting on climate change and argue that the warming of the planet is actually negatively correlated to the number of pirates in the sea. You could then argue that the number of pirates has been decreasing and the planet’s temperature has been increasing, so the solution to global warming would be to increase the number of pirates back to the levels of the 17th century. Now, imagine that the climate scientists who are present at the meeting would take this very seriously and even thank you for your unique contribution. “Everyone has something valuable to share!”, you hear them say. The next day, you go to a conference on neurology, where you have somehow managed to arrange an hour to speak. “I find the idea of the brain offensive!”, you argue, “human beings have a soul and not a brain, because in the Bible it doesn’t say anything about a brain!”. After an hour filled with this nonsense, hundreds of neuroscience give you a standing ovation and thank you for your unique and valuable contribution. Some of them even edit their current research papers based on your unique perspective, because that would be the “correct” thing to do, because “everyone’s opinion is unique and valuable”.

Now, let’s put this same nonsense in the context of morality. Imagine you go to a conference on morality, this time not as a speaker but instead as a spectator. You are very excited because there are a lot of different speakers. Then, the conference starts. The first speaker, an Australian young man, climbs the stage and speaks for an hour about the theoretical concept of a perfect country, which is designed in such a manner that all inhabitants have a maximum opportunity to realise themselves fully. He gets a standing ovation. Then the second speaker shows up on the stage. She turns out to be a Scottish woman, who speaks about the morality of financial income and argues that a basic income for everyone might actually not be that bad of an idea from a moral perspective as well as an economic perspective. She gets a standing ovation and leaves the stage. Then, the third speaker comes, who turns out to be a man from Saudi Arabia, wearing a thawb, a traditional Arabian outfit. He speaks about the horrible immorality of female sexuality, how we should build a world in which all women are genitally mutilated and advertises a method of stoning women to death that is even more painful and humiliating than the current method. However, he worries that in certain parts of the world, there are not enough stones available to throw and how we must set up an efficient logistical system to transport the right kind of stones to all countries on the planes. He gets a standing ovation from the crowd, because “everyone’s opinion is valuable”. Then the fourth speaker climbs the stage, an Indonesian Muslim, who gives a speech on how to provide Hamas with the necessary tools that enables them throw the Jews in the Mediterranean. He also gets a standing ovation. Then, another Muslim enters the stage, who argues that it is immoral to not disown your gay son, followed by another standing ovation from the crowd.

The reality is that from a moral perspective, the European welfare state based on Western values is the best possible method of organising a state that we now have, no matter how “guilty” the Politically Correct Left thinks we should all feel. It is simply the best system that humanity has found throughout all of human history. The European Enlightenment values of freedom of expression, secularism, equality between the sexes, freedom of sexuality, etc. are the best values there is.

This doesn’t mean that there is nothing to improve. There is a lot to improve and this is very likely to happen during the next couple of decades. It is entirely plausible that for example the meat industry is actually highly immoral and is inflicting an enormous amount of suffering on creatures who, in fact, DO experience what is happening to them. It is also probable that there is a lot to improve on the area of how we treat the Earth, because destroying the Earth for future generations is probably highly immoral.

However, based on what we DO know absolutely for sure on the area of morality, the idea that a woman’s sexually is “dirty” and that therefore a woman needs to cover herself up is not a valid moral perspective at all. There are good ideas and bad ideas and such ideas about women are bad ideas. We also know for sure that supporting a suicidal terror group that wants to kill all the Jews and occasionally sacrifices some 5 year old kid in order to do so could is NOT morally right. Also, supporting the killing of apostate family members is not a moral perspective worthy of consideration.

Politically Correct thinking disenables people to truly condemn these blatantly obvious immoral practices. Noteworthy is that when you put those blatantly obvious immoral practices in the context of their “own” people, they suddenly seem to recognise the horror of these practices. For example, a Politically Correct Dutch person is perfectly able to recognise that there is something terribly wrong with a fellow native Dutchman who openly supports throwing gays off of rooftops . He will openly judge this person negatively and reject his ideas. But then, he will NOT do the same when his Egyptian colleague holds those same ideas. Likewise, he will be completely shocked when a native Dutch friend of a friend turns out to occasionally beat his wife and he will openly condemn this, but when a friend puts statistics under his nose about the practice of stoning women to death in Iraq he accuses him of “racism” for showing him these statistics. This leads us to the following inconsistency in Politically Correct thinking.

Measuring with a Double Standard

The Politically Correct Left is unable to measure similar situations with the same standard. For example: a few years ago, a movie showed up on YouTube of a gay couple walking through Moscow while holding hands. In this video it was shown how multiple times, several Russian men intimidated the gay couple in several different ways. This video was seen as very shocking and Westerners from all corners of the world condemned the treatment of gays in Russia. Today, many people still criticise Russia for its treatment of gay people. Now, imagine an identical video to show up out of Egypt. The response towards this would be a completely different one. Most Westerners would not respond at all. Some Westerners would accuse a person sharing such a video social media of “racism”. “That you have uploaded this video only shows how racist you are!”, would probably be a frequent response (virtue signalling). Now, imagine the following alternative reality. Russians are no longer white-skinned people but instead brown Asian looking people and Egyptians are no longer brown-skinned people who speak a foreign language but instead blonde blue-eyed white people who speak perfect English. Now, imagine the same scenario. A video is uploaded on the internet in which brown Asian looking people harass a similar looking brown gay couple while saying things to them in a foreign language. A similar video is uploaded in which a white blonde gay couple is harassed by blonde blue-eyed men who are saying things like “disgusting boys!” and “I will kill you!” in perfect English. Seriously try to imagine such a video. The responses coming from Politically Correct people would be as follows: the video coming from Egypt would lead to a strong negative response and the video coming from Russia would not lead to such a response. Why is this the case? This is the case because the Politically Correct measure with a double standard. Native European (and Western) white people are held up to a different standard than brown and black people. A report showing incredibly high rape statistics by white Danes in Denmark, would lead to incredible shock and outrage along the lines of “they should know better!”. A similar report showing statistics about black Somalis in Somalia, would not lead to such response at all. Instead, the researcher who conducted the study would become the victim of labelwords, “the researcher that conducted this study was clearly racist!”.

Note that given what we know on morality and neurology, there is no difference in the degree of suffering between a white blonde woman getting raped and a black woman getting raped. Both experience the same amount of suffering. It could even be argued that for a black woman the experience of getting raped is worse, because her own family could disown her as a result of the rape, while the blonde Danish woman will get supported by her family and can count on the support of a team of psychologists and psychiatrists that she probably doesn’t even has to pay out of her own wallet. Moreover, the Danish woman can count on an entire society condemning the rapist. He will end up in jail and his reputation will be ruined for the rest of his life. The Somali woman knows that his rapist will not be punished and might even come back and do it again the next week. The Politically Correct simply don’t respond as strongly towards a black rapist with a black victim as they do towards a white rapist with a white victim.

This phenomenon of the double standard can also be seen in other contexts. For example, during the Olympic Games of 2016, athletes who had been preparing for years of their lives and who then finally were allowed to enter the stage to perform the most complicated gymnastics were getting jeered out by the Brazilian crowd. “Boooooooooo!”, it sounded every time a new athlete entered the stage. These weren’t even athletes who made a lot of money, such as famous soccer players. Young women from poor countries, who finally had the chance to show the world what they had been training for, got jeered out by the Brazilian public as they performed their acrobatics.

Now, imagine the following situation. Imagine that these very same Olympic Games would have taken place in the United Kingdom and imagine a white British crowd to exhibit the exact same behaviour. Imagine a poor young Vietnamese girl entering the stage to perform her acrobatics and the white British spectators yelling “booooooooooo!” at her from all angles. Imagine this to continue for the entire Olympics; hardworking athletes from developing countries who are not making much money at all, getting jeered out by large crowds of white Brits. Imagine the incredible outrage that this would lead to. Media throughout the Western world would speak of the “disgusting behaviour” of the Brits. The British prime minister would have to apologise in front of the entire world. Indonesian and Indian news channels would speak of “disgraceful colonialism-inspired behaviour” by the Brits.

But then, when brown-skinned Latinos do it, it only leads to a few articles on different types of “booing”, such as the “Six types of Olympic booing” article in the BBC News Magazine, and some article on how the Brazilians actually remind the world that originally, in the ancient Greece, the Olympics were not about the athletes but instead about the amusement for the public. It is then argued that the Brazilians are actually teaching this interesting lesson to the world in an unexpected and creative manner. This kind of apologia for rude behaviour demonstrates the double standard that exists for measuring the behaviour of “white people” and the behaviour of all other people.

Bigotry of Lowered Expectations

This double standard is actually a racist phenomenon. This is because they measure “non-white” people with a lower standard.

By measuring with different standards, the Politically Correct have unknowingly adopted a worldview that discriminates brown-skinned and black-skinned people by measuring them with a lower standard than. They basically expect less of them. While white-skinned people have to live up to relatively high behavioural standards in order to not be criticised, brown-skinned people only have to live up to a relatively low standard in order to not be criticised.

Going back to the example of the conference on morality, imagine a white blonde man from The Netherlands arguing that it is immoral for a woman to not be a virgin on her wedding night, because it says so in the Bible, but that stoning her to death is not a good idea either so that there should be an alternative punishment. This would probably NOT receive a standing ovation. When after that, a Muslim from Pakistan enters the stage and gives an identical speech on how a woman should be a virgin on her wedding night but punishing her for not being a virgin is not that great either, he would receive a standing ovation for his amazing performance. This is actually a form of discrimination towards the Pakistani man, because he is evaluated based on a lower standard than the Dutch man. Similarly, a French father going on a violent rampage for an entire week after he finds out his son is gay, then needing another week to cool down and finally accepting his son is gay and shaking his hand at the end of the third week, will not receive a standing ovation. The story of an Afghan father responding in exactly the same way will be applauded and massively shared on social media. Furthermore, a former German Nazi who (is still alive and) used to be celebrating the Holocaust but doesn’t do this anymore, will not receive any positive social feedback. An Egyptian man whose favourite book (after the Quran) has been Mein Kampf for 40 years, but has come to realise that genocide is a bad thing and has decided to throw the book away, will win the Nobel Peace prize on Facebook.

Ignoring the Minorities within the Minority

This is where the Politically Correct truly have an incredible blind spot in their thinking. This blind spot even leads to actual human suffering. Revealing this blind spot in their way of thinking can do wonders and it is one of the most important keys to debating the Politically Correct Left effectively. As you probably already noticed, women are oppressed within Islam (we will discuss this later in great depth). Rape is something that occurs shockingly frequently in Muslim countries. It often occurs in marriages. In addition, rape victims are generally not supported by their families, but instead rejected from the family itself. As you will learn by reading the other chapters of this book, this horrible attitude towards women is ingrained within Islam and is being supported by a vast majority of the Muslim population.

As we already know, the Politically Correct are always very strident on protecting “minorities”. Muslims are an example of such a “vulnerable minority”. What they do not take into consideration is that within this “minority”, there exist other “minorities”. These minorities within the minorities are treated very badly. In Islamic countries, Muslims are not the minority, but instead the majority. In the West, Muslims are indeed (still) a minority, but they carry these same minorities within them. These minorities are, for example, women and homosexual people.

This works as follows. When in Western society a German man rapes a woman, this is being condemned; when a German man beats up a Muslim, this is being condemned as a hate crime; but when a Muslim man rapes a Muslim woman, this is not being reported properly in the media and it not condemned. Western society is so obsessed with protecting “minorities”, that they fail to condemn the mistreatment of the minorities within the minority BY the majority WITHIN the minority. This is the bigotry of lowered expectations as well as ignoring the minorities within the minorities. And it gets even more insane than this.

When the minority within the minority speaks out, they are condemned by the Politically Correct Left in the same manner as they would condemn a white Brit who speaks out against Islam. A Muslim woman speaking out against Islam, gets treated in the same way as a native white European who speaks out against Islam.

A shocking example of this is the story of Ayaan Hirshi Ali. She is a Somali Muslim woman who managed to escape from Somalia, where she got suppressed and abused by her own Muslim family. She ended up in the Dutch parliament where she tried to raise awareness regarding the treatment of women within Islam. The Dutch Politically Correct establishment responded by attacking Hirshi Ali for “generalising” and for “attacking minorities”. They even called her an “Islamophobe”, even though the fact Hirshi Ali was a Muslim herself. This makes little sense. Wasn’t the Politically Correct all in favour of protecting minorities? Well, not in this case. Ayaan Hirshi Ali is a black-skinned Muslim woman, who got oppressed by black-skinned Muslims. The Politically Correct are completely blind towards the mistreatment of minorities within Islam. Protecting Islam from criticism is so important that even the minorities within Islam, who are often being treated extremely badly, get shut down by using tactics such as labelwords, misrepresentation, etc. Ayaan Hirshi Ali got the same treatment as the “evil white male”. This is how incredibly morally bankrupt the Politically Correct Left has become.

Also, note how different this is to how such women’s issues are treated when they occur in our own native societies. We live in a time where there are action groups of white women protesting against the “objectification” of women and often demonise white men for looking at a beautiful woman. I often wonder what kind of forces must be at play when these groups repeatedly fail to even acknowledge the treatment of women within Islam and the staggering rape statistics of women in certain countries. This is the power of ideology based thinking (and indoctrination) in full glory.

Let’s finish this subchapter with another example. Imagine two different events: event 1 and event 2. Both events are interpreted through the lens of Political Correctness

Event 1. A white man beats up a black man.

Politically Correct interpretation: this is white supremacy, racism, a result of right-wing political parties, colonialism and neo-Nazism.

Event 2. A black man beats up a white man.

Politically Correct interpretation: this is the result of long-term oppression, unequal opportunity, racism towards black people, a result of right-wing political parties, unequal economic resources, inequality in general, colonialism, bad treatment of minorities, neo-Nazism, and it proves how bad and unfair “the system” is.

1.5. The Fall of Freethinking in Academics, Education and the Media

The political climate in Europe has made it completely unprepared for the problems of the 21st century. That is why it needs a major paradigm shift.

There are many indications that the current worldview is not sustainable. For starters, the entire political field in many European countries is located on the left side of the political spectrum. The politically correct left has won the cultural war a few decades ago. This means that even the parties that are supposed to be on the right side of the spectrum play the politically correct language game and are not willing to actually defend European values.

The politically correct language is dominantly present in European politics. Any new political party that simply would like to guard the borders of the own country is immediately called a “neo-Nazi party”. Often, such parties are quickly put in the Hitler-category, before they even publish their actual political program. The Politically Correct way of thinking has deeply ingrained itself in many aspects of the European societies. Not only politics is infected by it. Also other areas such as academics, the media and the education system are infected by the doctrine.

Ideology in academia is an incredible disaster. This is especially the case in the areas of Sociology, Political Science and Gender Studies and also in additional fields of study such as Arabic Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, Islamic Studied, etc. Somewhat contradictory, university students are first introduced to the basis of academic thinking; empirical research methodologies and the underlying philosophy. They are being introduced to the Western philosophers previously discussed, such as Descartes, Kant and Locke. After that, the professors learn the students a way of thinking that would the same make the same Descartes, Kant and Locke shake their heads in disbelief. Politically Correct professors brainwash their students with the dysfunctional Politically Correct way of thinking, which doesn’t go together with the most basic forms of reason.

Traditionally, academics were taught to maintain a neutral perspective towards the studied object. What this means is that when, for example, a biologist who studies a piece of DNA of a Homo Neanderthals, another human species that went extinct, in order to find out how this animal compared to us, the researcher should be driven by an attitude of curiosity. The researcher should not be driven by an ideology. While studying this piece of DNA, the researcher should not be hoping for a specific outcome. He or she should not have a strong opinion about how the DNA of a Homo Neanderthal should ideally compare to our own DNA. Now, imagine a strongly religious person conducting this research. This will probably not lead to an objective result. Therefore, a strongly religious person who resents the whole idea of another human species, is better kept far away from the research chamber.

This makes sense. However, researchers on certain areas of study are blinded by an ideology. This is not only the case in the area of Political Studies. Also in the area of Gender Studies, there are activists working as researchers on a daily basis, completely ignoring well-established facts on the areas of brain research and biology. These so-called researchers are presenting politically motivated nonsense as facts (such as claiming that the difference between men and women is simply a social construct, while the neurology department already knows that this is not the case). This is not real science anymore.

Academia was originally supposed to be disconnected from the rest of the society, a place where freethinkers could engage in truth-seeking and reason, outside of the sphere of influence of politics and ideologies. In certain areas of study, this has completely failed.

In Western Europe, you can basically go to University, study some Politically Correct nonsense, write a paper on this same nonsense and get a Doctorate. After that, you can even go on television in some talk shows on how your newest research proves that people who agree with left-wing opinions have higher IQ’s than people who agree with right-wing opinions. You will get patted on the shoulder and applauded by a carefully selected Politically Correct crowd and none of the other guests in the show will try to fight your conclusion. There will be nobody with a critical mind and a sharp tongue, who is willing to challenge the concrete perspectives that you have chosen to represent the concepts of “right-wing opinions” and “left-wing opinions”. Europe is currently filled with such talk shows.

Sometimes, such talk shows will invite a guest who wants to challenge the current narrative. But the directors of the talk show will make sure that this person is very unintelligent or very unprepared. Or perhaps they will select a person of whom they know that he or she is very inexperienced with these types of talk shows. Then, they will put this person in debate against a person who is very well-spoken and popular with the public. Or perhaps they will make the person very nervous by having him go in debate against an opponent, who is very direct, and who will speak to him or her in a very patronising manner, so that the person with the different perspective comes across as very nervous or can’t express himself that well.

These types of talk shows always remain perfectly within the boundaries of the Politically Correct narrative. Within this safe space they can create the impression that their worldview is correct. These talk shows are usually just held in the local language, such as German or Dutch. They won’t go out of their way to invite foreign intellectuals who disagree with the Politically Correct narrative. They won’t invite well-spoken debaters from other countries and organise an episode of the talk show in English, so that their viewers can get a broader perspective on things. Imagine an articulate academic go in debate with the leader of a Belgian left-wing party and completely makes him look like a fool. The creators of the talk show will make sure that that doesn’t happen. A society that has become indoctrinated by an ideology will make sure their beliefs are not challenged. Indoctrinated people are generally not open to hearing new information that would debunk their entire worldview.

The effect of an ideology on the human mind is incredibly powerful. This can also be seen in the policies of the universities located in Western European countries. Often, they enthusiastically promote so-called “diversity”. They want diversity in colour, sexual orientation, gender, country of origin, mother tongue, etc. They want to be as “open” and “diverse” as possible. But they fully reject anyone with another political perspective. They are basically saying this: “please be as diverse as possible, but don’t you dare disagree with the Politically Correct perspective”. How pro-diversity are those Universities really? They are not. Political Correctness has become like a religion. Don’t you dare be a disbeliever!

So, how does this influence the type of researchers that are being created at these universities? Imagine a freethinking academic who would like to conduct an in-depth research on the degree of racism among migrants coming from Middle Eastern and North African countries. Do you think his research proposal would be granted a subsidy by the university? This is assuming that such a free-thinking researcher would even exist on those universities, because such a person would probably have already been filtered out way before he could even make it to the position of being a full-time researcher. Such a researcher would continuously be treated in a very unfair manner by his colleagues or even his own students. At certain university campuses in Canada, you can even see students jeering out professors, because these professors dared to release a research that wasn’t Politically Correct.

Starting at a very young age, European and Western children are taught in school to not judge other cultures. Doing so would be going in the direction of Hitler. More often than not, the history books used in the classroom are extremely politically one-sided, sometimes even comparing certain current politicians to Adolf Hitler. In The Netherlands, politician Pim Fortuyn was compared to Hitler in schoolbooks for young children (after he already got murdered).

This is a fatal mistake for two reasons.

First, the classroom should be free of indoctrination with any ideology. Indoctrinating a new generation with Political Correctness is not very different from indoctrinating a young generation with a religion. As already argued, the European Enlightenment was a push-back against religion.

Second, children should be taught the importance of ideology-free thinking. They should be raised on the values from the Enlightenment, Western values. To NOT raise a new generation of the values of freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, reason and secularism is not only a missed opportunity. It is also dangerous and brings the maintenance of Western Civilisation in jeopardy. Children should be taught how to think and how to reason. They should be challenged. At a later age, when they are in University, their professors should challenge them by going in debate with them and, on purpose, take the opposite side. Students should learn how to debate people who are blinded by an ideology. The professor should challenge them by providing reasons of why a dictatorship would be better than a democracy and then have his students debate him about it, or perhaps even do the same with Nazism. This is how you really raise a new generation on Western values.

A society has to be maintained by teaching every new generation the fundamentals, again and again and again. Europe has decided to stop doing this and instead raises new generations on Political Correctness. This is slowly removing Western values from our societies and replacing them with another religion. Too many young Europeans today, the ones that are currently below the age of 30, have been completely indoctrinated. Many of these Europeans are completely unable to engage in reason and freethinking. This is very dangerous for the maintenance of Western values. In the future, there could come a moment in which historians draw the conclusion that this was a fatal mistake.

Political Correctness is not an ideology that is compatible with Western values. Instead, the most important thing is to NOT be rational, NOT think outside of the box, and to simply keep following an established doctrine. Children are brainwashed into seeing the world through the lens of white guilt and then can be seen spending their young years virtue signalling and labelling people they don’t even understand as “racists”.

Now, this has led to the following problems:
- Too many Europeans and Westerners are NOT familiar with the values that the Western World is built upon.
- Too many Europeans and Westerners are unknown with their own history, other than the Colonisation and a simplified version of World War 2. They have been taught to engage in cultural self-hatred. In addition, the concept of “Hitler” is used as a weapon against anyone who has a different viewpoint than what is allowed according to the ideology of Political Correctness.
- Too many Europeans and Westerners are in certain situations unable to recognise who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed.
- Too many Europeans and Westerners are unable to process (new) information that conflicts with their ideas. They will even go as far as rejecting the information itself or denying the existence of information, discrediting the source of the information, the person who presents the information or the person who has collected the data leading to the construction of the information.

When a poll shows that 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain would not report a terror plot to the police, it is quickly assumed that the poll was organised with racist intentions in mind. The researcher is then attacked for having conducted his research.

When a group of Muslims murder a group of cartoonists in France, most Europeans condemn the cartoonists for their “racism” and their “Islamophobia”, while they were not doing the same when the same cartoonists were making cartoons about Christians, Jesus and Jews.

When in The Netherlands, Ayaan Hirshi Ali shows up, fleeing for her life after having left Islam and a life of abuse and suppression, she is quickly dismissed as an “Islamophobe”. Even today, most people in The Netherlands remember Ayaan Hirshi Ali as someone who was somehow “taking advantage of her past” in order to carry out a “racist political agenda”. “She was just using her past as an excuse to express her racism”, they say.

This is religious insanity. When human beings get locked into a certain ideology early in their lives, they will spend the rest of their lives acting through the mental framework they were taught. The entire world is then viewed through the lens that this mental framework provides. If you dare to reject the lens, you are labelled as an “extremist” or as “Hitler”.

Young people are basically being told the following: “Your identity is white-guilt and anti-racism. You are going to view the entire world through the lens that this identity provides. You are morally superior and you have the right to demonise everyone who has a different opinion than you. Also, it is very easy because you don’t have to think too much about any difficult questions”.

In the USA and Canada, many young people are currently being raised on the idea “safe spaces”. Ideas that oppose the doctrine of Political Correctness are seen as “offensive”. The young generation should therefore get “protected” from these opposing ideas. It is hard to come up with a more effective way to raise a generation of idiots. This new generation often connects Western values to the concept of “white supremacy”. Western values are thus “racist”. They entire worldview then collapses when being confronted with the fact that prosperous countries like Japan, Uruguay and South Korea (of which the populations are not “white”) are also built on these Western values. The same happens when confronting them with the fact that Palestinians and many Turks are actually “whiter” than many Italians and Spaniards.

Ideology is the enemy of freethinking.

Let’s finish this chapter with a quote.

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” - George Orwell

This process is taking place right now. Within a few decades time, the doctrine of Political Correctness has completely indoctrinated a major part of the European and Western population. This is a problem, especially because of the fact that the younger part of the population is more indoctrinated than the older part.

In the next few chapters, we are going to focus on a completely different ideology and the people that are indoctrinated by it and support it. We are going to talk about Islam and Muslims.

2. The Facts: Muslims in the Muslim World

This book is about creating a paradigm shift as well as providing insights that can be used to Debate the Left on Islam. You might wonder what Debating the Left on Islam and the next paradigm shift have to do with each other. It’s basically like this: the two go hand-in-hand. This is because of the following reason: the paradigm shift that is about to take place, will suddenly make Westerners understand why they need to be very worried about Islam. When enough Politically Correct leftists have been effectively debated on Islam, the paradigm shift will be completed.

2.1. Attitudes and Opinions of Muslims

The Muslim world has always been a bit of a mystery. Many people view it as if it is this mysterious unknown place. There are around 1.6 billion Muslims living in the Muslim world. Usually, migrants coming from the Muslim world lead to all kinds of problems in Western countries. A conversation about this is then blocked by the establishment, the media and a large part of the European and Western population. It is simply assumed that all these problems have nothing to do with Muslims themselves and that any problems that arise must be the result of poor socio-economic conditions. Also, the migrants come from such a wide range of different countries that it is assumed to be impossible to create a clear image about this. The distance between Morocco and Pakistan is similar to the distance between Paris and the middle of Russia. So, how can you compare Morocco to Pakistan? They seem to be too far removed from each other. There exist many cultural differences between Eritrea and Egypt and between Pakistan and Jordan, and these cultural differences seem very complex. Therefore, when talking about the problems that Muslims cause in Europe and the West, any conclusions about the role of the doctrine of Islam with respect to these problems are believed to be impossible to draw. The Muslim world is believed to be too complex and diverse.

In addition, it is often assumed that Westerners are not able to have a clear view on the Muslim world due to its sheer size and the cultural differences between the Western world and the Muslim world. Westerners are said to not understand it enough to be able to draw conclusions about it. But then, when you would make a positive statement about the Muslim world, you will be applauded by the Politically Correct. That is strange. Any statement that fits within the Politically Correct worldview is given approval, while any statement that doesn’t fit within this worldview is shoved aside. Saying that the Muslim world is an amazing place leads to social inclusion; while saying that women are treated terribly in the Muslim world, leads to social rejection.

Just like they did in the European Enlightenment, we are going to reason based on fact. The goal of this chapter is to create a clear image on the Muslim world based on actual statistical research. For the largest part, these researches are opinion polls conducted IN Muslims countries by well-established research institutes. This will provide information about certain beliefs that Muslims have on certain topics, such as women, Jews, the West, non-Muslims, terror groups and violence in the name of their religion.

Support for Sharia Law

Let’s start with the attitude towards Sharia law and some of the elements of it, such as stoning people to death for adultery, chopping hands off for theft, the death penalty for leaving Islam, etc.

In Pakistan, 83% of the population supports stoning adulterers to death and 78% supports the killing of apostates (Pew Research, 2009). According to another research, 76% of Pakistanis want Sharia imposed in every Islamic country. This same opinion is shared by 49% of Indonesians, 81% of Egyptians and 76% of Moroccans. The same research concluded that 64% of Egyptians find it to be “very important for the government” to “apply traditional punishments for crimes such as stoning adulterers” (World Public Opinion, 2009).

According to Pew Research (2010) the support for floggings and amputation varies between a large majority of the population and a substantial minority of the population. The support for floggings and amputations is as follows: 77% of Egyptian Muslims, 58% of Jordanians, 65% of Nigerian Muslims, 36% of Indonesian Muslims and 82% of Pakistanis. According to the same study, the support for stoning adulterers is as follows: 70% of Jordanian Muslims, 42% of Indonesian Muslims, 82% of Pakistanis, 56% of Nigerian Muslims (Pew Research, 2010).

In 2013, Pew Research conducted a similar research, this time also focusing on South Asian Muslims. 81% of them support the amputation of limbs as a punishment for theft. This research again showed a shockingly high support for Sharia. The percentages of Muslims that would like to make Sharia the law of the land is as follows: Malaysia 86%, Thailand, 77%, Indonesia, 72%, Afghanistan 99% (!), Pakistan 84%, Bangladesh 82%, Iraq 91%, Palestinian Territory 89%, Morocco 83%, Egypt 74%, Jordan 71%, Tunisia 56%, Lebanon 29%, Niger 86%, Djibouti 82%, Congo 74%, Uganda 66%, Ethiopia 65%, Mozambique 65%, Kenya 64%, Mali 63%, Ghana 58%, Senegal 55%, Cameroon 53%, Liberia 52%, Chad 47%, Guinea Bissau 47%, Tanzania 37%. Lebanon is known to be the most modern country of the Middle East. A reflection of this can be seen in this research (29%).

The same research also concluded that Muslims who pray more often are more likely to want Sharia as the law of the land (Pew Research, 2013). This is important, because it means that there is a correlation between amount of praying and degree of support for Sharia. The more seriously Muslims take their religion, the stronger the support for Sharia as well as the higher the frequency of praying. So, a Muslim who prays more often, is more likely to want to live under the Sharia. This is already a quick indication of the fact that Islam is a political doctrine. (This will be discussed in much more depth later on)

According to the Jakarta Post (2006): 40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defence of Islam. Pew Research (2013) shows that 45% of sharia supporters (worldwide) DISAGREED that Sharia should only apply for Muslims. This means that 45% of Sharia proponents think that Sharia should apply for non-Muslims as well. In Egypt this percentage was the highest: 74%. Stoning women to death for adultery is favoured by 89% in Pakistan, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, and 50% in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. This is consistent with the image that Turkey is a relatively moderate Muslim country. It is noteworthy that many Muslims in the Muslim world are believed to want to have democracy. We have seen during the so-called Arab Spring what this leads to. Given their priorities, there really should be no reason for surprise when they simply end up democratically electing a maniac who then implements (parts of) the Sharia. If you look at the beliefs that they hold in great numbers, you can see that the vast majority of them actually want to live under the Sharia. They want it themselves. According to the Arab Observatory of Religions and Freedom (2016), 79% of Libyans believe Sharia should be the sole source of legislation. The same is the case for 60% of Moroccans and 63% of Algerians (Arab Observatory of Religions and Freedom, 2016).

The Politically Correct often argue that these views on Sharia are the result of a bad education system. This is not the case. In 2016, Pew Research conducted a similar study again, this time also making a distinction between less educated and more educated Muslims. There was a small difference between the less educated Muslims and the more educated Muslims, but on average this difference was only 14 percent points. Also the majority of the more educated Muslims want to live under the Sharia (Pew Research, 2016).

It is important to note that certain Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Iran do not allow this type of population research to be conducted. On the other hand, a man can legally beat his wife in these countries and homosexuality is illegal, so you can probably guess what statistics would look like. Even in self-proclaimed holiday paradise Dubai, female victims of rape often get imprisoned for adultery. The same is the case for Qatar, which is an extremely rich oil state.

Support for Hamas and Hezbollah and Anti-Jew Sentiments

Hamas and Hezbollah are two Islamic terror groups of which the first is Sunni and the second is Shia. Both groups are dedicated towards the ‘removal’ of Israel. According to Pew Research (2010), 30% of Egyptians had a positive view on Hezbollah, 55% of Jordanians, 45% of Nigerian Muslims, 43% of Indonesian Muslims and 52% of Lebanon Muslims.

According to the same study, 49% of Egyptians had a positive view on Hamas, 60% of Jordanians and 49% of Nigerian Muslims. In Indonesia, 39% had a positive view on Hamas and only 33% a negative view, leaving a substantial amount with no clear opinion. Turkey was the most hopeful of the survey, where 67% had an unfavourable view on Hamas, 9% a favourable and 24% had no opinion. It can often be seen that when a certain amount of people have a positive view about a certain terror group, that this does not mean that the rest of the people have a negative view. A very substantial amount often has no opinion or refuses to answer the question, which then automatically puts them in the ‘no opinion’ category. (Pew Research, 2010)

Anti-Jew sentiments are very common in the Muslim world. When in 2016, the Israeli former president Shimon Peres died; many people in Turkey were celebrating. Remember that Turkey is a relatively moderate Muslim country. According to a 2014 Pew Poll, Israel is the most hated country in Turkey. 86% of Turks have a negative view on the Jewish state. Only 2% have a positive view on Israel (Pew Research, 2014). In Arab media, hatred towards Jews is extremely common. In Egypt, conspiracy theories about “evil Jews” taking over the world are an everyday phenomenon. Even cartoons and TV shows for children repetitively feature the concept of the “evil Jew”. Hatred towards Jews is a mainstream phenomenon in most of the Muslim world. This is even the case all the way to the Far East, in Malaysia.

A 2014 ADL survey found that more than 60 percent of Malaysians exhibited anti-Semitic beliefs (61% percent of the population is Muslim), making Malaysia the most anti-Semitic country outside of the Middle East. The distance between Israel and Malaysia is about the same as the distance between Paris and the middle of Russia. You might wonder what drives people to hate a population that is so far removed from where they are.

Support for Suicide Bombing, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban

According to Pew Research (2013): Only 51% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of the Taliban. Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. 25% refuse to answer the question and 13% openly support BOTH groups.

According to Pew Research (2013), 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings. This percentage is 11% in Kosovo, 26% in Malaysia and 26% in Bangladesh. According to Pew Research (2010), 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified. In Nigeria, 34% of Muslims believe the same. In 2009, Pew Research conducted a wider study on opinions on suicide attacks against civilians in defence of Islam. 12% of Jordanian Muslims were found to believe such suicide attack against civilians to be a good thing, 13% of Indonesian Muslims, 15% of Egyptian Muslims, 38% of Lebanese Muslims, 43% of Nigerian Muslims and 68% of Palestinian Muslims.
39% of Muslims in Malaysia say that suicide bombings are justified in defence of Islam while only 58% say that it is never justified (Pew Research, 2013). According to Pew Research (2014): 47% of Bangladeshi Muslims believe suicide bombings and violence to defend Islam is justified. In both Egypt and Tanzania, 25% believe the same. In Turkey and Malaysia, this percentage is 20%. The majority of Muslims in the Muslim world find that suicide bombings are never justified: Pakistan (89%), Indonesia (81%), Nigeria (78%), and Tunisia (77%), which is good. Suicide bombings are generally unpopular in the Muslim world. However, when asked if they also reject other forms of religious violence, the percentage of Muslims that reject violence suddenly drops. The percentage that says that religious violence is never justified is: 54% in Turkey, 53% in Jordan and 50% in Senegal.

Back in 2003, 59% of Indonesians supported Bin Laden, 56% of Jordanians, 51% of Palestinians and 54% of Nigerians Muslims (Pew Research, 2003). According to World Public Opinion (2009), Muslim majorities agree with Al-Qaeda’s goal of keeping Western values out of Islamic countries.

According to the same study conducted by World Public Opinion (2009), 14% of Indonesians have a positive attitude towards Osama Bin Laden, only 26% a negative attitude, 21% have ‘mixed feelings’ and 39% refused to answer the question; in Egypt it is 44% positive, 17% negative and 25% ‘mixed feelings’; in Pakistan it is 25% positive, 15% negative, 26% mixed feelings and 34% refused to answer; and in Morocco it is 27% positive, 21% negative, 26% mixed feelings and 26% refused to answer.

According to Pew Research (2010): 49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view on al-Qaeda and 34% a negative view. 23% of Indonesians a positive view and 56% a negative view (again leaving a substantial amount without opinion or without the willingness to answer the question); 34% of Jordanians positive. 20% of Egyptians have “confidence” in Osama Bin Laden. In Indonesia 25% had “confidence” in Bin Laden in 2010, while shorter after the 9/11 attacks in 2003, 59% of Indonesians had “confidence” in Bin Laden (Pew Research, 2003, 2010). This confidence has thus decreased over time. This makes sense, because Osama Bin Laden was quite successful in the early 2000’s, while this success decreased a lot closer to 2010. In 2011, 22% of Indonesians had a positive view on Al Qaeda and 21% a negative view. This means that the majority couldn’t make up their minds or refused to answer (Pew Research, 2011).

According to Zogby International (2011): “Majorities in all six countries said they viewed the United States less favourably following the killing of the Al-Qaeda head [Osama bin Laden] in Pakistan”. These countries are Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In Saudi Arabia, 30% of respondents said they had a favourable view on the United States. In 2009, this was 41%. In Egypt, the percentage dropped from 30% in 2009, to 5% in 2011 (Zogby International, 2011).

It is interesting to note that the USA establishment made the decision to dump the body of Osama Bin Laden in an unknown location. If they wouldn’t have done this, the grave of Osama Bin Laden might have turned into a pilgrimage destination. There is a good chance that it would have turned into a place of celebration for the 9/11 attacks.

Support for ISIS

When being asked about ISIS, only a relatively small minority of Muslims in the Muslim world support ISIS. This is because ISIS mostly kills other Muslims. This percentage lies around 10% which is a smaller percentage than the percentage of the population that supports other terror groups.

According to Doha Institute (ACRPS) (2014): 10% of Egyptians have a positive view on ISIS. In Saudi Arabia, this is also 10%; in Tunisia 13%. Noteworthy is that according to this study, 13% of Syrian refugees have a positive view on ISIS. 72% of the population of Arabic countries has a negative view on ISIS, meaning that a percentage of around 18% does not know the answer or refuses to answer the question. According to Clarion Project Study (2015): 11.5% of Arabs support ISIS. This is around 42 million Arabs.

