A One-Sided Suicide Pact

Soeren Kern, writing for the Gatestone Institute in his November 16th article, "IslamNeeds a Fair Chance in Germany," reported a significant development in Germany that portends dire consequences for that benighted nation and for all of Europe: the city of Hamburg signed a "treaty" with organizations representing its Islamic population.

The "treaty" features a series of concessions, not by the Muslims to secular authority, but by the secular government of Hamburg to the Muslims. The "treaty," which requires ratification by the city's Parliament, grants Muslims "rights" and "privileges" enjoyed by no other religious group there.

The November 13 agreement, signed by Hamburg's Socialist Mayor Olaf Scholz and the leaders of four Muslim umbrella groups, is being praised by the proponents of multiculturalism for putting the northern port city's estimated 200,000 Muslims on an equal footing with Christian residents….

The most controversial part of the accord involves a commitment by the city government to promote the teaching of Islam in the Hamburg public school system. The agreement grants the leaders of Hamburg's Muslim communities a determinative say in what will be taught by allowing them to develop the teaching curriculum for Islamic studies.

Moreover, Muslim officials will also be able to determine who will (and who will not) be allowed to teach courses about Islam in city schools. In practice, this means that only Muslims will be allowed to teach Islam and that pupils will not be exposed to any critical perspectives about the religious, social and political ideology of Islam.

Under the wide-ranging accord, Muslims in Hamburg will also have the right to take three Islamic holidays as days off from work. Up until now, it has been up to individual employers to decide whether or not to grant Muslim staff religious days off on a case-by-case basis. In addition, Muslim students will be exempt from attending school on Muslim holidays.

The agreement also includes provisions for the construction of more mosques in Hamburg, the upkeep of cultural Islamic facilities, the authorization for Muslims to bury their dead without the use of coffins, as well as the counseling of patients and prison inmates by Muslim clerics.

Moreover, the "treaty" will guarantee "broadcast slots alongside Protestant and Catholic broadcasts on public and private radio and television, as well as broadcasting council seats for Muslims with the northern Germany NDR public broadcaster and Germany's federal ZDF television channel."

The German term for treaty, vertag, occurs no less than five times in the article. It occurs in the document itself. In the article, the term agreement occurs fifteen times. But the actual document reads, in a loose English translation, "A Draft Treaty between the Islamic Community and the Municipal Authority of Hamburg."

However, no matter how many times the term agreement appears in the article, a treaty is what the agreement is. Islam is on a cultural or civilizational jihad against the West and all Western institutions. So, what is a treaty? Is it a "truce" between the secular authorities and the religious Muslims? Is it a "non-aggression pact" between two powers vying for hegemony? Is it the granting to Muslims a "separate butequal" political status?

A treaty is commonly regarded as an agreement between belligerent nations, states, or governments. The Oxford English Dictionary defines treaty as:

3a. A settlement or arrangement arrived at by treating or negotiation; an agreement, covenant, compact, contract.

3b. spec. A contract between two or more states, relating to peace, truce, alliance, commerce, or other international relation; also, the document embodying such contract, in modern usage formally signed by plenipotentiaries appointed by the government of each state.

A treaty between belligerents indicates a cessation of hostilities between the parties. The Hamburg treaty implicitly acknowledges that its Muslim "communities" are part and parcel of the Islamic Ummah, or the worldwide, global "community" of Islam. The treaty has implicitly recognized the Ummah as a state to "treat" or "negotiate" with. So, the "agreement" is called a "treaty." The German government has not been waging cultural or political jihad against Muslims; it is Muslims, especially those of Turkish origin in Germany, who have been waging all sorts of jihad against non-Muslim Germans in the way of rape jihad, jihad against freedom of speech, and jihad against Jews.

This is the situation in all European countries now, especially in the western European nations of Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. Across the Channel, Britain is succumbing to the same phenomena.

Out of a population of about 1.8 million in the city proper of Hamburg, Muslims of various sects, including the Alevi, a Turkish sect, constitute over nine percent.

Again, I think it is significant that this agreement is consistently called a treaty. It acknowledges that Islam has been at war with Western culture, and will continue to be until the "peace" of a global caliphate is achieved. For the time being, in Hamburg, its activists see a short-term gain in minimizing or playing down their necessary and constant hostility. In Islam, this is an instance of Dar al-Ahd, or a temporary truce. The "treaty," from the Muslim perspective, is also necessarily an instance of what could be called "Grand Taqiyya," or the Koranic sanctioning of lies and deceit when dealing with the enemy kaffirs and infidels, especially in their own countries.

