Single young men! WHY?
Why are single young men assembling in Europe? Somehow my spidey sense and the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I suspect foul play. Let me tell you why.
In the last post, I shared how recent migration to the EU predominantly comprises young males and that I found it suspicious. Let me tell you why.
This is an old movie.
The migrate-convert-riot-impose Islam is an old movie. It has happened in India. Hordes came in, raping and pillaging. India fought back for 400/500 years. Yet, somehow, these hordes gained a foothold. They offered two choices - either the men would be killed, girls and women would be enslaved, OR you could convert. Many converted, and many died, many were enslaved, and many committed suicides. But the riots, Sharia demands, and victim cards would not stop. India had to give away 1/3rd of its lands to create three Islamic states Afghanistan (part), Pakistan and Bangladesh. And it started happening again in India during Kashmiri Pandit Genocide in the 1990s. Yes, we have seen it all, we bear the scars, but we still stand.
We have been telling the EU this is not a migration. It is something else. We have seen these signs.
Is this economic migration?
Some claim single men came as a form of economic migration from North African lands and Syria/Iraq. This migration was encouraged by Europeans in search of low-cost labour. There were three distinct drivers of European competitiveness.
First was the low-cost East German labour that allowed unified Germany to become the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe.
In the second phase, low-cost East European labour was used to maintain competitiveness. This was facilitated by adoption of a common currency and borderless migration for EU members.
We are now at the third phase where the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, sought to extrapolate this model to refugees from the war-torn Middle East and North Africa (MENA region). These migrants were mostly male, and thereafter they brought in their families, created ghettos, and started demanding Sharia.
While there is some truth to it, the reality is different.
Firstly, if the EU just wanted the labour force, they could have accepted economic migrants from many other places, including the most populous places like China, India, Indonesia and Bangladesh. Migrants from these places have a history of integrating within the communities and supporting their adopted countries. Then why did the EU not do that instead?
Secondly, the real logic is backward. EU was facing an influx of migrants from MENA, and the EU politicians thought they could use these migrants as low-cost labour. Much to the chagrin of the local right-wing, EU countries welcomed these migrants hoping to “groom” them into law-abiding, upstanding citizens of the world.
I suspect the memories of European brain-washing success during colonial campaigns in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries gave them false hope. They forgot that most of those strategies are outlawed in the EU and are deployed only in China. Without those strategies, the EU was pitted against the radical ideology of Islam. The outcome, to those of us who are familiar with Islam, was a foregone conclusion.
These migrants do not seek economic prosperity.
Imagine going to a society where the pathways to wealth and prosperity are already established. You start work, send your kids to college, and over 30-40 years, you get to a very high standard of living. And all this while there is no threat to life and you have all the comfort.
Why would you demolish these pathways like these migrants are doing? Why would you insist on laws, social norms and limitations that created the economic depravity you fled? Why create the same society where your own life was in such danger that you chose to swim the seas to come to this land of opportunity?
It makes no sense. The migrants are all radicals or staunch believers.
Radical Islamics are parasitic dependants on ANY economy.
Radical Islamics have nothing to contribute to the economy or society. Their only method is to create nuisance value by street power. Some claim that the Quran and Hadith only talk of wealth distribution (i.e. mostly taking wealth and property away from non-muslims), not wealth creation.
If indeed Islam wants to contribute economically, it must be controlled by powerful leaders who are strong enough to resist radicals enforcing Islam. This resistance is often without due process or fair trial. A case in point is UAE, with Dubai and Abu Dhabi showing promise. Turkey benefits from the deeds of Ataturk and the fact that its society is not radically Islamized.
This is what many argue, including the Imam of Peace, who acknowledges various shortcomings in Islamic teaching. Imam has his heart in the right place. He wants to modernise Islam.
Are moderate Muslims ok?
Moderate Muslims are good citizens and contributors to the economy. They are all like you and me. Well, almost.
The problem with moderate Muslims is that they will not stand against Radical Muslims. They will stay silent as radical Muslims go on the rampage. Some will defend these radical troublemakers.