For the Saudis, however, this percentage can be suspected to be way higher. According to an informal poll in 2014, a shocking percentage of 92% agree that ISIS “conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic Law”. In 2015, a similar informal poll was done again and 81% of the respondents supported the regional conquests made by ISIS. This is thus inconsistent with what the Doha Institute found in 2014. It is not possible to know which one is correct regarding Saudi Arabia. Usually, Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow studies to be conducted within their country. The same is the case for Qatar, UAE and Iran (even though Iran actually has a substantial amount of inhabitants who genuinely would like to modernise Iran back to the way it was during its better days).

On the other hand, these informal polls are not scientific research. These were polls on the website of Al Jazeera in which every IP-address can vote 1 time. On the other hand, the Islamic laws that rule in ISIS are identical to the national laws of Saudi Arabia (which is the Sharia), so the idea that the viewers of Al Jazeera (a news channel that is owned by the Saudis) support ISIS more than other Arabs does not seem unlikely. According to Social Trends Survey (2016): 21% of people in Turkey say that ISIS “represents Islam" and 10% of them do not categorise it as a “terrorist organisation”.

Violence in Defence of Islam

Regarding the killing of apostates, the following can be concluded (Pew Research, 2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam, 30% of Indonesian Muslims, 86% of Jordanian Muslims, 76% of Pakistanis and 51% of Nigerian Muslims. In addition, in 2013, this opinion was shared by 76% of South Asian Muslims (Pew Research, 2010).

According to a research conducted by Arab Observatory of Religions and Freedom (2016), only 39% of Muslims in Egypt condemn religious extremism (Arab Observatory of Religions and Freedom, 2016). According to World Public Opinion, 63% of Egyptians and 61% of Libyans supported the attacks on American embassies on 9/11/2012.

Attitude towards Women

One of the most important aspects of Islam is the way it treats half of its population. This half is the part of the population that is female. According to Pew Research (2013), more than half of Muslims believe polygamy is morally acceptable. In addition, Muslims in most countries say that a wife should always obey her husband. This is 65% in Turkey, 69% in Russia, 40% in Albania, 89% in Tajikistan, 84% in Uzbekistan, 75% in Kyrgyzstan, 58% in Azerbaijan, 51% Kazakhstan, 96% in Malaysia, 93% in Indonesia, 89% in Thailand, 94% in Afghanistan, 88% in Pakistan and Bangladesh, 93% in Tunisia, 92% in Morocco and Iraq, 87% in the Palestinian territory, 85% in Egypt, 80% in Jordan and 74% in Lebanon.

Should woman have the right to divorce? In South Eastern Europe (Kosovo and Albania), 86% of Muslims think that women should have the right to divorce, which is not bad. However, this percentage is 44% in South Asia, 32% in South-East Asia and 33% in the Middle East and North Africa. Only 22% of Muslims in Egypt think that a woman should have the right to divorce her husband. This is 32% in Indonesia and 26% in Pakistan (Pew Research, 2013)

FGM

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC) is a practice in which the female external genitals are cut, pierced, removed or sewed closed for no medical reason.

The goal of the practice is to control a woman’s sexuality and to, supposedly, increase the sexual pleasure of the male. The practice is performed in varying degrees in several countries. The percentages of women that have been circumcised are as follows according to Unicef (2016): 98% in Somalia, 97% in Guinea, 93% in Djibouti, 90% in Sierra Leone, 89% in Mali, 87% in Egypt and Sudan, 83% in Eritrea, 76% in Burkina Faso, 75% in Gambia, 74% in Ethiopia, 69% in Mauritania, 50% in Liberia, 45% in Guinea-Bissau, 44% in Chad, 38% in Ivory Coast, 25% in Nigeria and Senegal, 24% in Central African Republic, 21% in Kenya, 19% in Yemen, 15% in United Republic of Tanzania, 9% in Benin, 8% in Iraq, 5% in Togo, 4% in Ghana, 2% In Niger, 1% in Uganda, 1% in Cameroon (Unicef, 2016). Note1: in most countries the practice is diminishing and the percentages were higher in 1985. Note2: this list is not complete.

Actually, this practice is not invented by Muslims and it pre-dates Islam. However, prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, supported the practice. In Somalia and Ethiopia close to 50% of the population is Christian and they also practice FGM. Note that Christianity has been horrible for women as well and that Sub-Saharan Africa never went through the Enlightenment.

So, even though Islam and Christianity did not invent FGM, neither of them offers a good basis to get RID of the practice. Both religions cannot serve as a convincing foundation upon which a general tendency for respect towards women can be build. In Islam, the clitoris is considered to be dirty, because female sexuality is also seen dirty.

Even though it origins from Africa, Islam greatly helped to spread the practice. It has been spread all the way to the Philippines, where practice is called Pag-Sunnat or Pag-Islam and is practiced within the Muslim community of the Philippines, which is estimated to be around 5% of the total population. In Pakistan, the practice of FGM is done by Bohra Muslims and the Sheedi Muslim community. On the Maldives, the practice was claimed to be removed in the year 1990, but is still done today by Muslims.

Not included in the Unicef report is Indonesia. In Indonesia, 97.5% of the surveyed females from Muslim families are mutilated. In certain communities, mass female circumcision ceremonies (which are called khitanan massal) are organised to “celebrate” prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Some FGM procedures are done with a pen knife, while others are done with scissors (United States Agency for International Development, 2003). In Malaysia 93% of females from Muslim families have been mutilated. Just like in Indonesia, only Muslims do this practice. The Hindu and Buddhist communities of Malaysia do not do FGM, so there is a difference between the Muslims and other groups regarding FGM. In Oman, 64% of all female participants said FGM was still practiced in the family. The real percentage is likely to be much higher, since not all Muslim women are likely to tell the truth about this (Women Reclaiming and Redefining Cultures, 2014).

2.2. Debunking Politically Correct Myths

So, now that you know actual facts about the Muslim world, let’s talk about some of the things that Politically Correct people tend to say about it. Most Politically Correct people have a certain vague image of what the Muslim world looks like. It is not surprising that this image is completely inconsistent with the facts. In this subchapter, several Politically Correct myths about the Muslim world will be discussed and debunked.

Politically Correct Myth 1: It is only a tiny minority

Politically Correct people generally believe that “there are good and bad people everywhere” and that “the majority of Muslims are peaceful”. It is then assumed that all the “bad” things are done by a very tiny minority. There are around 1.6 billion Muslims in the Muslim world. Then, 0.1% of the population is believed to be “extremists” while 99.9% is assumed to be “peaceful”. This is false because of multiple reasons.

Firstly, what is seen as “good” and “bad” depends on cultural perspective. When a culture is based on a book that is believed to be word of the creator of the universe, then this is going to heavily influence what exactly is seen as ”good” and “bad” within that culture. If a person believes that is it “bad” if a woman owns her own sexuality and chooses herself with whom she has sexual intercourse, then it must be “good” to suppress your daughter and prohibit her from making her own sexual choices. In a large number of Muslim countries, women cannot do anything without the permission of a so-called ”male guardian”. We know for a fact that such views on female sexuality and the behaviours that are the result of such views, inflict suffering on women and are thus immoral. Still, this behaviour by Muslims makes perfect sense. If a person really believes that the creator of the universe has instructed that women should be treated in a certain way; then based on this conviction, following these instructions is completely “moral” and even “rational”. Who would be crazy and irrational enough to argue with the creator of the universe? The same is true for the support of Hamas and Hezbollah. If you really believe the Jews to be evil, then it makes perfect sense to see Hamas as a very good and moral group of people, worthy of your support.

Secondly, the word “peaceful” is unclearly defined. Just because the majority of Muslims clearly aren’t blowing themselves up, they are assumed to be “peaceful”. This is a quite low standard for what “peaceful” is. If a person has never hurt a fly in his life, but does not allow his daughter to choose her own partner, would like to live under the Sharia, and would support the execution of his own son if he would turn out to be gay; you might wonder if that person should be called “peaceful”. Sadly, the vast majority of Muslims in the Muslim world fit this description quite well. This person could be described as “extreme”, but he is actually a “moderate” only for the fact he has not joined an Islamic terror group and has no plans to blow himself up in the middle of a group of Jewish children. The bar for what “moderate” is, is set very low and the “moderate” Muslims are actually also quite “extreme”.

Thirdly, the myth is not consistent with the facts. The belief that only a very tiny minority of Muslims are “extremists”, is not based on actual statistics. Instead, it is based on an assumption of a percentage that is then estimated to be very low (0.1%). As we know, the available statistics about the Muslim world show a completely different reality.

Let’s take Pew Research of 2013 as an example. This is what the Muslim population in 2013 looked like, according to the results of Pew Research:

Total number of Muslims: 1.62 billion

“Wife should obey husband”: 1.39 billion
“Sharia should rule”: 1.1 billion
“Death for adultery”: 748 million
“Death for leaving Islam”: 584 million

In the West, supporters of “political Islam” are called “Islamists”. They are believed to be a tiny minority of the total population of Muslims. This is incorrect. According to these results, 67.9% of Muslims worldwide are “Islamists”. In the West, Islamism is believed to be “radical Islam”.
(1.1/1.62 * 100% = 67.9%).

Politically Correct Myth 2: The West is to blame

Politically Correct people generally believe that all the problems of the Muslim world are the fault of “the West”. The Europeans colonised large parts of the Muslim world and during the last couple of decades; Westerners have exploited the Middle East for fossil fuels. The US has made certain choices in the Middle East, which have led to instability. For example, the US has removed certain dictators, such as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. These dictators, as bad as they were, were actually also stabilising factors. They kept order. By removing these dictators, the US has brought instability to the region. In addition, the US has provided weapons to the region, of which many ended up in the hands of Islamic terror groups.

A combination of this instability and the availability of weapons is then believed to be the cause of ISIS-like practices.

The positive thing about this argument is that it is least based on some actual facts. The Europeans indeed did colonise many of the areas of the Muslim world and the US has indeed overthrown multiple regimes and has provided weapons to the Middle East. There are indeed real geo-political and socio-economic factors at play and these factors indeed do play a role in the world. However, this Politically Correct argument is still largely incorrect.

For starters, the West is not responsible for writing the Quran and the creation of the sentiments and attitudes that were already there before any dictator was overthrown. The general opinions and beliefs that Muslims hold, such as those about floggings and amputations and the support for Sharia law are not the result of any Western intervention. These sentiments were already there and are the direct result of the religion.

This myth contains an assumed causal link. It assumed that instability and the availability of weapons lead to genocide and murderous barbarity, such as beheading women and children. It is true that providing weapons enables such practices to take place, but the events themselves indicate a very serious problem about the Muslim population that was already there before the West even intervened.

Let’s dig a little deeper in this false assumption. The idea is that causing “instability” to a region and providing weapons to it, would be enough to make the population of that region engage in genocide. In reality, it is pretty unlikely that providing the poor people of Ecuador, in Latin America, with machineguns, and overthrowing their government, would lead to the population suddenly engaging in atrocities such as the beheading of women and children. The idea of having hundreds of well-edited videos on the internet in which Ecuadorians behead each other with a salsa soundtrack playing in the background and Spanish subtitles being shown at the bottom of the screen containing the most extreme hate speech, seems pretty unlikely. Of course, providing weapons to a region of poverty will lead to armed robberies and perhaps wars between competing gangs, but this is entirely different from suddenly showing all the symptoms of mass genocidal hatred as a result of suddenly having access to weapons. The genocidal hatred and the willingness to conduct these atrocities must have already been there before instability was caused to the region and weapons were made available. This reality can be seen in the results of the statistical researches conducted during a period of nearly two decades.

Talking about dictators, we have seen that Venezuela, Cuba and Spain did not turn into a pit hole of genocidal hatred after their respective dictators died or were removed by an external intervention. Neither did Panama turn into an exporter of Youtube videos containing genocidal hatred after the US intervened in December 1989. Where are all the Panamanians celebrating 9/11? What about Germany? Did perhaps Germany turn into a pit hole of genocidal hatred after the death of Adolf Hitler? No, it didn’t. And currently it is one of the most prosperous countries on the planet. The same is the case for Japan, a country that was completely destroyed at the end of World War Two and today is one of the most prosperous and advanced countries on the entire planet, with an incredibly low murder rate and a very high quality of life.

We can thus conclude that there is no causal link between “overthrowing a dictator”/“providing weapons” and the type of horror shows that we see in the Middle East. There must therefore be some other reason that consistently creates horror shows in the Middle East. There is the hatred towards Jews, homosexuals, other types of Muslims, apostates and atheists and the support for Sharia and the support for violence. There is no reason to believe that overthrowing a dictator and providing weapons to a region causes people to suddenly want to live under the Sharia. There is simply no logical cause and effect.

The assumption that the atrocities of the Middle East are the result of instability caused by an external intervener can also be easily debunked by putting it in a historical context. The idea that a “destabilising” event leads to horror shows is false. Looking at certain empires and regimes of recorded human history, it can be seen that “bad” practices are NOT caused by instability and the presence of weapons. The Holy Roman Empire was never colonised or destabilised by an external force. Still, it didn’t stop the Christians from burning witches on street corners, treating their women horribly, torturing heretics and occasionally beheading Jews. This is important to note, because this is hard proof that the cause of such practices is not “destabilisation”. What DID bring great trouble to the Holy Roman Empire was the black plague. This was a disease that killed around 50% of the population. The Christians believed this terrible event to be the fault of the Jews and therefore started to engage in genocide by beheading the Jews. Now, let’s reinterpret this event through the eyes of a modern-day Politically Correct person for the sake of entertainment:

The black plague caused “destabilisation” to the region and this triggered the Christians to “radicalise” and become “extremist Christians”. This “radicalisation” then led to the beheading of Jews. Therefore, the beheading of Jews as a response to the black plague has nothing to do with Christianity.

This interpretation makes no sense; because this particular genocide of Jews was caused by the way that the emergence of the black place was interpreted by the Christians. This interpretation was based on the doctrines of Christianity. The bad attitude towards the Jews was already there before the black plague suddenly emerged. Imagine that the 66 books of the Bible would have repetitively stated that the Jews are very important people that need to be protected, but that, instead, red-haired people are evil. In this case, the Christian response to the black plague would have been directed towards red-haired people while they would have done everything they could to protect the Jews. (Chapter 5 will go much deeper into the link between ideology and behaviour).

Going further, human history shows us that barbaric ISIS-like practices can also take place WITHOUT “destabilisation”. A very good example of this is the Byzantine Empire, an extremely prosperous and stable empire that lasted a full 1000 years. In the beginning, this empire was very modern. After a few centuries, Christianity started to play an increasingly more important role. This lead to the implementation of the same inconvenient practices that were also being conducted in the Holy Roman Empire, such as beheadings, torture and burning people alive. Note that the Byzantine Empire didn’t get “destabilised”. It continued to be an extremely prosperous and stable empire until it was suddenly attacked and destroyed by the Turks.

Other examples of “stable” regimes that conduct horrible practices are modern-day Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Both are incredibly prosperous countries, which are not “destabilised” at all. Both countries have Sharia as their national law.

3. The Facts: Muslims in Europe and the West

Based on the previous chapter, you could actually argue that it should matter for Westerners what people believe in other parts of the world. This is a very good point. However, when Muslims migrate to Europe, it becomes a different story. This chapter focuses on Muslims in the Europe and the West.

In 1951, the UN adopted the following official definition for the term “refugee”: “[a person who] owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it” (Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva).

Nowadays, this definition is no longer followed. The word refugee now roughly means the same as migrant. As a result of the doctrine of Political Correctness, anyone who migrates from an underdeveloped country towards Europe is a “refugee”. So, there are not only “refugees” from Syria, but also from Afghanistan, Morocco, Pakistan, Iraq, Algeria and even Egypt. The percentage of “refugees” that are actually economic migrants is stated to be 60% by EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.

As already mentioned in chapter 1 of this book, a large part of the Western population has been raised on white guilt. Therefore, being “open” towards Muslim migrants is seen as something very virtuous and moral. Those who do not want more Muslim migrants in their countries are quickly compared to Hitler. Often, the Politically Correct use the Holocaust as an example of what might happen if everyone is not “open” towards Muslim migrants. “The history of the Holocaust should not repeat itself and therefore it is very important that we are all very open towards the refugees”, they often say.

It is interesting to note that the Holocaust actually had nothing to do with mass migration. The Holocaust took place in a completely different context and was motivated by a dangerous ideology. The Jews were an inland minority who were well-integrated into the countries in which they lived. In Germany, they were slightly more financially successful than the average German, as a result of some positive cultural beliefs about the spiritual nature of money. This frustrated many of the Post-World War 1 Germans who were forced by the surrounding countries to live in poverty. Then, a well-spoken politician appeared who had written a book containing a very dangerous ideology. This ideology was Nazism and actually has many of the same elements that Islam also has, such as hatred towards Jews and fascism. Therefore, the fact that Politically Correct Germans believe that they can somehow make up for their past by inviting as many Muslims into their country as possible, would be a humorous form of sarcasm, if it weren’t so dangerous. This can only be rationalised by people who view the world through the lens of Political Correctness.

In 2008, the WZB Berlin Social Science Centre conducted a research among Muslims in France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands and Sweden. The research showed that 66% of Muslims in these European countries think that Sharia is more important than the laws of the country where they live. In addition, 75% say that there is only one interpretation of the Quran and 60% say that Muslims should return to their Islamic roots. The study also concluded that the situation is the worst in Austria: where 73% of the Muslims said that Sharia is more important than the laws of Austria, 79% that there is only one interpretation of the Quran and 65% that Muslims should return to their Islamic roots. 55% of the Austrian Muslims agreed with all three statements (WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, 2008).

In 2013, another research was conducted by the Berlin Social Science Centre. Three statements were shown to Muslims in the same European countries: “I don’t want to have homosexuals as friends”, “Jews cannot be trusted” and “Western countries are out to destroy Islam”. Nearly 60% reject homosexuals as friends, 45% think that Jews cannot be trusted and 54% believes that the West is out to destroy Islam. “Somewhat more than a quarter agree” agree with all three of these statements. In addition, the researchers concluded that socio-economic factors hardly play a role herein. (WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, 2013)

3.1. Case Study: United Kingdom

Let’s start this important chapter with a case study about Islam in the United Kingdom. The UK is currently a very interesting European country to keep an eye on. This is because of three different reasons.

First, it is often argued that having to learn a difficult language makes it hard for migrants to assimilate in a society (even though this is irrelevant for a second and third generation). It is understandable that having to learn a Scandinavian language can make the integration process quite difficult for a first generation of migrants. The UK has the advantage that many people in the world already speak some English. It is a very accessible language. This is probably also the reason why so many migrants would like to go to the UK. They already know (some of) the language. The UK is an interesting candidate for a case study, because any problems that Muslims cause in the UK, cannot be blamed on language barriers.

Second, while in many other European countries, the establishments try very hard to prohibit or avoid research on Muslims; in the UK, this isn’t the case (or perhaps the establishment isn’t that successful at it). There is a large body of available research available on Muslims in the UK. This makes it easier to do a case study.

Third, the UK is a very multi-cultural society. London is filled with people with different backgrounds. There is also a strong presence of Indians (Sikhs and Hindus) in the UK. As a result of having been the world’s largest global empire, the Brits are used to living in a very multicultural society.

Attitudes towards Islamic Terror

Let’s start with some attitudes on terrorism. In 2005, 25% of British Muslims disagreed that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to the police, according to ICM Poll (2005). For students this percentage was lower in the same year, according to the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (2005). Their results showed that only about 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.

According to NOP Research (2006), 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings in London were justified. ICM Poll draws a similar conclusion: 20% of British Muslims sympathise with 7/7 bombers. Another NOP Research poll from 2006 showed that 45% of British Muslims think that 9/11 was an American/Israeli conspiracy. (In popular language, such a conspiracy is referred to as a “Zionist conspiracy”. It is the belief that “the Zionists” are in charge of the world’s banking system, the US military and much more. It is basically a modern version of the traditional distrust towards Jews, which is very popular among Muslims). According to Populus Poll (2006), 12% of young Muslims in Britain believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 25% support suicide attacks against British troops (Populus Poll, 2006). Channel Four draws a similar conclusion. 31% of younger British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified (Channel Four, 2006). That same year, Populus Poll discovered that 12% of young Muslims in Britain believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. When asked about suicide attacks on British troops instead of civilians, this percentage rises to 25%. The same poll also shows that 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified and that 27% believe that Jews who are living in the UK are a “legitimate target” (Populus Poll, 2006). Pew Research concludes in 2007 that 35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (Pew Research, 2007).

Now, let’s make a jump from 2007 to 2015. The results of a 2015 poll of The Sun (after the Paris attacks of November 2015) show that 1 in 4 young Muslims in Britain said they sympathise with those who fight for ISIS. According to Populus Survey (2015): 18% of British Muslims would be proud or indifferent if a family member would join al-Qaeda (Populus Survey, 2015). According to a BBC Radio poll done in 2015: 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam". 27% of British Muslims say they have some degree of sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo in France. 68% says that acts of violence against people who make cartoons of Prophet Muhammad can never be justified while 24% disagrees (BBC Radio, 2015). According to ICM (2016), 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain would not report a terror plot to the police. This means that when a British Muslim finds out that another Muslim is planning a terrorist attack, 2 out of 3 British Muslims would NOT report it to the police.

Let’s compare the ICM results of 2005 to the results of 2016. In 2005, 25% of British Muslims disagreed that a Muslim has the obligation to report terrorists to police. In 2016, 2 out of 3 British Muslims would NOT report a terror plot to the police.

It can be seen that between 2005 and 2016, Muslims in the UK have become more “radical”. This means that they have become more serious about their religion. According to a British Member of Parliament in Birmingham in 2014, there are two times as many British Muslims fighting for Islamic State than there are serving in the British army. According to the MP member, around 1,500 Muslims have been recruited for ISIS during a period of three years.

Attitudes towards Women and Sexuality

1 in 3 Muslims in the UK strongly agree that a wife should be forced to obey her husband's bidding (Civitas, 2009). This is actually less than in the Muslim world. According to research conducted by Civitas: 51% of British Muslims believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim; only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian's consent and up to 52% of British Muslims believe a Muslim man is entitled to up to four wives (Civitas, 2009). ICM Poll shows in 2016 that 31% of British Muslims believe polygamy is acceptable. Only 18% believe that homosexuality should remain legal, which is a shockingly low number (ICM, 2016).

Attitudes towards Sharia

A poll back in 2007 already showed a more “radical” attitude in the younger generation than in the older ones. 28% of Muslims in the UK prefer Sharia over British law and 37% when only taking into consideration the younger generation (BBC, 2007).

The Politically Correct have believed for a long time that the newer generations would integrate into Western society better than their parents. In reality, this is clearly not the case. A study done by the Centre for Social Cohesion (2009) showed that 40% of British Muslim students want Sharia and that 1 out of 3 Muslim students favour killing in the name of Islam. The study was actually not released (for obvious reasons), but was released by WikiLeaks (in a publication of US diplomatic cables). It is interesting to emphasise that this study was not conducted among the oldest generation of Muslims who can’t speak English or among unemployed Muslims. This study was conducted among students (Centre for Social Cohesion, 2009).

ICM Poll (2005) showed that 58% of British Muslims believe insulting Islam should result in criminal prosecution. The same poll (one year later, in 2006) showed that 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK and that 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. Also, the research showed that 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of the freedom of expression; 28% percent hope that the UK will become a “fundamentalist Islamic state”; and 68% would like to prosecute British people who "insult Islam." Only 3% support a "consistently pro-freedom of speech line" (NOP Research, 2006).

Participation, Identity and Crime

According to the study released in the WikiLeaks cable: Muslims were also found to have the highest disability rates. 24% of men and 21% of women claimed to have a disability that would prevent them from finding a job. A 2016 Sun News article states that Muslims comprise 5% of population in Britain but 20% of High Security inmates (Centre for Social Cohesion, 2009). Muslims are thus overrepresented in violent crime.

According to Pew Global (2006), only 7% of British Muslims think of themselves as British first, while 81% of Muslims thinks of themselves as Muslim first (Pew Global, 2006). According to another poll, 31% of Muslims in Britain identify more with Muslims in other countries than with non-Muslim Brits (Policy Exchange, 2006).

Sharia Zones

You probably realise that these statistics are quite worrisome and that there is a rise in Islamic extremism or at least a rise in support for Islamic extremism. This is especially the case among the younger generation. However, perhaps you still can’t get an idea of what this means for the real world. Perhaps you are reading this from the US or from Australia, are looking at Europe from a distance, but don’t really know what the situation looks like.

There is a connection between what you see on paper and the real world. This is because the statistics are extracted from the real world. What does the situation in the UK have to look like in order to produce these statistics? An important problem that is still increasing in frequency are the so-called “Muslim enclaves”. These areas are also called “no-go zones” or “Sharia zones”.

An analysis of 2011 census data shows that there are more than 100 of such areas in the UK. In some of those areas the Muslim population is higher than 85%. Here is a list of those areas with percentages of Muslims higher than 50% of the population:

Birmingham: Bordesley Green, 73.9%; Washwood Heath, 77.3%.
Blackburn: Audley, 68.7%; Bastwell, 85.3%; Corporation Park, 62.6%; Little Harwood, 51.9%; Queen's Park, 51.5%; Shear Brow, 77.7%.
Bradford: Bradford Moor, 72.8%; City, 57.3%; Heaton, 55.9%; Little Horton, 58.0%; Manningham, 75.0%; Toller, 76.1%.
Leicester: Spinney Hills, 69.6%.
Luton: Biscot, 64.6%; Dallow, 61.6%; Saints, 51.1%.
Manchester: Longsight, 53.8%.
Oldham: Coldhurst, 64.2%; St Mary's, 58.7%; Werneth, 68.2%.
Pendle: Whitefield, 69.8%.
Rochdale: Central Rochdale, 52.4%; Milkstone and Deeplish, 67.1%.

Taking Luton as an example, many of the Muslims live in a place called Bury Park. Here, the native British population has almost completely disappeared. The Muslims who live there have been engaging in ethnic cleansing. They have been doing this by threatening non-Muslims, who are often very old, and forcing them to leave the neighbourhood. BBC has reported on so-called “white flight”. This hasn’t only taken place in Luton. “White flight” is taking place in most of the no-go zones and even more so in those zones that have percentages of Muslims higher than 50%.

In Rotherham, 1400 native British girls were systematically groomed, trafficked, beaten and sexually abused by mostly Pakistani Muslim men in 2012. The local Politically Correct government decided to cover up the events, because they did not want to be “racist” or “politically incorrect”.
So, how “politically correct” is it exactly to NOT prosecute a group of people who have traumatised 1400 young girls for the rest of their lives? Don’t these girls have a right to justice? And isn’t it important to arrest the prosecutors so that they cannot traumatise even more girls? Apparently not.

Something similar happened between 2004 and 2012. 373 girls were systematically sexually exploited by a Muslim gang. After 8 years, the establishment decided to arrest them. The victims were around 13 years old. It isn’t a surprise that these kind of things happen relatively often in the UK. The fear of being called “racist” indicates that there are probably more such cases going on right now of which the victims won’t get justice for a very long time.

Out of the 1,602 Syrians the UK allowed to enter the country, more than 900 of them had already been arrested for a serious crime before August 2016 (90% of Syria’s population is Muslim). So, within a year after having entered the UK, more than half of them were already found guilty of a serious crime. Of course, people fleeing from something terrible like ISIS should be protected and it is a good thing that Europe is acting moral regarding this. However, such numbers do say a lot about the general attitude that Muslims tend to have towards Western Civilisation.

Let’s mention some noteworthy news items from the year 2015.

In January of 2015, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles sent a letter to more than 1,000 imams in the UK in which he asked for their help in fighting extremism. Muslim groups responded by calling the British government “Islamaphobic” and demanded an apology.

In February of 2015, the police arrested 45 Muslim men who had been sex grooming 12 victims of which the youngest victim was only 13 years old.

During the same month of 2015, over 1,000 British Muslims held a protest in London against "insulting depictions" of their prophet as a response to the cartoons created by French magazine Charly Hebdoo. This was after the staff of the magazine had already been killed. Also note that no Muslims were found to be protesting against the act of killing the magazine’s staff. The event was organised by a group with the name “Muslim Action Forum”, which also launched a campaign for establishing depictions of Muhammad as “hate crimes”.

One month after that, in March of 2015, another horrific gang rape case emerged. Nearly 400 young British girls, of which the youngest ones were only 11 years old, had been sexually exploited by Muslim rape gangs. Shortly after that, the police of Rotherham increased street patrols in order to prevent “Islamophobic attacks”.

In April, four Muslim men were charged with child sex crimes in Rochdale. One of the gang rape victims later wrote a book named "Girl for Sale". She was only 13 years old when it happened. Here are some quotes from the book: "Mohammed was selling me for £250 to paedophiles from all over the country. They came in, sat down and started touching me. If I recoiled, Mohammed would feed me more crack so I could close my eyes and drift away. I was a husk, dead on the inside”, "sometimes, I would be passed from one pervert to another. In Oxford, many of my abusers were of Asian origin; [in London] these men were Mediterranean, black or Arab”, “Mohammed's defence was laughable: he claimed I'd forced him to take drugs and have sex with me. His barrister, a woman, implied I was a racist because all the defendants were Muslim”. So, to summarise that last sentence, the suspect’s lawyer, a woman, accused a young girl who had been repeatedly raped of “racism”, because her rapists were Muslim. If this would have happened two or three decades ago, the entire Western world would have been outraged.

During 2015, the UK intelligence agencies have been monitoring more than 3000 ‘home-grown’ Muslim extremists who want to carry out terrorist attacks in the UK. A Muslim employee of a nuclear power plant in Scotland (West Kilbride) was caught studying how to make a bomb while at work.

There is an endless list of cases of Muslims who got arrested because they were planning a terrorist attack, including a 14-year-old schoolboy from Blackburn, who is now Britain's youngest terror suspect.

Also, the number of scandals that are the result of Political Correctness are staggering. The police are consistently reported to prioritise the protection of Muslims over the protection of the native population. Victoria Wasteney, 38, was found guilty by employment tribunal for "bullying" a Muslim co-worker by inviting her to join her to church. An unlicensed drunk Muslim driver, three times over the blood alcohol limit crashed his friend’s car into a fire hydrant in Nottingham. He wasn’t sentenced to prison because he told the judge that he had recently “rediscovered his Muslim faith” and therefore had quit drinking. Tarik Kafala, who is the head of BBC Arabic, said that the term "terrorist" was too "loaded" to describe the men who killed 12 people in the attack on Charlie Hebdo. He got away with it. BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation.

British hospitals have to deal with 15 new instances of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) every day (!). These are 105 cases a week, 450 cases a month and 5475 cases a year. FGM has actually been illegal in the UK since 1984, but the number of convictions is zero.

Another important problem is the emergence of Sharia Courtrooms in the UK. The Arbitration Act of 1996 allows parties to resolve certain civil disputes by using Sharia principles as long as this takes place within the provided boundaries of the British law. In reality, this is not the case. In 2015, a report was released by Bowgroup with the name ‘A Parallel World: Confronting the Abuse of Many Muslim Women in Britain Today’. The report states that: "This creates a very serious problem: women who are married in Islamic ceremonies but are not officially married under English law can suffer grave disadvantages because they lack legal protection. What is more, they can be unaware that their marriage is not officially recognised by English law."

Muslim women are in an extremely bad position when it comes to divorce. In Islam, when a husband wants to divorce his wife, he does not have to follow the same process as vice versa. The husband only has to say “I divorce you” three times in a row whereas the wife must meet multiple complex conditions and pay an additional fee. A Muslim woman has stated the following: "I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from". The report also talked about an increasing rise in polygamy within Muslim communities and the problem of abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men. It is very hard to generate accurate data about this issue, but the general impressions seem to be very bad. A Sharia judge stated the following: "A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort their matters among themselves." In 2009, there were estimated by Civitas to be “at least 85 Sharia” courtrooms in the UK. The real number is estimated to be higher, because these courtrooms are often hidden in basements of houses and shops. In addition, the number is likely to be much higher in 2017 than in 2009.

What is this? This is a sticker that is often found on traffic lights upon entering the before mentioned no-go zones. It says the following: “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced. No alcohol. No gaming. No music or concerts. No porn of prostitution. No drugs or smoking. Sharia, a better society”. It is interesting to note that polygamy, marital rape and non-Muslim children getting exploited as sex slaves do not fall in the category of “porn or prostitution”. (This will be explained further in chapter 4). Upon entering these no-go zones, people have been threatened by Muslim patrols to obey these rules. There are no statistics available on these incidences, so the frequency of such attacks are not officially known.

Meanwhile, since May of 2016, the new mayor of London is a Muslim with the name Sadiq Khan. As a response to the bomb blast in New York (USA), he stated that such attacks are “part and parcel of life in a big city”. Also, he banned several advertisements that depict nude women from the London subway and pushed for “hate speech laws” that naturally only protect Muslims. Kahn has also been linked to groups preaching violence against women and homosexuals, extremist groups and groups organising events in which men and women are segregated.

It is important to note that the attitudes that are shown in such statistical studies are not just a reality on paper. These kinds of beliefs DO have consequences in the real world. It can be seen that a substantial minority or a majority of Muslims in the UK holds beliefs that are inconsistent with any Western values and, instead, consistent with Islamic values. These beliefs are not without certain events that result from such beliefs. Beliefs do lead to actions.

What can we conclude from this case study? We can conclude the following: even in the society that could be the easiest to integrate into, facts on the Muslim population are shocking and deeply concerning. Assuming that the United Kingdom is indeed the most open society, as a result of their international history, these statistics are even a higher reason to be concerned about Islam.

Let’s conclude this sub-chapter with the following. Oxford Professor David Coleman has conducted a study in 2013 that showed that if current immigration levels continue, the native British population will be a minority in their own country in around 50 years. Coleman also stated that this will most certainly lead to a total change in national identity, culture and political system. “Political system” means moving towards Sharia.

3.2. Statistics and Events Related to Muslims in the West

This chapter started off with a case study of the UK. Let’s continue by showing some statistics on Muslims in other European and Western countries. The situation is basically the same in the other countries as it is in the UK.

Statistics from Belgium and The Netherlands

Belgium and The Netherlands are very similar and might as well be the same country. In Belgium, around 6%of the total population is Muslim, but they are 35% of the prison inmates. They are thus overrepresented in criminality. In The Netherlands, Muslims are around 4% of the population but 20% of the prison inmates. In 2013, Muslims made up around 26% of the population of Brussels, followed by Rotterdam (25%), Amsterdam (24%), Antwerp (17%), The Hague (14%) and Utrecht (13%).

The Brussels neighbourhoods Molenbeek and Schaerbeek have more or less become no-go zones and hotspots for Islamic extremism. After the Paris attacks of November 2015 and the Brussels attacks that came after it, teachers working in these predominantly Muslim districts of Brussels have reported that “90% of our students in Molenbook and Schaerbeek, [who are] 17, [and] 18 years old call the Muslims who attacked Paris and Brussels heroes”. Jews have left Schaerbeek, and the last two synagogues are being sold. In The Netherlands, 300 violent youth Muslim gangs were under watch during 2013.

Between 50-70% of Muslim asylum seekers are permanently on social welfare, while Polish immigrants hardly apply for social welfare. Those alyssum seekers are mostly Somalis, Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, Iranians and Eritreans. In order to remain a positive attitude towards Muslim migrants, the politicians in The Netherlands often state that the Turkish Muslim community has integrated very well in the Dutch society. However, according to a research done in 2011 by Motivaction in Amsterdam, 80% of young Turkish Muslims believe there is nothing wrong with the Jihad or Holy War against non-believers. These Turks have been living in The Netherlands for three generations.

The WZB Berlin Social Science Centre results on Belgium in 2008 were as follows: “back to roots of Islam”, 66.1%; “only one interpretation of Islam”, 82.2%; “religious laws are more important than secular laws”, 69.6%; and “agree with all three statements”, 52.5%. The results on The Netherlands were as follows: “back to roots of Islam”, 54.5%; “only one interpretation of Islam”, 74.3%; “religious laws are more important than secular laws”, 70.0%; and “agree with all three statements”, 44.6%. (WZB, Berlin Social Science Centre)

Statistics from France

Out of all European countries, the situation in France is probably the worst. It is hard to find statistics on Muslims in France. However, the ones that exist are a very big reason to worry. Muslims in France were 7.5% of the population in 2010. Near the end of 2016, the percentage was estimated to be around 10% of the total population. The percentage of prison inmates that are Muslim is 70%. According to L'Obs, France's leading liberal newsmagazine, 25.5% of the French youth are Muslim per 2016. According to ICM (2014), 42% of young Muslims (18-24 years old) in France believe suicide bombings are justified. This percentage decreases to 35% when also including the older Muslims. So, just like in the UK, the younger Muslims are more radical than the older ones. 16% of all French Muslims support ISIS. This percentage then increases to 27% when only taking into consideration the younger Muslims (ICM, 2014).

Let’s interpret this. In countries like Egypt and Pakistan, the support for ISIS is often around 10%. This group is considered to be the most radical. ISIS is generally unpopular among Muslims. The support for Hamas and Hezbollah is around 60%. Support for using violence to defend Islam and stoning women for adultery is easily as high as 70-80% in these countries. However, support for ISIS is only around 10% in Egypt and Pakistan. So, if 27% of young Muslims in France support ISIS, this is highly disturbing. Based on this information we can estimate what the levels of support for Hamas, Hezbollah, violence in defence of Islam and Sharia could look like. It is probably safe to say that the support for these things among Muslims in France must be very high, for example 70-80%.