But these "treaties" will turn out to be nothing but "truces," when a movement is renewed to exact more concessions from the Germans. Call these "treaties" for what they are: fleeting "non-aggression pacts," with Islam being the sole aggressor. Regardless of the nature or content of these treaties, Germany will remain Dar al-Harb, the land of the enemy, and Dar al-Kufr, or the land of the kaffirs or unbelievers. It is noteworthy that all the concessions will be paid by non-Muslim Germans as a form of jizya, or "protection" tax. Germans will not "retaliate" against Islamic aggression, for political correctness will silence them for fear of being accused of racism or bigotry.

Islam, however, is first and foremost, from top to bottom, a totalitarian ideology. Its doctrine requires that Muslims and their spokesmen advocate Islam's own kind of racism and bigotry.

Islam is a nihilist ideology, as well. It is the enemy of all human values. In exchange for submission to it, it promises a paradise after death. Life on earth is merely transitory and not important. The Hamburg "treaty" is an extension of that nihilism; it requires its secular signers to aid and abet the piecemeal annihilation of their values and their culture. The Islamists know what they are doing. Their secular cosigners do not. It seems the "right" thing to do, per a Kantian categorical imperative to pursue an end regardless of, but especially because of, its selfless nature, in the name of what Mayor Scholz called "the strengthening the societal foundation" of Hamburg.

Which is tantamount to injecting the bubonic plague pathogen into a human body in order to "strengthen an individual's well-being."

Do the opponents of the treaty take a principled stand against it? No. They remain as clueless about the implications as Mayor Scholz.

The leadership of the opposition Christian Democrats (CDU) has also expressed skepticism about the agreement. Party leader Marcus Weinberg and party chairman Dietrich Wersich issued a joint statement saying that although they welcome the conclusion of the talks, after six years of negotiations there are key issues that remain unresolved: "The agreements contain a number of points, the implementation of which need to be clarified. For this reason, the CDU will not take a final position on the matter until it concludes discussion with representatives of the churches, with scientists and with lawyers. The unresolved questions involve detailed issues such as the regulation of the school day, the teaching of religion in public schools and the holidays."

The agreement has also been met with vociferous opposition from the classical liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP). In a statement, FDP Deputy Anna von Treuenfels characterized the agreement as "an unnecessary and imprecise treaty unacceptably negotiated behind the backs of the citizenry." She added: "Moreover, this agreement is totally imprecise when accuracy is required more than ever. On the issue of wearing religiously motivated clothing by public servants, especially teachers [sic]. Even the future of the heretofore successful interdenominational model of religious education in Hamburg is being jeopardized. Plus the fact that the lengthy negotiating process and final signature has been carried out without parliamentary involvement is also unacceptable, yet another reason why the FDP rejects this treaty." [Italics mine.]

Neither group identifies Islam as an ideology antithetical to their notions of democracy. They focus on particular concretes of the treaty, but cannot or will not recognize any links between those concretes and the overall ideology. That would be regarded as "racist" or "defamatory."

It is noteworthy that all non-Muslim school children attending public schools will be indoctrinated in Islam by Islamic teachers. This is necessary to forestall any future opposition to Islam's incremental takeover of Hamburg, and then Bremen, and then all of Germany.

Such an agreement implies that one or the other party will eventually be conquered or overcome. A "treaty" implies that one of the parties is guilty of some past aggression, and marks the end of active hostilities between them. A "treaty" of this sort, however, acknowledges a surrender. Which party here is making the concessions? Which party is surrendering, and which party is granting the other the rights and privileges of occupation? Which party has been the actual aggressor?

When has one ever heard of Muslims making concessions to the secular authority of a country they have settled in? "We will stop harassing, beating up, and shooting Jews. We will stop desecrating Jewish and Christian cemeteries. We will stop vandalizing churches and synagogues. We will stop preying on white non-Muslim women and raping them. We will stop demanding that people cease defaming, criticizing, and mocking Islam. We will stop subjecting our women to clitoral amputation. We will stop persecuting gays and apostates. We will stop murdering, maiming, or disfiguring Muslim women who refuse to wear any kind of head covering or veils or any other kind of effacing clothing. We will stop forcing our women into arranged marriages. We will stop the brutal butchering of animals by bleeding them to death while they are still conscious. We will stop demanding that infidels and non-believers respect and observe our holidays. We will stop…."

Well, no, they won’t. Why should they? They've got the tiger by the tail, and the tiger is a toothless polecat.

What the Hamburg officials have signed is but a truce, a conditional cessation of active hostilities towards their city. The "truce" will allow the Muslims to establish and solidify a legal occupation of the city. It grants Muslims a "separate but equal" status. The "agreement" acknowledges that, for the time being, there are "reconcilable" differences between Muslims and non-Muslims. New differences, however, will be touted by the Muslims, and more treaties signed.

The "truce" sets a precedent and opens the door to more concessions by the secular government of Hamburg to the Muslims, and the Muslims are certain to demand them. The Hamburg "truce" will serve as a benchmark victory for the invaders and occupiers.

Farewell, Germany.