Twenty Years On: What Did Britain Learn from 7/7?

 On the morning of July 7, 2005, four young British Muslim men boarded the London Underground. They weren’t commuting to work. They weren’t on their way to school. According to their own beliefs, they were on a mission to paradise.

Within seconds, three coordinated bombs tore through the heart of the city’s transit system during the morning rush hour. A fourth exploded on a double-decker bus an hour later. Fifty-two innocent lives were lost. More than 700 people were injured. London, one of the world’s great capitals, was left reeling.

But what followed in the aftermath is arguably the more revealing story.

The attackers were not foreign infiltrators. They were British citizens—homegrown jihadists raised not in the mountains of Afghanistan, but in the neighborhoods of Leeds and Huddersfield. They grew up in the UK but were shaped by a different worldview: one rooted in the teachings of the Quran, the Hadith, and the example of Islam’s founder, Muhammad.

One of the bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, left behind a chilling video message explaining the motives behind the carnage. “Our religion is Islam,” he declared. “Obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final Prophet... Until we feel security, you will be our targets... We are at war, and I am a soldier.”

This was not a rogue ideology. It was a direct application of Quranic injunctions—such as Sura 9:29, which commands believers to "fight those who do not believe in Allah... until they feel themselves subdued."

So, how did Britain respond to this ideological threat?

Not with confrontation—but with conciliation. Not with a reckoning—but with retreat.

Rather than addressing the theological motivations behind the attack, Britain bent over backward to avoid offending the very ideology that inspired it. Critics of Islam were increasingly silenced under the banner of tolerance. Public discussion about jihad was treated as taboo. And in a strange historical irony, London later elected a mayor named Sadiq Khan—sharing a name with one of the July 7 bombers—who famously remarked that terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city.”

Today, London is a city transformed—not by bombs, but by policies. Mosques continue to rise. Blasphemy laws, unofficial but enforced, are increasingly used to police public speech. Citizens have been arrested for criticizing Islam, for quoting Islamic texts, even for preaching Christianity in public.

The message is clear: You may offend traditional British values, but offending Islamic sensibilities comes with consequences.

And yet, as society clamps down on Christian evangelists and upholds “diversity” as a sacred value, few stop to ask: What exactly are we tolerating—and at what cost?

It took four suicide bombers to shake Britain. It took no bombs at all to make it kneel.

Britain, and much of the West, has abandoned the moral foundations that once gave it strength. In the name of tolerance, it has tolerated intolerance. In the name of peace, it has surrendered to a doctrine that claims divine justification for war.

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

Muhammad said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say: ‘There is no god but Allah.’”

Only one of those messages builds civilization. The other, history shows, can tear it down.

July 7, 2005, was not just a tragedy—it was a warning.

July 7, 2025, marks twenty years of unanswered questions. And unless the West awakens—unless it turns back to the values that once made it great—it won’t need suicide bombers to collapse.

It will collapse from within.

The 52 victims

Eric Zemmour: ‘Pope Francis is an Enemy of Europe – He transformed the Vatican into an NGO’ (Video)

 This is a re post from RAIR Foundation, originally here. 

In this RAIR exclusively translated video, French philosopher and journalist Eric Zemmour appeared on the program Face à l’Info to discuss Pope Francis’ recently unveiled left-wing third encyclical which he says was inspired by the grand Imam of Cairo, Ahmad al-Tayyeb. The controversial Imam supports wife-beating, death penalty for apostates, suicide attacks against Jews, execution of gays and Sharia.

In the Pope’s encyclical titled, “Fratelli Tutti” (“Brothers and Sisters All”) he paints a very gloomy and dark picture of the contemporary world. He endorses immigration, globalism and socialism under the premise it will make for a better world. 

“The Pope is playing politics. We have a post-Catholic pope. He is no longer a Catholic,” declared Zemmour. He continues to explain that the Pope’s message is no longer universal, but instead, “an extreme left-wing discourse, it’s not Catholicism.”

Regarding the Christian identity of Europeans, Eric Zemmour was also very critical of Pope Francis. “He is an enemy of Europe, he despises Europe. From what I know, he hates France. He does not defend the Catholic heritage, he sells it off. He transformed the Vatican into an NGO”, explains the columnist. Zemmour continues, “He has taken the side of the enemies of Europe. He’s speaking for the extreme Left, who hate the heritage of Europe and our countries.”

Zemmour believes that the Pope knows that “Europe is de-Christianizing at a phenomenal speed” and has chosen to sacrifice the once Christian continent. Instead of putting his energy towards a continent with a dwindling Christian population, he is willing to surrender Europe to Islam, explains Zemmour:

"So he considers, like many people around him, that Europe without Christianity is going to die. And that, in any case, it is better to let it die, or at least it is better to leave it to others. Especially to Islam."