This is pretty consistent with the WZB Berlin Social Science Centre results on France in 2008. These were as follows: “back to roots of Islam”, 61.4%; “only one interpretation of Islam”, 81.7%; “religious laws are more important than secular laws”, 73.2%; and “agree with all three statements”, 52.3%. (WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, 2008)

In 2014, the French city of Marseille had an estimated percentage of Muslims of between 30% and 40%. This has caused excessive violence, riots, rapes and much of the other stuff already discussed in the sub-chapter about the UK, such as unofficial checkpoints upon entering so called Sharia zones. There have been Muslim gangs smuggling AK-47 assault rifles into Europe and selling them in Marseille (and presumably other places). As a response, the French government had to place around 3000 police officers in Marseille and around 250 paramilitary officers.

A study done by the National Observatory on Crime and Criminal Justice Responses (ONDRP) of France, focused on attacks on women done by men during the years 2013 and 2014. 52% of the cases were done by so-called “foreign nationals”. On average, an attack was reported every 40 minutes. At the same time, only around 10% of cases are estimated to be reported, so 90% of cases are probably never reported. Also, there have been reports and video material of massive street prayers during the day, which sometimes even block the traffic.

France has been in an emergency state since the November, 2015 Paris attacks. Between these attacks and the 23th of July, 2016 the French establishment had raided almost 3600 houses, had arrested more than 400 people, discovered more than 500 weapons including 50 war weapons. In September of 2016, French President Manuel Valls said that security agencies are foiling terror plots “every day”. Not surprisingly, France has been the victim of large attacks the most often of all European countries. (The previous time France had been in a state of emergency was during the Muslim street riots of October and November, 2005 in Paris and other cities.) Here is a list of the Islamic terrorist attacks that were NOT foiled since the beginning of 2014.

- In 2014, from the 20th to the 22th of December an attack took place every day:
on the first day, a Muslim attacked three police officers with a knife, while screaming "Allahu Akbar!"; on the second day, a Muslim driver injured 11 pedestrians in Dijon while screaming "Allahu Akbar!"; on the third day, another 10 people were injured by a Muslim who drove a van into pedestrians.

- In January of 2015, the Charly Hebdo attacks took place and 12 people were killed. Two days later, a policewoman and 4 other people were killed in an attack on a Jewish supermarket.
- In February, a Muslim man wounded three soldiers with a knife outside a Jewish community centre.

- In April, a Muslim was arrested after he apparently shot himself by accident before being able to carry out an attack on “one or two churches”. He was charged with the murder of a woman that was found in a burning car.
- In June, a decapitated man and several other injured people were found in a factory near Lyon. Several explosions were heard and one of the suspects was arrested by the police.
- In August, a mass shooting was avoided on a high-speed train travelling between Amsterdam and Paris. A Muslim with an assault rifle was overpowered by six passengers. Two young American soldiers played a key role in preventing this attack.
- On the evening of the 13th of November, 130 were killed and hundreds were wounded in a large terror attack in Paris. The attackers had Kalashnikov-type assault rifles.
- In January of 2016, a man was shot dead after he drove his car at four soldiers who were guarding a mosque. At first, the motives of the attacker were unclear because the attack took place near a mosque. The media decided not to report it after it turned out that the attacker was a Muslim and the targets were the soldiers and not the mosque. A few days later, a Muslim trying to attack a police station on the anniversary of the Charly Hebdo attack was shot dead.
- In June of 2016, a French police commandant and his partner were stabbed to death at their home by a Muslim.

- One month later, in July, 84 people celebrating Bastille Day in Nice were killed by a Muslim using a lorry to kill as many innocent people as he could.

- One month later, a priest was forced on his knees and beheaded in a church by two Muslims.

There is not much more information about Muslims in France. A last point of reference of how unimaginably bad the situation must be is the following fact. The UK is in a very bad situation and has “more than 100” so-called Sharia zones. France has 751 of them.

Germany

Germany has played a large role in the 2015-2016 migrant crisis. In order to clean up its own image in the world, Germany thought it was a good idea to widely open its arms towards migrants from Muslim countries. Angela Merkel’s invitation was broadcasted all across the Middle East. The number of migrants that entered Germany in 2015 is estimated to be around 1 million. This is an incredibly high number for one year. Almost all of them were young men. In 2010, the population of Germany consisted for 5.8% of Muslims. It is not yet known what the exact percentage of 2016 is.

In any case, 13% of the Muslims in Germany believe that suicide bombings are justified and this percentage increases to 22% when only taking into consideration young Muslims (Pew Research, 2010). So, again the young Muslims hold more radical beliefs than the older Muslims. According to a study done by the University of Munster among Turks living in Germany in 2016: 23% of Turks living in Germany say that a Muslim should not shake the hand of a member of the opposite sex; 33% say that a woman should wear the veil; 73% say that books and movies that offend religion should be banned and 20% say that "the threat which the West poses to Islam” justifies violence; 32% say that "Muslims should strive to a societal order like than in the time of Muhammad”; and 7% agree that "violence is justified" to spread Islam (University of Munster Study, 2016). Turks are widely believed to be the most successfully integrated group of Muslims in Germany, so this is as good as it gets.

Back in 2008, the results on Germany from the research done by WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, weren’t as bad as some of the results on the other European countries. The results on Muslims in Germany were as follows: “back to roots of Islam”, 49.9%; “only one interpretation of Islam”, 57.1%; “religious laws are more important than secular laws”, 45.1%, and “agree with all three statements”, 29.9% (WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, 2008). On the other hand, Germany has received over a million of migrants during the last couple of years, so it is safe to say that these numbers are very unlikely to look that positive anymore in 2017. (Even though a 45.1% support rate for Sharia in 2008 isn’t really positive in absolute terms.)

According to Die Welt (2012), 46% of Muslims in Germany hope there will eventually be more Muslims than Christians in Germany (Die Welt, 2012). In 2007, 47% of Muslims in Germany agreed with the statement that following the rules of one’s religion is more important than democracy (WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, 2007).

According to the Federal Criminal Police Office, 142,000 crimes were committed by migrants during the first half of 2016. This is 780 crimes a day. In 2015, these numbers were already very high, but it is an increase of 40% in comparison to 2015. Also, the data includes only the crimes of which a suspect has been caught, which is a very important detail. The real numbers are likely to be way higher, especially given the facts that there are too many of them to keep track of and that thousands of migrants who entered the country as asylum seekers or refugees have gone “missing”. Local police in many parts of the country have been ringing the alarm bell because they have been unable to do their job. They simply don’t have enough manpower to register and solve all the crimes and to even maintain order in the streets. Police offers who are basically on the frontline of the events are repeatedly calling for attention towards how bad the situation is, but the German politicians ignore them and most German people are more likely to call such a police officer a “racist” than to start worrying about their country.

Statistics on the city of Hamburg show that migrants are responsible for around of the 38,000 crimes reported during the first six months of 2016, even though migrants are only a fraction of the 1.7 million people who live there. In Bremen, Berlin, Aachen, Leipzig, Dresden, Bavaria, Schwerin and Düsseldorf the situation is similar.

There have been numerous instances of sexual harassment on the streets of Germany. In Cologne, during New Year’s Eve 2015/2016, an estimated number of 1000 Muslims participated in a practice of encircling, groping and sometimes raping women. This practice is called “taharrush” and is a known phenomenon in the Middle East and North Africa. After those sexual assaults in Cologne, the authorities recommended women to dress differently instead of solving the actual problem.
One year later, during New Year’s Eve 2016/2017 the police worked very hard to prevent any taharrush from happening, just to find themselves being accused of “ethnic profiling” and “racism” by the media less than 48 hours later. So, to put things into perspective: after New Year’s Eve 2015/2016, the media tried for months to cover up numerous events of sexual assault, rape and violence against women by Muslims; after New Year’s Eve 2016/2017 the media immediately accused their own police force of “racism” for preventing taharrush against their own female population.

Most of the crimes committed by migrants are being covered up or downplayed by German authorities, to avoid an increase in anti-immigration sentiments among its own native population. Incidents are often as shocking as pulling a knife on a 12 year old in Kirchdorf, raping a 90 year old woman who just left the church in Düsseldorf.

At the UN development summit in New York, a noteworthy event took place in which Angela Merkel was heard talking to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO. She didn’t know the microphone that was located close to the two of them was turned on. Merkel could be heard saying that Facebook isn’t doing enough to delete anti-migration posts. Zuckerberg replied: “we need to do some work”.

To create a clearer perspective on the situation in Germany, here are four different cases. These four cases have something in common. What this is, will be mentioned afterwards.

1. A Muslim migrant sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl while she was walking on the street with her grandmother in Gießen.
2. A Muslim migrant sexually assaulted two girls of 16 and 17 years old in front of a train station in Böblingen
3. A Muslim migrant sexually assaulted a 30-year-old woman on a bicycle path in Oberursel.
4. A Muslim migrant sexually assaulted a 21-year-old woman in Ulm.
So, what do these cases have in common? What these cases have in common is that they all took place on the 5th of October of 2016 AND were reported. So, these four cases all took place on the same day. Most cases remain unreported. Assuming that the percentage of cases that is reported is similar to the 10% of France, it could be concluded that on that day, not 4, but 40 of such cases might have taken place.

In July of 2016, Germany has had a short series of attacks. A Muslim injures passengers in a train using an axe and a knife. A few days later, a Muslim hacked a pregnant woman to death. At that very same day, a suicide attack failed at a music festival in Ansbach. Two days later, a Muslim killed a German doctor.

Some other European statistics

In Denmark, around 7-8% of the population is estimated to be of “non-Western origin”. Jyllands Posten (2015) shows that: 77% of Muslims in Denmark believe the Quran's instructions should be “fully appied”. The researchers also concluded that Muslims today are more devoted to their religion than three decades ago (Jyllands Posten, 2015). This is similar to the conclusion drawn in the UK and France, that the younger generation of Muslims is more radical than older generations. Another poll conducted by Jyllands Posten (2015) showed that 11.3% of Danish Muslims said that the Quran should serve as the sole basis for Denmark's laws, while an additional 26.5% said that the nation's laws should be built upon a mixture of the Quran's teachings and the Danish constitution. 53.9% said that Denmark's laws should be solely based on its constitution (Jyllands Posten, 2015). Slightly confusing is the fact that the Danish Muslims seem to be contradicting themselves. 77% believe that the Quran should be “fully applied”, while 53.9% believe that the Danish law should be solely based on the Danish constitution. Sadly, there is no more research available on Muslims in Denmark. Crime statistics of 2015 show that out of the 2,633 criminals who had to present themselves before the judge, 2,049 were non-Western foreigners. Out of the total number of people who are receiving welfare from the Danish state, 84% is of “non-Western origin”.

In Spain, 25% of Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified. When only taking into consideration the younger Muslims, the percentage increases to 29%.

In Austria, Die Presse released in 2013 that 1 in 5 Muslims in Austria believe that anyone who leaves Islam should be killed; 1 in 3 say it is not possible to be a European and a Muslim; 22% oppose democracy. According to FPO (2014): 43% of Islamic teachers in Austria openly advocate Sharia law over democracy.

The WZB Berlin Social Science Centre results on Austria in 2008 were as follows: “back to roots of Islam”, 65.0%; “only one interpretation of Islam”, 79.1%; “religious laws are more important than secular laws”, 73.1%; and “agree with all three statements”, 55.2%.

If you are reading this from North America or Australia, you are probably looking at Europe from a distance. Perhaps you have ever visited Europe, perhaps not. The percentage of Muslims in these European countries is higher than in non-European Western countries, but the beliefs that Muslims hold are the same as in Europe and the Muslim world. Europe shows what the US, Canada and Australia will look like in a few decades.

In Australia, the percentage was 2.2% in 2011. Sadly, there is no research available on Muslims in Australia. However, several news articles about Sharia-groups, rapes and other typical Muslim phenomena indicate that the situation is most likely the same as in other Western countries with a similar percentage of Muslims.

Some available statistics about Muslims in Canada

In Canada, 2.8% of the total population is Muslim in 2016. According to MacDonald Laurier Institute, 35% of Canadian Muslims say they do not condemn al-Qaeda and 62% of Muslims want Sharia. 15% of Muslims would like to make Sharia mandatory instead of optional (MacDonald Laurier Institute, 2011).

Environics Institute (2011), has studied the degree in which Muslims who moved to Canada feel a stronger or weaker attachment to Islam after moving to Canada or that the attachment to Islam has stayed the same. The group was split in 3 categories: people who have been in Canada for 10 years, for 10-19 years and for 20 years or more. The results are as follows:

- in Canada less than 10 years: 40%, stronger attachment; 55%, same attachment, 5%, weaker attachment.

- in Canada between 10 and 19 years: 37%, stronger attachment; 55%, same attachment; 4%, weaker attachment.

- in Canada longer 20 years or longer: 47%, stronger attachment; 42%, stayed the same; 6%, weaker attachment. (Environics Institute, 2011)

These results do not suggest a positive prospect for Canada. On the other hand, Canada has a very low percentage of Muslims (2.8%), so it still isn’t nearly as bad as Europe.

Some available statistics about Muslims in the US

In the US, the percentage of Muslims is estimated to be around 1% in 2016. In 2007, 26% of the younger Muslims in the US believe suicide bombings are justified (Pew Research, 2007). In 2011, this percentage had gone down to 8%. In addition, 5% of American Muslims have a positive view on al-Qaeda and 14% has no opinion (Pew Research, 2011).

This looks positive, because the percentage of support for suicide attacks went down. However, remember that the percentage of Muslims in the USA is only around 1% of the total population. Pew Research also concluded in 2007 that American Muslims who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified. Also, 26% of Muslim-Americans wanted to be distinct from the rest of the society, while 43% preferred to assimilate into the society (Pew Research, 2007). In 2011, 20% of Muslim-Americans wanted to be distinct from the society, while 56% preferred to integrate into the society (Pew Research, 2011). Again, the statistics seems to have improved between 2007 and 2011.

On the other hand: 21% of Muslim-Americans say there is a fair to great amount of support for Islamic extremism within their community and 49% of Muslims say they are "Muslim first”, while 26% say they are “American first” (Pew Research, 2011).

In 2012, Wenzel Strategies published the following results of their statistical research: 58% of Muslims believe criticism of Muhammad or Islam does not count as free speech under the First Amendment, 45% say that those who mock Islam should be prosecuted, 12% even believe that blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death, 43% believe people of other faiths do not have the right to evangelise Muslims, and 32% believe that Sharia should be the law of the land (Wenzel Strategies, 2012).

The latest information on Muslims in the US is provided by the Center for Security Policy in 2015. The results of their study show that 19% of Muslims in the USA say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law of the land; 33% say that Sharia should be supreme to the US Constitution, while only 43% disagree, thus leaving 24% undecided. Going further, 25% say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as a part of the "global Jihad, while 64% disagree, leaving 11% undecided; and 33% say that the beliefs of al-Qaeda are Islamic or correct, while 49% disagree, and 18% is undecided. At last, 51% say that Muslims should have the choice of being judged by Sharia courts rather than US courts, while 39% disagree, and 10% is undecided (The Polling Company, 2015).

As the percentage of Muslims in the US will grow, these numbers are unlikely to improve, taking into consideration the situation in Europe where the percentages are much higher. If you are in the US and would like to know what the situation in your country is most likely to look like in case the percentage of Muslims would go up towards 10%, you can take a look at the situation in the UK, France and Germany.

3.3. Case Study: Sweden

Located in the very north of Europe, Sweden is an amazingly prosperous and beautiful country. It has amazing nature, great cities and an interesting history. However, the former land of the Vikings has turned into a social experiment. This is because the Political Correctness in Sweden has reached such an unbelievably high level of strength that it is almost surreal to grasp what it happening there right now.

Because it didn’t participate in WW2, Sweden has been doing very well economically throughout the 20th century. During the 70s and the 80s, many migrants from European countries came to Sweden. This was a good thing, because Sweden needed a larger workforce. These migrants were mostly European migrants and they integrated well into the Swedish society. During the 90s and the 00s even more migrants came, but this time there was a difference. This time, the migrants were not European migrants, but instead Muslim migrants. Unlike the European migrants, the Muslims generally did not contribute to the Swedish society, did not assimilate and caused a sudden rise in crime rates as well as the number of rapes. The Swedish authorities decided to blame their own native citizens for this worrisome increase in the number of crimes and rapes. Sweden started to invest a lot of money in anti-racist campaigns and integration programs. As we know, this doesn’t work, because such measures are based on a wrong diagnosis of the core problem. Due to Political Correctness, it has been incredibly easy for Muslim migrants and refugees to live in Sweden. So, from the year 2000 and onwards the problem got from bad to worse, and from worse to unimaginable.

The Swedes have always seen it as a humanitarian duty to accept as many people in their society as possible. Back in 1975, the year in which politicians decided that Sweden had to become multicultural, the Swedish population was 8,208,442. By 2014 it had grown to 9,743,087. This is an increase of 18.7%. Never before in the country’s history did the number of inhabitants increase so fast. This growth is mostly a result of migration. To make it even worse, Swedish women on average give birth to 1.92 children compared to the average of 2.24 children for immigrant women. Worthy of mention is that the Swedes have “ruined” their own statistics. They count second-generation Muslims as “Swedes”. So, these birth statistics are flawed.

The WZB Berlin Social Science Centre results on Sweden in 2008 were as follows: “back to roots of Islam”, 43.4%; “only one interpretation of Islam”, 67.4%; “religious laws are more important than secular laws”, 52.1%; and “agree with all three statements”, 30.8%. In comparison to France, The Netherlands, Belgium and Austria, these numbers are relatively more positive. (WZB Berlin Social Science Centre results on Sweden in 2008)

Actually, everything that has been said until now is not what makes Sweden so unique. What does make Sweden unique is the central role of Feminism in its society. This dates back all the way to the 17th century. Of all the countries in the world, Sweden was the first country to grand unmarried women the right to vote in municipal elections (in 1862). Sweden has always remained a forerunner on gender equality and this can be seen in all aspects of their society such as politics, academia and business. Swedish political parties from the left to the right corner of the political spectrum support gender-based politics, such as the so-called “gender mainstreaming”, a practice in which gender is taken into account regarding all policies made by the Swedish government both nationally and regionally.

The Swedish national parliament, the municipal parliaments and the Swedish government all consist for around 50% of women. The Swedish government even has a Minister for Gender Equality. This minister is responsible for gender equality, popular education and civil society. Note that this minister is not called “Minister of Civil Society”, but is given the title of ”Gender Equality” instead, emphasising the importance of this aspect of the job description. The foreign policy of Sweden carries the name “Feminist foreign policy”.

Prostitution in Sweden has been illegal since 1999. So, it is not allowed to pay for sex in Sweden. Noteworthy is that the man who pays for the sexual service is criminalised, and thus prosecuted, while the woman who offers the sexual service is not being criminalised. It is illegal to pay for sex, but not to be paid for sex. Sweden sees prostitution as a form of suppression of women. This must thus be eliminated by reducing the demand for sex. This demand is seen as a form of “patriarchy”. What is that? Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold the primary power and dominate in moral authority, politics, privilege and prosperity. Patriarchy is believed to be evil and must be eliminated. (The concept of Patriarchy is actually a conspiracy theory, but to go to deeper into that would be an entire book on its own. It is basically a concept invented by the type of ideology-driven social scientists discussed in chapter 1.5 of this book.)

Facts

Let’s take a look of some of the statistics regarding Islam in Sweden. In 2007, there were between 250,000 and 350,000 Muslims in Sweden. More than 60% of Muslims are living in the three major cities (Stockholm, Malmo and Gothenburg). The population of Muslims in Sweden origins from a wide range of different countries, among which Bosnia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Somalia.

During the 1980s, the majority of Muslims in Sweden were Turks. Since 2014, they are only 10% of the Muslim population. However, of all groups of Muslims, the Turks have the most political influence through established political interest groups.

After the Turks, the Iranians are the second largest group of immigrants in Sweden, but only one sixth of these Iranians are Muslims. It is interesting that this group is also more secular and well-integrated into the Swedish society. (This suggests a negative correlation between the variable Muslim and the degree of successful integration, which really isn’t surprising given the fact that Islam is a political ideology). These Iranian non-Muslims often had to flee out of Iran because of the fact that they aren’t Muslim.

The third largest group of immigrants are the Iraqis, who are almost always Muslim, and very badly integrated into the Swedish society.

In 1975, Sweden’s the number of rapes in Sweden was 472 . This was before the country opened its doors to Islamic migrants. In 2014, the number of rapes was 6,620. This is a shocking increase of 1,572%. According to government data, 2% of Swedish population consists of Muslim males. This group was responsible for 77% of rapes in 2014.

BRA is a government organisation dedicated towards the prevention of crimes. During the summer of 2011, the number of reported rapes was 25% higher than during the summer of 2010. In 2011, 1091 rapes were conducted and reported during June and July (BRA), which was an increase of 18% in comparison to the year before. Rape of children under the age of 15 had increased with 53%, from 192 cases in 2010 to 294 cases in 2011. Instead of taking action, BRA claimed the “nice weather” to be the cause of the sudden increase in rapes. This seems to be very unlikely, especially when speaking about child rapes.

During the year 2000, Ann-Christine Hjelm from the University of Karlstad, did a research on immigrant crime, based on statistics from Svea Hovrätt, which is a court of appeal. It somehow took two years for the results of the study to appear (something that seems to be the case quite often when the results of a study aren’t consistent with the Politically Correct narrative). The results show that 85% of those who got sentenced with 2 years in prison or more, were either foreign-born or second-generation immigrants.

In 1996, a report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention reached the conclusion that immigrants from North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) were 23 times as likely to commit rape as Swedish men.

Unrelated to rape is the phenomenon of gang rape. This is something that before 1975 was basically non-existent or extremely rare in Swedish criminal records. However, between 1995 and 2006, the number of gang rapes was found to have spectacularly increased. In order to focus away from this issue, no more studies on gang rapes have been (allowed to be) conducted since 2006.
In 2013, a 15 year-old girl was locked up and gang raped by 6 Muslim men in Stockholm. The lower court convicted the men. After that, they were acquitted by the court of appeals, because “the girl had not been in a defenceless position”.

In 1975, Sweden started to allow immigration from Islamic countries. In 2015, violent crime had increased by 300% in comparison to 1975. In the area of violent crimes such as assault and manslaughter, Muslims are overrepresented by between 400% and 500%.

Interpretation and Response

You might wonder what is so special about those numbers. Aren’t these numbers similar to the numbers of European countries? You are right. Those numbers are not shocking. What makes Sweden so interesting is the way in which these statistics are being interpreted, given the fact that Sweden is the world’s most Feminist country. Before we continue, ask yourself the following question: “how do feminists respond to rape?”. This is actually a very easy question and the answer seems to be very obvious.

How would you expect a highly feministic society to respond to such shocking rape crime statistics? And here comes the most interesting part of this case-study, because in this case, they do not respond at all.

As can be expected from a society indoctrinated by Political Correctness, the Swedes try to explain away those statistics. They use socioeconomic factors such as unemployment rates, income levels and the specific neighbourhoods in which the crimes occur as reasons to explain the statistics. For example, if someone lives in an ugly neighbourhood and is unemployed, this person is assumed to be more likely to go out and rape a Swedish woman then someone who lives in a good neighbourhood. That Swedish men who also live in those ugly neighbourhoods are not found to rape as much is not mentioned. A BRA report from 1996 stated the following: “Immigrants’ overrepresentation in crime is not explained by an unfavourable distribution of gender, age and location. Added to this is the fact that immigrant overrepresentation in crime cannot be explained by the fact that immigrants are less fortunate than Swedes in terms of socioeconomic status.”

This conclusion got completely ignored by the Swedish government. It is seen as “racist” to mention these statistics. Whoever dares to mention them will be the victim of labelwords, misrepresentation and all the other tactics used by the Politically Correct as described in chapter 1.

Meanwhile, the Swedish establishment keeps insisting that no matter what culture migrants come from, as soon as they enter Sweden they become exactly like the Swedes who have lived there for many generations. This false assumption plays a very big role in Sweden. Of course, questioning this assumption is seen as “racist”.

A particularly interesting case is the incident involving Michael Hess, a local politician from the Swedish Democrat Party, who has lived in Muslim countries for many years. He decided to speak out against the dishonest form of journalism that often takes place in Sweden regarding rape crimes conducted by Muslims. He wrote the following, “When will you journalists realise that it is deeply rooted in Islam’s culture to rape and brutalise women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings. There is a strong connection between rapes in Sweden and the number of immigrants from MENA-countries”. MENA means Middle-East and North Africa. Hess was charged with the crime of “denigration of ethnic groups”. In May last year, he was handed a suspended jail sentence and a fine. The verdict has now been appealed to a higher court.

During his trial he continually provided facts and statistics on Muslims, rape crimes and the way Muslim culture views women. However, the court decided that all those facts were irrelevant in the following quote: “The Court notes that the question of whether or not Michael Hess’s pronouncement is true, or appeared to be true to Michael Hess, has no bearing on the case. Michael Hess’s statement must be judged based on its timing and context. … At the time of the offence, Michael Hess referred neither to established research nor to Islamic sources. It was only in connection with his indictment that Michael Hess tried to find support in research and religious writings. The Court therefore notes that Michael Hess’s pronouncement was obviously not a part of any reasoned or trustworthy discussion. Michael Hess’s pronouncement must therefore be viewed as an expression of disdain for immigrants with an Islamic faith.”

So, the Court of Sweden decided that mentioning facts that are not consistent with the ideology of Political Correctness is a form of “hate speech”. Going back to the first chapter of this book, this is similar to how Galileo Galilei was prosecuted for heresy. Thinking outside of the box provided by society is punishable. This is incredible and proves how blinded by ideology people can get.

Another point can be made based on the following part of the quote: “Michael Hess’s pronouncement must therefore be viewed as an expression of disdain for immigrants with an Islamic faith”. So, he or she who dares to go outside of the permitted narrative is portrayed as a “bad human being”, “an outcast”, etc. How dare you be a “racist”? How dare you have a ”disdain” for migrants of a certain religion. Shame on you!

What is also being ignored by the court is that Hess has spent many years of his life in Muslim countries. He simply concluded that in Islamic countries there is a deep disrespect for women. This is simply a fact. Polls conducted in Muslim countries from Morocco to Indonesia prove this. Also, this disrespect for women can also be seen in the Quran, the Hadiths and the story of Muhammad (which will be discussed thoroughly in chapter 4).

Hess got prosecuted for speaking the truth. This indicates that Western values in Sweden have fallen. It is no longer a country based on Western values, but instead a country that resembles a religious empire in which the religion is Political Correctness; a country in which white guilt is the original sin; hate speech laws are blasphemy laws; and the way to paradise is by committing cultural suicide, even if this involves sexual violence against their own Swedish women. How’s that for the world’s most Feminist country?

In the first quarter of 2015, all Swedish media reported a gang rape which took place on the Finnish ferry, between Stockholm and the Finnish city of Åbo. The following headlines were used: “Several Swedish Men Suspected of Rape on the Finland Ferry” (by Dagens Nyheter); “Eight Swedes Suspected of Rape on Ferry” (by TT); “Six Swedes Arrested for Rape on Ferry” (by Expressen); and “Six Swedish Men Raped Woman in Cabin” (by Aftonbladet).

So, “Swedes” were responsible for a gang-rape. These “Swedes” actually turned out to be five Somali men and one Iraqi man. When it comes to the identity of rapists (and other criminals), news-media often engage in censorship, by changing the identities of Muslim rapists in the national identity. So, Muslim rapists are reported as “Swedish men”, “men from Stockholm”, etc.

Swedish politicians and media provide very strange alternative explanations to the problem. For example, they argue that the definition of “rape” has been changed throughout the years. This change is then claimed to be the cause of the increase in reported cases. Also, they argue that Swedish women just report rape more than they used to do before or that Swedish men have gotten more violent as a response to an increased equality between the sexes. They do not address the fact that Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of sexual violence and that Swedish women are more likely to be less inclined than more inclined to report those incidents as a result of Political Correctness. In addition, they mention that most cases of rape still occur within households, a myth that has been debunked by a BRA report which concluded that “In 58% of cases, the perpetrator was entirely unknown by the victim. In 29% of cases the perpetrator was an acquaintance, and in 13% of cases the perpetrator was a person close to the victim.”

Not only Swedish women are the victims of rape by Muslim men. Also the Muslim women who migrated to Sweden are vulnerable. A study from 2009 by the City of Stockholm with the title ‘Honour related oppression and violence in the City of Stockholm. Report 2009’ studied 14 young Muslim girls of around 17 years old who were the victim of rape. Only 2 of them had reported it to the police. The other 12 had not reported it, because of the following reasons.

- they should be virgins on their marriage night. If they are not, they could get killed for damaging the honour of their families
- rape is considered to be her own fault. She is believed to have attracted the offender herself
- they also damaged the honour of their female family members, who could then get in trouble

This is consistent with other reports of rapes of female Muslim migrants. Due to the interpretation of rape within Muslim culture and the consequences it has for the victim and her family members, by far most cases of rape of Muslim women are likely to remain unreported.

The 2009 study also mentioned that the perpetrators were in most cases from the same country as the victims. Some of the perpetrators even filmed the rape with their phones to then use the footage of the rape to blackmail the victim. They would then threaten the victim to put the footage on the internet or even to send it to the victim’s family. In Muslim culture, this is basically a full death sentence for the victim.

Feminist response

What are some other responses to this disaster? By far most Swedes do not respond to this situation at all. Some groups of Swedish men, however, have chosen to respond in several different manners.

For example, some Swedish men have chosen to respond by physically attacking random migrants on the street, which of course is not helpful. This behaviour is then used by the Politically Correct as a way to describe all Swedes who do not agree with the Politically Correct narrative. If you try to debate Political Correct Swedes on Islam, they will immediately put you in the same category as those violent Swedes who physically attack Muslim migrants on the streets. So, you are either with the Politically Correct establishment OR with those violent “right-wing extremists”. There is no middle ground.

Other Swedish men have chosen to respond on social media by creating hashtags such as #donttouchourwomen, with the goal of raising awareness towards the problem. These men then find themselves being attacked by Swedish feminists, because according to their Feminist perspective a white man protecting a white woman is considered a form of suppression. It is a form of “white patriarchy”; the suppression of the white woman by the white man, who also happens to be responsible for the colonisation, slavery, the two World Wars and the invention of racism itself. Swedish feminists then respond by creating hashtags such as #notyourwoman, to emphasise that Swedish women are not the “property” of Swedish men.

So, it basically works as follows. Swedish women are increasingly getting raped by Muslim men, who are responsible for 85% of (reported) rape cases in Sweden. This is being denied by the society, because acknowledging this would be a form of “racism”. When Swedish men try to protect Swedish women from rape, this is a form of “white patriarchy”. See the double standard? In a society that fights for equality, white men are held up to a completely different standard than men from Muslim countries. This is basically what has been described in chapter 1: the double standard and the bigotry of lowered expectations. Also, this implies that when a woman gets raped by a white man, this is horrible; but when a woman gets raped by a Muslim this is not as bad and not as important. This makes no sense, because from the perspective of a woman, getting raped is the same experience in both cases.

This also leads to a difference in the degree in which victims of rape are actually helped, based on whether the aggressor was a Swede or a Muslim. If a Swedish woman gets raped by a Swede, she can be quite sure that she will get justice, can rely on the kind of support that can be expected from the world’s most feminist country and that the political system will learn from her experience and will do everything it can to prevent similar events from happening in the future. On the other hand, if she gets raped by a Muslim, this is a totally different story and the political system will not do anything to prevent such events from happening in the future. If she then would login on social media to call for attention regarding the issue, the very same feminists, who would have shown her massive support if the aggressor would have been a Swede, will now call her out on her “bigotry”.

Taking this into consideration when looking at the numbers, we can conclude the following: 23% of the rape victims get supported and helped, but 77% of rape victims are better to hold their mouth shut (77% of rapes is done by the 2% of the population that is Muslim and male, in 2014). This also means that policies for rape-prevention are only aimed at 23% of the cases, because accurate policies directed towards the prevention of the other 77% of the cases would inevitably collide with Political Correctness.

It also raises the question of which of the two ideologies are stronger in Sweden: Political Correctness or Feminism. This basically has two options: option A and option B: option A is that Feminism is stronger than Political Correctness; option B is that Political Correctness is stronger than Feminism.

If option A would have been true, the scenario would have looked as follows: Sweden allows Muslims into their society because of the very same reasons the other European countries are doing that. Then, when it turns out that this is a disaster of which mostly women are the victim, the Swedes and their political system respond to this by closing their borders to migrants from Muslim countries. Feminism would be the main driver behind this political action.

If option A would have been true, Sweden would now follow a very different policy than it actually does. It would for example only allow very few refugees into their society under guidance of a strict but humane integration program or perhaps it would create very high-quality centres to receive refugees in, in which they have high-quality food, entertainment, events, etc., but are only allowed to stay there until the situation in their specific home country is safe and would then be flown back to their country by plane. The Swedish government would occasionally release statements such as: “taking into consideration certain side effects that immigration from Muslim countries cause in our society, we have come to the conclusion that we are unable to ensure the safety of our inhabitants if we would allow individuals from Muslim countries to enter our country. We are therefore no longer willing to receive those migrants”.

As we all know, option A is not the case in Sweden. Instead, option B has already happened. The ideology of Feminism is very important to the Swedes, but Political Correctness has priority. Feminism is important, as long as it doesn’t interfere with Political Correctness.

This also provides insight into the incredible strength of Political Correctness. It is hard to measure this in an objective manner, such as by assigning a numerical value to it. However, the following can be concluded based on this case study:

Even in the world’s most Feminist society, Political Correctness is still so much more important that Feminist values are thrown out of the window as soon as they collide with Political Correctness. Sweden is now massively importing AND protecting the most misogynistic ideology that human history has ever produced.

Sweden is importing the very concept that it is supposed to hate: patriarchy.

3.4. Debunking Politically Correct Myths

Politically Correct people already have several standard excuses to explain away why things are the way they are. In this subchapter, two of these Politically Correct myths about the problems caused by Muslims in the West will be discussed and debunked.

Politically Correct Myth 3: European Societies are not open towards Muslims

Upon being confronted with the problems caused by the Muslim population, the Politically Correct often try to blame their own societies. They will try to blame the “right wing”. “If only the people of England would be more open, it would be so much easier for the Muslims to integrate”, they claim.

This is a very popular myth and it is being used frequently within all of the aforementioned European countries. It is completely false for two very simple reasons.

Firstly, Muslims migrants are covered in gold in most European societies: they get a house, they get language courses, and they get assistance in nearly everything. Sweden, which we’ve just discussed, even provides free housing to Jihadists returning from their “holiday” in Syria. What more can a society do? It is important to note than European migrants, such as Poles and Italians are not covered in gold, but also do not cause the same problems that Muslims cause.

Secondly, as already mentioned, the problems are the same in every Western country with a Muslim population. This is basically a scientific experiment: you take one certain group of people, Muslims in this case, and you place them in eight different European societies (Germany, Austria, United Kingdom, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Sweden). Then, you wait and see what happens. If, after a while, there is a significant difference in the degrees in which the people of that group have integrated into the different European societies, you could draw conclusions based on that.

Imagine that in the UK, the integration of Muslims would have been a success, while in the other European countries it would have been a disaster. Imagine the support for attacks on Jews, the support for Sharia, the bad treatment of women and the level of sympathy for Islamic terrorists to be much lower in the UK than in other European countries. Imagine the support for Sharia to be only 5% and the support for prosecuting those who criticise Islam to be only 3%. In this case, it can be concluded that the United Kingdom has something that other European countries don’t have. Then, you can try to find what this something is. For example, it could be argued that language indeed plays a huge role. The other countries could then solve their problems by increasing the quality of their language courses.

But this simply is not the case. Muslims generally integrate very badly in the receiving countries and IF they seem to have integrated relatively well, they still hold the type of beliefs and sentiments that represent a problem in a Western society, such as wanting to prosecute cartoonists or thinking that the freedom of expression should not protect those who criticise their Prophet. Even many of third-generation Turkish Muslims in Germany, whose parents were born in Germany, still believe that offending Islam should be punishable, and this is the most well-integrated group of Muslims in Germany or perhaps even in all of Europe. This shows that the receiving country is simply not relevant. Therefore; the reason of why the integration consistently fails in all of these eight different European countries, must be sought within the ideology of Islam itself and not within any of the receiving societies.

This also rules out any country-specific cause to the problem. For example: in The Netherlands there is a “far-right” politician named Geert Wilders, who has been warning for the dangers of Islam since 2004. Wilders often uses strong provocative language. The statistics on Muslims in The Netherlands are equally concerning as the statistics in any other country. Many Politically Correct Dutch people then blame mister Wilders for this concerning situation. “If it wouldn’t have been for Wilders himself, things would look much better!”, they claim. The Politically Correct Dutch argue that Wilders is responsible for creating the situation himself by contributing to the “segregation” of the society. This is simply not true. Neighbours Germany and Belgium have exactly the same problem with their Muslims as The Netherlands has, even though no provocative anti-Islam politician like Wilders has been active in these countries. In Germany, no anti-Islam party even existed before April 2013. The influence that Wilders himself has on the “segregation” of society must be pretty close to zero.

Politically Correct Myth 4: It all has to do with socio-economic factors

Politically Correct people often claim that all problems that Muslims cause have to do with the fact that Muslims often live in poorer districts of cities than the majority of native Europeans. They believe it all has to do with socio-economic factors and the chances they have in the society. Even Muslim men who decide to engage in terrorism or join ISIS are believed to be motivated by socio-economic factors. This is a popular myth that is used by many European Politicians.

