A Protection Racket

Our regular reader and commenter Sagunto sends this interesting update on the Coptic Church hit list situation in Holland. We reported in last night’s news feed that al-Qaeda is threatening Coptic churches in the Netherlands, but Sagunto has even more from one of today’s newspapers. He says:

Just this morning I read about a remarkable initiative by three major Muslim organizations, to “protect” these churches.

I’d liken this protection to the kind of “protection” in The Godfather, and I’m sure from the Muslim officials’ perspective this must seem like a great PR stunt. I’m afraid to say that it actually seems to work. So I herewith I humbly offer you my “Church bombing PR spin-off alert”.

I have translated the first part of an article on the site of a major Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf. It goes on for quite a bit longer, but I think this is enough to get the message.

And Sagunto’s translation of part of the article:

Muslims offer to protect Coptic churches

Muslim organizations are offering to protect Coptic churches in the Netherlands against possible attacks. The spokesmen of the Dutch Muslim Council (NMR), the Council of Moroccan Mosques in the Netherlands and the Federation of Islamic Organizations (FION) said so this Tuesday.

It concerns three Coptic Orthodox churches in the Netherlands that feature on an al-Qaeda list as possible targets for a bomb attack. The churches are located in Eindhoven, Utrecht and Amsterdam. In all, there are seven Coptic churches in the Netherlands.

The priest of the Coptic church in Amsterdam said in a response Tuesday that he received the offer by email. The church board replied with a thankful email, saying that they are “seriously considering” the proposal.

Besides wishing the churches to be “protected against the threat of al-Qaeda” the chairmen of the three Muslim organizations call on all Muslims, young and old, men and women, to condemn the threats loud and clear. “We must do this because al-Qaeda claims to act in the name of Islam. Christian Copts, we ourselves and all Dutch for that matter, face the exact same enemy: the terrorists. It is high time to make this very clear. We won’t be able to sleep anymore with the thought that Christian Copts here in the Netherlands are under attack.”

So we all face “the exact same enemy”, eh? How deluded can you get?

“Nice little church ya got there, Father — wouldn’t want anything to happen to it, now, would ya…?”

16 thoughts on “A Protection Racket

  1. Hey, can ALL of us non-Muslim infidels get in on this super-magnanimous deal?! I think that it’s time for the local Jewish synagogues and Catholic churches to reach out to the Muslims for protection, too.

    Also, the local government, public transportation services, schools and day cares, state media – even local non-Muslim infidel citizens walking on the street or shopping in the market – can get protection.

    Wait, come to think of it, isn’t it the job of the local secular government to protect ALL of the people of a nation? If another group assumes that task, does that group become the de facto local government setting de facto societal standards? You know, like the de facto Sharia-compliant Muslim governments in the Western Muslim-controlled ghettos. Well, what’s the difference between taxes and jizya, anyway?! It’s only money. Your safety, life, and property are worth more than a little money, right?!

    Wouldn’t we ALL be safer if we just submitted to Sharia Law?! Why that sounds just swell! Then, we’d ALL be protected – just like the Copts in Egypt are protected by Muslims who follow Sharia Law.

    Yes, under Sharia Law, the little girls would be protected from possessing their own clitorises and picking their own husbands.

    Yes, under Sharia Law, the women would be protected from birth control and monogamy. It would be great to have a few extra sister wives to help with the average eight children per Muslim wife – especially all of those tragically handicapped kids born from forced cousin marriages.

    Yes, under Sharia Law, women and children would be protected from rape because NO Muslim rape or molestation ever happens.

    Yes, under Sharia Law, men would be protected from the temptation of seeing unveiled women.

    Summary: Putting people in charge puts people in charge. Do we REALLY want to hand over our non-Muslim infidel security to Muslims whose sworn duty under Islam is to ELIMINATE the non-Muslim infidel?!

  2. Quote:
    Just this morning I read about a remarkable initiative by three major Muslim organizations, to “protect” these churches.
    end quote.

    Muslims protect non-Muslims in the same way that a slave-owner in the Antebellum South would protect his property.
    That is, not at all.
    I’ve just been on You Tube looking at videow of the news concerning Copts, and the Muslim replies to the videos all sound like the bleatings of paternalistic slave-owners.

  3. In other late breaking news; Fox volunteers to guard henhouse saying that his thorough knowledge of hen behavior plus intimate familiarity with henhouse construction and security systems makes him best qualified for the position.

    Tape at eleven.

  4. This foul obscenity must never be allowed any authority in our societies,for it will only expand,until it controls everything,i say death to the muslim,since he has no objection to calling for mine.

  5. This dynamic is drawn straight from Muslim history.
    If anything, it gives me another thing to teach that links the past directly to the present.
    The evil tyrant promises protection from evil because he is evil.
    In every slave regime, in every totalitarian state, this dynamic is present.
    Recognize it.
    Hold it in deep dark contempt.

  6. Shouldn’t we be offering to provide protection to the muslims for their mosques? And if it’s a good idea to bomb a church on a Christian festival day, because it is full, then isn’t it more appropriate to bomb mosques each and every Friday for the same reason. And to kick the ba*t*rds in the arse each time they grovel before their satanic god?

  7. Is it remotely possible that the Muslims who volunteered to help guard churches and synagogues are truly disgusted and appalled by their coreligionists’ attacks and feel a responsibility to oppose them? Many of us, myself included, have said we want moderate Muslims to prove they are moderate by coming out against terrorism. Yet in this instance, we discount what we say we want and say it can’t be real. It strikes me we should at least check it out and have evidence before making such an accusation.

