Sadiq Khan, the newly elected Muslim mayor of London, is on an ideological offensive against presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

In an interview on Friday, Khan said he wanted to bring Trump to London to “educate” him about how Islam can be compatible with Western values.

However, there was an ominous tone to Khan’s condescending comments.

“To suggest that it’s incompatible to be Western and to be Muslim is, I think, really, really risky,” Khan said.

This is similar to other comments from the Muslim mayor in recent days in which he suggested Trump was inviting terrorism.

He recently stated, “Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists.

Critics charge this is an implied threat.

Pamela Geller, an internationally renowned activist against Islamic extremism, blasted Khan in a recent interview with WND.

The author of “Stop the Islamization of America” accused Khan of presenting the West with a no-win scenario.

“He is saying that if Trump doesn’t change his stance on Muslim immigration, there will be terror attacks,” Geller said. “Of course, if Muslims immigrate in large numbers to the West, there will be jihadis among them and terror attacks. So we lose either way.”

G.M. Davis, the author of “House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against The World,” accused Khan of implicit blackmail.

“There’s an implicit threat that the West must appease Muslims lest they turn truculent; in effect, that it is the West’s fault that so many Muslims have chosen the path of jihad and terrorist violence,” Davis told WND. “While Mayor Khan is too judicious to say so explicitly, the prevailing logic among so many ‘mainstream’ Muslims such as himself is that, if the growing Muslim populations in the West do not feel that they are getting what they want, they have the right to take matters into their own hands.”

What’s more, Davis contends this isn’t just an outgrowth of the assumptions of multiculturalism but a natural consequence of Islam itself.

“Throughout Islamic history, Muslims have extorted money and influence from non-Muslim populations,” said Davis. “According to the supposedly infallible Quran itself, Christians and Jews are supposed to live as dhimmis in a state of perpetual subjugation and to pay the poll tax, the jizya, which amounts to protection money from jihad. If one can’t pay, then jihad becomes the order of the day. In orthodox Islam, the only constraint on jihad with respect to a hostile population is the balance of power. Right now, the London ‘infidels’ enjoy a clear numerical and material advantage; in places such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Nigeria they don’t – that is really the only difference.

“Mayor Khan may well truly believe that Islam is, or can be made peaceful, but centuries of Islamic history (as well as numerous jihadist wars raging in the world today) testify to his ignorance. As the balance of power in London and the West continues to shift, ever greater pressure will be put on Western governments by Islamic activists.”

Yet even Khan’s supposed moderation is open to question. The recent mayoral campaign was marked by repeated revelations about Khan’s close ties with various extremists, including repeatedly speaking on the same stage as imams who supported the Islamic State. Khan and his supporters claimed these charges as “racist.”

Donald Trump suggested Khan could be a possible exception to his proposed “shutdown” of Muslim travel to the United States. In response, Khan doubled down with his attacks on Trump and said he hoped for a Hillary Clinton victory in the United States.

Geller said this kind of response is why Trump shouldn’t give an inch. She also said Khan is no moderate.

“Trump shouldn’t pander to Khan or pretend he doesn’t have ties to jihadis and Jew-haters,” she charged. “Yes, Khan should be banned for those ties.”

Has our government already surrendered to Islamic terrorism? National security insider Philip Haney reveals the terrible truth in “See Something, Say Nothing,” available in the WND Superstore.

Davis also urged Trump not to go “soft.”

“Trump’s willingness to tackle the problem of Islamic immigration in a forceful manner has won him the support of a nation utterly fed up with the supine and duplicitous establishment treatment of the issue,” he told WND. “For Trump to open the door to Khan merely because he won the London race seems uncharacteristically obsequious for someone who shows contempt for what others think of him. Should Trump start to go soft on one of his key issues, he may discover that the remarkable support he has enjoyed in the primaries will simply vanish.

“For Trump to win, he must continue to be willing to take heat over Islam, and he must be willing to articulate an immigration policy that would dramatically reduce the numbers of Muslims settling within our borders.”

Philip Haney, a recently retired Department of Homeland Security Officer and the author of “See Something, Say Nothing,” called Khan’s comments “disturbing” and clearly an “implied threat.” He also challenged Khan’s premise his election was a rebuke to “extremist” Muslims.

“What majority Islamic country in the world today embraces Western liberal values?” Haney asked rhetorically. “Not one. In fact, we have seen that the Arab Spring has taken Middle Eastern Muslim countries further away from Western liberal values, not closer to them. We know huge majorities of Muslim populations living in countries that make up the Organization of Islamic Cooperation support Shariah law. Are they moderate?”

Haney also challenged the assumption most British Muslims were “moderate,” pointing to a recent poll which showed two-thirds of “British” Muslims would not tell the police if someone they knew had become involved with terrorist sympathizers.

Haney also pointed out terrorist groups around the world don’t consider themselves “extremist,” nor do Wahabbi Muslims from Saudi Arabia or members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“It would be helpful if Mr. Khan would tell us what he means by ‘extremist,’ before he implies that being more careful about our obviously flawed immigration policies will somehow risk alienating mainstream Muslims,” Haney argued. “It seems that a much greater risk would be to take his advice, and do nothing at all.”

Haney said Trump’s proposed ban was “simply an attempt to acknowledge that we have an obvious immigration problem, and to find a way to fix it, before another attack like San Bernardino occurs.”

The national security expert, who claims he could have stopped the terrorist attacks in California had the federal government not shut down his investigation, argued the “global Islamic movement is gaining momentum virtually everywhere in the world today.”

He says Khan needs to match his moderate rhetoric with real action.

“If Mr. Khan is really serious about showing the world how compatible mainstream Islam is with liberal democratic values, then his election as mayor of London will provide him with a perfect opportunity to do so.”

Geller says that is unlikely. “Khan won’t be vigilant against jihadis,” she said. “Just the opposite.”

Indeed, for all the talk of Khan’s election serving as a check on Islamic extremism, G.M. Davis suggests many Muslims may simply see it as further proof of Western weakness.

“A Muslim mayor of London can only embolden Muslims harboring the Islamic vision of long-term conquest,” he sighed. “It may temporarily reduce the terrorist threat by confirming that Western politics can indeed serve the program of conquest, but, conversely, it may encourage jihadists who may now regard themselves as untouchable with a Muslim head of government.”

Has our government already surrendered to Islamic terrorism? National security insider Philip Haney reveals the terrible truth in “See Something, Say Nothing,” available in the WND Superstore.


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.