It is true that socio-economic factors do have an effect on human beings. For example: those who live in bad socio-economic conditions are more likely to engage in theft than those who live in good socio-economic conditions. Also, people who live in bad socio-economic conditions are more likely to join a criminal gang.

There is no link between terrorism and poverty. According to a study called: ‘Poverty, Political Freedom, And The Roots Of Terrorism’ in American Economic Review (2005, v95(4,Sep), 50-56), no such link exists. This conclusion is confirmed by the Global Terrorism Index created by Statista in 2015. The poorest countries in the world do not show exceptional levels of terrorism (Statista, 2015). India is a country in which the difference between the rich and the poor is so large that most Westerners can’t even imagine it. It is off the charts. The number of terror attacks or other types of violence against the rich Indians is almost non-existent, especially when taking into consideration the incredibly high number of inhabitants. Going further, a study conducted by the World Bank in 2016 shows that people who leave the West to fight for ISIS actually have an above average education level (World Bank, 2016).

Also, it can be seen that other migrants, such as Romanians, Poles or even non-Muslim Arabs, who usually also live in the poorest neighbourhoods, do NOT produce the same problems that the Muslims do. Where are all the Eastern European migrants who are suddenly “radicalising” because they don’t have an income? They don’t exist. Neither are the Poles who are living in the poorest neighbourhoods of the UK suddenly “radicalising”. So, there is no link between socio-economic conditions and terroristic behaviour. It is not logical to assume that there is.

Going further, no such link can be found between socio-economic conditions and the likelihood of conducting sexual violence against women. When comparing Muslim inhabitants of such neighbourhoods to native inhabitants and non-Muslim foreigners who live in the same neighbourhoods, only the Muslims show an overrepresentation in acts of violence against women. So, it can be concluded that there must be something else that motivates many Muslim men to behave in this way towards women.

Let’s finish this chapter with some final remarks. It can be argued that European leaders have been incredibly delusional regarding their expectations. What were they expecting? Take a country like Afghanistan, where 99% of Muslims want Sharia (Pew Research, 2013). People must realise that this actually indicates something very fundamental about the people that live in this particular country. However, the Politically Correct establishment somehow seems to be under the impression that if you allow massive numbers of people from this very same country to come to Europe, that you are somehow magically going to get something completely different than what these statistics indicate. They expect those people to suddenly support secularism, equality for women, respect homosexuals and behave like completely normal Europeans within a few years after having entered European territory.

Imagine a country of which the inhabitants are repeatedly shown by research to possess characteristic X, but not characteristic Y, of which characteristic X and characteristic Y are mutually exclusive. Then you are going to invite tens of thousands of people from this very same country over to your country and you somehow expect them to suddenly stop possessing characteristic X and start possessing characteristic Y, even though they are supporters of an ideology that strongly recommends characteristic X and strongly rejects characteristic Y. This kind of thinking by the Politically Correct establishment could easily be called psychotic thinking, yet it has become normal.

So, what is characteristic X in this case? Character X can be described as supporting Sharia, unequal rights for women, the killing of apostates and the prosecution of those who criticise Islam. And what is characteristic Y? This can be described as supporting democracy, equality before the law, freedom of expression, equality for women, respect for homosexuals and secularism.

The ideology that Muslims follow strongly recommends characteristic X and strongly rejects characteristic Y. In the next chapter, we are doing to dig deeper within this ideology itself.

4. Unpacking Islam

In order to create a clear image about Islam, it is important to dig deeper within the ideology itself. You probably have realised that Europe is in a very bad situation right now. Meanwhile, you might wonder why this one group of people consistently causes so many problems and is so badly integrated. How can people, after having been in Germany for 3 generations, prefer Sharia over German law? It just doesn’t seem to make much sense.

This is a question that can only be answered by unpacking the ideology of Islam, which is created by and based on the life of one single person. This chapter has a high potential to make certain things ‘click’ in your head. You will be amazed at how perfectly the personality of Muhammad matches with the collective psychology of many of today’s Muslims

There are several sources that the Islamic doctrine is based on. The most important book is the Quran. This is the collection of “revelations” that Muhammad claimed to have received from “Allah”. Then, there are the Hadiths. These are a collection of stories about the life and deeds of Muhammad. Then, there is the Sira which is his own recorded biography and the Sunnah, which is Muhammad’s way of life (“the way of Muhammad”) in which the way that Muhammad behaved is modelled and put as an example for Muslims. The Sharia is based on an accumulation of this literature. What you can immediately see it that everything is constructed around one single person. Muhammad is the prophet, the final prophet, the true messenger, the best person who ever lived, the greatest hero ever, etc. You probably get the general idea. Muhammad is even the most popular name for new-born boys in many countries among which also certain European countries. This is because many Muslims like to name their sons after their prophet.

When an ideology is the result of the psychology of one single person, there is often a consistency between the mind of that person and the ideology. There is a consistency between the psychology of Adolf Hitler and the contents of his book. The same is the case for the Pali Canon and the Buddha. Therefore, an ideology provides insight into the mind of its founder. Likewise, one can choose to study the life and the personality of the founder in order to better understand the ideology itself. To really understand Islam, the single most important thing is to understand Muhammad. Therefore, we will first dig into the life and personality of this important historical figure. After that, certain topics, such as women, non-believers and deception and lying will be discussed; the nine most famous examples of modern-day Islamic Deception will be discussed; and the chapter will be concluded by discussing how Islam affects the minds of its modern-day followers.

4.1. An Analysis of Muhammad

You are probably already familiar with the severe consequences of depicting Muhammad. As already mentioned, at the beginning of 2015 the staff of the French magazine Charly Hebdo got killed by Muslims because they had made a satirical cartoon of Muhammad. Something similar also took place in Denmark.

In the Quran it is written that anyone who depicts the prophet should be punished by death. It is noteworthy that anyone who depicts Jesus, Shiva, the Buddha or Yahweh, does not receive the same treatment by the Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or Orthodox Jews. This is the case because the books of these other religions do not sanction the depiction of their prophet.

So, who was this Muhammad figure? When asking Muslims this question, the answer is usually full of great words as well as an occasional touch of mysticism: “He was the most amazing man who ever lived!”, “He went to heaven on a flying horse!”, “He was God’s final messenger”. This mix of claims about the type of person that he was, combined with the type of claims that should be placed within the sphere of mythology rather than history, often makes it hard to create a clear impression of the man. However, we should not forget is that he is not a figure like the Minotaurus, from Greek mythology, the creature with the body of a horse and the head of a man. Religious stories are often filled with vague events. Christian texts speak about angels coming down from the heavens, an arc containing two pieces of every animal on earth, the earth’s surface burning, etc. Such stories are very unlikely to actually have happened and are therefore better placed within the sphere of mythology. The story of Muhammad is often treated the same way. This leads to the most standard questions about Muhammad lacking clear generally accepted answers. Questions such as: what kind of man was he? How does he compare to other influential historical figures? What were his strengths and weaknesses?

Please note that Muhammad was not a mythical figure. Muhammad actually existed and he did so in the precise geographical location and within the specific time period. This seems obvious, but it is important to emphasise. Muhammad was a real man, made of flesh and blood, just like Cornelius Columbus, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.

It is possible to conclude certain facts about certain historical figures. Often, facts about Muhammad are denied, argued about and lied about. This is especially done by Muslims themselves. Western post-modernists then put the story of Muhammad in a subjective context. They believe that such religious stories can somehow be placed within a certain vague context in which every truth is relative. Perhaps he indeed DID fly to heaven on a flying horse, who knows? We shouldn’t judge, right?

However, it is clear that other historical figures cannot be subjected to the same post-modern treatment. Somebody who argues that Cornelius Columbus did not discover the Americas but instead Antarctica, is not taken seriously. When treating this with an all truth is relative mind-set, we could say that there are multiple interpretations of reality and that all of them are equally satisfactory. It should be obvious that this makes no sense at all. We know for sure that Columbus discovered the Americas. We even know where he exactly arrived on shore and what happened next. We know this from records written by the man himself, and the undeniable geo-political developments that took place in the Americas.

Furthermore, it is possible to describe the personality of historical figures. What kind of people were they? Were they warriors? Were they intellectuals? In the case of Columbus, it is relatively easy to create an accurate impression about the type of person that he was, because he himself wrote records of his adventure. A historical figure of whom we can easily gain insight into her thoughts, feelings and personality is Anne Frank, the Jewish girl who had been hiding in Amsterdam for many years during the Second World War and kept a diary.

Then, there are other figures of whom it is relatively hard to create an accurate impression of his or her personality. A striking example of this is Genghis Kahn, the leader of the Mongols who conquered the largest landmass that anyone did in all of human history. The Mongols themselves did not create written records, so most of what we know about them is from records written by their enemies and victims. Based on this, we do know that he was a very big and intimidating figure, as well as an unrivalled genius on the area of military strategy and especially capable in psychological warfare. So, it is harder to make an impression about Genghis Kahn than it is about Anne Frank and Cornelius Columbus, but we can still draw some conclusions about what kind of man he must have been in order to accomplish what he did accomplish under the given circumstances. There is no post-modernism here. Given the things we do know for a fact, it is still possible to create a reliable impression on Genghis Kahn’s life and what kind of person he must have been.

Going back to Muhammad: can we create an accurate impression of what kind of person he was? Yes, we can. The Quran is a collection of his own words, which he claimed to have received from “Allah”, the Hadiths are a collection of reports about his life. The best compilations are the ones from Sahih Muslim, al-Tabari, Bukhari and Ibn Ishaq, who are greatly respected within the community of Muslim as well as non-Muslim historians when it comes to the details of Muhammad’s life.

Imagine you would check your daily news website tomorrow morning and would read about some “guru” somewhere in Portugal who claimed that God was speaking to him. What would you think? You would probably chuckle a bit and continue to read the more important news articles. This is not a strange response at all, because we live in a time in which people travel by airplane, in which tech billionaire Elon Musk is working on a transportation route to Mars and in which you can access more information by simply using the phone you have in your pocket, than that the people living 100 years ago had access to during their entire lives. In addition, you probably went to school. So, when someone would walk up to you claiming that God has been revealing information to him, you probably either think that he is a crook or that he should immediately visit the neurology department of the nearest hospital.

But even though this is the case, strange ‘gurus’ and prophets still exists. The South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba claims to have the ability to levitate, read people’s minds and raise the dead. He even has millions of followers and hundreds of people claiming to be “eye witnesses” of his supernatural abilities. In Siberia, there is a man claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus and who has 4.000 followers living in his settlement and around 10.000 followers worldwide. Then, there is the James Randi foundation, which offers 1 million dollars to the first person who can show supernatural abilities in a scientific setting. Until this very day, not a single guru, prophet or magician has been able to collect his 1 million dollars.

Also, cult leaders are nothing new. Just to name a few from the last 50 years: In 1978, cult leader Jim Jones convinced 900 of his followers to commit suicide; in 1997, cult leader Marshall Applewhite and 38 of his followers committed suicide in order to be teleported to a spaceship following the Hale-Bopp comet; and in the 1990s, cult leader David Koresh had sex with the underage daughters of his followers. What these figures often have in common is that they are exceptionally skilled in persuasion.

So, with this introduction of both historical figures and self-proclaimed gurus in mind, let’s tell the story of Muhammad.

Early years at Mecca

Let’s go to the Arabian Peninsula around the year 570 AD, where Muhammad was born. He had no father and his mother died when he was only 6 years old. He grew up as a poor, illiterate boy and was taken care of by a society of trading merchants. He did have an uncle, a merchant named Abu Talib, and he worked for him as a camel shepherd.

The horrible climate protected the Arabian Peninsula (today: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, UAE) from conquest and cultural influence. No civilisation at that time had the impression that there was something to be gained by expanding their territory towards the Arabian Peninsula, so the area was relatively isolated, with the exception of certain trade routes. The lives of the Arabs were largely devoted towards their daily survival. To understand Muhammad, it must be noted that he grew up in this environment. The Arabian Peninsula was an empty, barren region. During the day, it was very hot and during the night, it was very cold. The earth was dry, so there wasn’t much plant growth.

There were many pagan traditions in Arabia, particularly among those based in the trading centres such as Mecca, Muhammad's birthplace. Some of these trading centres and towns had religious buildings that were visited by pilgrims during the holy months. Muhammad was part of the Quraish tribe, a powerful merchant tribe that controlled Mecca. They worshipped a moon god with the name “Allah”, but other gods were recognised as well. The Quraish was a multi-theist tribe and the town of Mecca was well-known for its religious tolerance, where people of all faiths could come and pray.

It is interesting to note that a couple of thousands kilometres to the north, the new Byzantine Empire was being established. Byzantium had stone roads, man-made canals, aqueducts, and a rich culture of theatre and philosophical debates that were open to the public. For that time period, Byzantium was an amazing civilisation influenced by both Roman and Greek history.

There isn’t really much to say about Muhammad’s years as a teenager. He was basically helping the traders, who took care of him, and was naturally learning from them.

At the age of 25, Muhammad’s life improved when he married the wealthy widow Khadija, who was 15 years older than himself. She also had a trading business, so Muhammad started to work for her. This allowed him to further improve his skills of persuasion, but it also gave him an opportunity to travel. During these travels, he came in contact with other tribes, which allowed him to get some basic knowledge about the religions of Judaism and Christianity, knowledge that was not available to the local population. (He would later use this knowledge to his advantage by incorporating the stories that he had come across into his "revelations" from “Allah”).

It is important to emphasise that he grew up in an environment of traders. This most certainly caused him to pick up excellent skills on the area of persuasion. He worked for his uncle, who was a salesperson, and now he had gotten married to a woman who was also a trader and worked for her as a salesman. So, if we do know ANYTHING about what kind of person Muhammad was, we know for sure that he was a salesman and that he probably became quite good at it over time.

What do we know about salespeople? What skills do they have? Good salespeople are strong persuaders. They have the ability to convince people and to influence people’s decisions. Also, there are certain skills that we know pretty sure Muhammad did NOT acquire up to this point. He still couldn’t read and write. We can also safely assume that given the course of his life, he was probably not an intellectual, he was not a philosopher and he was not a scientist. In addition, he was not a great swordsman or a great archer. None of his actions so far create the impression that he really knew where he was going. He did not have some big dream about a better world, or a vision about inventing something. He was not the kind of person who would have some great idea about building a canal from the sea to provide water to the area, such as the early Persians had a thousand years earlier.

After many years of working as a salesman and traveling, Muhammad’s lifestyle became more comfortable. During these periods he had the chance think more about his own life. It is quite likely that he was experiencing the symptoms of an early midlife crisis, including a desire for personal accomplishment and meaning. One day, at the age of 40, he suddenly claimed to his wife that an angel named Gabriel had come to him in a dream. This was the first time that Muhammad made such a claim. After his wife believed him, he started to promote his new religion in the city of Mecca. Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet in the same lineage as Abraham and Jesus and started to try to convert people around him to his new religion. He narrated the Quran to his followers and told them that these “revelations” were the exact words of “Allah”, which is basically the name of the local moon god that he copied. He couldn’t write, so he had another person write down his “revelations” for him. Outside of his wife, his first convert was his young cousin Ali, who would later become his son-in-law.

At the time, Mecca was a very tolerant society. So, when Muhammad started to promote his new religion, the Meccans did not interfere. Today, Muslims often claim that the Meccans persecuted Muhammad for preaching Islam. This is incorrect. The Meccans knew Muhammad was trying to grow his religion in their city, but they didn’t interfere. As mentioned earlier, multiple gods were worshipped and traders from many different tribes of the Arabian Peninsula came to Mecca to buy and sell goods. These traders often had different beliefs or prayed to different gods than the Meccans and this was not a problem. Also, people trying to gain followers for all kinds of superstitious nonsense were nothing new. There were more instances of Arabs in that time period claiming to be “in contact” with all kinds of genies and spirits. (The Disney movie Aladdin takes place in an Arabian environment and includes a character that is a blue genie living in a bottle. These types of beliefs were not strange in Arabia in that time period). But even when Muhammad later started to criticise and mock the local religion and the ancestors of the local people, the leaders of Mecca did not engage in violence and simply started to mock him back.

This can be put in our current Western context as follows. Muhammad used his freedom of expression to mock the local tradition. The locals responded by using their freedom of expression to mock him back. From the standpoint of the Meccan leaders, they were basically maintaining their policy on the areas of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

This continued for 13 years. Yes, this was a period of 13 long years! Muhammad tried to grow his religion while occasionally mocking the Meccans and the Meccans allowed him to do so and occasionally mocked him back. At the end of those 13 years, he was able to convert only around one hundred followers.

When looking at the contents of Islam itself, is basically consists of pagan practices from that time period and some elements of Christianity and Judaism that picked up during his travels. He often didn’t really understand them. He never read any book, because he couldn’t read.

Consistent with this is the fact that the “revelations” he received from “Allah”, were nothing either new or accurate. It was not like he carefully combined accurate verses from Christianity and Judaism to come up with some new improved verse. Also, note that the first “revelation” he “received” wasn’t even from “Allah” but instead from an angel named Gabriel, an angel from Christianity.

The relationship with the Meccans remained good until an event in which Muhammad was convinced by the Meccans to recognise the local gods in addition to his “Allah”. Muhammad agreed and this was a positive change. The Meccans had observed Muhammad for 13 years now and they probably knew that a cult unwilling to recognise other gods, wouldn’t be a good idea in a multi-theistic society. Therefore, they had a conversation with Muhammad and convinced him to recognise other gods as well. When Muhammad told this to his own people, they were apparently quite confused with this sudden change in his attitude, because this wasn’t what “Allah” had been revealing all the time. Muhammad then rescued the situation by claiming that he had been ‘tricked’. He claimed that “Satan” had been speaking to him lately, in order to confuse him. He then renounced the acceptance of the local gods. The Meccans did not like this at all and intensified their criticism and mockery of Muhammad and his religion. This period is described by many Muslims as “a period of persecution”. Again, this is not correct. Only one Muslim died during this period, who was an older woman who died of old age.

It is very important for modern-day Muslims to keep insisting that the Meccans were the first to become violent against the Muslims instead of the other way around, so that they can justify the killings of Meccans that takes place much later in the story as “payback”. Therefore, modern day Muslims still speak about “persecution” and even “torture” of the Muslims, by the Meccans. Some of them even tell stories about “many deaths”. This simply is not true.

At the deathbed of Muhammad’s protector uncle Abu Talib, the leader of the Quraysh of Mecca tried to make a final peace with Muhammad. Muhammad then rejected this offer. After Abu Talib had died, Muhammad went to look for a political alliance and tried to create a treaty of war between the people of Mecca and the people of Medina, another town to the far north. The Meccans found out about this and decided that they had enough of Muhammad. They then tried to capture him in order to execute him.

It is important to note that the Meccans did not attempt to kill any Muslim other than Muhammad himself. Muhammad managed to escape by using his son-in-law Ali, to distract the assassins. The assassins did not harm Ali.

Muhammad and his followers then left Mecca and travelled towards Medina, which was called Yathrib at that time. This took place in the year 622 A.D., the year that is used as the beginning of the Muslim calendar.

The city of Medina and the three Jewish tribes

From this point on, Muhammad’s attitude became more violent. In the Quran itself you can clearly see this evolution. The early verses are more peaceful, but then this suddenly changes. The later verses are the reason of why the Quran is the most dangerous book on the planet. These earlier verses of the book are often referred to as “Mecca Islam” and the later verses as “Medina Islam”. Muslims who try to market their religion as non-violent often refer to specific verses in the Mecca period of Muhammad’s life, while trying to reframe and rationalise the entire part of the book that came after it. Do not forget that the Quran is a collection of everything that Muhammad claimed to be “revelations” from his “Allah” and Muhammad changed his mind based on the geo-political situation he was in, as well as his own momentary desires. Remember that Muhammad was not an intellectual or a great thinker, but he was an exceptionally skilled persuader and deceiver.

Muhammad's "Allah" seemed to be especially concerned about the personal desires of Muhammad himself. He made sure that his Muslims obeyed him perfectly. "Believe in the Messenger or suffer the consequences", is repeated more than 20 times in the Quran. The Mecca-period of the Quran tells unbelievers to “follow the example” of Muhammad or suffer Hell. The Medina-period of the Quran tells unbelievers to “obey” Muhammad or suffer death.

From this point on, the relatively peaceful religion, which was mostly based on Muhammad’s interpretation of elements from Judaism and Christianity, slowly changed into the totalitarian doctrine that it is today.

In order to obtain resources, the Muslims raided the Meccan caravans during the holy months. Muhammad sold these tactics to his own people in the form of “revelations” from “Allah”. Of course, his people liked it a lot when they could enrich themselves with stolen goods and capture women and children.

When people were captured in battle, Muhammad often had them killed in horrible ways, even though they begged him for their lives. This was very different from the treatment that Muhammad had received from the Meccans during the first 13 years of his project. He didn’t exactly pass on the same kindness and acceptance he had earlier received from the Meccans. As a response to these raids, the Meccans sent their army. This led to the first big battle that the Muslims participated in: The Battle of Badr.

Islam apologists often claim that Muslims only are allowed to use violence for self-defence. This is simply not correct, Muhammad actively and repeatedly convinced his people that their religion was more important than the lives of others and that murder was justified.

After his victory against the Meccan army, Muhammad wanted to conquer the local Jewish tribes of Medina. Muhammad and his Muslims arrived at Medina in peace. Medina had three Jewish tribes: the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Quyrayza. They accepted Muhammad’s presence but rejected his claim to be the next prophet. The Jews had a lot of knowledge about the contents of the Torah and the Bible, while all that Muhammad knew from the Torah and the Bible were some stories he picked up during his sales trips. The Jewish tribes were able to point out the contradictions and inconsistencies between the books and the claims made by Muhammad and quickly identified him as a false prophet.

Muhammad dealt with this in the following manner. He first bought time by preaching that Christians and Jews could reach salvation by practicing their own faith. He even instructed his Muslims to change the direction of their prayers from Mecca to Jerusalem. This gave him a window of opportunity to come up with a plan to defeat them. However, the Jews still didn’t believe him to be a prophet. Muhammad responded to this with a “message” from “Allah” which said that the Jews were lying in order to hide evidence of the prophethood of Muhammad. While the Jews were not convinced by this demonstration of verbal persuasion, some Arab polytheists were convinced and converted themselves to Islam. To this very day, Muslims have never been able to find the “true” Torah or Gospel that was claimed to exist by Muhammad (or “Allah”).

This event is a very interesting one and it says a lot about what kind of person Muhammad must have been, in order to accomplish this. He was basically getting criticised by the Jews, who saw right through his facade. It was impossible for Muhammad to convince the Jews of his prophethood. However, by the way he responded towards them, he was somehow able to convince other people. Fun points of comparison are the debates between certain Western intellectuals and charlatan Deepak Chopra. These intellectuals completely see through Chopra’s nonsense, while Chopra then responds to this with the type of persuasion that convinces and draws the applause from the audience. Having such extremely high skills on the area of deception and verbal theatre is something that Muhammad must have had in order to accomplish this. Muhammad must have been better at convincing people who simply don’t have that much knowledge than that people who did have a lot of knowledge were able to convince those people. Muhammad and Chopra are very good at convincing the ignorant, so to speak.

Muhammad was able to gain more followers at a rapid pace and as soon as he had the opportunity to overthrow the local Jewish population, he “revealed” that Islam would be established by force.

They first offered the Jews of Medina the opportunity to convert to Islam (“convert or die”). Forced conversion is a typical Muslim policy that was started by Muhammad. The Jews of Medina didn’t want to convert to Islam, so Muhammad looked for a reason to start a war against them. He accused one of the Jews from the Banu Qaynuqa tribe to have harassed a Muslim woman and used this as an excuse to attack them. Muhammad actually wanted to execute every man of the tribe, but was convinced to not do so by a close advisor. The Qaynuqa Jews went into exile and the Muslims were allowed by Muhammad to take their material possessions for themselves. One fifth of all material possessions was for Muhammad himself, based on a rule that was “revealed” by “Allah”.
This event helped to establish within Islam the very immature principle of group identity, in which an entire external group is punished for the act of one of its members. One of the Banu Qaynuqa Jews was claimed by Muhammad to have harassed a Muslim woman, so therefore the entire Banu Qaynuqa group had to be punished.

The second Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadir, were accused by Muhammad of plotting to kill him. Muhammad “found out” of this plot through a “revelation” by “Allah”. The Banu Nadir were forced to leave their homes and the Muslims claimed their resources, material possessions and houses. Muhammad then “received” a “revelation” telling him that, this time, all possessions were for him only.

Another important event took place when Muhammad found out that a portion of the Banu Nadir population was still in the city. They had managed to stay hidden inside a fortress. Muhammad then did the following: he convinced them to leave the fortress by promising them peace talks; when the Jews felt safe enough to leave the fortress, Muhammad sent a group of Muslims to escort them to him; when the Jews lowered their guard, Muhammad had the escort group stab them in the back. This is another event that highlights the deceptive nature of Muhammad’s personality and therefore emphasises the role of deception and lying within Islam itself.

This was the moment that Muhammad became truly powerful and wealthy. There was only one Jewish tribe left: the Banu Qurayza. Around the same period, the Meccans sent another army to attack the Muslims and The Battle of the Trench took place. The leader of the Banu Qurayza sided with the Meccan army, but the Muslims won the battle.

After that, the remaining Qurayza Jews surrendered to the Muslims. Muhammad decided to kill all men and every boy who had reached the first stage of puberty. He ordered his men to dig a ditch outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in small groups. One by one, every person was forced on his knees to have his head cut off. The head and body were then thrown in the ditch.

This is basically similar to what you can find on the internet when you use Google to find ISIS video material. ISIS basically follows the example of Muhammad in the most precise manner possible. Also, the policy of killing boys who have reached the first stage of puberty is something that ISIS also does. They do this because a boy that hasn’t reached puberty can still easily be indoctrinated, while this is believed to be more difficult when a boy has already reached puberty.

The surviving children became slaves and the women and girls became sex slaves. A young Jewish girl named Rayhana became one of Muhammad’s personal sex slaves. He already raped her on the very same night that the people of her tribe were executed.

Captured women were generally treated as lifeless objects by the Muslims. They were used as sex slaves and the Muslims could do with them whatever they wanted. But Muhammad also had another way to use captured women, which was by using them for their reproductive capabilities. One of the most important methods by which Islam expanded during the centuries was through the reproductive capabilities of captured women. This is also the reason of why a Muslim man is entitled to four wives and an unlimited amount of sex slaves. The most efficient way to grow Islam is by creating many Muslim babies. Muhammad claimed a fifth of the captured women for himself. He had eleven wives and a huge amount of personal sex slaves. Muhammad also provided instructions on how women should be raped after being captured. He explicitly told his men to not implement coitus interruptus.

(Later in his life, when he found that his Muslims were reluctant to rape captured women in front of their husbands after the battle against the Hunain, Muhammad quickly invented a “revelation” from “Allah” that permitted these horrible acts.)

The creation of Islamic Imperialism

From this moment onward, the Muslims became incredibly powerful. Helpless tribes and communities in the area were murdered, raped and looted. Some tribes even converted to Islam out of self-preservation.

At earlier stages, Muhammad always needed an excuse to start a war. Now, this was not necessary anymore. Excuses to go to war and rhetoric of retaliation for earlier grievances (which never actually existed) in combination with clever “revelations” by “Allah”, were quickly replaced with bold supremacist teachings. Muhammad told his followers repeatedly that the Muslims had to rule over other people. This all led to the Jihad which quickly became the core principle of Islam. The Jihad is about the expansion of Islam by birth, convert or kill, or persuade.

An example of Muhammad’s unwillingness to peacefully co-exist with other tribes is the surprise attack on the people of Khaybar, a peaceful farming community. He enslaved the women and children and had the men work on the land. He then forced them to repeatedly pay a part of their food production in order to not be attacked again. Also, Muhammad tortured the town’s treasurer by building a fire on his chest to make him reveal the secret location of the treasure. After that, Muhammad cut off the man’s head and took his wife as his own after having her raped by one of his best soldiers and killing her father.

Muhammad’s earthly desires

As Muhammad got older, his life changed more and more into a life of abundance. This abundance especially took place in his sex life. Whereas earlier “revelations” were cleverly crafted in order to persuade the listeners, his later “revelations” had more to do with his personal earthly desires.

A fun example of such a “revelation” is Sura 66, which was revealed to two of his wives who tried to convince him not to visit his favourite sex slave. The verse goes as follows: “O Prophet! why do you forbid yourself that which Allah has made lawful for you, just to please your wives?” (Quran 66:1).

Apparently, the “Creator of the Universe” had an especially deep interest in the sexual pleasures of his messenger. These “revelations” are included in the Quran, even though they cannot have any relevance for future generations of Muslims, except for contributing to the concept of Muslim male pride and a bad view on women in general (which will be discussed later).

It is also important to note that during this phase of his life, there are some things that Muhammad was NOT doing. For example: Muhammad was NOT doing any of the following:

- trying to improve the situation on the Peninsula

- pressuring his people to obtain knowledge that would allow them to improve the life on the Peninsula
- trying to learn from the modern Byzantine Empire which was located to the far north, in order to get innovative ideas that could help improve the lives of his people.

Another noteworthy statement is the following quote by Muhammad’s favourite wife Aisha “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires”, in which she expresses her surprise that “Allah” always seems to provide “revelations” to Muhammad at the exact moment that Muhammad needed them (Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311).

As already mentioned, Muhammad married a total of eleven women and had an enormous amount of sex slaves. When he wanted a woman that was already married to another Muslim man, he simply produced a “revelation” that would allow him to obtain her. He did this when he wanted his own daughter in law and a little 6 year old girl.

Another example of this is a scene in which the following three events happen in chronological order:

1. “Allah” reveals that “All who fail to participate in Jihad are viewed as inferior to those who do participate”.
2. A man who is blind then asks if this also applies to him.
3. “Allah” then corrects himself with a new revelation which states that the blind and disabled do not have to participate in the Jihad.

Apparently, the Almighty Creator forgot about the blind and disabled in his first revelation, but then quickly corrected himself.

Muhammad is the great example of many of today’s Muslim men. The most frequently given name to babies is “Muhammad” (and its variants such as “Mohammed”, “Muhammed”, etc.). Therefore it is important to understand what kind of man he exactly was. What was he concerned about? What were his ambitions? When someone has a lot of power and resources, he basically has the ability to fulfil his deepest dreams. What would today’s Elon Musk do if he would suddenly have total power? He would probably turn the world into an innovative self-sustaining empire powered by solar panels, with a strong emphasis on science, innovation, human rights and progression. This is very different than Muhammad’s focus on his own sex life, which doesn’t even include any concern for the opinions or preferences of the involved women. Note that he did NOT ever ask one of his sex slaves if she would perhaps prefer to no longer be raped or if she perhaps would prefer to have a better and more meaningful life instead. It is not that Muhammad didn’t have the opportunity to improve the quality of life for women. He would only have to invent a few new “revelations”, that would allow women to have a better quality of life under Islam, but Muhammad simply did not do this.

Muhammad’s focus on sex can also be seen in his interpretation of what a Paradise after death would look like. Guess what a “good” Muslim will be rewarded with once he arrives in Paradise? Sex. This might seem like a small detail, but it actually gives us insight into the way Muhammad’s mind worked, which then gives us insight into the way the male Muslim psyche works.

Another topic is Muhammad’s inability to deal with criticism. Anyone who criticised him was executed. One of those critics was a mother of five children, who was then stabbed to death. Muhammad was also unable to accept people of a different religion. These people were usually killed. In addition, he was also unable to accept people wanting to leave his cult. Apostasy was punished with death. How is it possible that someone who grew up in a tolerant society turns out to be so intolerant? The Meccans acted tolerant towards him for 13 long years. Yet, he was unable to pass on the favour. An old woman named Umm Qirfa fought back when her tribe was attacked by the Muslims. She was executed by having her legs tied to two different camels which were then instructed to walk in different directions, tearing the woman in half. Then, her two sons were killed and her daughter was turned into a sex slave.

The fall of Mecca

What happened next is unbelievable and again provides insight into the importance of lying and deception within the Islamic mind-set. In the year 628, the Muslims went back to Mecca. The Meccans then allowed them to enter the city under the condition that Muhammad removed his title as “Prophet of Allah”. Similar to what he did in Medina, Muhammad agreed in order to create a window of opportunity in which he could come up with a plan to defeat the inhabitants of Mecca. Muhammad and the Meccan leaders then signed the Treaty of Hudaibiy, a 10 years peace treaty. Meanwhile, Muhammad led another attack against the people of Khaybar, resulting in the usual murdering, looting and raping.

Then, the following happened: two rivalling tribes named the Banu Bakr and Khuza allied themselves with one of the two sides of the treaty. The Banu Kabr became friends with the Muslims and the Khuza became friends with the Meccans. Before having formed these alliances, a member of the Khuza killed a member of the Banu Bakr and the Banu Kabr took revenge by killing three members of the Khuza tribe. After the alliance with the two opposing sides of the treaty, the Khuza started to look for a way to take revenge for the latest murders done by the Banu Bakr. When they finally succeeded in doing this, Muhammad took this murder as a reason to attack and take over the city of Mecca. Note that this would usually not be a reason to go to war. Such problems could also be solved in a diplomatic manner. However, Muhammad had been holding a grudge against the Meccans since over a decade.

After Mecca had surrendered to the Muslims, Muhammad executed the Meccans who years ago had shown him 13 years of tolerance. "The Prophet said: 'War is deceit'." (Bukhari 52:269).

It is hard to emphasise this enough. This mentality is ingrained within the Muslim mind-set. When Europe shows an incredible amount of tolerance towards its Muslim community and even financially supports the majority of them for decades, do not for a moment think that this Muslim community would treat the Europeans in the same manner, would the situation be reversed.

During the murders in Mecca, a noteworthy individual who was sentenced to death was Muhammad’s former writer, who helped him to put his “revelations” on paper. The reason Muhammad wanted to put him to death was that his writer previously had recommended changes to the wordings of “Allah”, mostly because the grammar of the verbal revelations needed to be changed in order for them to be written down on paper. At that time, Muhammad agreed to these changes, but the new and ‘improved’ Muhammad believed that his former writer had committed apostasy by correcting him. The writer managed to escape death by converting to Islam at the last moment. Many others got executed, among whom a young slave girl who had written songs about Muhammad in which she mocked him.

Note what an incredible whiner this man must have been to want to kill his former assistant because he dared to correct him years before and to want to put to death a little girl for writing songs about him. What kind of person is this?

At the end of this battle, a new policy was implemented: a policy that would later become an important concept. The Meccans who would not convert to Islam were offered to live in the society as a so-called “Dhimmi”. Dhimmis are allowed to live in the society as a third-class citizen.

Much later, when Muhammad and his Muslims came back with swords in their hands many of them immediately converted to Islam. Those who did not convert to Islam were banished, which again demonstrates the inconsistent ethics of Islam. A few years before, Muhammad was banned from Mecca, an act which he (and many Muslims today) described as a “persecution”. After he attained power and the roles were reversed, he chased everyone who would not convert to Islam away from Mecca and wouldn’t even allow them to come back to Mecca for their pilgrimage.

Comparing the Mecca before 628 with today’s Mecca; on the one hand, you have a very tolerant city that allows a questionable preacher to do as he pleases for 13 years even when he verbally assaults the local traditions; on the other hand, looking at the Mecca of today, we see a city that doesn’t even allow people from other religions to enter. Islam is much less tolerant than the pre-628 tribes that it defeated. A person preaching another religion on the streets of today’s Mecca would immediately be executed.

Jihad, Dhimmitude and Jizya

As Muhammad became so powerful that there was no threat to his own life anymore, his verses became more and more violent. The 9th Sura of the Quran goes as follows: "fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (9:29)
The verse after that says the following about Christians and Jews: "May Allah destroy them".

Often, Muhammad conquered people and instead of killing them, he demanded protection money from them, which is now known as the Jizya, the tax that non-Muslims have to pay to Muslims.

Most of the last standing non-Muslim Arab tribes knew that Muhammad would come for them at some point and voluntarily converted to Islam out of self-preservation. This created a problem for the Muslims, because they had become used to sustaining themselves by stealing from enemies after they conquered them. So, when there were no more enemies left on the Peninsula, this became a problem. Of course, Muhammad did not motivate his Muslims to build a modern empire, with a watering system, an increased food production and other innovations (similar to what the Byzantine Empire had) that would improve life on the Peninsula.

During that time, the wealth and advance of well-established empires such as Persia and Byzantium was envied by the Muslims. These two empires had not responded to the events on the Arabian Peninsula. There is no reason to believe that either of them felt threatened by the violent religious cult that had developed itself and was probably going to launch an attack on them at some point. The difference between the two empires and the Muslims is important to note.

Byzantium was an empire that was very modern for its time, using the latest scientific knowledge from the Greeks and the Romans. They were not progressing anymore due to a strong emphasis on Christianity, but their walls, ships, military and water irrigation systems were modern enough to be in a completely different league than the Muslims were in terms of technological advance (the Byzantime Empire didn’t fall until 1453 against the Turks who emerged from the Asian steppe).

Persia had a similar level of technological advance as Byzantium and a culture that supported art, innovation, great thinkers and science.

Muhammad’s legacy

At the age of 63, Muhammad died of a fever. It was the year 632. His methods of forcing others to convert led to negative consequences for the Muslims after he died. Many tribes wanted to leave Islam and had to be contained within the empire by using fear and violence.

