Islamic Danger FU

Understanding Islam . . . and why Moslems do the things they do

2009-11-05T23:49:00.000-08:00

. . . there is no one who can outdo najistani in helping us understand what Islam is and why Moslems commit apparently irrational atrocious and unexpected acts.

from Political Beach girl comes the following comment to her post:

najistani said...

Continued criticism and ridicule of Islam and its perverted founder are essential if we are ever going to eradicate this loathsome meme, or at least reduce it to manageable proportions

Unlike real religions, Islam is an all-or-nothing cult, there is no room for individual conscience or interpretation, or for give and take with other religions (except when we give and they take).

A Muslim MUST believe that the entire Koran is the literal word of God, commanding believers how to behave (including such obsessive-compulsive trivialities as how to wipe your butt, as well as the more disturbing instructions to subjugate and kill unbelievers ).

Not only that, but a Muslim MUST believe that God entrusted His final message to mankind (Mohammed being the 'seal of the prophets') into the care of a violent, sadistic bandit with a depraved lust for little girls.

But, if the Koran is not the word of the creator of the universe then what is it? The ravings of a madman? A scam? A cynical and destructive exercise in memetic engineering ? A rapist's, extortionist's and pedophile's charter?

The whole festering, stinking structure of Islam is based firstly on the trustworthiness of a pedophile (and pedophiles are notoriously deceitful confidence tricksters both to children and often also to their gullible parents).

Secondly it is based upon the supposed divine origin of a hate-manual consisting of Jewish and Christian scriptures which have been misunderstood, mangled and corrupted and then liberally mixed with Mohammed's venomous rantings. The koran is full of internal inconsistencies and irrationality, including some very bizarre cosmology.

So if Islam is a barbarous, irrational load of vomit spewed up by an ignorant vicious pervert, why has it lasted to the present day?

The answer is that Islam produces and justifies a self-perpetuating totalitarian power-structure - a power-structure that extends from the level of the oppressive and often murderous Muslim family all the way up to national politics, where power rests in the hands of whichever Mullahs can rouse the biggest mobs of psychopathic fanatics.

In order to maintain this power structure, the the cult must be placed beyond criticism. In practice this requires that all rational examination of the Koran and the 'Prophet' be stifled. This has been done very effectively in Muslim countries where insulting the 'Prophet' or desecrating the Koran carries a death sentence.

The Muslims are now trying to place their cult beyond criticism in the west by a variety of means such as:

- Murder (eg Theo van Gogh)
- Threats of murder (eg Salman Rushie)
- Riots (Motoons)
- Multiculturalism (all cultures are equally valid no matter how savage, belligerant, destructive or irrational)
- Post-colonial guilt (Poor muslim victims! We mustn't upset them or hurt their feelings any further)
- Infiltration and intimidation of universities.
- Use of petrodollars to buy media and bribe academic institutions.
- Weasel words such as 'Islamophobia' and 'Respect'. Anyone who does not respect Islam is an Islamophobe, which by clever manipulation has come to be synonymous with 'racist bigot'. So nowadays the PC dhimmis often speak of 'anti-Islamic racism' or 'anti-Muslim racism', ignoring the obvious fact that being a Muslim is not genetically determined, but results from being infected with a parasitic mind-virus (meme) and brainwashed by obsessive-compulsive rituals from an early age.

We kaffirs must keep up the attacks on all Islam's weak points. Like a vampire, Islam feeds on blood and abhors the sign of the cross. Like a vampire it exults in death and flourishes in the darkness of ignorance. However it cannot withstand the light of truth. Shine enough daylight on Islam and and like a vampire it will collapse into a pile of 1400 year old dust.

[najistani]

6:42 AM

Also published by with a different introduction by Political Beach Girl at http://www.mailarchive.com/osint@yahoogroups.com/msg41009.html

Other najistani comments can be found at http://islamicdanger2u.blogspot.com/2009/11/triumph-of-islam-how-tribalism-trumps.html

and at "Islam is a Parasite" http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/01/islam-is-parasite-by-najistani.html

What is the Taliban? How do they differ from other Afghan and Pakistani Mohammedans?

