“Islamic aggression is caused by Islamic teachings.”
Why Islam Does Not Belong in the Western World
Many observers in the press thought that I would disappear as a writer after I stepped forward with my real name during the Breivik case.
They were wrong.
I will continue using Fjordman as a pen name, but I have no intention of changing my views as Peder Jensen, either. I started out writing about Islam. I later diversified to include other subjects, too, since there are many things wrong with the modern West, but I do not regret what I have written about Islam previously. I told the truth then, and will continue to do so in the future.
The fact is that the much-vilified Islam-critics and so-called “Islamophobes” have been entirely correct in their comments and analyses for years. Political leaders and media commentators throughout the Western world keep telling us that Islam is at heart a peaceful religion which is being abused by “extremists” and that continued Muslim immigration to our countries is good and should continue. They are not telling the truth.
Yes, mass immigration can be a problem by itself, also of non-Muslims, but Islam is a uniquely aggressive and violent creed. No other major, established religion on this planet stipulates the death penalty for criticizing or mocking its founder and its teachings. Traditional Islamic law does. That’s why no other religious community on Earth behaves the way Muslims are doing globally this September, attacking Western embassies in multiple countries over a single, somewhat amateurish movie most people had never even heard of. Attacking embassies can easily be seen as an act of war. The people and groups doing this have already declared war on us and our societies, whether we like this or not.
Needless to say, movies, cartoons, novels and other objects merely constitute convenient pretexts as targets for the eternal Muslim rage and aggression against the rest of humanity. What these riots and threats are really about is imposing dhimmitude on the West, as Bat Ye’or has prophetically warned. Muslim leaders — from the Prime Minister of NATO member Turkey, via the Western-backed Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt, to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations — are pushing for national and international laws or speech codes banning any criticism of Islam, its founder and its teachings. Although Western mass media virtually never explain this to their audiences, this would essentially imply submission to Islamic law and Islamic rule.
For over a thousand years, Islamic teachings have stipulated only three options for non-Muslims: Convert to Islam, submit to Islamic rule as a virtual hostage in your own country, or fight. Once you start kneeling to Islam, though, there is no going back. You will have to live on your knees every single day for the rest of your life, and your children and grandchildren will be condemned to doing the same, under an eternal shadow of fear of Muslim abuse, violence and aggression.
Islam means “submission.” If you are not willing to submit to Islam or Islamic rule then Islam is your mortal enemy, always has been and always will be. Yes, Islam itself. Not “radical Islam,” “militant Islamism” or “evildoers abusing the peaceful teachings of the Koran.” Islam.
Islamic culture is incompatible with all of the best aspects of European civilization. No form of Islam as it exists today belongs in any Western country.
If you think the above statement sounds “extreme,” this is only because you have been fed a steady diet of misleading nonsense for decades by Western media and academia. I don’t have the time or space to provide a detailed theological explanation for my statements here, but I can do so whenever I need to. I intend to complete a book next year about precisely this issue. Spending years studying Islamic teachings and history and partly living in the Middle East has only convinced me of one thing: Islam cannot be reconciled with our way of life. It is incompatible with any civilization worthy of that name, Eastern or Western.
Any discussion of an Islamic “Reformation” projects a Western European phenomenon, the Protestant Reformation, onto a totally different religion with more violent core teachings and religious texts than all other major religions on the planet combined. If by “reformation” we mean to imply a peaceful, tolerant religion with no Jihad and secular laws, then no, it is very unlikely whether such a form of Islam will ever exist. There are a few types of what we might term “diluted Islam” that are slightly less violently aggressive than the mainstream version of it, but these are all marginal in the greater scheme of things and are frequently persecuted precisely because they deviate from traditional Islamic practices.
If by “reformation” we simply mean a return to the earliest practices of the religion then we have already had a Muslim Martin Luther: the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. He was a violent Jihadist because the earliest followers of Mohammed were also violent Jihadists. You can base a peaceful Christian religion with secular laws on the peaceful example of Jesus and his disciples as contained in the Christian Gospels. In Islam, however, such an example can only be found in the early Mecca period. As long as the example of Mohammed and his followers in Medina remain in force, along with the chapters of the Koran supposedly introduced there, any form of Islam based on traditional Islamic texts is bound to be potentially repressive, aggressive and violent. You may successfully question whether the story of Mohammed as told in traditional text is historically accurate. It probably isn’t. But if you abandon traditional sources and state that Mohammed as we think of him never existed, Islam may not be reformed, but could collapse instead.