Watch the following exclusively translated video by RAIR Foundation USA: 

https://rumble.com/embed/v808nr/?pub=4

TV Host:

Good evening, everyone. Good evening, gentlemen. Nice to see you again. Good evening, Eric Zemmour.

The third Encyclical of Pope Francis entitled “Brothers and Sister All” was unveiled yesterday, on Sunday. It gives a somber assessment of the contemporary world, and suggests ways to make the world a better place.

Eric Zemmour, how do we decipher this new encyclical?

What should we remember from it?

EZ:

Listen, I confess to you, after reading that I was flabbergasted.

I was astonished by the type of naiveté usually associated with pimply teenagers that was spread on almost every page. It was impressive.

Making the world a better place, that’s good when you’re 14 years old.

As soon as you’re 15 and a half, you don’t believe in it anymore. I remind you that Jesus said , “My kingdom is not of this world.”

He was wiser. It’s, if you like, a kind of idealism, globalism, universalism and I’ll repeat it, naïve, which I confess to you, leaves me stunned.

OK, so, it’s political. In fact, the Pope is being political.

It’s the first time in history, and we’re going to talk later with Marc

about the relations between the kings of France and the popes.

All the previous popes have had their faults, but they were Catholic.

Now we have a post-Catholic pope.

He’s not Catholic anymore.

TV HOST:

What does that mean?

That means that we, you know the famous phrase from G.K. Chesterton, “The world is full of Christian virtues gone mad.” That’s the pope. That’s exactly it!

He’s not doing Catholicism. He adopts an extreme left-wing discourse, but it’s not Catholicism.

Even if Catholicism were universal, and we’ve know for 2,000 years that in Catholic theology, we access the universal through the individual. There are some absolutely magnificent writings by Bossuet, showing the balance between the universal and the nation.

TV HOST

Excuse me.

EZ

—A chewing gum?

EZ

—Yes, Exactly.

Between the universal and the nation.

So, this appears to be a misuse of Catholic dogma to get into politics, and the Pope is spending his time with, or it seems that he wrote in collaboration with, the Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb. It’s staggering.

He explains that we must defend the identities of poor peoples.

He’s absolutely right. I approve 2,000%, but what about the identities of the European peoples?

He doesn’t care. He explains to us that each and every country is also a country for foreigners.

This reveals that he understood absolutely nothing about the famous text in the Old Testament which says “Welcome the stranger because you yourself have been foreigners in the land of Egypt.”

It is also repeated in the Gospels. Except that the Pope forgets that in the Old Testament, as in the New, the foreigner who is welcomed also leaves. He stays a few days. That’s hospitality.

He doesn’t stay and he doesn’t bring his family or have his family come. He leaves.

That’s the meaning of, “You were a stranger in the land of Egypt. Remember.”

It’s not about having all people from abroad coming to certain countries.

TV Host:

The Pope is not — sorry, I interrupted you. —Please do. —Isn’t it the Pope’s role to be merciful, by being universalist, as you say, isn’t that his role? —That is his role… —Love one another.

Eric Zemmour:

He’s in his role, perhaps, I don’t have the impression that it is his role to give us an encyclical that sounds like a song from the music group Grand Corps Malade [big sick body].

So he’s already stepped out of his role. The Pope, please understand, is the head of the Church.

So, there are Catholics, and there’s a rule that was taught a long time ago, the famous rule of subsidiarity.

It’s not the Maastricht Treaty that invented it. It’s the church.

What does subsidiarity mean? It means that the Pope and the head of the church is for the faith, for the dogma, but not for politics. There, he is completely out of his role.

TV Host:

-Even when he calls for harmony, when he tries to unite, when he wants to see, for example, the migrants, you mentioned, as citizens united together by faith. All that is not…

—It’s politics. —That’s politics? —Yes, it’s politics.

And the other popes? —It’s substituting the country. —The other popes were not political?

The other popes were political too, but they respected the dogma more. If you want, you’re right, it’s a fundamental question. How is this unlike the previous popes or what they did?

We had two great popes, John Paul II and… —Pope Benedict XVI. —Pope Benedict XVI. —One was Polish, the other German, deeply European, deeply rooted in their national identities.

Who believed in nations. Who believed in European nations in particular. So here we have a guy who comes from South America, who despises Europe, who obviously, as far as I know, hates France.

In particular, he despises Europe, and then delivers a universalist discourse like a non-governmental organization.

In fact, he has turned the Vatican into an NGO. I don’t think that’s his role.

He’s speaking like an NGO that’s going to save migrants in the Mediterranean, but that’s not what the church is all about.

Excuse me. It’s not that!

