It takes a nation to protect the nation
by Kenneth Roberts
What is the original Islam?
Muslim apologists claim that original Islam meant ‘peace’, but what is the evidence? Mohammed claimed the opposite.
According to Mohammed, original Islam is jihad.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah say: When you enter into the inah transaction (become businessmen), hold the tails of oxen (become cattlemen), are pleased with agriculture (become farmers), and give up conducting jihad, Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion. - Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455
Conducting jihad is the ‘original religion’ of Mohammed. Mohammed is the authority on Islam.
Mohammed’s Litmus Test
Just as adherence to the U.S. constitution is the litmus test of American identity, so adherence to jihad is Mohammed’s test of loyalty to Islam.
Mohammed’s litmus test is the willingness of Muslims to conduct jihad. That is how Mohammed determined who is a genuine Muslim and who is a lukewarm ‘hypocrite’.
Lukewarm Muslims do not go on jihad. Lukewarm Muslims go into trades or farming. By this test, most Muslims today are condemned. Non-jihadist Muslims have abandoned original Islam.
Lest this be considered too hasty, let’s examine further evidence.
Narrated Mujashi: My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, "Migration has passed away with its people." I asked, "For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?" He (Mohammed) said, "I will take (the pledge) for Islam and jihad." - Bukhari 4,52,208
In the above quote, Mohammed says that allegiance to Islam includes a commitment to the political action of jihad.
In addition, the Koran says lukewarm Muslims can be recognized because they avoid jihad.
“It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from jihad).” - K. 9.45
“But when a decisive surah (explaining and ordering things) is sent down, and fighting (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is mentioned (i.e. ordained) therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) looking at you with a look of one fainting to death…” - K. 47:20
So not going on jihad is a disease or mental illness in Muslims according to Allah/Mohammed.
Non-Jihadists are ‘Rubbish’
Not content with calling non-jihadists ‘diseased’, Mohammed insults them further; they are ‘garbage’:
“Prophet Muhammad said; It is expected that the nations will call other nations to share them against you (Muslims) as the eaters call each other to eat from the food in front of them in a large wooden plate A person asked, Will that happen because of our small number on that day? The Prophet said, No. Your number will be great, but you will be rubbish like the rubbish of flood-water. And certainly Allah will remove from the hearts of enemies the fear of you and surely Allah will throw Wahn in your hearts. A person asked, What is Wahn, O Messenger of Allah? The Prophet said, Wahn is to love this world and to hate death.” - Abu Dawud 4284
The Messenger of God said: The nations are about to flock against you [the Muslims] from every horizon, just as hungry people flock to a kettle. We said: O Messenger of God, will we be few on that day? He said: No, you will be many in number, but you will be scum, like the scum of a flash-flood, without any weight, since fear will be removed from the hearts of your enemies, and weakness (wahn) will be placed in your hearts. We said: O Messenger of God, what does the word wahn mean? He said: Love of this world, and fear of death.
In this hadith, lukewarm Muslims love their earthly life and seek comfort and safety, whereas, real Muslims are jihadists who love death. Real Muslims are feared by kafirs. Fear of Muslims is what Allah wants.
But Islam is fatalistic. Allah controls people’s wills and causes lukewarm Muslims to rebel against him by placing ‘wahn’ in their minds. Kafirs have no reason to fear lukewarm Muslims, because they do not go forth in jihad. Lukewarm Muslims are no different from kafirs…they are ‘rubbish’…so they must be replaced by real Muslims who conduct jihad.
“O you who believe! What is the matter with you that when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah (jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life as compared with the hereafter. Unless you go forth He will punish you with a grievous penalty and put others in your place; but Him you would not harm in the least. For Allah has power over all things.” - K. 9:38-9
Mohammed’s Allies Agreed to Unending Jihad
When Mohammed arrived in Medina with few followers, he needed allies to begin jihad. Those tribes that made an alliance with Mohammed understood jihad as their main task.