2009-11-03T22:22:00.000-08:00

Although the majority of the Islamic population (Sunni) in Afghanistan and Pakistan, belong to the Hanafi sect, the theologians who have pushed Pakistan towards Islamic Radicalism for decades, as well as the ones who were the founders of the Taliban, espoused Wahabi rhetoric and ideals. This sect took its inspiration from Saudi Hanbali theologians who immigrated there in the 18th century, to help their Indian Muslim brothers with Hanbali theological inspiration against the British colonialists. Propelled by oil-generated wealth, the Wahhabi worldview increasingly co-opted the Deobandi movement in South Asia."
***
The Deobandi interpretation holds that a Muslim's first loyalty is to his religion and only then to the country of which he is a citizen or a resident; secondly, that Muslims recognise only the religious frontiers of their Ummah and not the national frontiers; thirdly,that they have a sacred right and obligation to go to any country to wage jihad to protect the Muslims of that country. The Deobandi interpretation of Islamic teachings is widely practiced in Pakistan.
***
Most of the Taliban leadership attended Deobandi-influenced seminaries in Pakistan.

What is "Deobandi" Islam?

A Comment to "ISLAMIC DANGER" by Winston S.Churchill [dead link*]
made by
elle England A Free Thinker

[Previously published at Islamic Danger in History]

"The northern Indian Deobandi school argues that the reason Islamic societies have fallen behind the West in all spheres of endeavor is because they have been seduced by the amoral and material accoutrements of Westernization, and have deviated from the original pristine teachings of the Prophet. Deoband is a town a hundred miles north of Delhi where a madrasa (religious school) was established there in 1867. The so-called 'Deobandi Tradition' itself is much older than the eponymous Dar-Ul-Ulum at Deoband. The Deoband madrasa brought together Muslims who were hostile to British rule and committed to a literal and austere interpretation of Islam. For the last 200 years, Sunnis often have looked to the example of the Deoband madrassa (religious school) near Delhi, India. The Deoband school has long sought to purify Islam by discarding supposedly un-Islamic accretions to the faith and reemphasizing the models established in the Koran and the customary practices of the Prophet Mohammed. Additionally, Deobandi scholars often have opposed what they perceive as Western influences. Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not strictly Sunnis. The tack of Darul Uloom Deoband is in accordance with the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah, Hanafiate practical method (Mazhab) and the disposition (Mashrab) of its holy founders, Hazrat Maulana Mohammad Qasim Nanautavi (Allah's mercy be on him!) and Hazrat Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi (may his secret be sanctified). The Deobandi interpretation holds that a Muslim's first loyalty is to his religion and only then to the country of which he is a citizen or a resident; secondly, that Muslims recognise only the religious frontiers of their Ummah and not the national frontiers; thirdly,that they have a sacred right and obligation to go to any country to wage jihad to protect the Muslims of that country. The Deobandi interpretation of Islamic teachings is widely practiced in Pakistan. The Deobandi movement in Sunni Islam, was founded in response to British colonial rule in India and later hardened in Pakistan into bitter opposition to what its members views as the country's neo-colonial elite. The Islamic Deobandi militants share the Taliban's restrictive view of women, and regard Pakistan's minority Shiia as non-Muslim. They seek a pure leader, or amir, to recreate Pakistani society according to the egalitarian model of Islam's early days under the Prophet Mohammed. [Former] President Musharraf himself, is a Deobandi, actually born in the city in India, where the school took it's name. During the first half of April 2000, the Government of Pakistan permitted a 3-day conference organized by the Deobandi Muslim political party Jamiat-Ulema-Islami (JUI). Several speakers at the conference made anti-Western political declarations. Deobandi and Barelvi sects struggled, sometimes violently, for control over local mosques in Lahore neighborhoods. The fundamentalist Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom brand of Islam inspired the Taliban movement and had widespread appeal for Muslim fundamentalists. Most of the Taliban leadership attended Deobandi-influenced seminaries in Pakistan. The Taliban was propped up initially by the civil government of Benazir Bhutto, then in coalition with the Deobandi Jama'at-ulema Islam (JUI) led by Maulana Fazlur Rehman [who by 2003 was the elected opposition leader at the Center in Islamabad and whose protégé is now the chief Minister in the NWFP]. Traditionally, Sunni Islam of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence was the dominant religion of Afganistan. The Taliban also adhered to the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, making it the dominant religion in the country for most of 2001. For the last 200 years, Sunnis often have looked to the example of the Deoband madrassah (religious school) near Delhi, India. Most of the Taliban leadership attended Deobandi-influenced seminaries in Pakistan. The Deoband school has long sought to purify Islam by discarding supposedly un-Islamic accretions to the faith and reemphasizing the models established in the Koran and the customary practices of the Prophet Mohammed. Additionally, Deobandi scholars often have opposed what they perceive as Western influences. Much of the population adheres to Deobandi-influenced Hanafi Sunnism, but a sizable minority adheres to a more mystical version of Sunnism generally known as Sufism. Sufism centers on orders or brotherhoods that follow charismatic religious leaders. Although the majority of the Islamic population (Sunni) in Afghanistan and Pakistan, belong to the Hanafi sect, the theologians who have pushed Pakistan towards Islamic Radicalism for decades, as well as the ones who were the founders of the Taliban, espoused Wahabi rhetoric and ideals. This sect took its inspiration from Saudi Hanbali theologians who immigrated there in the 18th century, to help their Indian Muslim brothers with Hanbali theological inspiration against the British colonialists. Propelled by oil-generated wealth, the Wahhabi worldview increasingly co-opted the Deobandi movement in South Asia. "