And Pope Benedict XVI, who is still alive, could remind him what Catholic theology is.

I’ve read texts by Pope Benedict XVI, which say something else. Read the writings of John Paul II.

Here, I’m telling you, he’s stepping out of his role. We are aware of where he comes from.

He had his youth formed by the Jesuits in South America in the 1960s.

So that’s very political. That’s very ideological. That’s very left-wing.

So very influenced. I’m not saying that he was linked to the ideology of liberation theology by the Marxists of the ’60s with all the revolutionary movements in South America.

We know that the Church over there was very close to certain Marxist and Communist movements of the time.

It is clear that this is what his universe is. I was going to say cultural, affective, political, and therefore ideological.

You can see all that. You can see where he comes from. You can see who he talks to, as the Marxists used to say, and you can see what he says.

TV Host:

—He says he’s against the death penalty and in favor of equality for women, he’s in favor of welcoming migrants, and says he’s in favor of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

So according to Eric Zemmour, the Pope must…

Eric Zemmour:

Extraordinary, I tell you, I was saying all this when I was 14, and I grew up in the ’70s.

TV Host:

—Does the Pope have to defend the Catholic heritage? Doesn’t he have to go further? Into this field of politics and geo-politics?

Eric Zemmour:

—He doesn’t defend the Catholic heritage. On the contrary, he sells it out.

You know, I have a rather simple thesis about the Pope.

I think he understood something that distressed his predecessors, and it’s that Europe is de-Christianizing at a phenomenal speed. And that outside of that, it is Christianity, I keep repeating it over and over again, that made France, that made Europe. So he considers, like many people around him, that Europe without Christianity is going to die. And that, in any case, it is better to let it die, or at least it is better to leave it to others. Especially to Islam.

And he makes a strategic choice, he’s chosen geo-strategy.

There are continents where there are still a lot of Christians, or in any case, there’s a lot of conversion.For example in China. For example in South America. For example in Africa.

That’s where the demographic and political potential is, and I was almost going to say economic potential.Europe, unfortunately, is in the process of de-Christianizing. So he is sacrificing Europe.

He is sacrificing Europe. He dresses this terrifying geostrategic choice for Europeans and European Catholics with a discourse of universalist veneer and “Care Bear love”.

I don’t think that brings honor to this pope. I don’t know, who wants to react?

TV Host:

My last question: what bothers you the most? The fact that he criticizes Europe, or the fact that he’s using this universalist discourse? What bothers you the most?

Eric Zemmour:

All of it bothers me. All of it bothers me.

I mean, this pope, as you can see, is obviously an enemy of Europe.

He has taken the side of the enemies of Europe. He’s speaking for the extreme Left, who hate the heritage of Europe and our countries.

You know, Catholics are not obliged to obey the pope if he becomes political.

They have to obey the pope, as I said earlier, for the principle of subsidiarity.

They have to obey the pope for the dogma, but this is not dogma. He’s becoming political.

Catholics aren’t obliged to obey him.

TV Host:

—Marc. —I’d like to touch on two or three points, but I don’t have time to develop everything. —No, no. No time.

Marc Guest on Show:

The first point is about the hegemony of Christian dogma, which a number of popes have wanted. In a few moments, we’ll talk about Boniface VIII.

Meaning, at that time, the Pope dreamed of Europe as a Christian kingdom.

So it was extremely political. They wanted to reign over kings.

That’s the first point, no, but it’s to remind you, because you always like historical references.

Eric Zemmour:

You’re right, you’re right.

Marc Guest:

—The second point, I’d like to say I reflect on, is his mentality. When you evoke his youth in Argentina, you mustn’t forget, what happened in Argentina, with murders.

—A dictatorship. A horror of barbarism, which was led by the military, and I think there was s a kind of bruising that gave the him desire for a better world.

No but, it’s to accept what he is.

Eric Zemmour:

—I totally agree with that, on both points. 1. Popes have always been in politics. You are absolutely right, but, precisely, the King of France has always resisted. That’s what you’re going to tell me. —But OK, no, but I agree. In particular.

There have always been theocratic tendencies in the church, but it was fought by Jesus Christ’s own words.

The kingdom is not to summon. We give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. Well, I am sending it back to the Pope today.

All right, but I want to say that the intention of Boniface VIII And all the others, it was the same. The other point is how in this case of John Paul II, John Paul II was an extremely political pope. He fought against communism and helped to bring communism to an end.

—You are right. I had said all the Popes are political. —Demetri.

Pope Francis, by the way, in the U.S. had a very bad time,

he was described as a crypto communist. —They are right. —And besides that, there was still resistance to a point of this encyclical because it was entitled “Fratelli Tutti”, all brothers, and he was reproached for giving it that title.