There is a popular question. What is the difference between Radical Muslim, Staunch Muslim and moderate Muslim from the point of view of non-muslim? The answer is thus. The Radical Muslim wants to kill you. The Staunch Muslim wants the Radical Muslim to kill you. The Moderate Muslim does not want you killed but does not mind that the Radical Muslim killed you. You mostly don’t matter to him, so he sheds as many tears as he would for the sacrificial lamb.
Harris Sultan is a Pakistani ex-Muslim (he is anti-India, so I don’t like him either). But here is what he says:
The recent riots in #France have highlighted that even 'moderate' Muslims, who advocate for 'secularism' in the West but support Islamism in their ancestral countries, do not have any love for the West or their adopted countries.
They are no different from the radicals who desire the downfall of the West. Just go through the social media posts of these 'liberal' Muslims, and you can clearly see that instead of outright condemnation or sadness regarding the events in France, they make excuses for the rioting and looting and pillaging of their fellow Muslims.
Whether it is a whiskey-sipping 'moderate' Muslim in London or a hardcore Salafi in Toronto, they are all unified in their animosity towards the West and they rejoice whenever incidents like the ones in France or Sweden or Belgium occur.
With France, it's colonisation; with Sweden, it's the burning of the Quran; with America, it would be "the war on terror"; with Canada, "Oh you are a stooge of America". No other community makes justifies its bad behaviour like this one. You don't Chinese rioting in the streets of London over the Opium wars, and you don't see Hindus rioting in the UK over the colonisation of India. However, this community has nothing to offer other than chaos, terror and violence.
THEY ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS! KNOW YOUR ENEMY!
The window for Islamic Reform is closing.
If Islam has to reform, the reformists must take charge.
I would love to examine a reformed Islam that Hamid Dalwai, Asra Nomani, Tarek Fatah, Arshia Malik, Imam of Peace and others strive for. Many striving for Islamic reform are Indian Muslim women. (Muslim women wanting to reform Islam from Af-Pak-Bangladesh, I would call them Indian). But Indian Muslims are waking up just now.
On the other hand, the radical elements are forcing a confrontation - in EU, UK and in India. The non-Islamic world will soon seek to differentiate between Radicals and others - and it is very difficult to differentiate them.
Will the reformists succeed?
I am not sure. People like Ayan Hirsi Ali do not think Islam can be reformed.
I find Islam is under scrutiny provided by easy access to translated Islamic scriptures online. You can find Quran and Hadith online with approved translations. These texts raise a lot of questions in your mind. They do support Ayan’s thesis more than the reformists hope. Some Muslims read the free, authentic and approved translations from these sources and found that they disagree with the teachings of the Hadith and the Quran. Some of them do not agree with even a common minimum Islam as put forth by the likes of Tarek Fatah. They are spreading their views, and the ex-Muslim movement is gaining traction.
I also do not think the reformists have enough time. I think the radicals have accelerated the confrontation BECAUSE the common Muslim is waking up to the realities depicted in the Quran. I suspect the reformists will all leave Islam, and non-Islamic people will protect them.
Where does that leave Europe?
Europe is on a dangerous stretch. I see the same story in UK, Sweden, France and Germany.
People do not realise that it has taken a lot of blood and effort to wean the Europeans of mass, industrialized violence. Europe, too, has been at war with radical Islam since the time of Ummayyads. In fact, if it were not for Charles Martel’s win at the Battle of Tours, Europe would have been an Islamic kingdom with Sharia and no industrial revolution.
I think the radical Islamists are poking the wrong bear. If Europe becomes radically anti-Islamist, we will face prolonged bloodshed and war. I am not alone. Major Gaurav Arya makes some of the same points that I make.
In Sum
Things are getting worse. I think Europe has 5 years at the most before shit hits the fan. This post has not been easy to write. It is a Gordian knot. We are at an impasse. How to solve this?
References: (only those I have read/watched/referred)
Understanding Muhammad - by Ali Sina
The Critical Qur'an - by Robert Spencer
Challenge of Dawah - by Ayan Hirsi Ali (Hoover Institute Free book)
Apostate Prophet YouTube Channel
I 100% support your freedom to share your opinion openly Rahul -- exposing our thoughts gives them room to breathe (and hopefully grow into better versions of themselves, as the muses try to demonstrate).
Today’s article stirs different feelings in me than many of your others -- negative feelings that feed my bad wolf.
I will offer some questions privately via email.