  8. @Rachel:
    I’ve been reading Muslim comments on the You Tube stories of the massacre of 23 Copts less than a week ago.
    They keep saying: “We protected you for centuries, and now you do this!”
    They are the murderers of Christians, their religion commands that they murder Christians and eliminate Christianity.
    You know nothing of Muslim history.
    You have not read the Quran.
    Muslims demand the right of protection because ultimately, they want the monopoly of violence.

  9. goethechosemercy, you make quite a few assumptions about what I know or read. I do in fact know something of Muslim history and have read parts of the Quran (I found it so boring I couldn’t finish it—it’s an awful read, at least in English). I educate myself at GoV and other sites. I am quite familiar with concepts such as jizya, the tax paid for protection of minority dhimmis.

    Precisely because I make it my business to educate myself about Muslims and Islam, I also know that there are some Muslims out there who don’t approve of what their coreligionists do and who do not follow every tenet of the Quran. For example, in North Africa and in the former Yugoslavia, during WWII, some individual Muslims did protect Jews at risk to themselves (and without payment) even as others joined Hitler, the Mufti, et al in persecuting them. That is historically documented in such books as, for example, Among the Righteous, by Robert Satloff.

    Comments by some individuals have no bearing on what other individuals’ true intentions are. We should definitely be wary and not automatically trust but we should also not try and judge an individual without evidence, nor shoot ourselves in the foot by turning away potential allies. Given the Muslim propensity for killing other Muslims who aren’t “true” Muslims, any Muslim who did in fact guard a church or synagogue could be putting him/herself at risk.

  10. @Rachel,

    Sagunto here from the Netherlands. I wasn’t going to post in this thread, being the source of the information provided. And you might have indeed noticed my heartfelt disbelief in the sincerity of the Islamic organizations offering “protection” for the Coptic churches over here.

    You seem to assume a lack of evidence for such distrust, am I correct?

    Obviously you didn’t mean to personally question the motives behind my newsflash, so I’m glad to be of service.


    Dutch Muslim Council (NMR): When Geert Wilders announced his plans to make “Fitna”, Abdelmajid Khairoun of the Dutch Muslim Council said: “We fear the worst when this becomes reality. Because at a certain point, the last word will then be to our boys in the streets. And we won’t be able to control them, just look at France.”

    Federation of Islamic Organizations (FION): Here’s some info about their Muslim youthcamp in 2010, please check the vids and decide whether you trust this organization. I won’t bother to translate all.

    Council of Moroccan Mosques in the Netherlands (RMMN): Most prominent leader of that organization, Mr. Yahia Bouyafa, has proven ties to a host of Muslim Brotherhood leaders and organizations worldwide. A captured shortlist features among many others: Abdullah Omar Nasseef; Salman al-Awda; Salah Sultan; Khaled Masheel; Ahmed al-Rawi; sheikh Faisal Mawlawi.

    You can Google their names and find out for yourself how trustworthy these people are.

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,

  11. Quote:
    Given the Muslim propensity for killing other Muslims who aren’t “true” Muslims, any Muslim who did in fact guard a church or synagogue could be putting him/herself at risk.
    end quote.

    Just a few days ago, a governor of Punjab in Pakistan (you know, Land of the Pure) was gunned down by a good Muslim policeman in the name of Islam.
    His community celebrated.
    Muslims do indeed terrorize and kill other Muslims more often than they do terrorize and kill kaffirs.
    The problem is, that the Muslims they are terrorizing and killing tend to be, oh, women, children, and those who want genuine peace.
    A Muslim who demands to be an armed guard over a church is not seeking peace, believe me.
    This Muslim governor did not volunteer to protect anyone. Instead, he wanted to re-structure the laws such that there would be religious tolerance. It’s a petition any citizen in the Land of the Pure could have made, but which I’d say most (99 percent) don’t have the nerve to make.
    You have conceived a great deal of trust for Muslims.
    Perhaps you’d care to have the guarding your place of worship (assuming you’re a non-Muslim).
    I wouldn’t.
    I would resist it. Hard. The monopoly of violence and the opportunity for committing it is what this offer is all about.
    Muslims kill those among them who are most capable of adopting virtue, as well as the weak in the name of God & honor.
    Islam debases everything it touches.
    It is a mockery of holiness, a mockery of God; an errant monotheism.

  12. Thanks, Sagunto. You are correct that I didn’t mean to personally question your motives. You are also correct that Googling the three organizations you mentioned gave me additional insight into their character. Now some of the comments are making more sense to me. These people are not our friends.

  13. goethechosemercy,

    While I freely admit to being a modern-day American secessionist (for reasons having everything to do with taxation/regulation/debt and nothing to do with race), I am no apologist for antebellum chattel slavery or any other form of slavery.

    That having been said, I must point out that owners of chattel slaves in the antebellum American South did, in fact, have motivation to protect their bondservants. Chattel slaves were a form of capital investment, and if they were injured or killed, that meant losing the value of their future labor. There were laws against killing one’s own or someone else’s slave, and those laws were enforced.

    Muslims have absolutely no motivation to protect infidels whatsoever. We are merely prey.

  14. Quote:
    That having been said, I must point out that owners of chattel slaves in the antebellum American South did, in fact, have motivation to protect their bondservants.
    end quote.

    You are right, and the history of slavery in North America does indeed prove it.
    In every other slave regime in the Atlantic world, slaves never reproduced themselves; they were simply worked to death.
    Only 6% of all the blacks imported from Africa came to the territory of British America and the U.S. until 1808.
    From this 6% you get the 4 million that were freed in 1862.
    Muslim societies took, and indeed take slaves with the specific objective of forcing conversion.
    When one is thinking about individualism as Westerners would have it, and the right of the individual to be truly the captain of his own fate, the slavery Islam imposes is much more profound.
    Islam dictates that you do indeed love Big Brother.

Comments are closed.