“We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on Jihad as long as we live.” - Bukhari 4,52,87
According to the above, jihad is unending. Other hadiths also confirm that jihad is endless:
“As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us." - Tabari IX: 69
"'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'" - Ishaq: 204
Jihad is the Proper Career for Muslims
Furthermore, according to Mohammed, jihad is not just a job, but a career.
...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.” - Bukhari 61, 2756
Good Muslims imitate Mohammed. Good Muslims threaten kafirs to submit: ‘Accept Islam and you will be safe’. Good Muslims make war on kafirs to remove their possessions and human rights. Kafirs are despoiled for the political crime of disobeying Mohammed.
‘Abasement’ and ‘humility’ mean making kafirs captive nations under discriminatory Sharia law. Thus, the purpose of jihad is to rob and subjugate non-Muslims and enrich and empower Muslims.
Jihad Brings Wealth
“O you who believe! If you will aid (the cause of) Allah He will aid you and plant your feet firmly.” - K. 47:7
As well, Mohammed is owner of the earth and Muslims will gain the treasures of Rome and Persia and the world through jihad (q.v. Bukhari 4,52,220).
Jihad makes Muslims Strong through Plunder
"The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us. This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.” - Sahih Muslim 19,4327
Jihad is More Religious than Kind Deeds
Allah, the Exalted, says, Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong (by avoiding jihad). Those who believe and suffer exile and strive with might and main in Allah's cause with their goods and their persons have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: They are the people who will achieve (paradise). - K. 9:19-20.
It is not pious deeds, but the political act of jihad that guarantees religious salvation.
Jihad as Defined in Sharia Law
The legal definition of jihad is given in the authoritative Reliance of the Traveller, o9.0:
"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims."
The Reliance of the Traveller is Sunni Islam’s authoritative volume on Sharia law. It is endorsed by Alazhar University, Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican.
Eminent Islamologist Hans Jansen points out that, to the original Muslims, jihad only meant violence: “The first generations of Muslims never understood anything else but ‘waging war’ when they heard the word jihad.”
Up to this point, the evidence has shown that…real Muslims are those who follow original Islam; they conduct war against non-Muslims; Mohammed says jihad is the proper career of Muslims; peaceful civilian jobs are a way of avoiding jihad.
But is this condition permanent in Islam? Can Islam be changed?
Can Jihad be abandoned? Can Islam be reformed?
Unfortunately, no. Jihad—warfare against non-Muslims—is the perfectly revealed ‘original religion’ of Islam declared in various ways by the final Messenger himself. It may not be changed.
'Far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! - Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174
Allah brings Muslims back to Original Islam
Islam may go off track for brief periods, but Allah will send someone to return it to his path.
Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah shall raise for this Ummah at the head of every century a man who shall renew (or revive) for it its religion. - Sunan Abu Dawud 37, 4278
‘Revival’ in Islam means the revival of conducting jihad.
Modern Teachings on Jihadism
Jihadism is the teaching that jihad is the central mission of Islam.
In his 2008 sermon “Allah is Preparing us for Victory” , the late Anwar Awlaki wrote:
“Some Muslims say the way forward for this Ummah is to distance itself from terrorism and spend their time in becoming good in Business, good in technology, agriculture, and the rest; and this is how we can compete with the rest of the world. The commentators on this hadith (Abu Dawud 23:3455) say going back to the (religion) here means going back to (Jihad for Allah); the only way to go back to the (religion) is to go back to (Jihad for Allah); so Jihad becomes equal to the religion; the solution of the Ummah is to go back to Jihad fe Sabeelillah.”
Awlaki goes into details of jihadism as a money-making technique for modern Muslims:
“Leave the farming to the people of the book (Jews and Christians), you go and spread the religion of Allah (through jihad); they will farm and they will feed you; they will pay Jizya (poll tax), they will pay Kharaaj (tribute), if the (sustenance) of (the Messenger) was through Ghaneema (plunder) it must be the best (sustenance) and better than farming, business, shepherding and better than anything else because (the Messenger) said: “My (sustenance) comes beneath the shadow of my spear.”