Muhammad’s lack of long-term vision led to the fact that he didn’t leave a clear successor. This quickly led to a division within the core of the Muslim leadership as his own family members started to fight each other. Muhammad’s favourite wife Aisha and his adopted son Ali, waged war against each other, leading to the death of thousands of Muslims. This division in Islam persists to this very day and is well-known as the Sunni and Shia split. For non-Muslims, the situation didn’t improve either. Muslims continued to wage war against them and this will probably never end as long as the ideology itself exists.

For the next fourteen centuries, the dysfunctional legacy of Muhammad continued to be a constant problem for those living near the borders of Muslim territory. Islam conquered the Middle East and North Africa, expanded to Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, the Indian subcontinent and even to parts of Europe. Today, Muslims are migrating further into Europe. The same is the case in the USA, Canada and Australia.

Muhammad said the following: "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them..." (Bukhari 8:387). And this is what is still happening right now.

To conclude this subchapter, it is important to note that the shallow personality of Muhammad is very important to understand when scrutinising Islam. Muhammad is the creator of the doctrine and his personal flaws are now deeply ingrained within the thought patterns of Muslims themselves. Let’s ask ourselves a few questions. Did Muhammad have a code of honour? No, he was manipulative and dishonest. Did Muhammad respect women? No, he didn’t. Was Muhammad able to deal with criticism? Not at all. Was Muhammad tolerant? No.

The psyche of Muhammad provides a unique insight into the psyche of Islam itself. The Quran is basically a collection of statements that a very bad man made to manipulate the people around him. Muslims who read the Quran and then pray towards the birthplace of the man into whose mind the Quran provides insight are basically indoctrinating themselves with the character flaws of that same man; a man who wouldn’t even respect them in the case they would have been born in a family of atheists. And this is even more so for women. Muslim women who pray towards the birthplace of Muhammad while reading a collection of claims made by the same man, should know that they are basically indoctrinating themselves with a series of claims made by a man who hates them. Many of them are wearing a headscarf today, because this man thought that women are dirty.

Another dysfunction of Islam that still hasn’t been resolved until this very day (and probably never will) is the circular reasoning of why Muhammad is so important in the first place. Please consider the two following statements.

A. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah because the Quran says so.
B. The Quran is the word of Allah because the messenger says so.

A is true because B is true and B is true because A is true. This obvious defect in thinking persists to this day among believers.

Three core themes of Islam

Looking at the story of Muhammad and the doctrine of Islam, we can conclude that Islam is mainly focused on three different core themes.

1. The first and most important one is Jihad, which is the expansion and supremacy of Islam by persuade, convert or kill and by sheer birth statistics. Jihad is the single core principle of Islam. It is more important than any code of honour, such as direct honest discussion and living up to promises (such as promising to not harm an enemy who surrendered). Muslims will follow the example of Muhammad by implementing Deception (which will be discussed later) whenever needed, such as by lying about their own doctrine. They will do this as long as they do not see a chance to defeat the non-Muslims. When this opportunity presents itself (probably when in the majority), they will have the non-believers choose between convert, die or pay (and live as a Dhimmi). In Europe we are now heading towards the point in which the minority changes into the majority. Muslims who live as ‘good Muslims’, meaning that they act consistent with the core principle of Jihad, are rewarded with Paradise. It is also possible to die as a martyr for the Jihad and go to Paradise in that manner. Paradise rewards Muslim men with lots of sex.

2. The second main theme of Islam is Sharia, the Islamic law system. The 50% of the population that is female, is oppressed within this law system. Muhammad hated women, so now; Islam itself hates women. This hatred towards women is shared by many Muslim men and sugar-coated by Muslim women. Islam is a totalitarian political ideology. Therefore, Sharia is not only relevant for Muslims themselves, but also for non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are worth less under the Sharia and have fewer rights. Because of the fact that Muslims should rule over non-Muslims, Islam is also a supremacist ideology.

3. The third main theme is the importance of Muhammad himself: five times a day, every Muslim must bow towards Muhammad’s birthplace. As a cult leader, Muhammad constantly demanded to be worshipped by his followers. He could not deal with criticism, even when coming from a little girl who wrote a song about him. Criticising or even depicting Muhammad leads to a similar hysteria among Muslims as it led to hysteria in Muhammad himself when he was still alive. The general inability of Islam to receive criticism and mockery is the result of Muhammad not being able to deal with criticism himself, such as by the Meccans during his earlier years. The unwillingness of Muslims to have their doctrine scrutinised is also a reflection of Muhammad’s feelings of anxiety when the three Jewish tribes of Medina were able to see through his nonsense. The vast knowledge of the Jewish tribes was intimidating to Muhammad, who himself could not read. Muhammad and therefore Islam and Muslims don’t like scrutiny, because it makes them feel uncomfortable (especially given the circular reasoning that is used to justify Muhammad’s own role). Even young women, who are walking around with a headscarf because Muhammad thought that women are dirty and inferior, will claim to feel personally offended whenever somebody criticises Muhammad.

4.2. Sharia

Islam is not only a religion. It is also a totalitarian political ideology. A political ideology can be translated into a specific law system. This law system is called Sharia. It is the legal system that is believed to be cited by “Allah”, based on the “revelations” made by Muhammad. The creator of the universe communicated these laws to Muhammad.

Therefore it is believed to be the best legal system there is and thus way more valuable than any other legal system. The contents of the Sharia are derived from the Sunnah, which contains Muhammad’s legacy which is, in turn, based on the Quran and the Hadith. Any society that limits Sharia, is an enemy of “Allah” and therefore an enemy of Muslims. Such a society must be defeated. The UK and Germany are current examples of such societies. It is not a coincidence that many Muslims actually put effort into setting up Sharia courtrooms and then prefer these courtrooms over British or French law. It is also not a coincidence that the “moderate” Muslims do NOT put an equal effort into preventing their fellow Muslims from doing this. (As you will see later, the moderate Muslims often silently support the radical ones).

It is important to note that Islamic law is not compatible with democracy. Firstly, because according to Sharia, people should not be able to choose their own government. Sharia is the law of “Allah” and democracy is a man-made system. The law of “Allah” is superior to a man-made system. Secondly, because in a democracy people are treated as equals. In Islam, people are not equal. According to Islam, a political system run by real Muslims cannot be anything else than Sharia. Doing anything else is apostasy. Muslims follow Islam, and Sharia is the way in which Islam should be implemented.
Quran (33:36): "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision."

Quran (18:26): "Allah... makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule"

Quran (5:44): "Whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed is among the disbelievers."
Quran (4:141): "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers.". This verse basically excludes democracy from being a legitimate system, because in democracy also a non-Muslim can have political power.

Quran (63:8): "...might (power) belongs to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;"
Quran (5:49): "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee". Allah’s will is more important than what the people themselves prefer. Democracy represents the people. A democratic nation is one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It is clear which side he must choose. You can see this in the percentage of Muslims who prefer Sharia over democracy, even when living in the West (for 2-3 generations).

Quran (12:40): "...Allah hath sent down no authority: the command is for none but Allah..." So nobody has the power to make rules, except “Allah”.

Quran (9:3): "...Allah and his messenger are free from obligation to the unbelievers...". Here you see the double standard for Muslims and unbelievers. Muslims are free from any obligation to the non-believers. This is a supremacist teaching. Muslims are better than other people. In a Western society, this is not the case, because everyone has equal rights and the right to vote.

Sahih Muslim (19:4294): "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them". Here you see how Muslims have the right to oppress non-Muslims and even provides a description on how to do this.

In Sahih Bukhari (89:251), Muhammad says: "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me." The ruler is thus appointed by Allah, not by democratic election. Democratic rule has no legitimacy against the will of the ruler (Caliph) who has the authority of Allah. This is pure theocracy. This is also why a country like Turkey, after having been a secular democracy for quite some time suddenly turns back in the direction of an Islamic dictatorship. This is not a surprise, because support for this turn of events actually comes from a large part of the population. A large part of the population actually wants this, voluntarily. This is because they are Muslims. Something similar happened to Iran.

At-Tirmidhi 169): “There is no obedience to anyone who is in disobedience to Allah”

4.2.1 Stoning

The same ideology that allows men to have multiple women and additional sex slaves, also prescribes its followers to execute people who engage in adultery. At multiple occasions, Muhammad ordered his followers to execute people who had committed the crime of illegal sexual acts.

In Sahih Bukhari (6:60:79), two people who are guilty of "illegal" intercourse are brought to Muhammad, who orders them both stoned to death. The man died first because he tried to shield the woman from the stones. Then, the woman died too.

In Sahih Bukhari (83:37), Muhammad says that adultery is one of three justifications for killing a person.

Sahih Muslim (17:4192): "in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year”.

Sahih Muslim (17:4196) describes a married man confessed to have engaged in adultery. Muhammad has his followers plant him in the ground and pelted with stones. The first couple of stones caused such pain that he tried to escape, but he was dragged back by Muhammad’s followers.
Sahih Muslim (17:4206) describes a pregnant woman who confesses to have engaged in adultery. Muhammad allows her to give birth to the child and then has his followers stone her to death.
Sahih Muslim (17:4209) describes another woman who confesses to have engaged in adultery and is stoned to death.

Ibn Ishaq (970) describes a scene in which Muhammad gives a farewell speech before he goes on his final pilgrimage to Mecca. In this speech he repeats that "the adulterers must be stoned”.

4.2.2 Homosexuality

So, what did Muhammad say about homosexuals? Not surprisingly, he made it punishable by death. Homosexuality is stated to be an even worse sin than adultery and sex before marriage.

Somewhat contradictory, the quotations of Islamic paradise do include references towards homosexuality or at least to the presence of homosexual boys. Muslims who died for the Jihad and thus end up in Paradise can enjoy female virgins as well as "perpetual youth" (Quran, 56:17). “Perpetual youth” is then interpreted by some Muslim scholars as "boys". In addition, Quran (76:19) clearly states "And immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls." It is not clear if the presence of such boys also implies (the ability to have) sex with those boys.

Sahih Bukhari (72:774): "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses .' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."

In al-Tirmidhi, Sunan (1:152), Muhammad said: "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot, kill the doer and the receiver."

So, even though there are references towards homosexual boys in Paradise, there is no misunderstanding about what should happen with homosexuals who are still alive on Earth.

4.2.3 Islam on Women

An important aspect of Islam is the treatment of women. It can be safely argued that the way in which Islam treats 50% of its own population is the most disastrous aspect of the ideology.

Covering up women

Not all scholars agree on whether or not a woman should cover up her face, but they do agree on the idea that women should cover up their hair. The reason of this is to make her unattractive to men.

Quran (33:59): "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..."

Quran (24:31): "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known."

Quran (33:55): "It shall be no crime in them as to their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their woman, or the slaves which their right hands possess, if they speak to them unveiled". A woman may present herself without a veil only to family and slaves.

Sahih Bukhari (6:321) describes a scene in which Muhammad is asked about whether it is right for a young woman to leave her house without a veil. He replies, "She should cover herself with the veil of her companion."

Sahih Bukhari (60:282) describes a scene which takes place after Muhammad issues the command (Quran 24:31) for women to cover themselves up. The women responded by tearing up sheets to cover their faces.

Abu Dawud (32:4092): (Muhammad spoke) "O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands". This was narrated by Aisha.

In Abu Dawud (2:641), the Prophet said: “Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil”.

In Sahih Bukhari (52:250), Muhammad said: "It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should travel except with a Muhram”. A “Muhram” is her husband or a person she cannot marry, such as a brother, father or slave.

The value of a woman

Another important part is that a woman is worth less than a man. The only possible question is: “to what degree is his the case?”. Two women are equal to one man, so the numerical relation is 0.5 to 1. In addition, a man owns the bodies of his wives like he owns his land. Also, the fact that a man is able to marry up to four wives implies inequality by numbers. A woman is not entitled to multiple men, but a man is entitled to multiple women.

Women are not allowed to choose their own romantic partners. A male guardian is the person who decides with whom the woman should marry. Also, a woman is not free to select her own male guardian. This means that the sexuality of a woman is literally an asset that is owned by a man. This man is usually her father or her brother. One of them decides with whom she should marry and thus also decides which man she has to allow to penetrate her body. She cannot choose herself who she allows to penetrate her body. Therefore, she is not the owner of her own body, her male guardian is. When married, this guardianship over the woman is handed over from the father or brother to the husband, so the husband becomes the owner of the woman. It is therefore mandatory for a woman to have sex with her husband whenever he demands it, as long as she can physically endure it. The woman is only allowed to leave the house when the husband allows it. When the woman argues with her husband, he is entitled to give her a verbal warning. When she still doesn’t obey the husband after the verbal warning, he is allowed to hit her, as long as he doesn’t injure her. “Injure” means the breaking of bones or blood flowing out of the skin.

Let’s look at some more verses about women in Islam.

Quran (4:11) says the following about inheritance: "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females".

Quran (2:282) says the following about testimony in court: "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women."

Quran (2:228) says: "and the men are a degree above them [women]"

Quran (5:6) says: "And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it".

In Islam, women are seen as such dirty creatures that a man should wash his hands after having touched a woman. If there is no water available, he should use dirt.

Quran (2:223) says: "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." Quran (4:3): "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four”.

Quran (4:24) and Quran (33:50) allow a man to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage.
It is not hard to understand how such instructions by “Allah” lead to a deep rooted disrespect for women. Muslim apologists often try to cherry-pick one or two parts of the story of Muhammad in which he for example allowed a certain girl to choose which man she liked, but such instances are exceptions.

In Sahih Bukhari (6:301) Muhammad said: “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?”, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence".

Sahih Bukhari (2:29) states that Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven mentioned explicitly by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men.

So this is what the founder of the doctrine had to say about women. This is not a man who wanted to lift women up, and make them feel good about themselves, improve their lives, empower them, etc. The contrary is true. Muhammad was a man who wanted to have a lot of sex with many different women, but at the same time he consistently put them down. Muhammad belittled women and humiliated women. He had a deep-seated hatred towards women.

In Sahih Bukhari (62:81), the prophet said: “The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women's) private parts”

In Sahih Bukhari (62:58), a woman presents herself in marriage to Muhammad, but he does not find her attractive, so he ‘donates’ her on the spot to another man.

In Sahih Muslim (4:1039) Muhammad’s favourite wife Aisha said to Muhammad: “You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses"

In Abu Dawud (2155), women are compared to slaves and camels with regard to the "evil" in them.

In Ishaq 593, Ali (Muhammad’s adopted son) said the following about women in Muhammad’s presence: “Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another." Muhammad didn’t correct his statement.

In Ibn Ishaq (693), Muhammad traded captured women for weapons and horses. "Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu'l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons."

In Al-Tirmidhi 3272, Muhammad was asked about what a good woman is. He replied “the one who pleases (her husband) when he looks at her, obeys him when he gives a command, and does not go against his wishes regarding her person or property by doing anything of which he disapproves"

Quran (4:34) says that "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them."

Quran (33:59) says "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them...". This is basically men determining how women should dress. Also, women should remain inside the house, except when being given the permission to leave the house. This permission has to be given by a man.

In Quran (33:33): "And abide quietly in your homes..." Women are confined to their homes except when they have the permission to go out.

Further insight on Islam’s view on women can be obtained in the Sahih Bukhari. Let’s provide a few statements.

In Sahih Bukhari (2:29), Muhammad states that the majority of the people in Hell are women, because disobedient women can end up in Hell.

In Sahih Bukhari (4:149), Muhammad's wives are even trained to defecate on his command.

In Sahih Bukhari (48:826), women are stated to have a deficiency of intelligence, which means that a decision made by a woman is not at the same level as a decision made by a man.

In Sahih Bukhari (58:125), women are treated as tradable commodities. A Muslim with two wives offers another Muslim to choose one of the two. Muhammad then arranges a wedding banquet.

In Sahih Bukhari (62:81), it is stated that the most important part of a marriage contract is the unrestricted access to the wife's vagina.

Treatment of wives and polygamy

In Islam, a man is entitled to up to four wives and an infinite number of sex slaves. Muhammad himself even had eleven wives at some point. A disobedient wife can be replaced. A Muslim man can have four wives at the same time and he can rotate and exchange as many women as he wants in and out of his collection of four. For example, if a man has four wives and he likes another woman, he can arrange a wedding with this new woman by making a deal with her male guardian and can then simply remove one of his four current wives to make room for the new one.

“Fair treatment” of women in Islam does take place in a financial context. Every wife has to receive an equal amount of financial resources. This refers to providing a fair dowry to secure marriage and not to the fair treatment of women in any other context. Islam apologists often use this form of “fair treatment” to argue that women are treated fair within Islam.

Sahih Bukhari (5:268) states that "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.", "Had the Prophet the strength for it?", "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men."

Sahih Bukhari (62:6) states that: "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."

So, look at what an incredible example this prophet is for young Muslim boys. He could even have sex with all of his wives in a row.

Violence against women

Islam allows a man to physically abuse his wife (wives). He is allowed to do this when she doesn’t follow his commands and he must stop beating her when she complies with his commands. Also verbal abuse and abandonment is allowed as a punishment for disobedient wives.

Aisha was the favourite wife of Muhammad. According to her own testimony in the Hadith, she was physically abused by Muhammad after leaving the house without his permission. This is how Muhammad treated his favourite (!) wife.

Muslim apologists often try to play word games with verbs such as ‘to beat’ or ‘to strike’, arguing that in the “original ancient Arab language of that time period”, the words had a very different meaning, so Muhammad didn’t really instruct his followers to abuse women. Such arguments are designed to persuade people who really don’t have any knowledge about Islam and the history of Muhammad. The reality is that Muhammad (and therefore Islam) repeatedly empowers men to abuse women and you can see this over and over again in his story and “revelations”.

In Quran (4:34): "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

In Quran (38:44): "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..."

In Sahih Bukhari (72:715), a woman begged Muhammad to tell her husband to stop beating her. Her skin was so damaged that it had become “greener than the green veil she was wearing”. Muhammad didn’t care and commanded her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires. In the same part of Sahih Bukhari (72:715), "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'". This is coming from Muhammad’s favourite (!) wife Aisha. She complained about the horrible abuse that Muslim women had to suffer in comparison to pagan women.

In Sahih Muslim (9:3506), Muhammad's fathers-in-law (Abu Bakr and Umar) slapped his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. The prophet of Islam laughed when he heard this. In Abu Dawud (2142), Muhammad said: “A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife." In Abu Dawud (2126), a man came to Muhammad and said: “I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant.”. The Prophet replied: “She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her". So, a Muslim thinks he is getting a virgin as a wife, but then she turns out to be pregnant. Muhammad then tells him to treat her as a sex slave and kill her after she delivers the baby. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 969 states that a married woman should be "put in a separate room and beaten lightly" if she "acts in a sexual manner toward others". Being alone with another man also counts as acting in a sexual manner (if the man is not related).

It is hard to digest Muhammad’s attitude towards women. When talking about Muhammad, we are talking about someone who doesn’t feel the slightest empathy for a woman who is so beaten up that her skin had turned green and someone who finds it amusing when his two wives are getting abused by his two fathers in law (who are abusing their own respective daughters). It is hard to create a clear image about what this man must have been like. We are talking about a persuader and a cult-leader who claims to receive revelations from a god in order to influence his followers, someone who uses this power to do evil to other people and expand his power and ultimately someone of whom the intensity of his hatred towards the other sex is hard to imagine, even when reading these parts.

A man is able to divorce his wife at any time by implementing the practice of Talaq or "triple-Talaq”. When a woman is not menstruating, a husband may divorce her by saying, "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you".

The treatment of women within Islam has been shocking from the very beginning. The relationship between men and women can be compared to an apartheid state. The topic of women within Islam is also the topic that is covered in the thickest layer of apologia. Especially in the West, Muslim “scholars” do their best to cover up this aspect of Islam. They usually do this by cherry-picking certain passages or even parts of passages of Islamic books. For example, the following part of Tabari is often used by Islam apologists, who then cleverly quote only the first three words of the following passage. Tabari (Vol 9, Number 1754): "Treat women well, for they are domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves."

Another tactic they implement is playing games with certain words. For example, they argue that the verb ‘to strike’ actually implies that a man only hits his wife very softly. Muslim apologists often say things along the following lines:

“Men and women in Islam just have different roles, but that doesn’t mean they are unequal. A man can only hit his wife if she doesn’t fulfil her duties in raising the children, but he is never allowed to hit her so hard that she is in pain. If you really understand Arabic, you will understand that this is clearly written in the Quran and in the Hadiths and that there is no misunderstanding about this. Many translations in English have this wrong. Muhammad had great respect for women and he even improved the situation for women. In that time period, women were treated worse outside of Islam than inside of Islam and many pagan women tried to enter Islam for a better life”.

These statements are very bold, but not rare at all. Muslims participating in debates about Islam, frequently spread misinformation about Islam. This is either a debate tactic or they simply don’t know the truth themselves. The statement you just read consists of six sentences. Each and every one of these sentences are false. This brings us to the next section of this chapter.

4.3. Deception and Lying

You might wonder why there is a separate chapter about lying. This is because the concept of lying is a very important one within Islam and something that is implemented very frequently today in the West. Understanding Deception (frequently referred to as “Taqiyya”) will lead to a much deeper understanding of the behaviour of many Muslims when they are talking about their own religion with Westerners. Also, understanding Deception will allow you to better understand the behaviour of important Islamic organisations in the West, such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). As you have read in the story, Muhammad himself behaved very deceitful towards non-Muslims. He often promised peace, just to be able to wait for an opportunity to stab the enemy in the back.

There are multiple different forms of lying to non-Muslims which are permitted under certain circumstances and for specific goals. The goal of implementing Deception is the Jihad, the spread of Islam. The context in which Deception is recommended is when gaining the trust of non-Muslims.

Quran (16:106) confirms that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie. Quran (3:28) instructs Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger. This implies that there are circumstances when a Muslims should appear peaceful to non-Muslims. Quran (3:54) says "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

In Sahih Bukhari (52:269), the Prophet said, “War is deceit”. The context of this is believed to be the surprise attack on Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men after Muhammad "guaranteed" their safety. In Sahih Bukhari (49:857), it is stated that "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar". Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means. In Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65), Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy". Sahih Bukhari (50:369) tells about the Murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf. The Muslims who assassinated them gained Ka'b's trust by using Deception. They did this by pretending that they had turned against Muhammad, which drew the victim out of his fortress. He was then murdered. Islamic Law states the following (Reliance of the Traveler, p. 746 - 8.2): "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory”. Note that Jihad is obligatory.

Types of Deception

Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims in order to defeat them. There are four forms of Deception. These forms are actually not cited in the Quran, but they are subtracted from the deceptive behaviour of Muhammad himself, which is being carefully studied in the Hadiths and the Sunnah.

Taqiyya

Taqiyya is misrepresenting the own ideology in order to create trust in non-Muslims. The most famous implementation of Taqiyya that everyone is probably familiar with is the famous “Islam is a religion of peace” statement.

Leaders of the Arab world often say something to English-speaking audiences and then can be seen saying something completely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat often claimed to dream about peace with Israel to Western journalists, but then preached some of the most extreme hate speech the world has ever seen about the Jews to his own people. The West is completely unfamiliar with Taqiyya. Yassir Arafat was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

Kitman

Kitman is lying by hiding something. For example, Muslims sometimes very consciously quote only a small fragment of a verse, while purposefully ignoring the rest of the verse or the overall context of the verse in order to create a false impression about the message of Islamic texts. This is Kitman. A relatively well-known example is when Muslim “scholars” quote the following fragment of verse 5:32, in which it is said that if anyone kills anybody "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind", while purposefully not mentioning that the rest of the verse and the verse after it recommend murder in cases of “corruption” and “mischief”, which includes basically everything that is not according to the Islamic doctrine. So, “corruption” and “mischief” also refers to non-Muslims. Another example of Kitman is when Muslim scholars carefully quote some verses from the earliest period of Muhammad’s adventure (the period in which he was trying to build his following in the tolerant city of Mecca) and use these verses to argue that “Islam is the religion of peace”, while ignoring the entire rest of the story.

Most pro-Islam “intellectuals” and debaters you might know implement Kitman very frequently in their discourse. Examples of this include but are not limited to: Maajid Nawaz, Reza Aslan and Zeba Kahn. You can search these names on Youtube and find videos in which they repeatedly implement Kitman during debates.

Tawriya

Tawriya is intentionally creating a false impression. The airplane hijackers of 9/11 implemented Deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol. They did this in order to avoid coming across as Jihadists, because fundamentalist Muslims generally do not drink alcohol. Later, during the hijacking itself, they told the passengers of the plane that there is a “bomb on board”, but that everyone will “be safe”. Of course, none of these things were true.

Muruna

Blending in by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others. This is something that is especially done by Islamist infiltrators of government structures. This is what happens right now in especially the United Kingdom (the mayor of London seems to be a good candidate for this), but also in other European countries.

Muhammad used Deception in multiple instances during his life. For example, he signed a 10-year peace treaty with the Meccans which allowed him to enter their city while secretly preparing his attack. Later, he could easily conquer the city. Many people, who had trusted him at his word, were executed.

Another example is when Muhammad tricked his enemies into letting down their guard and killing them by surprise. This tactic was implemented against Ka'b bin al-Ashraf as well as Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe. Usayr ibn Zarim was trying to collect an army in order to attack the Muslims. Muhammad’s men went to ibn Zarim and convinced him to leave his safe haven by promising a meeting with Muhammad in Medina in order to discuss peace. As soon as Usayr ibn Zarim and his men showed up with their guard down, they killed them by surprise (Ibn Ishaq 981).

The Muslims even gained a reputation for lying. An example is the fate of the Jadhima, a tribe that had converted itself to Islam voluntarily to avoid getting attacked. When Muhammad’s Muslims approached their tribe, one of the members of the tribe stated that they would be slaughtered even though they had converted themselves to Islam. Other members believed they could trust Muhammad’s promise that they would remain unharmed. After having convinced the sceptic member to remove his weapons, all of the unarmed men of the Jadhima were tied up and beheaded (Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

This type of behaviour can be consistently seen in the behaviour of leaders of the Muslim world. Muslims often do not value treaties made with non-Muslims. This could and can be observed in the behaviour of Saddam Hussein, Hamas, Yassir Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi and many more. An important current example of this is Ali Khamenei, the leader of Iran, who breached the nuclear deal. Another example is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who did not live up to his promises made to the European leaders. Muslim leaders generally lie without shame and never apologise afterwards.

 In order to advance Islam, the most important location where Deception must be implemented is within Western societies. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) keeps claiming that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organisation." The reality is that it the Muslim Brotherhood are the founders of ISNA and that it financially supports Hamas. An even better example is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). They are well-known for their blatant lies. They make statement such as "nothing in our faith says it’s OK to kill anyone."

Tariq Ramadan, a Leading European Islamic Theologian, gave a speech is Germany, Bielefeld in May, 2008, at the Islamic Centre. He said the following: “My brothers and sisters, we must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals. Our prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, and the Quran teach us that we must use ever conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah. Tell the infidels in public; we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on. The only law we must respect and apply is the Sharia”. This man instructed Muslims to implement Deception.

Deception can also be seen a lot on the internet. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that everyone can edit. This is what it says about egalitarianism in Islam.

“The Islamic stance on equality is to some extent similar to that of Christianity (another universalist religion), and stresses that all humans are equal in the eyes of God, regardless of gender, class and race. The Quran states, "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.".[15] Louise Marlow's Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought compares the egalitarianism of early Islam to current practice.[16]” (retrieved from Wikipedia at 14-11-2016).

This is online Deception.

4.4. Debunking Common Examples of Islamic Deception

Let’s shortly discuss a few of the most well-known implementations of Deception. There is a chance that you have heard some of those claims before, without knowing that they are actually examples of Deception.

1. Islam means “peace”

The Myth

Islam is based on the word “al-Salaam”, which means "peace" in Arabic.

The Truth

Islam is based on the word “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender” in Arabic. “al-Silm“ does not have the same meaning as the word “al-Salaam”, otherwise they would have been the same word.

It could be argued that peace will be reached when the whole world is brought in “submission” to Islam, but given the facts that the 50% of the population that is female is oppressed; homosexuals must be killed; the Sunni/Shia split will most certainly never be resolved: peace will probably never be reached, even if 100% of the world’s population would be Muslim.

2. Islam respects women

The Myth

The Quran places men and women equally before Allah and equally in relation to each other. Women have equal rights under Islamic law.

The Truth

The Quran states that both men and women will be judged by Allah, but that does not mean that they will be measured by the same standards or that they have equal rights.

Today’s Muslim apologists try to cherry-pick verses and fragments of verses in order to claim that Islam is compatible with Western style feminism. They try to do so even though those verses and small parts of verses have never ever in Islamic history led to an improvement of the position of women within Islam. Using Turkey and the Iran of 50 years ago as an example is not possible. It was the emphasis of Western values and the abandonment of Islamic rules that had led to an improvement in the treatment of women within these societies and NOT a re-interpretation of the texts.

The Quran, the story of Muhammad and the other literature are all consistent and coherent with each other. Muhammad treated women horribly. This was the case for Muslim women as well as for non-Muslim women. “Allah” does not in any verse mention concepts such as ‘love’ and ‘respect’ for women. Muhammad simply didn’t hold those ideas in relation to women. The Quran consistently places men “a degree above” women and the Hadiths state that the majority of the people in Hell are women and that Muslim women are intellectually inferior to Muslim men. Women must cover themselves up and men don’t. Women can only leave the house with permission of her guardian, while men can leave the house without such permission. In addition, Muslim women are not even allowed to choose whom they marry, while Muslim men are allowed to bring other wives and sex slaves into the marriage bed. Also, the woman must be sexually available at all time to the man, while this is not the case the other way around.

In the courtroom, the testimony of a woman is only worth half that of a man and if she wants to prove that she was raped, there must be up to four male witnesses to confirm her claim. If she doesn’t prove her right, she can be either jailed or stoned to death for her crime of “adultery”. In modern-day Qatar, this happens sometimes to tourists.

Also inheritance doesn’t go fairly. This is ironic because without Muhammad’s first wife, Islam would not have existed. Muhammad’s first wife had inherited her wealth, even though she had two brothers and her previous husband had three sons.

3. The treatment of women within Islam was normal for its time period

The Myth

Muslim apologists often claim that the treatment of women on the Arabian Peninsula was so bad that Muhammad actually improved the situation for women. Women within Islam are claimed to have been treated better than the women outside of the faith were treated.

The Truth

This is false. The treatment of women within Islam was shocking for its time period. This was not only the case when comparing the treatment of women within Muhammad’s cult with the treatment of women within Byzantium and Persia, but also in comparison to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. Within the communities and tribes on the Arabian Peninsula that hadn’t been conquered (yet) by Muhammad’s army, women were in a much better situation. Muhammad’s favourite wife Aisha made multiple statements about the treatment of women within Islam being worse than outside of it. In Sahih al-Bukhari (7:73:715) she says: "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women!” and “It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys” (1:9:498), which clearly indicates a large difference between the treatment of women by Muslims and the treatment of women by non-Muslims.

4. Islam is tolerant to other religions

The Myth

Religious minorities have done well under Islamic rule. Muslims are even commanded to protect the Jews and the Christians, because they are also “People of the Book”. The Quran says in Sura 109: "To you, your religion. To me, mine."

The Truth

This is Kitman. There are around 500 verses in the Quran in which “Allah” expresses his hatred for the non-Muslims. A very small portion of these verses could be partially cherry-picked and reinterpreted with some degree of mental gymnastics. The verses that are the most suited for such mental gymnastics are the earlier ones which were narrated by Muhammad during the very beginning of his story (in Mecca).

At the time that Muhammad created these very early verses, he did not have any power and therefore had no other choice than to be “tolerant”. It is noteworthy that when looking back at this early tactic of Muhammad, it can be argued that this was actually an implementation of Deception in itself. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that he had really planned ahead that far and it seems more likely that he, at that point, didn’t actually know what he would be doing in the future. Muhammad created his verses as he went and adapted the verses to the political situation he found himself in, as well as to his own short term emotional impulses. Moreover, the violent later verses repeatedly and consistently override the earlier peaceful ones.

Religious minorities have never “done well” under Islam. What Muslims call “tolerance”, can be better described as apartheid and extreme institutionalised discrimination. Living as a Dhimmi under Islamic rule was so uncomfortable that Dhimmis often converted to Islam just to have some quality of life. Living as a Dhimmi under Islamic rule was very hard for multiple reasons such as having to wear distinguishing clothes and having to walk around with a certain humiliating haircut. The position of inferiority of the Dhimmi was heavily emphasised as they often got humiliated. Also, if they were unable to pay the Jizya, their children were taken away from them or they were killed. Another myth that fits together with this one is the following.

5. Many Christians converted to Islam because Islam was less strict and more open and tolerant

The Myth

In multiple occasions, Christians who lived under Islam voluntarily converted to Islam, because Islam was a more open and advanced society in comparison to Christian Europe. For example, in Christian Europe another religion such as Islam would never have been allowed to exist, but when turning this situation around: Muslims were very open to Christians and even allowed them within their societies.

The Truth

Even though there is no denying that Christian theology was horrible during the Middle Ages, this doesn’t mean that this implies anything good about Islam. Christians were (occasionally) allowed to live under Islam as Dhimmis. Many of them then converted to Islam because of the reasons previously explained.

It is important to note that the doctrine of Dhimmitude was not always implemented. Especially during military conquest, which obviously is an effective way to conduct Jihad, many Muslim military leaders such as Tamerlane murdered tens of millions of Hindus and Buddhists. During the last millennium, millions were forced to convert. This took place on the Indian Peninsula.

6. Jihad means “inner struggle”

The Myth

Jihad actually means “struggle” and only represents a peaceful inner struggle in order to suppress sin. It is not a holy war to spread Islam.

The Truth

In Arabic the word "jihad" indeed means struggle. In Islam it means holy war. The core principle of Islam is Jihad. This is the spread of Islam by birth statistics, persuasion and forcing non-Muslims to convert, pay or die.

It seems to be a mystery why “Allah” would instruct chopping off heads of nonbelievers if “Jihad” would only be an “inner spiritual struggle”. In addition, the Quran mentions that the elderly and the disabled should not participate in the Jihad (4:95). This would make no sense if “Jihad” would simply be an “inner spiritual struggle”, because the elderly and the disabled would be perfectly able to participate in such a practice.

Muslim apologists sometimes claim that there are actually two aspects of Jihad, which are the “inner Jihad” and the “outer Jihad”, in which the first one is an “inner spiritual struggle” and the second one is the “holy war”. They then claim that the first one is way more important than the second one and that the second one is only allowed in the context of a “defensive war”.

When taking together the collection of Hadiths, the word “Jihad” is mentioned more than 200 times when referring to the words of Muhammad. In all of these cases, it is perfectly clear that Jihad refers to a holy war to spread Islam. In some cases it refers to the supporting role of women during these times of war, because this is how women should help.

7. Islam is a religion of peace

The Myth

Muslim apologists often claim that Muhammad was a very peaceful and loving man and that Muslims were very peaceful as well. They only used violence for self-defence. A true Muslim never approves of violence.

This is obviously an unbelievable denial of reality. This claim is made by Muslims quite often. It is either the most shameless example of Deception or an example of someone who really doesn’t have the slightest basic information about Islam or the story of Muhammad. When that one Muslim colleague at work who shows to be fairly committed to his religion (prays regularly, reads the Quran, etc.), claims that Islam is a religion of peace, you can be pretty sure he is purposefully implementing Deception.

The Truth

There really isn’t much confusion about what a “true Muslim” is. The Quran repeatedly states what a “true Muslim” is. In Sura 9, Muslims are to “arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere” (Sura 9:5). Also, if a Muslim doesn’t go to war, Allah will kill him (Sura 9:39) and “the heat of war is fierce, but more fierce is the heat of Hell-fire” (Sura 9:81), A Muslim must “fight for the cause of Allah with the devotion due to him” (Sura 22:78), Muslims must make war on the infidels who live around them (Sura 9:123) and are to be “ruthless to nonbelievers” (Sura 48:29).

Muhammad organised 65 military campaigns during the last 10 years of his life and in 27 of them; he took the role of the leader. The excuse to go to battle became increasingly small as he gained more power. After the death of Muhammad, Muslim conquests continued until this very day.

In addition, there exists a split within Islam: the Shia and the Sunni. They have been fighting each other for over a millennium. In the Quran it says that Muslims should not kill other Muslims, but that doesn’t stop the Sunni and the Shia from killing each other. The justification lies in the fact that both groups believe the other one to not be “true Muslims”, thus cancelling out the rule from the Quran. It makes no sense to call a murderous cult that wants to suppress the rest of humanity, in which women are structurally suppressed into some kind of apartheid situation, and which is divided in two sub-cults that want to kill each other a “religion of peace”.

8. Today’s terrorists are not true Muslims

The Myth

Muslim apologists often say that Muslim terrorists who target civilians in the West are not “true Muslims”. “True Muslims” would never do something like that.

The Truth

Most Muslims say that ISIS fighters are not “true Muslims”. This is because ISIS fighters mostly target other Muslims instead of non-Muslims. Therefore, statistical research usually shows that no more than 10-12% of Muslims in most countries support ISIS. However, we know that this number often goes up considerably (60+%) for other Islamic terror groups. Muslims targeting non-Muslims are in fact “true Muslims”. According to the doctrine itself, as created by its founder, “true Muslims” act consistently with the core principle of Islam, which is Jihad.