elle September 18, 2007 02:26 PM CST

COMMENTS [at Islamic Danger in History]

1 comments:

Pankaj said...
What a self suicidle school of thought. The creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh has resulted due to this deobandi school. then, it created more conservative thoughts of Taliban. It seems it will turn Pakistan into a region of crabs snaching each other.
May 13, 2009 5:01 AM
______________________
*the message at Telegraph.co.uk:
elle England
A Free Thinker
I Blog About:Adobe Flash Player 9 American U-Turn Apostacy British MUSLIM Jihadist British Population Cun crime Cyber Bullies DT Blogs Isalm Islam Islamic Danger Islamic Jihadist Islamic Spin Jihad Leona Lewis Nangking Massacre Turkey-Kurds Wahhabi WW III X-Factor
This profile has been suspended.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:1xHpPTPc74EJ:my.telegraph.co.uk/elle+telegraph+uk+elle+blog&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

CAIR Connection to Detroit Terrorist Raids

2009-10-29T16:15:00.000-07:00

What You Won’t Hear About the Detroit Islamic Terror Raids: Priorities, Shmiorities; The CAIR Connection

By Debbie Schlussel

October 29, 2009, - 5:16 am

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/11204/what-you-werent-told-about-the-detroit-islamic-terror-raids-priorities-shmiorities/

And . . .

Regarding the "convict-converts" to Islam, the following COMMENT:

unicorns62000 October 28, 2009 5:40 PM Reply
Remove the protective mantle of "religion" from the political ideology called Islam and get rid of the "imams' in our prisons to keep the misguided from seeking "equality" in Islam, which has a name for them: abd*.
______________________
*abd (Arabic: عبد‎) is an Arabic word meaning one who is totally subordinated; a slave or a servant. [wikipedia]

first published at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/detroit-imam-leader-a-highly-placed-leader-of-a-nationwide-radical-fundamentalist-sunni-group-killed.html#comments

Dhimmi Approach to Studying Hinduism by American Academics

2009-10-26T02:38:00.000-07:00

HINDUISM STUDIES AND DHIMMITUDE IN THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
M. Lal Goel
Professor Emeritus of Political Science, www.uwf.edu/lgoel

Pro-Islamic and anti-Hindu mindset known as dhimmitude (described more fully later) is prevalent in sections of the American academy. The case in point is the recent book by Dr. Wendy Doniger [1] , The Hindus: An Alternative History, The Penguin Press, 2009.
Doniger’s 779-page tome is laced with personal editorials, folksy turn of the phrase and funky wordplays. She has a large repertoire of Hindu mythological stories. She often narrates the most damning mythical story—Vedic, Puranic, folk, oral, vernacular—to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism. After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus (how many and how powerful are they?) are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. Why save such a vile, violent religion, as painted by the eminent professor? There is a contradiction here.

This review focuses on Doniger’s discussion of Islamic incursions into India. Islam entered south India in the 7th Century with Arab merchants and traders. This was peaceful Islam. Later, Islam came to India as a predatory and a conquering force. Mohammad bin Qasim ravaged Sindh in 712. Mahmud Ghazni pillaged, looted and destroyed numerous Hindu temples around 1000 AD, but did not stay to rule. The Muslim rule begins with the Delhi Sultanate, approximately 1201 to 1526. The Sultanate gave place to the Mughal Empire, 1526-1707. Doniger makes the following dubious points regarding the Muslim imperial rule in India (1201-1707).

Muslims marauders destroyed some Hindu temples, not many.

Temple destruction was a long-standing Indian tradition. Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain stupas and rival Hindu temples and built upon the destroyed sites.