Awlaki then argues that through robbery and extortion at the expense of kafirs, no Muslim will ever need to pay taxes. This will succeed because it is Mohammed’s original Islam.
Muslims Demand a Global Caliphate and Sharia
Opinion surveys consistently find that around 65% of Muslims worldwide approve of a global caliphate under discriminatory Sharia law. This state of affairs could only be achieved through a general jihad by Muslims, since a caliphate would be resisted by the superpowers. Nevertheless, Islamic dictatorship is a majority opinion among Muslims.
Is Jihad a Suicide Pact in the Nuclear Era?
Jihad is original Islam and Mohammed’s method. Consequently, Muslims are caught in this logical dilemma: If Mohammed’s method is still valid, therefore Islam is a suicide pact in the nuclear era; but if endless jihad is no longer valid, therefore Mohammed was wrong and original Islam is false. Muslims tiptoe around nuclear annihilation, rather than say Islam is false. Today, many Muslims hope to conduct jihad by other, stealthier means…since jihad may be conducted by word, by money or by the pen.
All the same, modern Muslims are aware that jihad is the litmus test for Mohammed’s original religion, but they are patiently awaiting the right leader.
This inspiring leader—a religious warlord—will call Muslims to a general jihad and establish a utopian dictatorship under discriminatory Sharia law. Muslims balk at imagining how apocalyptic this general jihad would be, even though it is obvious.
Using mathematical analysis, Bill Warner has revealed that jihad is the preponderant theme of the Islamic Trilogy.
Jihadism is thus not a far-fetched aberration promoted by a small minority of Muslims…it is the hidden agenda of Muslims…it is foundational Islam…the ‘original religion’ of Mohammed.
Original Islam is jihad, not peace.
1.c) If the strategy of banning only Muslims can be made to work, naturally I'm behind it 100%. But I have strong doubts. As I'm sure you heard regarding the recent French elections, it was the Muslim vote that swung the election for the socialists. I think the left will be fiercely opposed to any discrimination against their Muslim allies and voters. It's a virtual certainty that they will mobilize the state's bloated "anti-discrimination" apparatus to protect them.
That's why I personally favor a strategy of simply slashing all immigration (not just Muslims) to a low level. At least in Britain, that strategy polls well, and reflects the will of the electorate.
Furthermore, it sidesteps the whole issue of racism.
3.a) You're not really addressing my question. I'm not asking: Are native Europeans biologically superior, or aesthetically pleasing? I'm asking: Do you believe it will be beneficial for native Europeans to make themselves minorities in their own ancestral lands? Or to put it another way: Is making themselves a minority in the lands they now control in their interest? I'm asking about Europeans, but the same question could be framed about any biological/racial/cultural group. For example, would it be in the interests of the Muslims to hand over their territories to non-Muslims? Or would it be in the interests of the Jews to hand over Israel to non-Jews? Or would it be in the interests of black Africans to hand over their lands to foreign peoples? Where do you stand on this question, both in the general form, and pertaining to Europe in particular?
3.b) "If I had taken my house from someone else by force, I do not think I would have any moral grounds to prevent someone else from taking it from me." Yes, but you don't need moral grounds to prevent someone else from taking it. All you need is the will and the ability. This is what countries do. Turkey may have no moral right to occupy Constantinople, but it does so all the same, and it doesn't share either. This is because Turkey is motivated by its interests, not by universal morals. Its commitment is to the well-being of the Turks, not to the equality of everyone in the world.
"If I had no morality and would not even share it,"... This touches on the same point. Why do you equate sharing with morality? I see my myself (rather like a Confucianist) as the center of concentric circles: me, my family, my extended family, my friends, my race/religion/tribe, my nation, the world. My duty to people decreases rapidly as they become stranger to me. Why would I take in a stranger (to whom I have no duty) and thereby weaken my support to the family to whom I do have a duty? That to me would be immoral.
In short, I reject the universalist, self-denying morals which plague the West. I subscribe to a moral system which places the interests of my concentric circles first.