Muhammad’s legacy left Muslims with clear instruction to overthrow the non-Muslims and to establish Islamic rule. The mission will be accomplished at the moment Islam comes out as the victor. The Jihad is ended when the entire world submits to Islam. A Muslim who contributes towards reaching this end-goal is thus a true Muslim. This is the case for the obedient Muslim woman who gives birth to many Muslim children, for the Muslim man who shows up in a British TV show and implements Deception to make Islam look peaceful and tolerant and, yes, it is also the case for the 911 hijackers and the November, 2015 Paris attackers.

9. Islam had a Golden Age of scientific discovery

The Myth

Some Muslims claim that Islam had a “Golden Age” of scientific discovery. This period is then claimed to have taken place between the 7th and the 13th centuries. The knowledge that was generated during this Islamic “Golden Age” later came to Europe through trade which then led to the Renaissance in Europe. The later European advances on the area of technology and medicine are actually the result of earlier work done by Muslims.

The Truth

It is a fact that between the 7th and the 13th century, the Islamic World was more prosperous and advanced than Christian Europe. Europe had been swept back to the Dark Age after the fall of the Roman Empire.

However, this difference had more to do with the bad state of Europe at that time than with Muslims engaging in science. The latter is simply not the case. There are four reasons that explain the relatively prosperous state of the Islamic World in that time period.

First, the Islamic World never invented anything by itself. Instead, they took credit for the accomplishments of conquered regions. Muslims often claim to have invented the algebraic concept of “zero”. This concept was actually invented by the Hindus before they got conquered by the Muslims. Muslims often claim to have had a wide scientific foundation. They do not mention that they are actually talking about the accomplishments of the ancient Greeks. Then, Muslims often claim to have invented coffee. Wrong again, coffee was invented by Sub-Saharan Africans before they got subjugated to Islam. Then, Muslims often mention the great observatory of Taqi al-Din in Istanbul and forget to mention that it was actually the great observatory of Constantinople before they conquered it and that the Muslims actually decided to destroy it.

Second, there was a very small number of people who actually invented something after having been conquered by the Muslims. Islam discourages engaging in science and freethinking, for obvious reasons. This is because the Quran contains all the knowledge one needs. The scientific progression of a culture halted after being conquered by Islam. This worked as follows: a region of the world was engaging in science and, as a result of this, occasionally inventing some new things. Then, they got conquered by the Muslims and Islamic rule was established. After this change, the same region generally no longer engaged in science. The idea that Islam facilitated science is completely false. The opposite is true: Islam halted science. It is very likely that Islam has actually slowed down progression during human history, because conquered regions would have been able to do MORE science if they wouldn’t have been conquered by the Muslims.

Third, the small amount people who discovered something AFTER their land had been conquered by the Muslims were usually treated as apostates in their own time. An example of this is the Persian scientist al-Razi, who followed his own religious beliefs of Zoroastrianism and not Islam. He was a figure in the area of alchemy and medicine. Zoroastrianism was the ancient Persian religion which promoted science. Nowadays, Muslim apologists take credit for the accomplishments of al-Razi, but forget to mention that he was actually an apostate. There are a few other (former) Zoroastrians who invented something after getting conquered by the Muslims.

Fourth, when actually looking at the contributions that are claimed to be provided by the Muslims, it can quickly be concluded that none of them actually had any impact. The exceptions are the number “zero” invented by the Hindoes and the coffee invented by Sub-Saharan Africans (because coffee has become a quite popular drink). Generally speaking, most of the ‘innovations’ brought by the Muslims were the ‘invention’ of certain words such as ‘elixir’, ‘ assassin’ and ‘alchemy’, but this is nothing spectacular because cultures have always influenced each other’s language and this still happens today. There are many words in English that origin from Spanish, but there still aren’t much Spaniards claiming to have ‘invented’ English.

It has always been the case (both in the past and today) that the percentage of Muslims in a society is inversely related to the amount of scientific discoveries made. In other words, when the percentage of Muslims in a society goes up, the number of scientific discoveries does down and when the percentage of Muslims in a society goes down, the number of scientific discoveries does up. Iran was doing better 70 years ago than it is now, for obvious reasons.

Going further, let’s address the claim that this knowledge later led to the Renaissance in Europe. In fact, there were indeed rare occasions in which the Islamic World and the Christian World had the opportunity to exchange knowledge. The best example of this is Islamic Spain, called Al Andalus. This was a part of the Islamic Empire that somehow became detached from the rest of the Empire. Some of the Muslims there started to engage in dialogue and conversation with the Christian and Jewish Dhimmis and knowledge was exchanged between the two cultures. Over time, the Muslim rulers mellowed down. Some Islam apologists even claim that the Muslims started to drink wine in the streets and that the women were being treated better over time. It is unsure if this was actually the case. Islamic Spain is often romanticised by Muslim apologists and given as an example of why Islam can also be tolerant or even lead to the existence of a rare historic paradise.
They don’t mention that this place came to an end when the Muslims from North Africa found out about how the Muslims in Spain had been living and decided to slaughter them and took control in the name of caliphate. Later, the Christians conquered (back) Spain.

To conclude this little side-story: yes, knowledge was exchanged (here and in other occasions such as the usual trade that generally took place between cultures in history), but this did not lead to the Renaissance. In addition, as already explained none of the ‘knowledge’ that came from the Muslims was actually invented by Muslims themselves. A better name for it would be ‘ancient Persian, Greek and Hindu knowledge’.

The idea that this somehow led to the Enlightenment is impossible. The Islamic Empire was destroyed by the Mongols in the mid-13th century. The Enlightenment in Europe was a lengthy process that started from around the 16th century. The distance between the fall of the Islamic Empire and the beginning of the Enlightenment is roughly 300 years. In addition, the period of Enlightenment was the work of European thinkers, as already explained in the first chapter of this book. The Enlightenment was not imported from somewhere else but was an entirely authentic European process.

It is also important to note that the Muslims were never actually relevant in the area of science or even ahead of their time-period. This is actually exceptional, because they’ve been around for 1400 years. Compare this to other groups around that time period that have been around for quite some time and it is easy to see a big difference. The Chinese already had invented: paper in the year 105 AD; the compass between 206 BC and 220 AD; iron and steel melting between 1050 BC and 256 BC; and woodblock printing between 650 AD and 670 AD. So, it is hard to overstate how much ahead they were in comparison to the rest of the world. The Chinese were way ahead of the Muslims AND the Christians before Muhammad was even born. The Chinese had a hard time and a fall-back during the 13th century when the Mongols united under Genghis Kahn invaded China (this is also the reason why the Chinese later built the Great Wall of China). The Mongols conquered the largest landmass that anyone did during all of human history and established a trade route between China and Europe, which then led to the sudden input of Chinese knowledge into Europe. This is also where the old cultural concept of some mysterious place of wisdom and knowledge in the far East comes from. The important recipe of gunpowder came to Europe during this period.

Even until this very day, the incredible contribution to science of the Europeans (and their descendants in Australia and North America), the Jews (spread over Europe and nowadays mostly in Israel) and the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans is not something that Muslims should want to compare themselves to.

Today, the Islamic world consists of around 1.6 billion people. Israel consists of roughly 8.5 million people. This means that there are 176 times as much Muslims in the Muslim world than people living in Israel. Still, Israel contributes more to science and knowledge than the entire Muslim world combined. Another point of comparison is the translation of important literature into the own language. Spain translates more literature into Spanish (to assist the own population as well as Latin America) than the entire Arab world translates into Arabic. Another point of comparison is the number of universities. The Organization of Islamic States (OIC) represents 57 Muslim countries and consists of 550 universities. In the US, there are 10 times as many universities, while it has less than 20% of the population. In addition, universities in the Muslim World mostly teach religion, while this isn’t the case in the US.

So, to conclude this myth with a short conclusion: the ideology Islam has never supported, facilitated or enabled scientific discovery, not in the past and not in the present; and neither was there any significant input of knowledge from the Muslim world into Europe that 300 years after the destruction of the Islamic Empire led to the initiation, support or facilitation of the Enlightenment.

4.5. Modern-day Muslims

What people, and especially the Politically Correct, have to understand is that this is a process. We are experiencing a process in our Western countries and this process is the Islamisation. Islamisation is basically the same as Jihad. From the viewpoint of Islam, the correct tactic to implement during this current stage of the process is Deception. Islamic organisations, Islamic preachers, Muslim “scholars” and a high amount of Muslims themselves are perfectly aware of the current state of the Jihad process, either consciously or subconsciously. For Westerners, it is important that we, first, admit the existence of this process and, second, learn to understand the principles by which this process takes place. The West as a whole has to realise what is happening and why this is dangerous. Once a certain percentage of Muslims has been reached, the very fabric of our societies is very likely to change dramatically.

Some Westerners argue that Islam just needs to be reformed. This reforming can take place from the inside or from the outside.

Reforming from the inside takes place when members of the ideology reform the ideology by their own initiative. The most likely members to want to reform the ideology are those IN the ideology who suffer from it. In the case of Islam, these are clearly the women. We could help this process by empowering courageous women by providing them with a strong platform with which they can reach many people. An example of such a person would be Ayaan Hirshi Ali (discussed in chapter 1).

Reforming from the outside happens when people who do not support the ideology apply pressure to the ones who do support the ideology by using the tools of reason and freedom of expression. Any ideology can be scrutinised and people can be motivated to leave this ideology as a result of this scrutinisation.

As a result of this inner and outer pressure, Muslims can decide to reform their religion. Remember that Christianity also reformed because of such outer pressure. During the period of Enlightenment in Europe, Christianity was under pressure by scientific reasoning, freedom of expression, mockery and the emergence of secularism. This was all pressure coming from the outside. Christianity was forced to adapt itself to this new situation and, nowadays, the Vatican generally no longer preaches war and violence. Most people calling themselves “Christians” do not even take the Vatican seriously anymore. On the other hand, reforming Christianity was actually relatively easy and it is much harder to reform Islam. This is the case because of some important differences between Christianity and Islam. Christianity is actually an entire library of 66 different books with different messages while Islam is built around one prophet with one worldview. Also add to this that internally it is hard to reform Islam because when a truly “peaceful” Muslim goes in dialogue with a “radical” Muslim, it is impossible for the peaceful one to win the debate. The “radical” Muslim has the ideology correct and the “peaceful” one hasn’t. Therefore, the only real way out for the “peaceful” Muslim is by leaving Islam and becoming an apostate.

In order to be a truly peaceful Muslim a very large degree of mental gymnastics is required. This can be compared with someone who identifies himself with being a Nazi and based on his interpretation of his ideology, he truly does not have any problem with Jews and nor does he believe that the Aryan race is superior to other races. This person is required to have a very acrobatic interpretation of his ideology that it makes you wonder why this person bothers to call himself a Nazi in the first place. Why doesn’t this person just leave his ideology and stop being a “Nazi”? A person like that would have to be able to name a few fragments of sentences from Mein Kampf and persists that those parts of the book are very important for him and therefore he carries a swastika on his arm. For Muslims, this is basically the same. Likewise, a Muslim woman wearing an Islamic headscarf can be compared with a Jew carrying a swastika. A Jew carrying a swastika openly signals the idea that the Aryan race is superior and that Jews need to be exterminated, while the woman wearing an Islamic headscarf openly signals the idea that women are dirty and inferior.

A large portion of Muslims in the West more or less exhibit the following behaviour:
- Deny the malignant passages in the Quran and will perform the described Deception tactics.
- Claim that ISIS and sometimes also other Islamic terror group are secretly and purposefully created by the West and Israel in order to reach certain goals.
- Frequently try to defend Islamic terrorists and terror groups by blaming the West while simultaneously claiming that those terror groups do not represent true Islam.
- Express more disgust towards Muhammad cartoons than towards the act of murdering cartoonists and try to rationalise the actions of the murderers based on the acts of the cartoonists.
- Claim that headscarves are not signalling anti-women values.
- Say they like democracy but at the same time implement strong cultural relativism in order to justify (certain elements of) Islamic law.
- Never go out on the street to protest against the acts of Muslim terrorists.

The more verbally expressive Muslims might occasionally use the Politically Correct narrative to their own advantage. For example, they might complain about discrimination as soon as being measured with the same standards as the local population. Also, they use the Politically Correct labelwords such as “Islamaphobe” and “racist” and sometimes even point towards the Colonisation to make use of the force of white guilt.

Because this is the general behaviour of Muslims in the West, it is very hard to distinguish between the ones that consciously implement Deception and the ones who simply want to hold on to the cultural identity of their parents while integrating into Western society (even though this is an ideological splits) . On the other hand, a Muslim “scholar” who goes on television to claim that Islam does not justify murder, while knowing exactly which (parts of) verses from the Quran and other literature he needs to quote in order to convince the public, is most certainly consciously implementing Taqiyya and Kitman. And this happens a LOT. And it happens in EVERY Western country, especially in Western Europe.

With respect to the Muslims who are not speaking to large crowds of people about Islam, it is still hard to determine who is truly integrated into our societies and who isn’t. A Muslim of whom we can be 99% sure is he NOT performing Taqiyya is a Muslim who:

- ADMITS the malignant passages in the Quran about non-Muslims but distanced himself from those passages.
- ADMITS that Islamic terror groups and Sharia supporters are nearly perfectly carrying out what is written in the Quran, but distances himself from them.
- Does NOT try to defend Muslims terrorist.
- Does NOT go on an anti-Israel (“anti-Zionist”) rant whenever given the opportunity.
- ADMITS that women covering themselves up are signalling anti-women values and do not recommend their female family members to wear a headscarf (if female herself, doesn’t wear a headscarf).
- Can be seen drinking alcohol and doesn’t pray.

This can also be worded in another way: a Muslim of which we can be 99% sure that he is not implementing Deception when talking about Islam is a Muslim behaves in a manner that makes you wonder why is calling himself a “Muslim” in the first place.

Simultaneously, the following is also the case: if after having read this book, you meet a Muslim in whom you recognise certain behaviours and opinions discussed in this book, you cannot be sure if he is performing Deception when talking about Islam or that he just doesn’t know the facts. Going further, if he/she states certain verses from the Quran while saying that Islam means peace, he/she thereby demonstrates to have knowledge about the Quran while still making a claim that is simply incorrect, which then demonstrates that he/she knows how to cherry-pick certain information and cover up other information from the Quran in order to convince his/her listener; you can be pretty sure that this Muslim is implementing Deception. On the other hand, you can’t be completely sure, because he/she also might just have heard it somewhere or have read it on some Islam apologist website.

So, even though it is quite possible to effectively make a distinction between a Muslim who is truly peaceful and a Muslim who is performing Deception, it is not possible to accurately have it right all the time.

I would like to add to this that this book does not recommend its readers to seek confrontations with Muslims. This book is NOT called How to Debate Muslims on Islam, but instead How to Debate the Left on Islam. Seek confrontations with the Politically Correct Left, but not with Muslims.

One of the many problems about Islam is that the position of being a truly peaceful Muslim actually doesn’t really exist. Such a Muslim can “win” a debate against a completely unaware Westerner and can make him believe that Islam means “al-Salaam” and thus “peace”. However, this peaceful Muslim can never “win” this same conversation against a “radical” Muslim, because the “radicals” are actually right about Islam. The position of a peaceful Muslim is a fake position that actually doesn’t really exist. It is like saying “I am a Nazi who is not racist”, or “I kill you in the name of Buddhism”. Such positions cannot be defended within the ideology itself. What makes the situation even more complex is that these truly peaceful and genuinely well-integrated Muslims are exactly what we want to see in our societies.

Going back to the doctrine of Islam, we can draw a few conclusions. When a political and legal system changes, there are always certain people who are better off in the new situation, while other people are worse off in the new situation. Imagine that Sharia would be implemented in Europe. Who are the people for whom the situation will get worse?

The people for whom the situation would get worse are the following:
- All non-Muslims
- All women
- All men who care about the well-being of women
- All homosexual men
- All parents who have (a) daughter(s) and who love their daughter(s)
- All secularists
- All artists
- All scientist, freethinkers and intellectuals

This doesn’t leave many people who do NOT have to worry about Islam. So, who would improve in the new situation? Actually, there is one type a person who would improve under Islam. This person can be described as follows: an uneducated, narcissistic, morally bankrupt, heterosexual man who can’t handle criticism, doesn’t like knowledgeable people, has the ambition to take over the world for the worse, and has an intense hatred towards women while simultaneously feeling attracted to a woman’s body. Sounds like a certain historical figure?

Muslim’s lack of morality

The way in which the Muslims dealt with the three Jewish tribes of Medina and later with the inhabitants of Mecca provides clear insight into the Muslim mentality, which consistently employs a double standard regarding its relation to those outside of the faith. Today's Muslims inherit this legacy of self-centeredness and disregard towards those outside of the faith. They may or may not agree with terrorist attacks on non-Muslims, but they are nearly united in their belief that they are more entitled than other groups of people and should therefore be treated with a silver glove. Meanwhile, they do not know how to return this favour, because their collective mentality prevents them to treat any outside group with such respect.

Muslims in Europe will use their right to freedom of expression to defend and advance an ideology in which freedom of expression doesn’t exist. They will use the hospitality and tolerance of the Europeans to establish an ideology which prevents them from returning the favour. They will gladly take the financial support provided by the welfare states of the nonbelievers, but are very likely to force those same nonbelievers to pay Jizya as soon as they are in the majority (and if they don’t do it themselves, they are very likely to support it and will not protest against it when other Muslims do it).

When they are living in the West, they demand very special treatment as a minority, but they don’t know how to treat their own minorities as many of their women are walking around with headscarves, covering up their “dirty” and “unclean” hair. They won’t flood the streets of London and Berlin to protest against the acts of ISIS and Boko Haram, who are murdering women and children by the thousands in the name of their religion, but will massively claim victimhood when someone makes a cartoon of their prophet or when Israel shoots a missile at a weapon depot of Hamas.

Muslims are largely unable to live up to basic moral codes such as “treat others how you would like to be treated yourself” or “you treat me good, I treat you better”. There are no dreams of a better world, in which everyone can live life to their fullest, including women and homosexuals; but they will fight for a world that is dark and full of suffering. There are only dreams about submission, stagnation and violence against those who can’t defend themselves. They will implement Deception in the face of a non-Muslim majority because they can’t win, but they will use violence when they are in the majority or against weaker creatures, such as women. They deceive the strong, but oppress the weak.

Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist country, now it is a Muslim country where women are raped, beaten to death for not obeying and thrown battery acid in the face for wanting an education. Where are all the Western Muslims protesting against that? Where are all the banners in the streets of London with “treat women better!”? Bangladesh used to be a Hindu country, until the Muslims killed 3 million people and raped between 200.000 and 400.000 women. Now, it is a Muslim country where bloggers and Hindu priests are hacked to death with machetes. Again, where are all the protests? Islam is still winning ground 1400 years after the dead of its founder. Now, the Jihad has reached Europe, the birthplace of Western values and the place were prosperity and freedom originated from.

Islamic glossary
Adhan (Azan): call to prayer
Allah: God
Caliph: title of the ruler or leader of the Umma (global Muslim community)
Dar al-Islam: “House of Islam”; Islamic territory ruled by Sharia law
Dar al-Harb: “House of War”: territory ruled by non-Muslims
Dar al-Sulh: “House of Truce”: territory ruled by non-Muslims but which also consists of Muslims
Dhimma: the pact of non-slave and non-Muslims “People of the Book”, usually Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, (later extended to Hindus) living under Muslim rule as Dhimmis.
Dhimmi: “protected”; people under the protection of the dhimma.
Hadith: “report”; any of thousands of episodes from the life of Muhammad transmitted orally until written down in the eighth century.
Hijra: “emigration”; Muhammad’s trip from Mecca to Medina in 622.
Islam: “submission” or “surrender.”
Jizya: the head tax to be paid by Dhimmis.
Kaba: “cube”; the Meccan temple in which numerous pagan idols were worshipped before Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca in AD 632, now no longer accessible by ‘pagan’ people.
Mecca: holiest city of Islam; place of Muhammad’s birth in AD 570; its Great Mosque contains the Kaba.
Medina: (Yathrib) second holiest city of Islam (later renamed to Medina).
Muhammad: “the most amazing and peaceful man who ever lived”
Muruna: ‘Blending in' by temporarily setting aside some aspects of Islam.
Muslim: one who submits.
Quran: “recitation”; according to Islam, the compiled verbatim words of “Allah” as narrated by Muhammad.
Razzia: raid by Muslims against non-Muslims.
Sira: “life”; abbreviation of Sirat Rasul Allah, or “Life of the Prophet of God”; the canonical biography of the Prophet Muhammad written in the eighth century by Ibn Ishaq and later edited by Ibn Hisham; modern translation by Alfred Guillaume.
Sunnah: the “Way” of the Prophet Muhammad; includes his teachings, traditions, and example.
Sura: a Quran chapter.
Taqiyya: lying about the own identity or intentions.
Tawriya: creating a false impression.
Umma: the global Muslim community

5. The Untouchable Islam

We are in a complicated situation, because we are dealing with two different ideologies at the same time: Islam and Political Correctness. Islam is a dangerous ideology that will inevitably overpower Europe if the peoples of Europe do not open their eyes soon. Political Correctness is the blindfold that covers the eyes of the peoples of Europe. How does this exactly work?

It is actually quite easy to take a look at the values represented by Islam, compare these values with statistical research among Muslim populations, see the correlation between the two, and draw a conclusion about the situation we are in. Once you realise that the ideology of Islam and the world’s Muslim population is not as unknown and mysterious as is often assumed, it becomes easy to see that we are dealing with a very dangerous problem.

You might find yourself in a situation in which you are watching a talk show with your friends, in which a Muslim “scholar” is talking about the contents of the Quran. You then hear the Muslim “scholar” claim that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and makes a fun joke that obviously not all Muslims are blowing themselves up. The spectators that are present in the talk show laugh a little and some of them nod approvingly. Then, you suddenly find yourself recognising the act of Deception for what it is, while your friends seem to be persuaded by the sympathetic Muslim “scholar”. You then try to educate your friends about what just happened, only to find yourself somehow ending up in the middle of some heated hour-long conversation. These kinds of conversations can be very annoying and it is often as if everything you are saying is somehow not registered in the minds of your listeners. In order to see the total picture, a radical shift in perspective is required.

5.1. The European Muslims

Let’s create a clear image of what the population of European Muslims looks like. This is useful because it helps us to better understand the situation we are in.

Jihadists

5% of Muslims in Europe are “Jihadists”. These are the Muslims who are looking for an opportunity to shoot many innocent people in the name of Islam. Their goal is to implement Sharia and violence is the way in which they aim to reach this goal. Many of them are even looking forward to go to Paradise after they have died for the Jihad.

Islamists

15% of European Muslims are “Islamists”. These Muslims have the same goal as the Jihadists, but follow a different method in order to implement Sharia. They use protest and intimidation to reach their goals. These are the groups that openly Sharia. You can see them screaming on the streets of London and Brussels. Some of these people are a bit smarter and work their way into government structures, where they then operate more carefully, but still remain in contact with the Islamist groups, who then serve as lobby groups. A very likely candidate as an example of this is Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London. The difference between Jihadists and Islamists is that their way of working.

Fundamentalists

40% of European Muslims are “Fundamentalists”. These are the Muslims who, like the previous two categories also would like to see Sharia implemented. The difference between Fundamentalists and the other two groups is that the Fundamentalists are not actively doing anything to reach their goal. They are not looking to shoot innocent people in the streets of Berlin, nor are they using their voice in the public sphere to show their support for Sharia and nor are they infiltrating government structures. The Fundamentalists are the silent supporters.

“Moderate”

40% of Muslims in Europe are the “moderate” ones. The definition of “moderate” in this case is a Muslim who does NOT want to implement Sharia. These are the Muslims you probably get to know as friends. When people say “I know a lot of Muslims and they are all really well-integrated”, they are probably talking about people that can be placed within this 45% of Muslims (even though you don’t know if somebody is silently still a Fundamentalist, but let’s assume it for the sake of the example).

There is a correlation between “religiousness” of Muslims and “extremism”. This means that the Jihadists and Islamists take their religion more seriously than the “Moderate” Muslims. This also makes sense, because the religion of Islam is indeed “extreme”. “Moderate” Islam doesn’t exist. The “Moderate” Muslims probably do not pray five times a day and are more likely to, for example, drink alcohol just like many native Europeans.

This is what the population of Muslims in Europe generally looks like. There are some differences between the UK and other European countries. In the UK, the percentage of “moderate” Muslims is a bit higher than 40%, while the percentage of “Islamists” is probably also a bit higher than 15%. In the UK, Islamist groups are more well-established. This probably means that a part of the Fundamentalists have decided to come out of hiding and join the Islamists. In Mainland Europe, the percentage of “Jihadists” is probably larger than 5%. This is especially the case in France. The amount of “Moderate” Muslims is also likely to be smaller in Mainland Europe than it is in the UK. In Germany, The Netherlands, Austria and Belgium, the group of “moderate” Muslims is likely to be smaller than 40%, because the support for Sharia in these countries is usually higher than 60%.

Generally speaking, the population of Muslims in the aforementioned European countries is largely the same. This pie chart is a bit more concerning for France and a bit less concerning for the UK. No opinion research is done in Sweden (which really is a pity), but it seems to be possible that the situation in Sweden is actually similar to the situation in France.

Let’s continue by focusing on the 40% of “moderate” Muslims. There is still a certain topic that also these Muslims have a quite extreme opinion about. Half of the “moderate” Muslims still would like to ban homosexuality. (I draw this conclusion, following the assumption that the difference between the general percentage of “moderate” Muslims and the percentage of Muslims who would like to ban homosexuality or think it is immoral, must be sought within the group of “moderate” Muslims. I assume that a Muslim who is screaming for Sharia on the streets of Berlin, does NOT suddenly have no problem at all with homosexuals. This would be illogical.)

One group within the Muslim community are the Reformers. This is a percentage of Muslims that is actually closer to 0% than to 1%, but to include them in the pie chart, I have put them on 1%. These are people like Ayaan Hirshi Ali, Raheel Raza and Hamed Abdel-Samad, who are speaking openly about the problems. The “non-moderate” Muslims view them as apostates and want to see them dead. Ayaan Hirshi Ali and Raheel Raza are women who mainly focus themselves towards the situation of women within Islam. They also speak out about other dangers of Islam. Hamed Abdel-Samad is an Egyptian apostate who managed to flee to Germany where he aims to raise awareness and engages in dialogue with fellow Muslims, who then can be seen implementing Deception in Abdel-Samad’s face on German national television.

What you might assume based on these numbers, is that the “non-moderate” Muslims, those who would like to see Sharia implemented, support the Jihadists and the Islamists; while the “moderate” Muslims support the Reformers. It this case, there would be a situation in which about half of the Muslim population are the “good” Muslims and the other half are the “bad” Muslims. We could then just support the right half by giving them a platform to speak out more.

Sadly, it is not as simple as that. The problem is that “moderate” Muslims are NOT supporting the reformers and this is a very disturbing and critical fact about the group of “moderate” Muslims. We are speaking about a group of people that is spending more time complaining about Israel and the West than about the extremism in their own community. Most of them are the type of people who do not complain when Hamas is indoctrinating hundreds of young children to become suicide bombers, but will claim to be “victims” when anyone dares to criticise Islam. Even though they do not want to prosecute these criticisers, most of them use the Politically Correct labelwords to silence people. For example, most “moderate” Muslims think that Ayaan Hishi Ali is a bad person who is trying to “discriminate” Muslims or worry that she is giving Islam a bad image. Most “modern” Muslims would probably find this book, How to Debate the Left on Islam, a “racist book”. The group of “moderate” Muslims in Europe is still not able to speak honestly about Islam. Most of them rarely go to a mosque and never actually read the Quran, but they still defend Islam and explain away the problems that Muslims cause as mere “misunderstandings”, conspiracy theories involving Jews, or simply use the Politically Correct language game whenever speaking about Islam.

It should be important to note that the vast majority of “Modern” Muslims are NOT doing any of the following:
- They do NOT openly support Reformers
- They do NOT try to engage in dialogue with the “non-Moderate” Muslims (they actually can’t, because the “extremists” have the doctrine right)
- They do NOT honestly speak about Islam
- They do NOT admit that problems caused by Muslims indeed have something to do with Islam.

When looking at the total population of European Muslims, two disturbing things become clear.
1. Even though, the “Jihadists” and “Islamists” are not the majority, they are still supported by the majority.
2. Even though there is a substantial amount of “moderate” Muslims, this group is basically not making itself useful.

The entire group can therefore be described as follows. The population of European Muslims has a strong and vocal core of Jihadists and Islamists. These are the most outspoken group of Muslims who are the most convinced of their message. Then, there is a group of Fundamentalists who support this. Together, these three groups form the majority of the Muslim population and are the ones who take their religion most seriously. Then, there is a very substantial minority of Moderate Muslims. This group serves as a smokescreen. Even though they are unaware of it themselves, they are confusing the argument by refusing to speak honestly. This group basically helps to defend the “extremists” and is like a protective layer around the core of Fundamentalists, Islamists and Jihadists.

Then, there is a very tiny fraction of Muslims or ex-Muslims who are Reformers. However, these Reformers are getting attacked from all directions and do not receive the support that they need.

Reformers of Islam are under attack by the following group of people:
- Jihadists, Islamists and Fundamentalists who would like to see them dead.
- “Moderate” Muslims, who are claiming to be victims of the Reformers and use the Politically Correct tactics to attack or dismiss them.
- Politically Correct native Europeans who also use these tactics to attack or dismiss them.

The reality of Muslims in Europe is a very concerning one. As already explained in chapter 1, there are certain forces at work within the European and Western media, society and politics that make it harder for people to open their eyes to this reality. The most important forces are incorrect thinking and the many language games that are played when it comes to Islam and Muslims.

5.2. Incorrect Reasoning

Researching the Quran and coming to a conclusion regarding the content of the book is something that we can actually do for any other book as well. We can read Mein Kampf and draw a conclusion about the book by answering questions about its contents. What are the strong points of this text? What are the bad points? Are the contents of this book compatible with Western Values?

Now, imagine that in Finland, there would be a population of 10 million Fins who are followers of the Nazi ideology. Imagine these people to live together peacefully with non-Aryan ethnic minorities. There is even a relatively large Jewish community of around 200.000 people and they live together perfectly fine with the Finnish Nazi’s. These Finnish Nazi’s believe that Hitler did not write Mein Kampf, but that he somehow received the book from God while he was in prison. They also believe that all of the texts in Mein Kampf that express a negative opinion towards Jews and non-Aryans are somehow mistranslated or actually mean something else entirely. Imagine this scenario. Would this change any conclusions drawn based on an objective analysis of the very contents of Mein Kampf? Do you still think that the ideology of Nazism should be rejected from European and Western societies? The contents of the book are still exactly the same as before and the Holocaust still happened. “But the Holocaust had nothing to do with Nazism”, your Finnish Nazi friend then argues, “it was simply a form of context-driven genocide and this has happened before in history, even before Nazism existed!”. Of course, this makes no sense and the book Mein Kampf still contains a dangerous ideology, just because the very contents of the book clearly show it. The existence of such a Finland should not influence a logical conclusion drawn based on an analysis of the contents of Mein Kampf. (There is no Muslim country that is similar to this fictional Finland).

It is firmly believed by the Politically Correct that Islam is actually a peaceful religion. In the current political narrative, saying otherwise is “islamophobic” and “racist”. Let’s take one of the negative side effects of Islam: Islamic terrorism. There exists an enormous amount of Muslims willing to conduct terror attacks. The security services are currently working 24/7 all over Europe in order to prevent these attacks. Of course, all these terror plots cannot be linked to Islam, because that would be politically incorrect.

Therefore the cause of terrorism is basically seen as a black box. This is an unknown area of information that has to be filled with something to be able to explain the phenomenon of “terrorism”. This box is basically filled with whatever fits the political agenda, such as “inequality”, “intolerance”, “fear”, etc. For example, Politically Correct “scholars” who are active in the think tanks of European political parties might take the phenomenon of “inequality” and put this in the black box. Then, they argue that terrorism is actually the result of inequality. Politically Correct European politicians then argue that “inequality” needs to be diminished in order to fight “terrorism”. They then launch campaigns to “fight inequality”. Another option is to put the collateral damage caused by US drone attacks in the black box and then argue that “grief” is what causes terrorism. Or perhaps they take the word “hate” and argue that “hate only leads to more hate” and that terrorism must be fought with “love”. In general, many different phenomena are put in the black box, except for one: “Islam”. You are basically allowed to come up with anything you want, but don’t you dare to suggest that “Islam” is the cause of Islamic terrorism. Don’t you dare be a “bigot”!

This form of mass hypnosis expresses itself even in the interpretation of crimes. Let’s give a few different examples.

Imagine a man named Peter shoots his wife and after that he shoots himself. The police then investigate the murder. They find out that Peter left a video message in which he explained that he found out that his wife had been cheating on him with the gardener for 10 years and that he is going to kill her as a result of that, which he then did. This motive makes sense and is therefore accepted as the reason of why he did what he did. Case closed.

Imagine a man named Tom shoots his two colleagues and after that he shoots himself. As in the example above, a similar police research is done and it is found out that Tom left a video message in which he explained that he found it unfair that that his colleagues make twice as much money as he does. In addition, several books on Communism are found in Tom’s room as well as the original work of Karl Marxx. It is also discovered that Tom was actually a member of an underground community of Neo-Communists who hold weekly meetings in which Communist ideas are discussed and a strong hatred towards the current Capitalist society is shared with each other. These meetings are held in a basement with posters of Stalin. Other Soviet-era propaganda material was found as well. After that, many of Tom’s family members and friends are also found out to be active members of this underground community and share a strong love for Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. Police research then concludes that it was an ideology-based murder and that the very ideology that served as a driver for the murder was the ideology of Communism.

Imagine a woman named Maria shoots her two neighbours, who are Jews. The police quickly find out that Maria grew up in a family of real neo-Nazi’s and that within this family, Maria, had been raised on the ideology of Nazism. The book Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler, played an important role in this, because this book was studied by the family on a daily basis. Police research concludes that it was an ideology based murder and that the ideology that served as motivation for the murder was the ideology based on the book Mein Kampf.

These are all examples of murders that were done for a certain motive. In all of these examples, it is not hard to find out the motive.

Now, let’s take this next example and this is where it gets interesting. Imagine a man named Roger blows himself up on the street of London to kill two other men. A police research finds out that Roger grew up within a family of practicing Muslims and that within this family, Roger had been raised on the Quran. The police also find out that the two men who got killed, had told Roger that they think that Muhammad was a crook. Then, the police discover a video which was left behind by Roger himself. In this vide, Roger states that he is going to kill the two men for offending Islam and that he is looking forward to dying as a martyr and going to Paradise. The video also refers to certain passages from the Quran and the Hadith. Later, eye witnesses report that Roger screamed “Allahu Akbar” before blowing himself up.

So, how does this final example relate to the other three examples? In the first three examples, it was very easy to find out the motive of the murderer. In the fourth example, however, this is suddenly “very complicated”. We all know that Islam is peace (right?), so there is absolutely not a single chance that Roger was driven by his ideology to do what he did, even though the act, the video message and the content of the book that is the very basis of the doctrine which is followed by Roger and his family are all perfectly consistent with each other. Even though the perfect consistency of deed, motive and underlying ideology, it is absolutely impossible within the current Politically Correct narrative to link the murder back to the specific ideology. Islam is peace, so it must be something else. So, therefore people have to find some excuse to explain away why this act has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Perhaps the family was actually a victim of discrimination. Perhaps the family was poorer than other families and this contributed to an overall feeling of “unfairness” which then indirectly caused Roger to “radicalise”, which then caused him to read the Quran in the “wrong way”.

After a difficult session of mental gymnastics and nonsensical fantasising, the conclusion is drawn that the murder conducted by Roger was driven by an overall feeling of societal unfairness. The local politicians then decide to double down on anti-discrimination policies.

For some reason, it is very difficult to imagine that a person dressed in a traditional Islamic outfit going on a killing rampage in Paris, while screaming “Allahu Akbar”, might just have read his books and got persuaded by the contents of these books.

“Racism”

Let’s take the assumption that it would be “racist” to conclude that Islamic terror attacks have something to do with Islam. This is simply not true. Islam is not a race. Some examples of human races are: Caucasian races such as Hamites and Semites; Negroid races such as African and Melanesian; and Mongolian races such as Japanese and Tibetan. Do you see any ideologies in this list? No, and that is because it is a list of human races and not a list of ideologies. That is a different thing. Here you have a random list of some ideologies: Mormonism, Socialism, Feminism, Buddhism and Anarchism. Do you see any races in this list? No.

An ideology is a set of ideas. People from different races can therefore support or reject different ideologies. For example, a member of the Melanesian race can choose to support Feminism and to reject Mormonism; and a member of the African race can choose to reject Socialism. While human races hardly differ from one another and share more than 99.9% of their DNA, ideologies can be completely different from each other. Some ideologies are mutually exclusive, while other ideologies are compatible. Feminism and Liberalism are compatible ideologies. This means that these two ideologies can be in function at the same time and place. Examples of sets of ideologies that are mutually exclusive are Secularism and Islam, Feminism and Islam, and Liberalism and Islam. An example of lunacy that has been occurring pretty frequently lately is the case of a Western feminist at one moment defending women’s rights and at the other moment defending Islam (such as in chapter 3.3 about Sweden). The reality is that the position of a Feminist who defends Islam doesn’t really exist. It is intellectually impossible to defend women’s rights and Islam simultaneously.