Muslim invaders looted and destroyed Hindu temples because they had the power to do so. If Hindus had the power, they would do the same in reverse.

The Jizya—the Muslim tax on non-Muslims—was for Hindu protection and a substitute for military service.

Hindu “megalomania” for temple building in the Middle Ages was a positive result of Muslim demolition of some Hindu temples.

The Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara Empire double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi who had deputed them to secure the South.

Hindus want Muslims and Christians to leave India for Hindustan is only for Hindus.

Let us take each point in turn to examine Doniger’s mistaken views.

Muslim invaders beginning with Mahmud Ghazni in 1000 CE looted, pillaged and destroyed not few but many Hindu and Buddhist temples. Muslim chroniclers describe the humiliation and utter desolation wrought by the Muslims on the kafirs (unbelievers). Alberuni, the Muslim scholar who accompanied Mahmud to India, describes one such event: “Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included 'five of red gold, each five yards high,' with eyes formed of priceless jewels. . . The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground. Thus perished works of art which must have been among the noblest monuments of ancient India.” [2]

At the destruction of another temple, Somnath, it is estimated that 50,000 were massacred. The fabulous booty of gold, women and children was divided according to Islamic tradition--the Sultan getting the royal fifth, the cavalry man getting twice as much as the foot soldier. Hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist shrines were destroyed.

Dr. Doniger asserts that Hindus too persecuted minority Jain and Buddhist religions and destroyed their shrines. She narrates the now discarded story about the impaling of Jains at the hands of Hindu rulers in the Tamil country. Then she says that “there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, other than the story.” (p 365). Then why narrate the story? Hindu sectarian violence pales in comparison to what happened either in Europe or in the Middle East.

The truth is that both Jainism and Buddhism were integrated into Hinduism’s pluralistic tradition. The Buddha is accepted as one of the Hindu Avatars (God in human form). Exquisite Jain temples at Mt Abu at the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan built around 1000 CE survive in the region dominated by Hindu Rajput rulers, falsifying notions of Hindu carnage of Jain temples.
Doniger says that Hindus would do the same to Muslims if they had the power to do so. Hindus did come to power after the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, when the Mughal rule rapidly declined. The Marathas were the strongest power in Western and Southern India in the 18th and 19th centuries, as the Sikhs were in North India. There is no account of large scale demolition and looting of Muslim places of worship either by the Marathas or the Sikhs. If a copy of the Quran fell into the hands of Maharaja Shivaji during a campaign, the same would be passed on to a Muslim rather than being burned.

Contrary to what Doniger says, Jizya is a long held Muslim tradition. It was levied to begin with on the defeated Christians and Jews, the People of the Book, as a price for the cessation of Jihad. Hindus, not being one of the People of the Book, did not deserve to live by paying the special tax. If defeated in battle, their only option was Islam or death. This was the position taken by the Islamic clergy. Unlike the clergy, however, the Muslim governors were practical men. If they had killed the Hindus en masse for failing to adopt Islam, who would build their palaces, fill their harems, cut their wood and hue their water? [3]

Doniger argues that Hindu ‘megalomania’ for temple building resulted from Muslim destruction of some Hindu temples. In other words, because the Muslims destroyed some of the Hindu temples, the Hindus went on a building spree. If Doniger’s argument is accepted, Hindus should thank Islamic marauders for looting and desecrating their shrines. The truth is that in northern India which experienced 500 years of Islamic rule (1201-1707), few historical temples of any beauty remain. In contrast, temple architecture of some beauty does survive in southern India, the region that escaped long Muslim occupation.

That the Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara dynasty in the South double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi is one among the innumerable editorial negative portrayal of Hindu character. One may ask: why wouldn’t a slave double cross his oppressor?

The view that Muslims and Christians should leave India is not one held by most Hindus, only by a small minority on the extreme fringes. Muslim population has increased in India from about 9 percent at the time of Independence to about 13 percent now (1947-2009). In contrast, in Pakistan, Hindu population has declined and now constitutes less than one percent. In Muslim Bangladesh in the same period the Hindu population has declined from 29 percent to less than 10 percent. Muslims hold important positions in government and business in contemporary India, which is 83 pct Hindu. The richest person in India has been a Muslim, Premji; the most popular film stars are Muslim; Christian and Muslim chief ministers and governors head several of the states. The single most important leader in India is an Italian-born woman Sonya Gandhi and the Prime Minister is a Sikh, Dr. Manmohan Singh. The past President APJ Kalam was a Muslim and before that K R Narayanan, a lower caste. In Federal and State civil service, 50 percent of the jobs are reserved for backward classes and Untouchable, in order to compensate for past discrimination. India has moved.