This is the very principle of the Left.

It’s never left enough.

And that — and that’s the history of the French Revolution.

You can never be left enough. And so the pack will have to make every effort to please these people. They will never please them enough because he’s the pope of the Catholic Church; whether they like it or not, he’s not the great imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo.

I still think that there’s a point that explains to his personal convictions but also political positioning vis-à-vis the evangelicals, I think.

He and South Americans, as you mentioned, there’s a lively competition within the Catholic Church. —I said that. —That’s a part of it. —I’m saying he’s after countries where there are still Christians. —That’s right.

Cdl. Burke: It’s ‘responsible’ for Christian nations to resist ‘large-scale Muslim immigration’

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl.-burke-its-responsible-for-christian-nations-to-resist-large-scale-muslim-immigration

ROME, May 17, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― Resisting “large-scale Muslim immigration” is “a responsible exercise of one’s patriotism," Cardinal Raymond Burke said today.

The Cardinal made the remark at this afternoon’s Question and Answer session at the Rome Life Forum in Rome. The session immediately followed Burke’s address on filial piety and national patriotism.  

Burke had been asked, presumably apropos of Pope Francis’ refusal to grant an audience to Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, if a politician who resists large-scale Muslim immigration should be refused a papal blessing.

The Cardinal indicated that he wouldn’t comment on papal blessings, but that he thought the “fundamental question” was regarding the morality of resisting Islamic mass migration. 

“I think the fundamental question here is: is someone who resists large-scale Muslim immigration committing an immoral act, and therefore should be, let’s say, denied Holy Communion or in some way recognized as a public sinner,” he said. 

Burke responded by saying that the Church’s teaching on immigration, which he had discussed in his speech, supported individuals who are “not able to find a way of living in their own country.” 

“And this is not true of immigrants who are opportunists, in particular in the case of Islam, which by its definition believes itself to be destined to rule the world, coming in large numbers to countries,” he said. 

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see what’s happened, for instance, in Europe, in countries like France and Germany and also here in Italy. And it’s also happening in the United States.”

Burke cited a book called No Go Zones which, he said,  “records places in the United States where, in fact, Muslim immigrants have set up their own legal order.” 

“In other words, they resist the legitimate authority of the state,” he continued. 

This suggests to the cardinal, then, that resisting mass immigration by Muslims into one’s country is a laudable act of patriotism. 

“So to be opposed to large-scale Muslim immigration is …  a responsible exercise of one’s patriotism,” he said. 

“Yes, [some] people are true refugees. We must receive them and help them in every way, but this is not the case when you have simply a large scale immigration.”

In his talk prior to the Q&A session, the Cardinal had quoted the 1992 Catholic Catechism regarding immigration, citing passages that said countries should prudently discriminate regarding migration and also outlined the duty of immigrants to respect the customs and laws of their host nations: 

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church then takes up the obligations of 'more prosperous nations … , to the extent that they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin,”'Burke said.  "Such welcome, as is clear from the text, is not indiscriminate, for it depends on the capacity of nations to accept such refugees from their homelands and on the impossibility of the refugees to find the means to live in their homelands."

Burke noted that the Catechism also says immigrants must  “respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” 

On the tragedy in Norway

It seems worth to say a few words about the tragic events in Norway. I wanted to express my grief but at the same time express my concern that the event may be used to silence honest criticism of Islamic Law, and to curb freedom of expression related to human rights violations against women, homosexuals, etc.

I came accross a number of excellent articles about the event. Worth reading:

1. Phyllis Chesler wrote  What Did the Norwegian Murderer Think?. 
2. Michael Leeden wrote The Myths of Oslo.
3. Daniel Pipes wrote Norway's Terrorism in Context.
4. Caroline Glick wrote Column One: Breivik and totalitarian democrats

Update on 15 August: 

1. A prophetic interview from April 2011 with Bruce Bawer on Norwegian Anti-Semitism
2. Norway, Free Speech, and the Counterjihad - Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

Geert Wilders speech

Speech of Geert Wilders, Party for Freedom chairman, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem. The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.

---

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that's new to me.

It's great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: "The sky over New York and the will of man made visible." Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome's ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see -- and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore, whore". Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators "settlers". Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world -- by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages -- at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world", and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders". Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom."

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don't think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe's last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

"Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy".

www.jihadwatch.org

News from the United "Islamic" Kingdon

Three interesting articles that provide a taste on the current islamization of the UK. Worth reading:

Religious trends and our religious future

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali: Radical Islam is filling void left by collapse of Christianity in UK

Muslim prison gangs 'taking control' of high-security UK prision

On the same topic, a Cardinal urges Muslim leaders to oppose violent jihad