What is racism? Racism is the stereotyping, excluding and discrimination another human being based on race (ethnicity). Statements such as “he cannot read because he is Chinese”, “I don’t trust him because he is an Arab” and “black people are stupid” are examples of racist statements.
Currently, the global population that supports Islam consists of members of many different races. Meanwhile, the global population that does not support Islam consists of members of many different races as well. It is also the case that both supporters and non-supporters of Islam are often members of the same race. There are many black Africans who follow Islam, while there are also many black Africans that do NOT follow Islam.

Rejecting an ideology can never be “racist” and nor can rejecting the supporters of that ideology actually be “racist”. It is often said that when talking about Islam, one should make a distinction between the ideology of Islam and Muslims. This would be a Politically Correct thing to do. In reality, this is not possible. A person who is a “Muslim” is a person who supports Islam. Islam is an ideology. If you want to reject Islam from your society, you should thus reject the people that support Islam from your society. Making a distinction between Nazism and Nazis is not the kind of behaviour that led to the end of World War 2. Muslims represent Islam and Islam is represented by Muslims.

5.3. Language Games

Another trick invented by the Politically Correct is the use of a certain word. This word is “Islamophobia”. When criticising or rejecting the ideology Islam, that person is called an “Islamophobe”. This word then has a similar emotional load as the word “racist”. It is noteworthy that such a word only seems to exist when it comes to the ideology Islam. Words like “Socialisto-phobia” and “Mormonisto-phobia” do not exist. Such words shouldn’t exist, because they make no sense.

When someone is critical of Communism that doesn’t mean that this person is “Communisto-phobic”. It simple means that one is critical towards (certain aspects of) the particular ideology. This is perfectly fine, because freedom of expression is one of the core values of our societies. There are also many aspects of Christianity that someone might not agree with or even reject. This doesn’t make that person a “Christianophobic”. It simply means that a person is able to read the books of the Bible and navigate through these books, read enough of it, and decide that these books are either consistent or inconsistent with Western Values. It is not “phobic” to read any book or series of books and then form a negative opinion towards it and towards the people who dedicate their lives towards that book or series of books.

Imagine a freethinker who doesn’t know what Nazism is. This freethinker can then decide to read Mein Kampf. He (or she) can then draw the conclusion that the ideology of Nazism should not be allowed within Western society because of reason X and reason Y. This is called critical reading, which is an important skill that goes hand in hand with freethinking and reasoning. When he would then meet three people who support Nazism, he can then engage in a dialogue with them, express his concerns about Nazism and elaborate these concerns with reason X and reason Y. Perhaps the three people are willing to reconsider their beliefs based on reason X and reason Y, or perhaps not. In any case, because of the fundamental value of freedom of expression that our society is based upon, engaging in such a dialogue and expressing these concerns is perfectly fine, even when these concerns are expressed by using strong language. This is not racism, because the race of the three Nazis is not relevant. Perhaps two of them belong to the Nordic race and one of them belongs to the Germanic race. It doesn’t matter.

Imagine that Mein Kampf would contain a paragraph that recommends beating up everyone who dares to criticise Nazism. Then, imagine that the three Nazis would, as a result of the earlier dialogue, resort to violence. This would mean that the ideology of Nazism is not compatible with a Western society, because it isn’t consistent with freedom of expression (of course, in reality there are many other reasons why Nazism isn’t compatible with Western Values). It would also mean that people supporting the ideology of Nazism should not be allowed to participate within Western society, irrelevant of their skin-colour or race. Perhaps there are other types of societies in which Nazis can participate, but a society based on Western Values isn’t suited for this. Also, it would endanger the other participants within the society who do not support Nazism. Therefore, having a growing percentage of people within your society that supports Nazism would be a big reason for concern.

This sounds pretty logical doesn’t it? It is, because the source of most ideologies is a simple book, so you can just decide to purchase or rent the book, read through the contents of the book and see for yourself if it contains any hate speech or content that you deem inconsistent with Western Values. However, many argue that it is not that easy.

The following is extremely typical. Muslims (supported by the Politically Correct) argue that you cannot just read the Quran yourself, because you won’t be able to understand it. They will ask you many questions. In which language have you read it? Have you read it in Arabic? “This is important because some of the messages might go lost in translation”, they claim. You cannot just find a reliable website instead. But then, even when following the form of translation that is seen as the most correct one, it still becomes clear that the content of the Quran contains a high degree of hate speech. It is not like the messages of Allah, the actions of Muhammad and the contents of Islamic law are inconsistent with each other. Still, Islam apologists will keep insisting that a quite straightforward piece of text such as “kill kill kill” actually means something along the lines of “kill their doubts with compassion”. This is a form of Deception (Kitman, to be more precise). It is also a very nonsensical lie, because in the history itself, it is clearly the case that Muhammad was executing the “kill kill kill” and NOT any of the alternative interpretations of the texts.

The inability to criticise Islam even goes further than this. When you would argue that you have read the book in Arabic three times, the counter argument is usually something along the lines of “did you read it in a Mosque?”, “Well… no”, “Ah, in that case you should not have an opinion”. But if you indeed would have read it in a Mosque, the next question would be: “have you read it together with an Imam?”, “well… no”, “ah in that case, you should not have an opinion”. Apparently, a well-read, educated person in 2017, cannot just read the Quran, the Hadith and do some additional research on his own and draw a conclusion. But even when having read the original Quran IN Arabic, IN a Mosque and WITH an Imam, it is still not enough. “Do you read the Quran every day?”, “did you start doing this from an early age?”, “did you grow up in a Muslim family?”, “did you visit Mecca?”. Answering “no” to any of these questions disenables you to have an opinion about the Quran, so it is basically impossible to have any opinion about the book. On the other hand, claiming that you have read the Quran and that “Islam means peace”, will give you a standing ovation, no questions asked.

But it gets even stranger. Even when a lifelong Muslim, who grew up in the Middle East within an Muslim family decides that Islam is not a good ideology to follow and decides to write a book about his perspectives on the Quran, he is quickly being labelled as a “false Muslim” by his peers, “He wasn’t a real Muslim!”, “He didn’t really understand Islam!”. Often, they also get killed or manage to escape to the West but then continue to receive a substantial amount of death threats. An example of this is Egyptian ex-Muslim Hamed Abdel-Samad, who is living in Germany and frequently criticises the European policy towards Islam. Abdel-Samad is currently the target of Muslims as well as Politically Correct Germans who want to shut him down because he is a “racist”.

So, what all this basically means is that it is simply impossible to form ANY negative opinion about Islam. If you do, you are an “islamophobe” and clearly do not really understand Islam. In addition, it implies that an intelligent, well-read individual who is familiar with recorded human history is unable to read this one particular book on his own, while even taking into consideration potential translation errors and the time period and form a general opinion about the message of the book.

It makes even less sense if you compare this with other historical books and ancient writings. This form of reasoning basically implies that you are not allowed to have an opinion about anything. For example, you are not allowed to have an opinion about Karl Marxx’s book if you haven’t read the original book in German. If you actually would have read it in German, you are still not allowed to have an opinion, if you haven’t read it under the guidance of a German-Russian academic with a doctorate in Communist Studies. If a real former Communist would write a book about why he thinks that Communism is bad, he simply wasn’t a real Communist to begin with, just didn’t understand the core principles of Communism and is clearly “Communistophobic”.

Also, you are not allowed to have an opinion about any of the 66 books of the Bible, if you haven’t read them under the guidance of a priest working in the Vatican. And if you actually would have read them all under the guidance of such a priest, while being physically present in the Vatican while reading it, and still wouldn’t like the books; then you are just a very “hateful” and “close-minded” person.

You didn’t like the writings of Plato? Have you read it in ancient Greek and under the guidance of a fully licensed and approved professor of Greek history? If not, you should not have an opinion about it, because that would be “hate speech”.

You think the Egyptian Book of the Dead is just ancient nonsense? That’s “racist”.
You didn’t like Bhagavad Gita? Then you are a “hate mongerer”.

You think the Secret History of the Mongols is a violent book? Don’t you realise that Genghis Kahn was actually spreading peace because the Gods told him to do that? You argue that killing tens of millions of people is not the same as spreading peace? How can you judge him? Don’t you dare insult my prophet! Have you even read the book in ancient Mongolian AND while being physically present on the Mongolian steppe AND under the guidance of a fully licensed professor of the National University of Mongolia who grew up in Alaan Baataar? Because if you haven’t, you should not have an opinion about it, because that would be “bigoted”.

There are also different rules for the degree in which it is allowed to criticise every book. The books in the examples above you can all criticise all you want and this is often even encouraged. Someone who would publish a very well-written article on the suppression of women within Christianity would receive a standing ovation and would be labelled as “progressive”. Would that person then publish a very similar article on Islam instead of Christianity, the public response towards this would be a completely different one.

So, today Islam is defended by two different types of Muslims and one type of Politically Correct native Westerner.

The first type of Muslim is the one who doesn’t know what is in his own book(s) and who doesn’t support any of the bad Islamic practices. This Muslim actually doesn’t know what Islam really is, but still defends it by saying that it is all “peace and love”. These are the kinds of Muslims who should dedicate themselves towards trying to convince their fellow Muslims that their “interpretation” of Islam is the best one. They wouldn’t succeed at it, because they are simply wrong. What they should actually do is leave Islam in great numbers to make a statement.

The second type of Muslim is the one who defends his religion by using Taqiyya, Kitman, etc. These are the kind of Muslims who cherry-pick the correct (parts of) verses in order to convince listeners that what he/she says is correct. They will also claim that in Arabic the message is completely different than in any other language.

Then, there is the Politically Correct Westerner, who will defend Islam by calling anyone who criticises it a “racist”. So, the ideology of Islam actually has three lines of defence.

Let’s put this situation in another context. Let’s go back to the example of the freethinker who has read Mein Kampf and didn’t like it. Imagine he would meet a Nazi and a Politically Correct Jew. Imagine that the person would quote the sentences of Mein Kampf and use these sentences to elaborate why he thinks the ideology of Nazism is dangerous. The Politically Correct Jew immediately calls him a “racist” and a “Naziphobe”. The freethinker then first needs to explain the Politically Correct Jew that Nazism is not a race, that criticising an ideology is perfectly fine in Western society. The Politically Correct Jew doesn’t listen and screams in his face that “bigotry and hatred” is “very mean”. So, the freethinker first has to deal with the Politically Correct Jew in a very long and tiring conversation in which he is very likely to have to repeat himself a lot. Even when he argues that the Politically Correct Jew actually should worry about Nazism, because he is a Jew; the Jew replies that he doesn’t like “fear mongering” and “racism”. This conversation then goes on for hours. At last, the Politically Correct Jew is convinced that he was wrong and he remains silent. Then, the Nazi joins the conversation and asks the person if he has read Mein Kampf in German or in English. He then claims that in the “original” German version, “Kill all the Jews”, actually means “Protect all the Jews”. The Nazi implements Deception in order to confuse his opponent. “Nazism actually means protection”, he claims, “it is the belief that the strongest within a society must protect the weakest within a society”.

This is basically the situation in Europe right now. Funny about this example is that the Politically Correct person trying to protect the Nazi is a Jew, while Nazism is an anti-Jew ideology. This is the same as a non-Muslim trying to protect Islam, because Islam is anti-non-Muslim. Politically Correct people are protecting a doctrine that will stab them in the back as soon as the percentage of supporters of that doctrine within the society has grown enough in order for this to be possible. The Politically Correct are very afraid of the “next Hitler” and will use this idea of the “next Hitler” against anyone who dares to criticise Islam. What they do not know is that the “next Hitler” or the “next Nazism” is actually the ideology they are trying to protect. Islam itself is the “next Nazism” (it actually already has been for 1.400 years). The difference is that Nazism was very visible. It didn’t try to hide itself. It had a strong army carrying out its agenda and this army had to be defeated by the Russians and the Allied. Islam sneaks in under the radar. It employs Deception to create a time window and will only show its true face when it is already too late. (Another difference between Nazism and Islam is that Hitler never instructed the Aryan race to oppress and beat their own women, so a Feminist defending Nazism is more believable than a Feminist defending Islam).

The reality is that a mere content analysis of the Quran and the Sunnah, would show that Islamic terror groups, Sharia courtrooms in Europe and “lone-wolf” terrorists are acting perfectly consistent with the doctrine. Claiming that it isn’t consistent with Islam, is similar to claiming that the Holocaust had nothing to do with Nazism, but instead was “Holocaustism”, which is simply a specific branch within “Radical Nazism”. It is similar to saying that the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with Christianity, but instead was simply a form of “Extremist Inquisitionism”. We could rewrite all of recorded human history in this manner until it makes no sense anymore whatsoever.

And by the way: did you know that Buddhists chants in Tibet have nothing to do with Buddhism? These chants are just a form of “extremist organised chanting”. Saying that it has anything to do with Buddhism is “bigotry” and “racist”. Not all Buddhists chant, so don’t generalise!

5.4. Debunking Politically Correct Myths

There are certain popular myths that are used frequently by the Politically Correct Left. Let’s first deal with the myth that Christianity and Islam are basically the same. After that, we’ll deal with the infamous “it all has nothing to do with Islam” myth.

Politically Correct Myth 4. Christianity and Islam are basically the same

Politically Correct people often argue that Christianity had its bad times too and that we shouldn’t judge Islam too harshly for that reason. Islam will reform, just like Christianity has. The Bible also contains hateful passages, so we shouldn’t be too critical of Islam.

This is a popular myth. There are two problems with it. First, it is wrong; and second, even if it would be true, it wouldn’t make a difference for the survival of our societies.

First, it is wrong because Islam cannot be compared with Christianity. It is true that Christianity in Europe was a disaster. It led to many problems, it blocked prosperity and advance and it made sure that the Enlightenment was a long and difficult process. However, the ideology of Islam is different from Christianity.

Christianity is based on many different individuals and their writings. The Bible is often referred towards as “a book”. People often ask: “have you read the Bible?”, as if it were one single book. This is incorrect. The Bible consists of 66 different books, of which 39 represent the Old Testament and 27 represent the New Testament. These books were written during a time period of around 1.500 years. Many of these books contradict each other’s message and the books of the Old Testament are more violent and hateful than the books of the New Testament. The well-known prophet of Christianity, Jesus Christ, was not the founder of Christianity. He was a reformer who embedded a positive message into Christianity as a whole (even though he also said some negative things). In Christianity, it can thus clearly be seen that the later books are more “peaceful” and that the earliest books are the most “violent” ones. This means that, if you purely look at the contents of Christianity, you can clearly see a progression from negative to positive.

Islam is different. It is a totalitarian political ideology created by one single person. Everything that this person said and did, is interpreted as the “right way”. The Hadith are about the “Life of Muhammad”. The Sunnah establishes the “Way of Muhammad”. The Sharia is a legal system based on the revelations made by Muhammad (the Quran) and the “Way of Muhammad”. Everything is built around one single person. There is one additional aspect that makes it even harder for Islam to be reformed. Muhammad claimed to be the last prophet in the line of Abraham and Jesus. Thus, there cannot be any other prophet. This is the last one. This is it. Also, apostasy is punishable by death and reformers are apostates too.

Second, even if Islam would be reformed, it wouldn’t make a difference for Europe and the West. The assumption is usually as follows: Christianity was reformed after, say, 3500 years after its first book. Islam was born in the year 600 AD, so Islam needs another 2100 years to be at the same point that the Christians are now. But let’s say that Islam would actually need 300 more years to reform itself. Even if this would be the case and Islam would indeed be “improved” in 300 years, it would not rescue the entire Western world from complete Islamisation. The Western world would first needs to live under Islam for around 200 years before a new process of Enlightenment would slowly be initiated (again).

Politically Correct Myth 5: It all has nothing to do with Islam

Another argument used by the Politically Correct and many Muslims is claiming that any Islamic problem cannot be blamed on Islam. On a daily basis, women get stoned to death in Muslim countries, Sharia courtrooms are active in the UK, terrorist plots are foiled, fathers disown their daughters for not wanting to marry the selected man and little girls get circumcised without an anaesthetic. It all has to do with culture, and socio-economic and geo-political conditions, but never with Islam.

This is a very large claim. It is also completely wrong. This myth has many different smaller myths within it. The first myth is that it all has to do with culture instead of religion. Let’s first deal with that.

Islam is the foundation of the culture in Islamic countries. Populations that would otherwise be different from one another and had other cultures before Islam was introduced (or even have some non-Islamic traditions in their culture today such as in Indonesia), still largely show the same symptoms. Compare Ethiopians with Pakistanis or Moroccans with Indonesians. The only thing they have in common with each other is the doctrine of Islam and it can consistently be seen that the attitudes and opinions carried within the doctrine of Islam are strongly present in each of these four populations (such as shown in chapter 2).

In addition, Sharia is implemented by countries as well as groups within countries. Examples of countries where Sharia is implemented by a certain amount of the population are: Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq. Examples of countries that have the Sharia as their national law are: United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. There are small differences between their interpretations of Sharia: for example, in some countries, when a Muslim man rapes a Muslim woman, the man can avoid prosecution as well as save the “honour” of the woman’s family by marrying her. In other countries, this is not the case. However, generally speaking, in all countries where Sharia is implemented, irrespective of the cultural or ethnic background, the results are the same: apostates are killed, women are oppressed, Muslims and non-Muslims are unequally treated within the law, etc. Everywhere where Islam is implemented, the same problems show up. This rules out any significant influence of culture outside of Islam.

“But this still doesn’t mean that all the other bad stuff has anything to do with Islam”, your Politically Correct friend would say, “the problem is not Islam, it is radical-extremist-militantist-Islamism”.

In order to fully debunk this important myth, it is important to prove two important facts.
1. Religions can be very different from each other.
2. It matters what people believe, because it leads to how they behave and what behaviour they support.

There are many different religions in the world. Politically Correct people often believe that all these religions have their “moderates” and their “extremists”. It is then believed that all religions offer an equally strong basis for violence. They believe that all religions offer an equal basis for harmful behaviour. If a Jehova’s Witness wants to blow something up, he can find a reason for that in his doctrine. The same is believed to be the case for Buddhists and Hindus. Nothing can be less true.

For example, when comparing Christianity to Jainism; on the one hand we have a missionary Abrahamic religion that recommends mistreatment of certain groups of people in some of its books, but then recommends something completely different in other books; on the other hand, we have a non-missionary doctrine of nonviolence. These two religions are totally different. Christianity does offer a basis for violence, while Jainism does NOT in any way offer a basis for violence. When taking the doctrine of Jainism, no matter how hard you try, it is impossible to justify violence based on this doctrine. It is not a surprise that people living as Jains, are exceptionally non-violent. This is even the case when confronted with very bad socio-economic conditions and geo-political conditions. Mahatma Gandhi was a Jain. His entire methodology of protesting against the British occupation was based on a doctrine of non-violence. Mahatma Gandhi did not order his people to attack the British soldiers physically and instead ordered them to not attack the British soldiers even when they were getting attacked themselves. This is incredible. A truly peaceful doctrine will lead to truly peaceful behaviour, even in bad circumstances. This is what an actual “religion of peace” looks like.

Another example of such a religion is Buddhism. The Buddha was an exceptionally peaceful figure. The Buddhist texts basically consist of techniques for meditation with a special emphasis on kindness and compassion. Look at what happened to Tibet. China invaded Tibet in 1950 and has since then occupied Tibet. Behaviours that are likely to occur under such circumstances are rebellions and terroristic acts against the occupying force, but none of these behaviours take place here. Even after being released from Chinese prison in which they have gotten tortured for years, Tibetan Buddhists occasionally say things like: “my worst fear during those difficult times was that I might lose compassion for my torturers”. Currently, Tibet is still occupied by China. In order to protest against this, Tibetan Monks occasionally set themselves on fire. There are no instances of Buddhist suicide bombers blowing themselves up on Chinese school busses. This can be traced back to the ideology of Buddhism. (Compare this to the Palestinians).

Looking at both the Jains and the Buddhists, it can be argued that none of these behaviours can be considered normal or even natural under such bad socio-economic and geo-political circumstances. It probably isn’t. But it does show the incredible influence of a doctrine on the human mind. Both of these doctrines drive people to behave peacefully even in situations in which such behaviour would not be normal. Also, notice the other things that are NOT taking place in Jainism and Buddhism. There are no homicides, there is no suppression of women and there is no “holy war” to spread the religion.

If you move away from these two real religions of peace and focus on Christianity, you immediately see a difference. For starters, Christianity is a missionary faith and throughout history, you can indeed see its practitioners actively trying to spread the religion. Spanish conquerors have spread their faith to the New World. This was an incredibly large-scale operation. Indigenous populations had to be indoctrinated with a new religion. This must have been an incredibly difficult task. Now, imagine that Christianity would not have been a missionary faith. In that case, it would have been extremely unlikely that the Christians would have dedicated so much effort into converting the indigenous populations to Christianity. This behaviour would have made no sense if Christianity would not have been a missionary faith. Buddhism is not a missionary faith. Therefore you don’t see Buddhists in the streets actively trying to get more followers. If one of the core values of Buddhism, alongside of kindness and compassion, would have been something along the lines of “expansion”, the Buddhists of today would behave differently than the way they do right now

Behaviour is based on beliefs and therefore it matters what people belief. The content of a religious text truly matters and does make a difference. Imagine the following scenario. You have a flying invisible time machine. You board this time machine and go back to the year 1200 AC. You somehow end up in the north-West of what today is Russia. Now, imagine that you are looking down from the sky and see a city of an ancient civilisation of mostly red-haired people that has somehow escaped the story of recorded human history. You are amazed. Knowing that you might as well be the first modern human to even know of this distant tribe, you carefully study their behaviour. After a few weeks, you begin to discover certain aspects of their culture. For example, you notice that there are also some brown-haired people among them. These brown-haired people seem to somehow be treated differently by the red-haired people. They often seem to be ordered around, act slightly nervous around the red-haired majority and live in smaller tents. At a certain day, something unimaginable happens. A large body of water comes from the ocean to the north, hits the land, and within 15 minutes, the entire city gets flooded. After a few days, the water has disappeared and you see the survivors gathering in the middle of their heavily damaged city. Hundreds of red-haired people start rebuilding their city; but that evening, the atmosphere suddenly gets a bit creepy. They all gather together in the middle of the city. There are around 400 of them. Then you notice that they have gathered 50 brown-haired people and have put them on their knees in a straight line. Then, you hear them sing a song in a strange language and they continue singing, while they cut off the heads of the 50 brown-haired people. You are bewildered as you hear the strange combination of the song and the distant screaming. After that, you see that they have collected 50 little red-haired girls. They suddenly stop singing. You start to feel nauseous but can’t stop watching. Then you see them sawing the left leg of every of those 50 little red-haired girls. Because they have stopped singing, you can hear the simultaneous screaming of the 50 poor little girls. It is horrible to watch at and you almost throw up in your invisible flying time machine. You close your eyes and try to focus on something else. After half an hour, the screaming has stopped, and you slowly continue to watch the horrible scene. You see they have put the 50 brown-haired heads in a row and that next to all of these heads, they have put a little leg. You conclude that these must be the left legs of the little girls. They start singing again, but this time they sing a different song; a song that sounds more dark and ominous. You see they have collected exactly 5 couples of red-haired boys and girls in their early 20s and some torches. These 5 couples are then set on fire and burned alive. Then, they also burn the remains of the 50 brown-haired people and 50 little legs while they sing another scary song. After that, you notice the horrible event is over as everyone goes home and the day after that, everyone is focused on rebuilding the city again.

So, how do you interpret this? This seems to be completely random act of barbarism as a response to this flood. How do they come up with such a horrifying ritual? Do you think this behaviour is moral? Of course not! Do you think this behaviour is beneficial to that society? No, 60 people have been killed for no reason (50 brown-haired people and 5 couples of young people) and 50 girls have to live the rest of their lives with only one leg. Think about the enormous amount of human suffering that was just inflicted in this act of barbarism. Think about the people that have lost a family member because of this. This seems like nonsensical random barbaric behaviour.

After having recovered from this exposure to horror, you decide to go ahead in time 100 years and end up in the exact same spot, in the year 1300 AC. You are surprised when you notice that the entire city seems to be gone. You decide to fly around at little in your invisible time machine and after a while you find the ruins of what seems to be some kind of abandoned religious shrine. You decide to land your capsule and go outside. You enter the shrine and are surprised to find an ancient book on a little wooden altar. You can’t read it, because it is written in a strange language, but you decide to take the book with you.

After having returned to your own time period, you managed to find an expert on the area of ancient Finnish dialects. She successfully translated the ancient book. After a few weeks, you receive the full English translation of this ancient religious book that is the very source of a lost ancient religion named “Kaumanism”. You read through it with great interest and find out that the men in this religion are called “Kaumanos” and the women “Kaumanas”. Then, you come across the following verses:

3.4.0. The society must always exist close to the sea.
3.4.1. The Brown-Haired share the soul of the ancient demon Holadino.
3.4.2. The Brown-Haired must be kept in the society, but never as equals, for they are filth.
3.4.3. Friendship between a Red-Haired and a Brown-Haired can never exist.
3.4.4. The God of Creation, whose name is Kauman, communicates his signal through the water.
3.4.5. For every signal, Kauman must be granted the great sacrifice
3.4.6. The sacrifice, called Kakau, must contain the following elements
3.4.6.1. 50 Brown-Haired must be beheaded.
3.4.6.2. 50 left legs of young Kaumanas must be sacrificed.
3.4.6.3. The 5 most recently married couples must be set on fire and sacrificed.
3.4.7. When Kakau has been delivered, continue as usual until the next signal from the great Kauman comes.

Suddenly, what seemed to be a random outburst of barbarism is put in context. It is actually a religious ritual that is very central to the religion of Kaumanism. The random acts of barbarism you have witnessed earlier are suddenly put in context. Now, you understand where it comes from and what the motivation behind the horrifying ritual was. The Kaumanos believed that the flood was a signal from the great God, Kauman, by which he communicates that he demands the Kakau.

So, based on this example, let’s ask ourselves one question. Is the following statement true or false: “Kakau has nothing to do with Kaumanism”.

Answer: completely false. The act of Kakau itself is completely based on the doctrine of Kaumanism. Imagine this doctrine would have never existed. How likely do you think it is that the behaviour of Kakau would have emerged if it wouldn’t have been for the ideology of Kaumanism? How likely do you think it would be that those people would have behaved in this very same manner, if it wouldn’t have been for this religion? How likely do you think that a group of people would behave like this completely randomly? Completely unlikely.

Now, let’s make the jump to Islam. How likely, do you think that the act of stoning a woman to death for adultery seems like something that would still exist if it wouldn’t be for the doctrine of Islam? The act of stoning a woman to death for adultery seems like a completely random outburst of barbarism. Also, why does a woman need to cover herself up? How likely do you think that women would cover themselves up in that manner if Islam wouldn’t have existed? Why not cover men up like that instead of women? Why not only cover up young boys and stop covering them up when they reach the age of 18? Why not only cover up the women who are married and have the single women walk around without cover? The young women still have to find a husband, so why not have them walk around in bikinis?

All these questions can be answered by reading the Quran. These behaviours, which might otherwise seem like strange random behaviours are perfectly explained in the Quran. Right from the moment you have read the Quran, these behaviours suddenly make perfect sense. There is a very strong correlation between the beliefs and behaviour of Muslims and the contents of the Quran. Switching to a different aspect of Islam: why do Muslims get so upset over a cartoon of their prophet? Because in the Quran it says that it is forbidden to depict him. Now, imagine the Quran would have said instead: “please depict Muhammad as best as you can and make it as funny as possible, because the Prophet likes a good laugh from time to time”. If that would be the case, we would live in a different world. Cartoonists depicting Muhammad would be invited by the Saudi’s and be awarded with endless luxuries. Perhaps groups like Al Qaida and the Taliban would even organise cartoon contests. Again, there is a consistency between Islam, what Muslims believe and how Muslims behave and what kind of behaviour Muslims support.

Now, of course the link between doctrine and behaviour is obvious when talking about something like the veil. Most Politically Correct people wouldn’argue that the veil has nothing to do with Islam. But it is important to establish this way of logical thinking, because the same line of thought can be applied to different issues as well, such as supporting Jihad, killing apostates and supporting the killing of apostates, maintaining a bad attitude towards women, committing or supporting violence against those who criticise Islam and especially important: preferring Sharia over British or German law. The support for Sharia that is so shockingly widespread among Europe, is a direct result of Islam. Muslims want Sharia. It’s logical, because they are Muslims. Muslims support Islam. Sharia is the law system of Islam.

So let’s go back to the example of Kaumanism. Imagine an alternate world in which the Kauman religion in the north-west of Russia would not have been removed from history, but instead, most of Siberia would be a large country called Kaumaland. This is the country of the Kaumans and it has a population of around 50 million people of which 75% have red hair and 25% have brown hair. Kaumaland has a lot of problems with their economy, because they have had problems with secularism and other Western values because Kaumanism has a strong emphasise on the political influence of priests (the word “priest”, means the same as “ruler” in the ancient Kauman language) so their priests keep influencing their government. The government then keeps making the wrong legislation, which then leads to a very bad economy. This has caused a strong influx of migrants coming from Kaumaland into Europe. For some reason, the Kauman migrants always choose to live near to the sea. Especially the coastlines of France, Belgium and The Netherlands seem to be very popular. Certain strange incidents suddenly appear near these coastlines. For example, on a frequent basis, Kaumans are reported to mistreat brown-haired people. During the year 2016, there have been 24 instances of beheading of innocent brown-haired people. A few weeks ago, a group of Kaumans severely injured a brown-haired man and his wife over a parking spot. Three days after that, a brown-haired man was walking his dog in the morning when he got attacked by a group of red-haired Kauman migrants. And yesterday, a report from the University of Antwerp came out, showing that 76% of all instances of violence against brown-haired people are conducted by red-haired Kaumans; and that all 24 beheadings of brown-haired people of 2016 were conducted by Kaumans of which in 22 of the 24 cases, the victors were red-haired Kaumans and in 2 of the 24 cases, there were also brown-haired Kaumans involved. So, given what you know about Kaumanism, how likely do you think the following statement to be true: “these attacks have nothing to do with Kaumanism”. Completely unlikely. However, as a result of the Politically Correct way of thinking, a language game is made up. The Politically Correct make up a distinction between “moderate Kaumanism” and “radical Kaumanism”. It is then assumed that the radical Kaumanists are the ones who are violent towards brown-haired people and the moderate Kaumanists are the ones that do not do such things. It is then assumed that the “radical” Kaumanists are just a “very tiny” minority of around 1%”. The other 99% are assumed to be well-integrated and “moderate”. Meanwhile, the media highlights touching stories in which, for example, a red-haired Kaumana rescues a little brown-haired French boy from drowning, a hashtag (#hugakaumanist) is created on social media. Brown-haired Europeans show up in the media, expressing their fears for being attacked or beheaded when walking alone in the streets, but these are then labelled as “fear-mongers” and “racists”. Additionally, it is emphasised by the Politically Correct how incredibly important it is to not generalise all Kaumanos only because a very tiny minority is “radical”. Red-haired Kaumanos are invited on national television to speak about how discriminated they feel on a daily basis and are then applauded by the Politically Correct spectators. It is assumed that “radicalisation” of Kaumans is caused by racism and bad socio-economic conditions.

Then, a research shows up that was conducted in 2010, but wasn’t released until 2015 for reasons that aren’t explained. Here are some of the results:

Atitudas Research, 2010, results Kaumaland

On the question “do you see brown-haired people as your equal?”, 70% answered ‘no’, 20% answered ‘yes’ and 10% did not answer.

On the question “would you accept your family member to be friends with a brown-haired person?”, 66% answered ‘no’, 4% answered ‘yes’ and 30% did not answer.

On the question “would you be proud when a family member would kill a brown-haired person?”, 40% answered ‘yes’, while only 27% answered ‘no’ and 33% did not answer.

On the question “do you take your religion seriously?”, 74% answered ‘yes’ and 15% answered ‘no’ and 11% did not answer.

Another study focused on the job-market of Kaumaland and discovered that brown-haired people were severely underrepresented in higher-paid jobs and a shocking 82% of them worked in low-wage jobs, even though they were equally frequent holders of academic degrees as red-haired people.

Now, based on these results you would expect there to be a strong influx of brown-haired migrants coming from Kaumaland, because of the bad position they are living in in Kaumaland. However, this is not the case because the brown-haired people are not allowed to leave the country. The brown-haired Kaumans are underrepresented in the immigration statistics. This can be traced back to verse 3.4.2. of the Book of Kauman which states that “The Brown-Haired must be kept in the society”. But of course, the Politically Correct easily label these arguments with “racism”, “bigotry” and even “Kaumaphobia”.

Based on this entire situation, how likely do you think the following statement is to be true: “All these symptoms have nothing to do with Kaumanism”. Completely unlikely.

You probably already figured out that this fictional example can be compared with the situation of Islam in Europe. The point is that it really matters what people believe. It matters which religion or ideology people identify with, because it leads to how they tend to behave and what kind of behaviour and ideas they support or reject.

Let’s give another example. Imagine that you would go on another adventure with your time machine and would discover a totally isolated tribe of 1000 people somewhere in Africa. When you land your flying time machine, they emerge from their houses and observe your magnificent machine. As they have never seen such marvellous technology before, they think you are a god coming to visit them to send them your message. On board of your time machine, you have three different books: The Pali Canon, which is the book containing the teachings of the Buddha; the Quran; and a book containing extensive descriptions of Western values. You can only give them one book, so you have to choose.

Imagine you hand them the book with Western values. After that, you take off, go ahead in time 1000 years in the same location and you discover a prosperous society in which men and women are equal; criminals are brought to court and if found guilty, are put in jail; the acquisition of knowledge is seen as very important and everyone has freedom of expression. The question is: do you think this is surprising? Probably not, as you gave them a book containing these values. Because they thought you were a god, they took it very seriously.

Let’s go back in time again, back to the point in which you were about to give them one of our three books. This time, you decide to give them the Pali Canon instead. You go ahead in time a 1000 years again and discover a society that is less advanced than the one based on Western values, but very peaceful. People can be seen meditating everywhere and the life is way more relaxed than in the Western society we witnessed before. You can see they have built temples and if you listen more closely, you can hear chanting emerging from the temples. Let’s ask the same question again: do you think this is surprising? Probably not.

Now, let’s go back in time one more time, back to the moment in which you were just about to give them one of the books and give them the Quran. You go ahead in time 1000 years again and discover a society like ISIS in which women are oppressed, people are stoned to death, beheaded and mass hysteria is always boiling beneath the surface. Do you think this is surprising? Probably not.

Now, let’s imagine a few different scenarios. Imagine you would have given them the Pali Canon and would have discovered that 1000 years later, they were living like Westerners. Would this be surprising? Yes. Certain interesting developments must have taken place within this society during those 1000 years for this to happen. Imagine you would have given them the book about Western values to find out that 1000 years later, they are living in a Sharia-like system. How likely do you think this is? This would be very strange and some highly curious developments must have taken place for this to happen. Imagine you would have given them the Pali Canon and then see them living like ISIS a 1000 years later. This would be extraordinary as well. Things must have gone very strangely for this to be the end result.

To conclude the debunking of the “It All Has Nothing To Do With Islam – Myth”, it is a fact that it matters what people believe, because it motivates their behaviour as well as what they support or reject. This can be seen all throughout human history and is consistent. The beliefs and behaviours of Muslims have everything to do with Islam. If the Quran would contain one sentence saying “Also, do not forget to behead all green-eyed women with blonde hair, they are filthy”, we would now live in a world in which we would be bombarded with reports of incidences of blonde green-eyed women getting beheaded by Muslims. We would also live in a world in which the Politically Correct would insist that this has nothing to do with Islam.

6. Conclusions, Predictions and the Solution

This is the last chapter of this book. We have discussed Political Correctness and its roots and problems; Muslims in the Muslim world; Muslims in Europe and the West; Muhammad and the ideology of Islam; and the current status of the debate. The last chapter of this book will provide a few predictions that are likely to happen in Europe.

These predictions might seem a bit “extreme” or even “apocalyptic”. Please bear with me and keep in mind that I am not hoping for ANY of these predictions to come true. At the same time, I consider these predictions to be realistic scenarios to take place, if current trends continue.

6.1. How Further?

The future percentages of Muslims in European countries depends the most on the birth-rates of the native Europeans, the birth-rates of the Muslim population in Europe and the number of Muslims migrating to Europe. There are two additional factors that play a role, which is the number of Muslims leaving Islam and the number of non-Muslims converting to Islam. These two additional factors are unlikely to play a significant role.

In any case, there is going to be a point in which the number of Muslims in any of the European countries is going to surpass the number of non-Muslims. When that happens, the situation is extremely likely to change for the worst. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that some things won’t change between now and the point that Muslims will be the majority. There is a time window in which the population of France will change from 10% Muslims to 50% Muslims.

There are different demographic predictions of how long this process will exactly take. Some predictions estimate this won’t happen until the year 2100, while other predictions estimate the year to be 2050. The difference between these predictions depends on which assumptions are made regarding the birth-rates as well as the number of migrants coming from Muslim countries. Will a second or third generation have higher birth-rates as the native population or will it stay at a relatively high level? Currently, the youngest generation in France is stated by some sources to be 25% Muslim. In about 20 years, how many children will they have? If they manage to double their number, the generation that they give birth to might as well get pretty close to 50% of the population. In addition, the number of Muslims in France also depends on the number of migrants, which depends on the amount of conflicts in the Muslim world. Geopolitical developments play a role in this. What is Trump’s USA going to do? What is Putin’s Russia going to do? What are countries like Iran and Turkey going to do?

