Cognitive dissonance has become prevalent throughout society. And, it isn’t just cognitive dissonance that helps to create conflict; it is a willful ignorance of facts. For years, many in the alternative media, blogging community, and all those who have knowledge of Islam and the Qu’ran, have stated that moderate Muslims pose as much a threat as extremist Muslims. Now, Professor Ruud Koopsman of the Netherlands has released a research study indicating that “more than 50 million Muslims are willing to support those who carry out terrorist attacks to defend their religion.”
Now, when Muslims proclaim to “defend their religion,” they are speaking about silencing those who speak out against the misogyny, pedophilia, rape, brutal assaults, honor killings, beheadings, deception, child marriage, murder, and slavery condoned by the Qu’ran and Haddiths. Moreover, any criticism of their so-called “prophet” Mohammed is grounds for an attack.
Many individuals have a beef with Christianity. Some go so far as to place a crucifix of Jesus into a jar of urine, call it art, and be heralded with praise. If an “artist” were to take an image of Mohammed and place it in urine, the teachings of Islam would call for the death of the perpetrator.
As the Daily Mail reports, Prof. Koopsman warned the EU of his findings and suggested the EU “block entry of any refugees whose identity cannot be categorically confirmed.”
Koopmans said that of the 1billion adult Muslims in the world, ‘half of them are attached to an arch-conservative Islam which places little worth on the rights of women, homosexuals, and people of other faiths’.
In an interview with a German news website he claimed that of these 500million conservative Muslims, at least – and probably more – than 50million are willing to sanction violence.
Koopmans, who is a professor of sociology and migration research at the Humboldt University of Berlin and the director of integration research at the WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, stressed that not every one of them was ready to exert violence directly.
But he added: ‘They support the radicals, they encourage them and provide them shelter or simply keep their mouths shut when they observe radicalization.’ [emphasis mine]
So, it appears while some Muslims profess to be moderate and “peaceful,” in truth, they provide support to those committing violent acts, as commanded by the Qu’ran and Mohammed, in various ways — one of which is to remain silent when these individual carry out or plan violence. Koopsman cited a US Pew Research study that stated in many Islamic countries, 14 percent of Muslims support suicide bombing of innocents “sometimes” or “often” justifying the action as defending Islam. As previously stated, in their minds, defending of Islam means silencing those who criticize the theocracy by pointing to the violent teachings sanctioned by the Qu’ran and Mohammed in the Haddiths.
Koopsman even claimed he was being “very conservative” in his estimate of 50 million Muslims who are violent. He went on to declare he saw a “‘clear difference’ between anti-Islam baiting and justified criticism of Islam.”
He went on: ‘There is nothing wrong with foreign cultures, as long as they are looking for the connection to the majority in society and actually enrich our countries.
‘But those who are here to spread their medieval beliefs, which are unfortunately widespread in Islamic countries, must be met with zero tolerance’.
He stressed that the EU should be much more careful to let suspected Islamists have uncontrolled travel to and within Europe.
He sad refugees and migrants should be placed initially in transit zones, ‘as long as their identity is unclear’.
In his solution to allowing “refugees and migrants” into a county then placing them in “transit zones” until their identify could be verified is where he and I disagree. After claiming that half of Muslims support/accept violence and those who carry out that violence, why would you allow any to enter into a civilized nation/country when no practitioner of Islam will speak out against the violence or the perpetrators? Moreover, Muslims do not consider their “beliefs” medieval. They consider them handed down from Allah and disseminated by Mohammed. If one is going to face this threat with zero tolerance, it would mean stopping the illegal entry, immigration, migration, and refugee programs to this group of people.
As has been seen throughout Europe and Sweden, Muslims do not want to assimilate to any other culture. They seek to conquer other cultures, eradicate that culture and history, replace it with their version of it, and enslave the native populations of nations or kill them should they not convert or pay the tax. While LBGTqrsxyz groups protest and parade for man-created “rights” in the West, Muslims dominated countries and governments murder homosexuals or throw them from the roof of a building in order to kill them. No one but Muslim men have rights in a society dominated by Islam.
Sweden is now the rape capital of the world because of mass Muslim immigration. Perform an internet search using the terms “Muslims in Sweden” and many articles will appear. In one article, Malmo is now a crime capital. Going back through the last few years, one can find articles covering violent riots by Muslims in Sweden. Changing the country to any in Europe and one can read about “no go zones,” native populations being harassed and sometimes attacked as Muslims declare “Sharia zones” enforcing the tenets of Islamic Sharia law. Police won’t even dare venture into these zones and advised natives to stay away as well.
Burying one’s head in the sand, denying what is stated in the Qu’ran and Haddiths, or denying the sincerity of Islamic Imams who declare “jihad” upon western nations will not change the facts or the circumstances nor will it make the reality disappear. And, if one pays attention, there are a couple of individuals who practice Islam that speak out against the violence. One, a woman who is a Muslim, has to hide because Imams have called for her murder. Is this a “religion of peace” or a religion of pieces?
Tending to view it as the latter, any nation would be wise to halt any and all immigration of Muslims based on the propensity for violence that threatens the native population and culture of the host country. Those who would call it “discrimination” based on religion should realize Islam is a theocracy with its own laws and government that seeks to replace the host nation government with Islamic Sharia, amounting to insurrection, which every nation has the right to protect its culture and population from overthrow and conquest; be it by sword or civilization jihad. Moreover, being that Islam is anathema to the government of all western nations, those nations, being sovereign entities, can place any requirement whatsoever on who receives the privilege to immigrate into it — even religion.