Let us look more closely. Doniger describes the invasion of Sindh by Arab soldier of fortune Muhammad bin Qasim as follows:

Qasim invaded Sindh in 713. The terms of surrender included a promise of guarantee of the safety of Hindu and Buddhist establishments. “Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to govern themselves in matters of religion and law.” Qasim “kept his promises.” The non-Muslims were not treated as kafirs. Jizya was imposed but only as a substitute for military service for their “protection.” He brought Muslim teachers and mosques into the subcontinent. (paraphrased)

From Doniger’s assessment, Qasim should be regarded as a blessing. Contrast Doniger’s description with that written by Andrew Bostom in “The Legacy of Islamic Jihad in India.” [4]

The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. . . . Baladhuri, for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair. . . Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and “700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured.”
Distinguished historian R. C. Majumdar describes the capture of the royal Fort and its tragic outcome:
Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the Chachnama. Cited in Bostom.
Doniger extensively footnotes Romila Thapar, John Keay, Anne Schimmel and A. K. Ramanujan as her sources for Islamic history, providing an impression of meticulous scholarship. Missing are works of the distinguished historians: Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, A. L. Srivastava, Vincent Smith, and Ram Swarup.

Doniger writes at page 458: when Muslim royal women first came to India, they did not rigidly keep to purdah (the veiling and seclusion of women). They picked the more strict form of purdah from contact with the Hindu Rajput women. Doniger finds much to praise in Muslim women during this period: some knew several languages; others wrote poetry; some managed vast estates; others set up “feminist” republics within female quarters (harems); some debated fine points on religion; some even joined in drinking parties (chapters 16, 20). Such descriptions are patently negated by distinguished historians. See The Mughal Harem (1988) by K S Lal, available free on the Internet.

If Hinduism is the source of strict purdah among Muslim women, as Doniger contends, how does one explain the strict veiling of women in the Middle East, a region far removed from Hindu influence? Or, the absence of it in southern India, a region that escaped Islamic domination?

Doniger writes at page 627, “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition.” And, Gandhi’s nonviolence succeeded against the British. But it failed against the tenaciously held Hindu ideal of violence that had grip on the real emotions of the masses.

What is one to make of these weighty pronouncements uttered in all seriousness by the author? These are an expression of the hurt feelings on the part of a scholar. While discussing the Hindu epic Ramayana in London in 2003, Doniger put forth her usual gloss: that Lakshman had the hots for his brother Rama’s wife Sita, and that sexually-charged Sita reciprocated these feelings. An irate Hindu threw an egg at her and conveniently missed it. This incident is her cause célèbre.

DHIMMITUDE

Doniger’s uncritical review of the Islamic marauding raids in India (712-1200) and later the Islamic empire (1201-1707) suggests dhimmitude. The concepts of dhimmi and dhimmitude were developed by the Egyptian born Jewish woman writer, Bat Ye’or (Daughter of the Nile), who fled Egypt in 1958 in the wake of Jewish persecution following the Suez Canal crisis. Her meticulous research puts to rest the myth of peaceful expansion of Islamic power in the countries of Middle East and Eastern Europe. [5]

Dhimmitude is a state of fear and insecurity on the part of infidels who are required to accept a condition of humiliation. It is characterized by the victim’s siding with his oppressors, by the moral justification the victim provides for his oppressors’ hateful behavior. The Dhimmi loses the possibility of revolt because revolt arises from a sense of injustice. He loathes himself in order to praise his oppressors. Dhimmis lived under some 20 disabilities. Dhimmis were prohibited to build new places of worship, to ring church bells or take out processions, to ride horses or camels (they could ride donkeys), to marry a Muslim woman, to wear decorative clothing, to own a Muslim as a slave or to testify against a Muslim in a court of law.

Ye’or believes that the dhimmi condition can only be understood in the context of Jihad. Jihad embodies all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium on the vanquished population, Jews and Christians, in the countries conquered by jihad and therefore Islamized. She believes that dhimmitude was once the attribute of defeated Christian and Jewish communities under Islam. Now it is a feature of much of the Western world, Europe and America. Her theory of dhimmitude applies to many Hindus in India. Whereas dhimmitude in previous centuries resulted from real-life powerlessness and humiliation, modern dhimmi syndrome results from some combination of the following.