1.c) Even successfully stopping all immigration would only provide a stop-gap to the problem. If muslims in the west are reproducing at a rate of 4 children per generation, whilst non-muslims are reproducing at a rate of 1.1 children per generation, then sooner or later muslims will be in a dominant position. How do you propose to deal with that gradual ascent to power?
3.a) I think I did answer your question: I want european culture and civilisation to continue. Having gone from talking about indigenous Europeans, you are now talking about native Europeans. Muslims of whatever colour are native Europeans. It would appear you want to see the world in binary oppositions. Countries are either muslim or non-muslim. "... would it be in the interests of the Muslims to hand over their territories to non-Muslims? Or would it be in the interests of the Jews to hand over Israel to non-Jews? Or would it be in the interests of black Africans to hand over their lands to foreign peoples? Where do you stand on this question, both in the general form, and pertaining to Europe in particular?" I don't recognise this concept of "hand over". Cultural change happens. Boundaries shift. The only "hand over" I can imagine is a revolution or a military occupation. But politically-motivated mass immigration, and politically-motivated non-integration is going to lead to sectarian strife in Europe. Europe will become Balkanised. And I contend that this is what the power elite have planned.
3.b) It seems you recognise no moral framework other than might is right (and that's really only a moral framework that is suitable to a state of war). On that basis, we will be reduced to gangsterism and tribalism and the wild west. It sounds like you are rejecting the very idea of universal human rights.
1.c) "Even successfully stopping all immigration would only provide a stop-gap to the problem." Yes, that's true, but of course your solution of stopping only Muslim immigration has the same problem. I'm not sure your statistics on Muslim fertility rates in the West are accurate. Can you back up those figures? As for what to do after immigration is stopped: I'll defer that question until after we stop Muslim immigration.
3.a) I used the word "native" by mistake. I meant to say "indigenous." I don't see the world in binary oppositions. I'm well aware that countries vary across the scale in terms of their Muslim populations. What I meant by a "Muslim country" is a country politically dominated by Muslims, like say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran. Let me also explicitly define the term "hand over": group A (which is dominant) is said to hand over a country to group B if and only if it allows in so much immigration of group B that group B comes to outnumber and dominate group A. For example, if the 6 million Jews in Israel (A) were to allow in 30 million Muslim immigrants from Africa (group B), we would say that those Jews "handed over" their country to the Africans. Now, defined in this way, do you still "not recognize" this concept? If you don't recognize it, can you please explain why? Certainly you would agree that this phenomenon can occur, right? If you do recognize this concept, can you please answer my question, i.e.: Would it be in the interests of the Israeli Jews to hand over their country to Muslim Africans? (Or to put it another way: Would the Israeli Jews be better off under the control of a dominant majority of Muslims than under a government which they themselves control?) Yes or no?
3.b) I recognize the usual universal human rights: the right to life, liberty, property, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association etc. Are you suggesting that everyone has a human right to be a US citizen? Or that everyone has a human right to move into person X's house? Or that people have a human right to demand that others share with them?
I'm asserting something like this: If group A controls a valuable asset (a country/house/company etc.) then it is against that group's interest to hand over that asset to group B. I am saying that group A, as a rational actor, should protect its own interests. What sort of morals is it that tells a group to be irrational and inflict harm on itself? You seem to be advocating white guilt, or a quasi-Christian concept of loving others to your own detriment. That is the "universal morals" I disagree with.
1.c) I have no idea of the fertility rates for the muslim population in the West. I don't trust even the UK government's statistics for the % of the population who are muslims in that one country. Going off the (undoubtedly erroneous) existing statistics for the UK, the muslim population has almost doubled in size every 10 years. It is hard to know what % are coming in as immigrants and what % are born here. That the UK government cannot manage the provision of hospitals or school places shows they are out of control of their own statistics. No wonder they have decided to abolish the Census. My point is, even with zero immigration, if the birth rates are significantly out of proportion, then the muslims population can still end up being the dominant population. The wheels are in motion for a future schism that may well be bloody. And that since that is the case, action needs to be taken regardless of immigration coming to a total halt. Certainly people like Mark Steyn and Walter Lacqueur believe that the fertility figures are out of whack, and the future conflict is only a matter of time and scale. So, we need to be planning for that eventuality and how we can stop it (or minimise it if it can't be stopped).