Another factor which usually isn’t brought up in discussions is that the Protestant Reformation was no picnic when it happened. It caused generations of turmoil and war, even though it was mainly confined to Europe at the time. An Islamic reformation is unlikely to materialize, but even if it did, it would probably be a very turbulent and messy affair with global consequences in an age of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if Islam cannot be reformed, the result will be a continuation of the violence we see today.
We are currently mass importing this very conflict to all of our major cities, a process which is already well underway. It is criminal negligence on the part of our so-called leaders to continue this madness and conduct a dangerous Multicultural experiment with hundreds of millions of people as guinea pigs. This needs to end. Now.
If you believe that this analysis is correct then you are left with only one possible conclusion: We must physically separate ourselves from Islam and Islamic culture as much as is practically possible. The American essayist Lawrence Auster has dubbed this strategy “separationism,” which is not a bad term.
We cannot continue as we are today, or our freedoms will slowly be eroded and our societies gradually destroyed. We need to halt Muslim immigration to all Western countries on a permanent basis. Any agreements or charters that prevent such a policy from being implemented must be changed. This probably means that Westerners in return have to accept less freedom of movement in Muslim majority countries, but given that these are becoming more dangerous and less hospitable year by year, the age of mass tourism there may soon be over, anyway.
The writer Hugh Fitzgerald has for years advocated the strategy of making Western countries as unfriendly to Islamic practices as humanly possible, which is an excellent idea. We must immediately ban any and all applications of sharia law in all Western countries, including minarets, calls to prayer, halal meat and veils in public places.
We should not try to export “democracy” to Islamic societies that are not ready for them. The attempt to do so has been a costly failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and has brought hostile Islamic regimes to power in places like Egypt. Muslims should not be in our suburbs, but neither should we occupy their countries. We should maintain an armed and vigilant separation. If we need to briefly invade their countries to take out terrorist camps or neutralize serious military threats then we should do so, and leave again afterwards.
A final, but crucial point to emphasize in the separationist strategy is that we should never bail out Muslims from their own failures. Islamic culture is backward and aggressive, but also in many ways an immense failure in a modern society. The only hypothetical situation in which Muslims may change their ways is if they are forced to enjoy the bitter fruits of their own failures.
Don’t bail them out. Don’t send them aid of any kind, which will only feed local corruption and possibly be used to finance Jihad against us. They’re adults who can fix their own problems.
The idea that Islamic violence and aggression is somehow caused by “poverty,” a notion that has been echoed by Western politicians from Tony Blair to Hillary Clinton, is a Marxist-inspired fallacy. Mohammed Bouyeri did not murder film director Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam because he was poor, but because his religious beliefs commanded him to wipe out those who criticize or mock Islam. Islamic aggression is caused by Islamic teachings.
Those who harbor the belief that Muslims will somehow “like” us more if we give them money are deluded and fail to grasp Islamic mentality. To Muslims, anything good happens because Allah wills it. If they feel gratitude to anybody it will be to Allah, not to worthless and inferior infidels. Besides, according to sharia law, non-Muslim dhimmis who retain their lives are supposed to pay protection money — jizya — in “willing submission” to Islamic rule. Non-Muslims giving Muslims money is the way Allah has ordained it. Muslims will feel no gratitude to us for doing this. On the contrary, they may in fact become more aggressive, because they will interpret your behavior as a sign of submission.
Is separation a viable long-term strategy in the twenty-first century? It’s not yet possible to supply detailed answers about how such a policy can be successfully implemented in an age of rapid global communications, but I see the urgent need for us to implement as much of it as possible if we want our societies to survive and remain free. Perhaps separationism will not be sufficient to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran, for instance, but it is the very minimum we as a civilization can live with.
For the record: If any Multiculturalists want to charge me with “hate speech” or “racism” for what I have just written here, come and get me. I will repeat the same statements in court and make sure that millions of people hear this message. When faced with the dangerous and escalating wave of Islamic aggression we are now witnessing, we can no longer afford to hide behind convenient lies. Our children will never forgive us for the mess we leave behind if we do nothing substantial about the threats we face.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.