I believe that the migration coming from Muslim countries is likely to increase over time instead of decrease. A factor that population predictions generally leave out of the equation is climate change. The vast majority of Muslim countries are about to get hit very hard by global warming, leading to lack of water as well as desertification, which leads to infertile ground leading to a lack of food. This is likely to lead to mass migration and (military) conflicts, which will then lead to even more mass migration. How many people would then be allowed to enter Europe will depend on the policy of European countries (or the policy of a more united European Union as a whole).

Also, demographic predictions do not take into consideration the well-being of the country itself. Taking France again as an example: will the welfare state succeed at supporting an ever increasing number of non-working Muslims? Will the French welfare state collapse? There are many uncertainties and therefore a prediction of exactly what will happen to France and when it will happen is very hard to make.

On the other hand, there are some things that are very likely to happen. The native French people are increasingly worried about the situation. Not all of the natives are indoctrinated by Political Correctness and a certain part of those people are willing to vote for the French nationalist party of Marine le Pen. Per November 2016, around 28% of the electorate is estimated to support the French nationalist party (according to several polls). This percentage could increase or decrease during the time leading up to the elections in 2017. For example, if the security agencies would fail to identify one of the thousands of terror plots being created continuously, which would then lead to another terror attack before the elections, this percentage is likely to increase. Assuming that the Politically Correct media would manage to design and implement a surprisingly good campaign for the Politically Correct candidates, the percentage is likely to decrease.

In the long run, the problems associated with Islam are extremely likely to increase instead of decrease. This will cause an increasingly large part of the native French population to feel worried, unhappy and angry with the situation. When the political establishment fails to solve the problem and the media continues to depict an increasing proportion of the population as “racists” and “Islamophobes”, the anger coming from this growing part of the population will be contained, but it will also increase in intensity. In the longer run, this is very likely to lead to some kind of point in which the emotions cannot be contained anymore.

It might sound extreme, but I strongly believe this to be true.

Prediction 1: If the political establishment fails to solve the Muslim problem, the situation will escalate towards a civil war.

Over time, two groups will form. On the one hand we will have the group representing Islam. This is the growing population of Muslims in France of which currently 27% of the new generation supports ISIS and a likely much higher percentage would like to implement Sharia, would “use violence to defend Islam”, etc. On the other hand, we will have the group representing Western values, as well as nationalism.

As a result of decades of indoctrination with Political Correctness, what we will see is that the genuine Western intellectuals, standing for Western values, will be fighting side-by-side with the nationalist groups and even genuine racist groups. This is what the side fighting for Western values will look like: it will be a mixture of freethinking intellectuals, ‘normal people’ and groups similar to the Hells Angels and white power extremist groups. This is likely to be the case because such groups are the most eager to fight it out on the streets.

Then there is the army. The French army is one of the most powerful of Europe (according to database Globalfirepower.com, France has the strongest military of Europe in 2016). Hopefully the French security agencies will already have worked together with the heads of the army to make sure that the army doesn’t have any Muslims in it. Assuming that the army also has Muslims in it, a certain amount of them is likely to go fight on the side of Islam. This amount is likely to be the majority of them. The course of such a civil war depends on multiple aspects. Do people have weapons? Perhaps the people fighting for the maintenance of Western Civilisation already saw it coming and managed to obtain one of multiple weapons in advance. If yes: what kind of weapons? Are we talking about handguns or also about assault rifles? And did the side fighting for Islam also manage to obtain weapons? Most importantly: what will the army do? Perhaps they will shoot at everyone who carries a weapon, both on the side of Islam and the side of Western values. Perhaps the developments leading to this civil war have made the situation so that the heads of the army have come to see the civil war as the last chance to rescue France from total Islamisation, which then potentially leads to a genocide. It is hard to predict how such a civil war will develop itself, as there are many factors involved. Once the situation turns to chaos, the control is gone, primal human emotions leading to either flee or kill will take over and human rights won’t exist anymore.

Does this sound shocking to you? Good. Because this exactly is what France is heading towards, and Germany and the UK as well. It could also be argued that a Muslim percentage of, for example, 30% of total population, instead of 50%, could also be enough to escalate the situation. It is hard to tell where the sweet spot exactly is.

There are certain uncomfortable questions we HAVE TO ask ourselves:

1. What needs to happen for the native French population to be ready to support a genocide? Perhaps the French population would have already been ready to support genocide right now, would 5 more large terror attacks have taken place. What does it take for the average Politically Correct person to go over the edge and support killing Muslims? We simply don’t know. Assuming that all terror plots will be smoothly uncovered and that not a single terror attack will happen again in France, how much does the percentage of Muslims in France need to increase, in order for all related problems other than terror attacks to become of such a grand scale that, if the political establishment doesn’t solve the problem, the native French population will be ready to support a genocide? Perhaps we are only 15 years removed from it, or perhaps 60 years.

2. What happens if the French population will never get angry enough to want to fight a civil war? This is highly likely to result in Islam taking over. The process of Jihad will naturally proceed according to its nature and it will be kill, convert, or pay Jizya to live as a Dhimmi (of course, the Muslims in France will do this all just as a “payback” for the earlier inflicted “grievances”). French women will get raped, taken as brides or used as sex-slaves.

Prediction 2: The native population of a Western country that does NOT solve its Islam problem in time and also does NOT start AND win a civil war, will end up living under Islam.

Now, you can ask yourself an extremely difficult question. This question has a separate version for male and female readers.

- Men, what do you prefer: engage in genocide, or be either killed or forced to live as a Dhimmi and have your mother, wife and daughters either killed or used as sex slaves?

- Women, what do you prefer: engage in genocide, or get killed or used as a sex slave and have your father, husband and sons either killed or forced to live a Dhimmi?

Sharia is what will happen in the following cases: when Muslims become “the majority”, when Muslims win the political election, when Muslims take control of the army and when Muslims win a civil war.

What could also happen is a chain reaction. The situation in Germany, UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden are basically the same as in France. The only difference is that France is currently a few years ahead in the process, due to its higher Muslim percentage (in 2016). This means that in, say, one decade, the situation in the other countries will have caught up with the situation in France and the situation in France has “progressed” further towards the point of climax (even though we don’t know when exactly this point will be reached).

When the situation in France will escalate into a civil war, this could cause the other European countries to go into civil war as well. When a large group of native French people will flood the streets with guns and knives, this could trigger a certain amount of native German people to do the same in their country. The short term result of this is either a genocide of Muslims or a genocide and mass rape of Europeans, or perhaps a combination of the two. Such a European civil war has two potential outcomes:

- a Europe based on Western values with closed borders, a very bad image in the eyes of the rest of the world and a very bad relationship with many other countries

- a Europe under Islamic rule that will basically go back into the early Middle Ages, with a population of which one half (men) suppresses the other half (women), which will then put what is left of the Western world (USA, Canada, Australia) in a very bad position.

So, this is what will happen when the political establishment doesn’t solve the problem. Therefore, Europeans have to force the political establishment to solve the problem. How does this work?

The political establishment is a result of a democratic process. The people of France have the option to use their vote during elections. If the French people would like to solve the problem, they should vote for the anti-Islam party in their country. After having read the previous chapters, you might wonder why the anti-Islam party isn’t already large enough to enter the government. This is because a very large amount of the native French population is still indoctrinated by Political Correctness and is not aware that there is a problem. (For France, it could also be the case that they do realize there is a problem, but are afraid for the consequences of a Le Pen victory.)

Prediction 3: Whether or not the Islam problem will be solved smoothly and relatively peacefully, depends on the degree in which the freethinkers within a native population are able open the eyes of the rest of the native population.

What needs to happen within a certain undefined timeframe is that the part of the native population that realises what is going on opens the eyes of the part of the population that is still indoctrinated by Political Correctness. This is basically what it comes down to. The anti-Islam parties are on the right side of history. They have it right. Any party that is not an anti-Islam party is not on the right side of history. The facts are supporting the side of the anti-Islam parties. The population that supports the anti-Islam parties needs to convince the part of the population that does not support the anti-Islam parties. In order to prevent a terrible outcome, this needs to happen in every European country.

6.2. The Solution

The situation doesn’t look good. Islam is presenting an incredible threat to our societies. Great threats can only be neutralised with great solutions. Therefore, in order to solve this situation some strong measurements are necessary. In order to make this book complete, a potential solution is presented in it. There are many possible solutions to this problem. The best solutions are both moral and effective.

The solution presented in this book consists of two parts. The first part is to safeguard the foundation of our own societies. This is to rescue our own societies from Islamisation. The second part is to rescue refugees in a different manner than absorbing them into our own societies. This is to ensure the protection of those who are in need of safety.

People have to understand that the Freedom of Religion principle should NOT be used to protect Islam. Islam is not just a religion. It is a religious cult that doesn’t allow members to leave and a totalitarian political ideology in one package. Something like that should not be protected by the Freedom of Religion principle. The Freedom of Religion principle should be re-written. It should be defined what exactly counts as a religion and what doesn’t.

The first part of the solution is to safeguard the foundation of our own societies. This aspect has three steps:

1. Implement the ‘emergency state’ and secure the borders. A country should put its army on the street in order to be able to immediately respond to acts of civil war. France has been in such an emergency state for over a year now (as of 29-01-2017). Also, the borders should be secured in order to make sure that no more Muslims can enter the country. During this step it is important to announce what is going to happen and why. Communication is important here. People have to understand that the situation that is unfolding itself in our societies is dangerous and that it is important that this problem is solved as peaceful as possible. If done right, the Muslims who are truly well-integrated will understand. Nobody in the right state of mind wants a civil war.

2. Ban Islam and give Muslims a period of 6 months to detach themselves from their ideology. It should be clear that this ideology is not allowed in the society. During those 6 months, Mosques must be removed under supervision of the army. Current migrants can stay in the society, as long as they don’t follow Islam. Sharia courtrooms must be removed with help of the army as well. Muslims who try to resist this with violence or try to hinder the soldiers from doing their jobs, must be put in jail and later deported out of Europe. It should be clear that the society does not have a problem with people, but that it does have a problem with the ideology. Muslims who want to stay simply have to stop being “Muslims” and start being Westerners instead. This is not about getting rid of people from other countries. It is about removing a dangerous ideology.

3. Deport the remaining people who are still being “Muslim”. After the initial six months, Mosques are likely to have gone “underground”. Religious meetings are likely being organised in basements and houses. These must be uncovered. Any person who is follows Islam and is still being “Muslim”, must be arrested and deported out of Europe.

The second aspect of the solution is to make sure that refugees from war are being helped in a different manner than absorbing them in our own societies. This can be done by creating safe zones in the Middle East and Africa. These are zones that are being protected by the army and which have the capacity to give shelter to huge amounts of people. Creating such safe zones could be done by armies of Western countries.

This solution is actually better than the current solution in which people are simply being allowed asylum in European counties. Right now, only the refugees that are able to walk great distances are able to bring themselves to safety. Also, refugees often have to take great risks by crossing the Mediterranean Ocean. It is therefore more moral to provide shelter to people closer to their own region. In this manner, also the ones that are not able to walk great distances can be given protection. (It should also be made very clear that Europe (and other Western countries) is not a refugee camp, but that it is a civilisation, where people have been living for thousands of years, which is built on certain values. These values are the result of historical developments and the work of European philosophers.

The solution that is presented in this book is not an easy solution, but it is an effective and moral way to save our own societies. Europe has put itself in an incredibly difficult and dangerous situation. 20 years ago, Europeans really didn’t know what Islam was. Countries like the UK and Sweden had good experiences with integrating non-Muslim migrants in their own societies. Therefore, they assumed it to be no different with Muslim migrants. People who warned the establishments during the late 1990’s were seen as simply being fearful of the unknown.

The late 1990’s establishments really didn’t know what was going to happen, but now we do know. Simply taking a look at the statistics, at the ideology itself and at what is happening in different European countries is enough. What you see is what you get. Islam is no longer something “unknown” or “mysterious”. It is a visible monster of which we can clearly see all of its features. It is exposed for what it is and we can clearly see it. This is Islam.

Currently, there exists a taboo on the word “deportation”. The word is associated with Nazi Germany in which millions on Jews were “deported” to execution camps.

Note that this is not what deportation actually means. Deportation is the removal of a person out of the country, because the presence of this person is inconsistent with the well-being of the specific country. Deportation does not mean harming people or killing people.

The only way to solve the Islam problem is by banning Islam and taking the additional responsibility to deport the ones that don’t want to let go of Islam out of our societies. This is not an easy task, it will likely draw a lot of criticism and European products may get banned in certain countries. It is especially difficult to deport Muslims that are born in Europe. Right now, it is not possible to deport people back to the country that their grandparents came from. Therefore, new agreements have to be made with those countries. European countries will have to renegotiate these agreements. Rules have to be changed in order to solve the problem.

In order to make the process of deportation as moral as possible, European countries could for example continue to financially support deported Muslims for a certain amount of years in order to make it easier for the deported person. There are many ways in which people can be supported from a distance for a few years. For example, the deported person can be given access to free online university or high-school courses organised by European Universities and schools for up to 5 years after the deportation. Also, this is likely to be less expensive than having those same Muslims take advantage of the European welfare states.

Again, it is my conviction that the truly peaceful Muslims will understand these measures if the reasons are communicated well by the establishments. Muslims who really like to live in a society based on Western values will understand why Islam is not compatible with it. They will necessarily like the measures, but they will certainly understand it and distance themselves from their ideology. They will have to understand that they are present in a country that is built on values that are incompatible with Islam and they will have to show respect to this. Around 20% of the Muslims in Europe are estimated to be the modern Muslims. This group is the most likely to understand the decision made.

More than 50% of Muslims not want to live in a society based on Western values, as is indicated by the many statistics presented in chapter 3. These Muslims will probably not want to distance themselves from Islam and many of them are likely to become violent or go “underground”. These Muslims are the reason why Europe is trouble in the first place. The majority of this group will probably end up having to be deported.

In order to maintain Western Civilisation in the long run, it is necessary to make difficult decisions in the short run. In order to prevent a civil war and a potential genocide in the long run, Europe must make the right decision in the short run, even when these decisions are hard to implement.

6.3. Debating the Left on Islam

In order to solve the Islam problem, the West needs more people who have opened their eyes to reality. The problem is that most people are still indoctrinated by Political Correctness and unaware of what is going on. Therefore, it is important to Debate the Left on Islam. Real Western freethinkers need to open the Leftist’s eyes to their own dysfunctional way of thinking and to the danger of Islam. Freethinkers need to make them realise that Western values need to be defended and that a ban on Islam and an addition deportation of a very substantial amount of Muslims could be the only way to do this.

Opening the eyes of the Politically Correct Left cannot and should not be done with violence. It has to be done according to the values we are trying to defend. These are the values of freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and free thinking and reason. Just like Islam is not compatible with these values, violence isn’t either.

Real Westerners and true Europeans must Debate the Left on Islam and I hope this book provides all the information that is needed in order to do so.

This is the paradigm shift: the realisation that the current narrative doesn’t work anymore and the realisation that Europe and the West have ruined their education system, academia, media and societal discourse. The paradigm shift is the realisation that the societal discourse is in desperate need of a new sound; and the realisation that Western Civilisation really is endangered, by Political Correctness as well as Islam. It is the realisation that Islam is a deathly spider and that Political Correctness is like a paralytic that prevents us from responding to the deathly spider.

Finally, it is the realisation that the Islamophobes actually had it right all along.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Dear reader,

This is the end of the First Edition of How to Debate the Left on Islam.

Even though you and I might be from different countries, we are in this situation together. I hope this book will be of great value to you in your life. If the contents of this book will allow you to even open the eyes of one single Politically Correct Leftist, we all win, no matter if we are in Canada, UK, USA or Germany.

In general, readers who did not like a book are much more inclined to put effort into giving a rating on the Amazon page than readers who did like a book are. Especially giving the toxicity of the topic of Islam, you can probably imagine how many people would invest some of their time in writing a bad review on the Amazon page of this book.

Therefore, if you liked this book, I would like to kindly ask you to spend two or three minutes of your time to leave a rating on the webpage of Amazon. It doesn’t have to be a long story, one or two sentences would be enough. This would help a lot to spread the message of this book further and to support me as a writer.

https://www.amazon.com/Debate-Western-Political-Correctness-Islamization-ebook/dp/B01MRX5GQU

(if you have a country-specific Amazon account, you might need to go to your country-specific website.
UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Debate-Western-Political-Correctness-Islamization-ebook/dp/B01MRX5GQU
Canada: https://www.amazon.co/Debate-Western-Political-Correctness-Islamization-ebook/dp/B01MRX5GQU
Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/Debate-Western-Political-Correctness-Islamization-ebook/dp/B01MRX5GQU
Germany: https://www.amazon.de/Debate-Western-Political-Correctness-Islamization-ebook/dp/B01MRX5GQU
)

The First Edition of this book contains three bonus chapters, which you can read below.

With kind regards from Europe,

Paul Nielsen

Bonus Chapter 1: Islamic Signalling in the Public Sphere

In this Bonus Chapter, we will shortly discuss some Islamic outings that are already taking place in the European public sphere on a regular basis. First, we will discuss the call to prayer, and secondly, we will discuss headscarves.

Call to Prayer

An important part of Islam is the call to prayer. This call to prayer is actually a song. This call to prayer goes as follows:
Allahu Akbar (x4)
Ashhadu an la ilaha illa Allah (x2)
Ashadu anna Muhammadan Rasool Allah (x2)
Hayya 'ala-s-Salah (x2)
Hayya 'ala-l-Falah (x2)
Allahu Akbar (x2)
La ilaha illa Allah

The English translation goes as follows:
Allah is the greatest (x4)
I bear witness that there is none other than Allah (x2)
I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah (x2)
Hurry to the prayer (x2)
Hurry to salvation (x2)
God is Great (x2)
There is no other than Allah

In Mecca, Muhammad did not implement this call to prayer. Mecca was a secular society. It was a city where Christians, Jews, polytheists and followers of other faiths peacefully co-existed. In order for this to be possible and other faiths were peacefully exist side by side. Therefore religious tolerance and respect was very important in Mecca. Everyone’s god or gods were equal.
This Mecca was similar to the West.

Muhammad didn’t implement this call to prayer until later in the story which is referred to as the “Medina Period”. However, in Europe and the West, this call to prayer is being used.

There are certain aspects about this call to prayer that do not fit in a Western society.
It says that Allah is the greatest and that I bear witness that there is none other than Allah. In a Western society, there are multiple religions. Allah is not “the greatest”. Instead, Allah is just one of the many gods that people worship. Saying that there is “none other than Allah” therefore doesn’t fit in a Western society.

It also says that I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. This emphasises the important of the founder of the religion including all the things he did. If Muhammad would be alive today, he would get arrested for rape, verbal abuse, murder, paedophilia, calling for violence, hate-speech and breach of contract.

All this suggests that everything that Allah revealed in the Quran is the word of the one and only greatest god. The word of Allah is absolute and supersedes the messages of any other gods. If we would follow the way Allah commands us to live according to his messenger, we would end up with Sharia.

This call to prayer is another reason of why Islam can never peacefully exist in the Western society. Taking into consideration the message of Allah, this call to prayer is actually a call for violence and a call for Sharia. It calls for an overthrow of Western values and the implementation of Sharia. It is a call to prayer that basically screams that Islam is not here to integrate, but instead to dominate.

Headscarves

A powerful aspect of ideologies is symbolism. There are many symbols meaning different things. For example, the Hammer and Sickle represents the Russian Revolution and Communism and the Swastika represents Nazism.

Imagine a neo-Nazi who carries a Swastika on his leather jacket. What does this mean? What this person is basically saying by doing this is the following: “Hereby, I would like to let everyone know that I agree with the ideology that this symbol represents and that I am not afraid to show it”.
It is a safe assumption that someone showing a Swastika like this, means that this person agrees with the values that this Swastika represents. It is illogical to assume that this person does actually not agree with those underlying values and is just walking around with this Swastika on his jacket because he likes the colour of it.

Compare this with the symbolism of an Islamic headscarf. By now, you probably know what Islam has to say about women. Headscarves are signalling these values in the public sphere.
Headscarves are symbols that are telling everyone in the public sphere, “hereby, I would like to let everyone know that I agree with the idea that a woman’s sexuality is dirty and needs to be covered up”. Logically, this collides with a in which equality between the sexes is an important value.

The following important values in our Western societies collide with the values signalled by Islamic headscarves:
- equality between men and women
- the right of every individual to express their own sexual nature (and women are not dirty)

Headscarves are symbols representing the suppression of women, as human being. The nature of a woman is believed to be “dirty”, “bad”, and “inferior”. Women wearing headscarves are signalling their own submission to religious suppression and hatred of what they are as human beings. This is self-hatred.

Bonus Chapter 2: Islamist Infiltration in The Netherlands

Europe is an interesting and diverse part of the world. It has had its times of horror as well as its time of incredible prosperity. Something that can be seen all over Europe today, is the phenomenon of the political system being completely out of alignment with reality. Because many European countries have had a very prosperous 70s, 80s and 90s, politics has become something for people who are simply looking for a nice job. This has led to a generation of politicians who are capable of leading the country through prosperous times, but completely unable to even recognise when those prosperous times have ended.

Politics has become something for slackers. These slackers have learned to neutralise opponents with labelwords and to be frank, this worked incredibly well. Leftist politicians were able to easily disarm any opponent by simply using the Politically Correct tactics, “The Islamisation of Europe? Ah that is simply fear mongering by racists. No problem there. Let’s talk about subsidy for Islamic schools instead!”. Current politicians have had the luxury of being able to simply avoid any important issues while even being applauded by the local population of indoctrinated Lefties. This is what the political landscape has looked like for the past 40 years.

An example of a country where this is especially interesting is The Netherlands: a small European country located next to Belgium right in the middle between the three European military powers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The Netherlands has known an extremely prosperous time since the end of the Second World War. Surrounded by their French, German and British brothers and sisters, Dutch people feel extremely safe in their own country. Nothing can go wrong. Even when Muslim terrorists are rifling down people in the streets of France, most Dutch people feel as if something like that would never happen in The Netherlands, “and why would they want to do any attacks in The Netherlands anyway? They are probably too focused on France and Germany!”.

This incredible sense of invulnerability has decreased a little after twin brother Belgium suddenly became the victim of a Muslim terrorist attack, but in general the Dutch people still feel safer than most of their European brothers and sisters.

An interesting phenomenon in The Netherlands is the Dutch Labour Party. This is a Leftist Politically Correct party that generally has been at the centre of power for many decades. This is basically your typical Leftist party, completely lacking any sense of neither realism nor vision. There is one specific topic they are particularly blind towards and that is Islam. No matter how bad the situation gets, the Dutch Labour Party always waves away the problem, uses the word “fear mongering” and shifts its focus towards other things, such as “anti-racism” programs and determining which Leftist talk show they are going to subsidise next. There is even a new talk show in The Netherlands in which “peaceful” Muslims complain about how bad The Netherlands has become will all those “white racists”. This show features a Muslim hostess who is not wearing a headscarf and many different speakers who can be perfectly described by using the Chapter 5.1 descriptions of “peaceful” Muslims. They are not trying to improve the bad situation of their own community, but instead complain about the West, Israel and “discrimination”. Of course, this talk show is fully paid for by taxpayers’ money. Interesting is that these taxpayers are mostly native Dutch citizens, because Muslims are disproportionally taking benefit of the social welfare system. So, the Dutch are basically paying to finance a talk show consisting of spoiled second- and third-generation Muslim migrants complaining about their host country.

The Dutch Labour Party has a massive blind spot towards the problem of Islam. They are unable to recognise any problem caused by Islam for what it is. Interesting is that this very same blind spot has also made them unable to recognise their OWN party getting infiltrated by Islamists. That’s right. Muslims are infiltrating the Dutch Labour Party and this infiltration takes place locally, so at the level of Dutch Labour Party departments of cities; as well as nationally, so at the level of the Dutch National parliament. From time to time, Muslim politicians of the Dutch Labour Party appear in strange news reports about participating in Islamist meetings in Mosques, participating in street brawls and even occasionally releasing Islamist statements on twitter.

The Dutch Labour Party has been infiltrated by Islamists. These are members of the group of European Muslims that are 15% of the total Muslim population, but share the same common goal with 60% of the total Muslim population (40% Fundamentalists, 15%Islamists and 5% Jihadists, as described in Chapter 5.1).

Occasionally, an individual Muslim politician leaves the Dutch Labour Party, for certain reasons that are never really mentioned. The Dutch media then shortly focus on this individual who can then be recognised by freethinkers for what they are: Islamists. Recently two of those figures have left the Dutch Labour Party more or less at the same time and have decided to start their own political party. This political party is currently called DENK, which is the Dutch/Flemish word for “think”.

What this party basically stands for is pro-diversity, anti-discrimination and preaches on individual stories of non-native Dutch people who feel discriminated such as Caribbean-Dutch people from the former Dutch colonies as well as Dutch Turks and Dutch Moroccans. The party tries to portray itself as very politically correct, by including a black Caribbean-Dutch woman in their party and further pushing the pro-diversity agenda.

This all seems very nice. Racism is definitely something that exists. There are people who make distinctions about other people based on their skin-colour. This is not something that only “white people” do, but something that happens all over the world. Especially in Asia and Africa racism is still very much present in the daily lives of the people that live there. Also in Europe, there are HR managers who would not read a professional portfolio of a black applicant. It is not that this happens particularly often, but it is still a legitimate point that a political party can choose to direct attention towards.

However, when looking more closely, some strange things can be seen. For example, a very strange incident occurred in the Dutch parliament, in which the leader of DENK, mister Kuzu, refused to distance himself from Hamas. Even when requested two more times if he would please distance himself from Hamas, he refused to do this.

Later, another incident occurred in which Kuzu refused to condemn the ethnic cleansings conducted by Turkey’s Erdogan. Kuzu consistently defended the way Erdogan has been acting, including taking over the judicial power by removing certain judges, taking control of the media, cleansing the entire country of journalist who do not share his opinion and setting in motion an Islamisation process that is destined to bring Turkey back to the Middle Ages.
It didn’t stay at only those two incidents. In November of 2016, the second Muslim politician, Mr. Ozturk, who also leaked from the Dutch Labour Party into the party DENK, caused another strange situation. He openly tried to push a political agenda in which The Netherlands should militarily disarm themselves. He basically tried to push an agenda in which The Netherlands would no longer have an army.

It can actually be said that Kuzu and Ozturk are not very good at hiding their intentions. Comparing these figures to Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, we on the one hand have a figure who is pretty successful at staying under the radar. Even though there are some indications that is probably an Islamist infiltrator, you cannot be completely sure of it. I think the chance that he is an Islamist infiltrator is about 60%, just a bit higher than a simple heads-or-tail. On the other hand, in The Netherlands we now have two figures of whom it is absolutely sure that they are Islamists.

Take the fact that Kuzu refused to distance himself from Hamas. Let’s unpack what this means. Islam is basically a political agenda of expansion. They don’t like the Jews, so therefore they don’t like Israel. Hamas is a Muslim group fighting against Israel. Therefore, Kuzu refused to condemn Hamas. You simply have to add one plus one. Also, Erdogan is an Islamist. Literally everything he is doing in Turkey right now is according to an Islamist agenda, wanting more Islam instead of more Secularism and dragging the country back to Islamic barbarity. Therefore, Kuzu supports Erdogan. When looking at his friend, Ozturk, we can reason as follows: Islam wants to expand, a national army of a Western country can stop Islam when a certain percentage of Muslims has been reached and a (civil) war would take place. In addition, a Western army can stop a potential invasion of Europe by Erdogan, an Islamist. It would be better for the expansion of Islam if any European country would not have an army. So logically, Ozturk would prefer The Netherlands to not have an army.

Also, it can easily be recognised how inconsistent this pro-Islamist attitude is with the so-called “core values” of the party. DENK claims to be a pro-diversity party. This means diversity of people with different skin-colours and from different cultural backgrounds. The question is, how does this pro-diversity attitude exactly relate to supporting Erdogan, refusing to condemn Hamas and wanted to remove the Dutch army? There are literally no reasons why these things have anything to do with being pro-diversity. This pro-diversity message is simply a mask. It is the Politically Correct story beneath which the Islamist intentions are hidden.

Meanwhile the two Muslim politicians and other Muslim members of DENK are frequently participating within this new talk show. The next elections in The Netherlands are in March of 2017 and DENK is likely to get sufficient votes for a few seats in the National Parliament, which then allows them to further exercise their influence in The Netherlands. Within the communities of Dutch Muslims, anti-Western sentiments are widespread. DENK is currently subtracting support from regular viewers of the new talk show we’ve just discussed, so they know where to find their basis. They know where to find their potential voters.

But this is not all. The Dutch Muslim community is basically split in two parts: the Turkish Muslims and the Moroccan Muslims. Young people within those communities often identify themselves with articles written by websites such as DutchTurks.nl. Looking at a website like this, quickly allows you to identify the bad state of both of the Dutch Muslim communities. This website, even though being written in correct Dutch and looking pretty professional, shows large amounts of Jew-hatred, hatred against the West as well as certain sentiments that really have no place in a Western society, such as wanting to lock people up for having offended Islam, sugar-coating Islamic terror groups and worshipping certain Islamic dictators.

This is how Islamists work. Islam doesn’t allow Muslims to support any other government system than the system that is recommended by Allah. What is allowed is participating in such systems with the goal of advancing Islam. Only then are Muslims allowed to participate in a non-Muslims government system. Europe is now in the phase of Jihad in which the non-Muslims still outnumber the Muslims; therefore the smartest Islamists choose to remain under the radar. Islamists are people who are spending their lives carrying out this agenda of advancing Islam. They do this by protesting on the street for Sharia law under the name of freedom of expression and the right to protest or by “infiltrating government structures”. This is what is now happening in The Netherlands in a way that is actually not as “under the radar” as should ideally be the case. On the other hand, most Dutch people still are unable to recognise the party DENK for what it is and would call you a “conspiracy theorist” when trying to educate them.

The Dutch political system is an example of a political system of a European country that is increasingly getting infiltrated by Islamists. Even though The Netherlands hasn’t had any large-scale terror attacks (as of 01-12-2016), it can be argued that the infiltration of government structures is actually more dangerous than these attacks. These attacks are horrible and cause many victims. However, as already argued earlier in this book, the threat of Islam is represented by the slow processes of demographics, the gradual destruction of freedom of expression and the slow infiltration of government and media structures. This is how Islam operates as long as the Muslims are still in the minority.

Bonus Chapter 3: Cultural Relativism and the Fictitious Religion of Loplism

As already mentioned in chapter 1, an important aspect within Political Correctness is Cultural Relativism. When people from other cultures do certain things that we would not accept from ourselves, we are raised not to judge them or express any negative opinion about them. This is even the case when these ‘certain’ things happen right around the corner where we live.

Imagine a fictitious group of people called ‘Loplims’. They are followers of a religion called ‘Loplism’ and live in ‘Loplistan’. This religion is based on the holy ‘Loptic’, which is a book containing the written word of God. In this book, it is stated that every firstborn girl, should have her feet removed with a handsaw at her 14th birthday. In addition, every blue-eyed boy should have his eyes removed at his 14th birthday; by using a spoon. During these practices anesthetic is not allowed, because in the Loptic is says that the experience should be experienced fully and with gratitude. Using any form of anaesthetic will make the entire family drown for a 100 years in the Sea of Death in the afterlife, fully experiencing the sensation of drowning for a full 100 years. Now, according to PC thinking, we should not criticise this valuable culture, its beliefs and especially its practices, because this would be a form of “colonial thinking” or perhaps even a form of “Loptophobia”. It would be way too “racist” to express any negative opinion about the culture of the Loplims.

But let’s ask ourselves the following question: is it fair to assume that the Loplim’s firstborn girls and blue-eyed boys would have a happier, more fulfilled life if they would not have been born into this specific culture but instead in Canada? This seems obvious right? I believe that the value of a culture can be determined by the following definition: “the degree in which a culture is able to ensure the happiness of all people that live in that culture”. Isn’t the creation of happiness for all humans the highest goal of a culture? A culture in which all people can fully be themselves and live their lives in a way that allows them to reach a maximum level of happiness is the best culture. This also includes women, gays, people from all races, transsexuals, etc. (Add to this taking care of the planet, so that it becomes sustainable).

Going back to the example of the fictitious Loplims, it is obvious that the culture of the Loplims is less able to ensure the happiness of all people in the culture and therefore this culture is not equal to Western culture. This is not racism, this is common sense. It would make sense if people who live in Loplistan would prefer to live in Europe, while the other way around would most likely not be the case as frequently.

So, now imagine that the left half of Kazakhstan would not be Kazakhstan, but instead the fictitious country called Loplestan. This is where they live. Would the barbaric practices of the inhabitants of Loplestan be a reason to invade the country and ‘rescue’ the firstborn women and the blue-eyed men? Probably not. It is their country and there are other ways to try to improve the situation in Loplistan, such as dialogue, offering different perspectives to its population, criticism, pressure from human rights organisations, etc.

Now imagine the following situation: due to climate change and overpopulation, the situation in Loplistan gets very bad. There is not enough water for the inhabitants and massive crop failures take place. Hundreds of thousands of Loplims decide to walk westwards, end up in Europe and ask for asylum. Europe then takes them in, provides them housing, financial support, language courses etc. After a few months, it becomes clear that the Loplims are continuing to remove the feet of firstborn girls at their 14th birthday and taking out the eyes of every blue-eyed boy at their 14th birthday. They are doing this without anaesthetic, so multiple instances have taken place of neighbours calling the police because they are suddenly hearing hours-long horrific screaming. A common sense response to this would be to educate the Loplims on what the norms and values in Europe exactly are and that they have to adapt to these norms and values. But then, the Politically Correct would argue that Europe has freedom of religion and therefore Europe should allow the Loplims to perform their practices. This scenario would play out as follows: Freethinkers would analyse the contents of the Loptic as well as the behaviour of the Loplims towards their firstborn daughters and blue-eyed sons; then, they would conclude that these practices are an expression of the beliefs as written in the Loptic and that these beliefs are not compatible with our Western values as well as basic human rights. The Politically Correct would then argue that everyone who rejects the Loptic is a “racist”, because there are also Loplims who do not do these practices. In addition, they would argue that the practice of removing the feet of children has also happened in some situations in the past and in some cases has even been done by European colonisers and therefore the removal of feet has nothing to do with the Loptic. It is simply “feet removing behaviour”. In addition, last year an Irish Christian man violently removed the feet of his wife after he murdered his children. During the time of the Holy Roman Empire there have been several instances of feet removal as well. So, the Loplim removal of feet is simply a form of “traditionalised feet removal”, whereas the feet removal of some Christians and colonisers was a form of “feet removal as punishment”, so therefore the feet removing behaviour of the Loplims is actually more peaceful than what “we” did in the past. Right? Then, a Politically Correct person who is also a Loplim appears on television and says: “I am also a Loplim and my daughter has a perfectly happy life without feet!”. Then another one appears and says: “Actually, the feet-removers have misunderstood the texts of the Loptic. The texts actually don’t say ‘thou shall remove the feet’ but instead it means ‘thou shall remove your shoes during your 12th birthday’. Also, the texts referring to the blue eyes of boys are actually a metaphor for the fact that you can’t remove the beauty of the blue sky even if you would take out your eyes. So see? There is no problem at all!”

As a result of all this, debates would be organised on national television in which the two schools of thought within Loptism tradition would engage in dialogue with each other. Meanwhile, several instances occur of young European boys with blue eyes getting kidnapped during the night and having their eyes taken out as well as instances of girls who were attacked by groups of men who then removed her feet with a handsaw. As a response to this entire situation, Europeans would increasingly vote on parties that just want to ban the barbaric traditions of the Loplims, which is then interpreted by the Politically Correct as a “sudden rise of right-wing extremism” and “a dangerous increase in intolerance”. Campaigns on love and tolerance would be organised in order to combat the amount of Europeans concerned with the integration of Loplim culture into their societies. People in general would increasingly engage in self-censorship towards the issue, while the Politically Correct would proudly support and defend the Loptics in order to feel good about themselves. National newspapers and news websites would stop reporting on young girls getting handicapped for life as a result of Loptic attackers or sensor the names of the attackers in order to make it seem as if the attacks have nothing to do with the Loptic.

Two additional things also take place. Firstly, statistical studies are released showing that the support for feet and eyes removing behaviour among Loplims is 60%,while 30% is unsure and 20% rejects it. It is also shown that 5% would like to engage in the kidnapping and forced feet removal of non-Loptics, while 30% supports this behaviour 20% has no opinion and 45% rejects it. However, the portion that rejects it does not make itself useful by protesting against the practice either. Instead, they simply claim that the practices have nothing to do with Loplism and claim victimhood as soon as anybody claims otherwise.

Secondly, as a response to the censorship by the media, independent news websites emerge that report daily cases of kidnapping and the removal of feet of young European children by Loplims. These websites are then regarded as “extremist websites” and “racist websites”. More Loplim apologists appear on television claiming that “Loplism is a religion of love for children”. “Loptic consists of ‘lop’ and ‘tic’. In the ancient language of Loptistan, ‘lop’ means ‘child’ and ‘tic’ means ‘love’, so therefore Loptism is the religion of love for children”. Of course, anyone who would suggest otherwise would be a “racist” and above all: a “Loptophobe”.

Does this scenario seem familiar to you? Probably.