For example, if the 6 million Jews in Israel (A) were to allow in 30 million Muslim immigrants from Africa (group B), we would say that those Jews "handed over" their country to the Africans. Now, defined in this way, do you still "not recognize" this concept? If you don't recognize it, can you please explain why? Certainly you would agree that this phenomenon can occur, right?
I still don't recognise this concept of "hand over". Can you give me some historical examples of situations where a country of 6 million people have invited in 30 million hostile enemies? I have to admit, history is not my strong point.
I'll leave off pursuing point 3.b) further. I don't see that it serves this argument. By all means bring it back if you disagree.
1.c) Yes, I agree that anything at all that can be done should be done. However, I believe stopping Muslim immigration (however it is achieved) is far and away the most important near-term measure.
3.a) The classic example of handing over is the US. When the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed, white Americans comprised about 90% of the population. In 2012 (about a month ago), it was announced that white babies are now in the minority. The Census Bureau currently estimates that white Americans will become a minority in 2042.
So when we reach the year 2042 (or whatever year the crossover point occurs in), we will be able to say that white America (group A) handed over the United States to non-white minorities (group B).
Granted, there aren't many examples of this phenomenon, yet. In the pre-1960 era, the very idea of handing over a country would have seemed ludicrous. But mass immigration and multiculturalism are booming all over the West, so this phenomenon is always advancing. For example, according to 2009 statistics from the UK, the English and Welsh have handed over roughly 12% of their countries to non-Europeans.
Can you explain what you mean when you say you "don't recognize" this concept? Clearly you don't misunderstand what I mean; I've defined the term very clearly and given you some examples. Do you mean that you refuse to talk about it?
3.a) Now you have described what you are talking about, then I can see what you are talking about. Of course, it is not that I refuse to talk about it (if that is what I wanted to say, that is what I would have said) :)
However, I don't think that what you have given as an example fits your description. Your description pivots on the idea of domination. Following the "hand over" the new group dominates the existing group. Are you saying that white people in the US currently "dominate" (subjugate) non-white people (rather than to say that white people merely out-number non-white people)? And if so, do you really think that all the immigrants to the US (european, vietnamese, african, mexican, indians, pakistanis, etc.) are united in their aim to subjugate the native white Americans? Is there something peculiarly racist (and which you would like to defend) about the way in which white people in America dominate non-white people, and is it this domination you are fearful of losing? The implication from what you are saying is that non-white people in America have no positions of power, and they are somehow neutral or hostile in this imagined future domination.
Moreover, the concept of "hand over" (as it is normally used) would suggest a procedure that takes effect immediately, not a procedure that take 100 years or so.
So what you are describing is a strange use of "hand over" which is an elongated process, and it is something you are saying happens rarely historically (maybe it has only happened and is happening in our lifetime). Furthermore, I don't think that all immigrants are united by a goal to dominate the country into which they migrate. Only muslims seem to be (actively or potentially) united by such an ideology.
I thought that America was held up as a shining example of how a country can absorb lots of immigrants and turn them into patriotic citizens. If America can't do that, then those who seek to emulate that methodology are in for a big surprise.
"Are you saying that white people in the US currently "dominate" (subjugate) non-white people (rather than to say that white people merely out-number non-white people)?"
