On January 10th, Enza Ferreri ran on her
blog spot
an excerpt from the late journalist Oriana Fallaci’s
predictions about the fate of Italy (and of Europe) in the face of unopposed
mass Muslim immigration from the Mideast and North Africa. In the excerpt, she
argues that the minuscule size of the activist, fundamentalist, jihadist
element in any European Muslim population is irrelevant. It is the inescapably
virulent ideology which that population also carries with it like leprous
lesions that enables and emboldens the terrorism-minded among it.
The canard of
“moderate” Islam, the comedy of tolerance, the lie of the
integration, the farce of multiculturalism continue. And with that, the attempt
to make us believe that the enemy consists of a small minority and that small
minority lives in distant countries. Well, the enemy is not a small minority.
And he’s in our home. He’s an enemy that at first glance does not look like an
enemy. Without a beard, dressed in Western fashion, and according to his
accomplices in good or bad faith perfectly-assimilated-into-our-social-system.
That is, with a residence permit. With the car. With family. Never mind if the
family is often made up of two or three wives, never mind if the wife or wives
are constantly beaten up, if he sometimes kills his blue-jeans-wearing
daughter, if sometimes his son rapes the 15-year-old Bolognese girl walking in
the park with her boyfriend. He is an enemy that we treat as a friend. Who
nevertheless hates and despise us with intensity.
He is, Fallaci continued:
An
enemy who, right after settling in our cities or countryside, engages in
bullying and demands free or semi-free housing as well as the right to vote and
citizenship. All of which he gets easily. An enemy who imposes his own rules
and customs on us.
He represents an advance force that intends to implement
a total conquest of Europe to fashion a mammoth individual caliphate (with the
cooperation of the behemoth European Union) or pick off each country singly to
create many caliphates. He is here to aid in the conquest of Europe. He will
refuse to assimilate or will assimilate only in non-essential ways, such as in
his dress. He might even learn the native language. But, otherwise, he is here
to command and lord it over non-Muslims. He is a foot soldier of Islam. He is “martyring”
himself by enjoying a higher standard of living and an enhanced longevity not
possible in his pest hole of origin. His pain and suffering stem from having to
rub shoulders with the filthy kaffir
and ogling the “exposed meat” of European women in their mini-skirts.
He’s ready to become “radicalized” by a “religion”
that is radically primitive and totalitarian. He’s ready to become an
“extremist” or a “militant,” or an “activist militant,” or a “militant activist
extremist” in pursuit of Muslim “justice” – which means murder, rape, and
income redistribution through taxes to support a European welfare state. Those
taxes also support prisons populated disproportionately by Muslim criminals.
Name me the country without a large
Muslim count of inmates. It must be Patagonia. Patagonia isn’t a country, you
say? Well, there you are.
He carries two bayonets: Islam’s, and the
gilt-edged invitation of  multiculturalism, diversity, and
political/sensitivity correctness. Europe might be able to fight the first,
militarily, and effectively (as France did in Mali, as its police and security
forces did in the post-Hebdo hostage-takings), but its self-imposed Rules of
Engagement with Islam forbid it to question Islam and whether or not it is
benign or malign. That is an ideational conflict which the European elite (and
American politicians) refuses to fight.
Fallaci regarded Islam and its occupying,
parasitical populations (aka, “settlers”) as a cancer that has invaded an
anemic body – anemic because the governments that invited them are unable or
unwilling to form any practical policies to fight the invasion, the brunt of
which falls on the indigenous population in terms of crime, taxes, harassment,
anti-Semitism, enforced compliance with Sharia, and threats of violence.
Muslims have established their own Sharia-governed “separate but equal” ghettos
or areas that are “no-go” zones for the police, firefighters, and the local and
national law.
No sooner had Ferreri posted her Fallaci column
than a Muslim troll signed in and left a ranting diatribe against freedom of
speech. He has since been answered by me and several other readers who found
his assertions bizarre, ludicrous, and overwhelmingly hostile. He signed his
rant with “IA” together with a link to his alleged organization – http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk.
I searched for such an organization, found several
Islamic “schools” of Islamic studies in London, but none of whose URLs matched
the troll’s URL.  A search using his URL
turned up nothing.
The troll’s name is Iftikhar Ahmad. A
Facebook-style photograph of him was appended to his rant. A search on that
medium turned up eight namesakes; not a one of them resembles him, none sports
a Muslim-style beard, as he does, or any beard at all. They must be apostates.
Iftikhar Ahmad’s minor discourse in his lengthy
comment on the blamelessness of Islam and Muslims and the wickedness of the
West is such a tongue-twisting, mind-bending instance of Islamic taqiyya that it deserves a response. It
is representative of the level of deception, falsehood, and dissimulation
regularly practiced by Muslim spokesmen when addressing the West, and bought
whole or in diet-conscious portions by Western politicians, liberal and leftist
pundits, and the mainstream media. In this column I discuss only two paragraphs
of  Ahmad’s entire diatribe. You will
need to read the whole thing yourselves.
I begin with his last paragraph. It’s zanier than
the best Marx Brothers routine.
The
vast majority of terrorist attacks on US soil have been by non-Muslims. The
vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe have been by non-Muslims. And
Muslims are more often the victims of terrorism. The Muslims today are a
demonized underclass in France. A people vilified and attacked by the power
structures. A poor people with little or no power and these vile cartoons made
their lives worse and heightened the racist prejudice against them. Even white
liberals have acted in the most prejudiced way. It was as if white people had a
right to offend Muslims and Muslims had no right to be offended? The difference
was, when white people were offended, they had the state, white corporate media
and the threat of a right wing mob to make their point — Muslims had nothing.

Ahmad appears to be plagiarizing Al Sharpton. Whites are all devils. This is
Sharpton talk in olive-skin. (That is Ahmad’s complexion in his photograph).
Ahmad forgets that Islam is not a race, it is an ideology subscribed to by the
olive-skinned, by blacks, by Asians, and by whites. So much for that vaunted “racial
prejudice” against Muslims.
Charlie Hebdo was not a part of the French “power
structure”; if anything, it and Charlie Hebdo were committed enemies of each
other. Muslims are not “more often” the victims of terrorism, except during
Sunni-Shi’ite slugfests in the Middle East and North Africa. Non-Muslims have
not conducted any terrorist attacks in Europe or elsewhere, except for the very
occasional paint- or pig’s-blood splattered mosque. (Total casualties: one
oinker.) The vast majority have been committed by…Muslims.
Muslims are not a “demonized underclass” in any
Western country. If anything, they’re coddled and treated with kid gloves by governments,
who go to great lengths to stop any vilification of them with speech laws. They
are not a “poor people with little or no power.”
At last count, President François Hollande received
93% of the Muslim vote
in France during the last
election
, which guaranteed that he would continue his coddling policies. As
for Muslims being “poor” (aka, “disadvantaged,” or kept at subsistence level,
but how to explain all those photographs of roly-poly, burqa- or chador-draped
women roaming European streets, pushing expensive-looking baby prams?).  It’s a universal practice among multi-married Muslim
men in every European country to collect welfare state benefits for each wife,
gauged again by the number of his other dependents, such as children. These people
can afford so many cars in France that they burn about a thousand of them every
New
Year’s Eve
, and shop for newer models to replace them. It must be the Muslim
version of French automotive industry subsidies, similar to our bail-out of
General Motors.
French
economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) discussed
a similar economic fallacy: Breaking windows keeps the glassmakers in business.
Someone in Moslemland must have read Bastiat’s Parable of the
Broken Window
, and had a brilliant, pyromaniac idea.
The next to
last paragraph of Ahmad’s goes:
As
for the killing of Charlie Hebdo staff by two or three gunmen, I hold my head
high and say that even though I don’t sanction, encourage, or endorse what they
did, I’m not going to shed any tears for the vicious, racist, and malevolent
victims who were the target of their excess. If a drug dealer gets run over by
a car in my neighbourhood, I’m not expected to do a #Je_Suis_Drug_Dealer hash
tag on twitter. I have more self-respect than that as a human being and as a
Muslim. I do feel some pity for the Charlie Hebdo staff. I feel sorry that they
chose to live a life of hate and die a death of hate, and that they could not
find the stuff of human goodness in their hearts to do something better than be
the Pharonic slave driver whipping the poor Hebrews of French society under
their lash. I think there should be a uniform policy against publication of
material that hurts religious feelings. Freedom of speech is all very well but
with freedom should come responsible behavior or laws to ensure responsible
behavior. There are limits to freedom of expression. These guys TRESPASSED
them. They paid the fine for doing so.

This is mostly sanctimonious drivel. Ahmad doesn’t “sanction, encourage, or
endorse” the “excessive” murder of twelve unarmed people, but, because they
were “vicious, racist, and malevolent,” that’s okay with him. After all, they
were as bad as drug dealers. Who’ll miss them? The victims “trespassed” on his
feelings and those of other Muslims, inflicting irreparable emotional and
material damage . Ergo, even though Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists never heard
of Ahmad, they were “vicious, racist, and malevolent.”
“Non-excessive” assaults with, say, poisoned-paint-ball
guns he would likely sanction, endorse and encourage, as long as the victims
were only half-murdered. Or not. However, murder is murder and I don’t think
Ahmad grasps that the staff of Charlie Hebdo never committed murder, so it wasn’t
even an issue of an “eye for an eye.” Charlie Hebdo wasn’t engaged in
tribal/clan warfare with Muslims. The publication simply despised their “religion.”
And no one ever frog-marched a Muslim and forced
him to look at a cartoon of Mohammad.
I raise a hypothetical question here: Had Charlie
Hebdo, instead of mocking Mohammad with grotesque caricatures, instead regularly
projected him as a noble-looking moral savant, as he is depicted in the
bas-relief of him in the U.S.
Supreme Court
(complete with his ever-handy scimitar), would Muslims have
minded it so much as to commit murder? The Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) in 1997 mounted a challenge to have the image removed, but the petition
was dismissed by then Chief Justice William Rehnquist (for rather specious
reasons).  
The one statement of his that defies my powers of
interpretation is that Charlie Hebdo was “the Pharonic slave driver whipping the
poor Hebrews of French society.” It leaves me scratching my head, although it
is clearly anti-Semitic. Ahmad is capable of his own “insulting” caricatures.
In conclusion, Iftikhar Ahmad is a modern day Caliban, that beast with whom ship-wrecked
Prospero in Shakespeare’s The Tempest
had a love-hate relationship. There are countless clones of him out there. Ahmad
apparently is a chatterbox who can talk your head off before he is moved to
take it off.
Not once in his rant did he challenge any of Oriana
Fallaci’s statements about the perils of letting in the Huns. Or submitting to
the Borg. Or admitting herds of the Walking Dead.
 It was all about
him and his “victimhood.”