I wouldn't go as far as to call it subjugation, but yes I do believe that in 1965 (when the Immigration Act was passed) white people absolutely dominated the US, both in the public and private sphere. Obviously things have changed a lot since then. If we assume the Census Bureau is correct, then the hand over from whites to non-whites in the US will take roughly 77 years (from 1965 to 2042), and we are now 47 years into this process, or 60% finished. (Of course, the process will continue after the cross-over point is reached.) At this point, minorities hold political power roughly commensurate with their proportion of the population. And as the hand over proceeds we should see that trend continue to progress. Take a look at California for example (where the cross-over of whites to minority status occurred in the late 1990s). The following graph shows the demographic trends for California, as projected by the California State Dept. of Finance (link):The question is: will the increasingly monocultural Mexican/Latino population dominate California politically and culturally. Culturally, I would say definitely. White flight will continue, and the old white "American" California will be increasingly found in enclaves. Spanish TV may become the norm. Do Mexicans (and Hispanics more generally) have the desire to dominate California? Absolutely. They regard the entire Southwest of the US as Mexican property which was stolen in 1848 as a result of the Mexican Cession. Mexican immigration is partly a government-encouraged exercise in irredentism. See: The Second Mexican War. The idea that these Mexican immigrants are being turned into "patriotic citizens" (as that term was understood when I was a boy) is ridiculous.
I agree that not all immigrants come in bent on domination. East Asian immigrants, for example, make excellent citizens of the countries they immigrate to. However, I believe many immigrants do come in with a hostile attitude toward their host country. Muslims and black Africans, for example, are well aware of the humiliations their peoples have historically suffered at the hand of the white man. Do you think that they have forgotten? That turning the tables has no appeal to them at all?
More broadly, my point is this: If we have learned anything from history, it is that minorities are persecuted -– not constantly of course, but being a minority is dangerous. It's true all over the Muslim world. It was true all over the Western world for most of its history. The Jews – a minority everywhere – were persecuted relentlessly over the entire 1900 years or so between their flight from and return to Israel. Do you have a cogent argument as to why it would be advantageous, in the long run, for indigenous Europeans to make themselves into minorities in their own lands?
"Do you have a cogent argument as to why it would be advantageous, in the long run, for indigenous Europeans to make themselves into minorities in their own lands?"
I have maintained for some time that we are being led blindly to that place. It seems not impossible to me that the power elite would like to have a situation some decades hence when the democracies of the world are riven by sectarian violence. When the oil runs out, and the things which cheap fuel currently make affordable disappear, the many will want more of what the few have. One thing that the rich and powerful are good at is looking out for their future and planning for it. It may well be advantageous for them. I wouldn't put it passed them that they would embrace islam, provided it meant they could maintain their power, wealth and privilege. Even under communism there was a rich power elite.
But I don't see the threat coming from immigration per se, but from the increasing muslim population.
"But I don't see the threat coming from immigration per se, but from the increasing muslim population."
Are you a supporter of mass-immigration into Europe, provided Muslims are barred? Or by "immigration" do you mean some kind of tightly controlled immigration of high-skill, high-value people?
It is not me who is driving mass immigration. It is not the immigrants who are driving mass immigration. Mass immigration has been brought about by those in power i.e. principally the capitalists. I have argued for some time that this was a) to reduce wages of workers, b) to fragment & weaken national identity. These two purposes may only be intermediate goals. They may just be roads on the way to the United States of Europe. They may just be roads on the way to Balkanisation. They may be milestones from one to the other. But sure as sugar is sweet, the populations of europe have not voted for mass immigration.
I don't blame immigrants for wanting to move to a place where they think their life will be better. I don't blame them even for struggling to get to that place. I don't blame them for not integrating, if they are being rewarded for not integrating. But most of the multi-cultural policy of non-integration has come about as a justification for why muslims need not integrate, because they will not integrate. As muslims they know they must dominate a society not subsume themselves in it.
There are plenty of low-skilled (white and non-white) immigrants in Britain who have integrated. None of them have been agitating for the past 30 years to overthrow our existing systems and install themselves as a superior class of beings. Except for muslims. Many of those low-skilled immigrants are hard-working, learn the language, marry into native families.
You are the one who is obsessed with blaming immigrants in europe and seeing them as the enemy. The enemy is the power elite (almost universally rich people) and islam.
What is needed is a revolution to stop the power elite.
Joe, you dodged the question. Do you support mass immigration into Europe? Yes or no?
No, I didn't dodge the question. Immigration should not proceed at a rate greater than that at which immigrants can be integrated into the host society. The integration of muslim immigrants is much harder, and therefore immigration of muslims should be stopped until we know if we can integrate the current muslim population.