The corrupting power of oil money to influence think tanks, lobbyists and academic institutions.
De-Christianizing of Europe. It is now also happening in the U.S. See Pew research reports.
Guilt feelings in the West on account of the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land (1095-1291).
Multiculturalism: the belief that all cultural practices and ways of life are equally valid.
Violence by radical Muslims is on account of being poor and exploited by colonial hegemony.
Islam provided the West its basis for advancement in math and science.
The rising number of Muslim populations in Europe and America.
The rising level of alienation from one’s own culture in the West.

Doniger’s inflammatory book on the Hindus makes sense only in the light of a larger global trend—a trend that seeks to re-package Islamic history as a force for tolerance and progress. Doniger is not alone in holding such views. Dhimmi attitudes of subservience have entered the Western academy, and from there into journalism, school textbooks and political discourse. One must not criticize Islam. For, to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash. See, http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm

The field of Middle East Studies in the U.S. is now controlled by pro-Middle East professors, according to Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle Eastern Quarterly. “The crucial turning point occurred in the late 1970s when Middle East studies centers, under /Edward/ Said's influence, began to show a preference for ideology over empirical fact and, fearing the taint of the ‘orientalist’ bias, began to prefer academic appointments of native-born Middle Easterners over qualified Western-born students,” contends Kramer. The book is summarized at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_119/ai_90989239/.
In contrast, the field of Hinduism studies is controlled by non-Hindus and anti-Hindus, with some notable exceptions of course. Hindu gods and goddesses are lampooned and denigrated. Hindu saints are described as sexual perverts and India in danger of being run over by Hindu fundamentalists. In these portrayals, Doniger is joined by Martha Nussbaum, Paul Courtright, Jeffrey Kripal, Sarah Caldwell, Stanley Kurtz, to name a few of the leading academicians. For a critique of the American academy, see Rajiv Malhotra at http://www.sulekha.com/, and a 2007 book titled, Invading the Sacred. [6]
Doniger is quite harsh on the British record in India (1757-1947). She compares the British argument that they brought trains and drains to India to Hitler’s argument that he built the Autobahn in Germany (p. 583). Censuring Britain and giving a pass to the more draconian Islamic imperialism in India fits with the dhimmi attitude that I have described.
Consequently, attitudes of concession and appeasement are on the rise. A reversal of language occurs. Jihad is called ‘struggle within’ or struggle for liberation. Dhimmitude is called tolerance. Jizya is called protection. Tony Blair declares Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are not real Muslims. Parts of London have been ceded to the control of radical mullahs. Sharia arbitration courts are now part of the British legal system. Melanie Phillips tells that London is becoming Londonistan. [7] Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. The destruction of life and property caused by Islamic extremists in the last thirty years is simply horrendous. Of course, distinction must be made between moderate Muslims and radicals who wish to bring back the 7th century version of Islam.
The British helped abolish the horrible practice of Suttee (widow burning) in India in the 19th century. At its peak in the 19th century, the practice of Suttee claimed the lives of 500 to 600 women a year in India. The honor killing of women, genital mutilation, and the caning of girls for minor sexual impropriety raises only a limited protest in the 21st century. Amid the rising level of alienation, multiculturalism and the feelings of guilt in the West, the moral compass has been lost.
[1] Dr. Wendy Doniger is a distinguished professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago. She has written some 30 books, several dealing negatively with Hinduism. Her writing has been described as “rude, crude and very lewd” by the BBC.
[2] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Delhi, 1981, pp. 207-08. Smith derives his account of Mahmud’s raids from the account written by Alberuni, the Islamic scholar who traveled with Sultan Mahmud to India.
[3] See Ram Swarup’s Hindu View of Christianity and Islam, 1992. And, Andrew Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, 2005, at: http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/.
[4] Published in 2005 in the American Thinker by Andrew Bostom and available at: http://www.islam-watch.org/Bostom/Legacy-of-Islamic-Jihad-terrorism-in-India.htm
[5] Bat Ye’or’s writings include: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001. The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005.
[6] Krishnan Ramaswamy; Antonio de Nicolas; Aditi Banerjee ed. Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America, Rupa and Co., Delhi, 2007.
[7] Phillips, Melanie, Londonistan: How Britain is creating a terror state within, Encounter Books, 2006. See summary at:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/britians-war-ag.html

Permalink

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC

politicalislam.com

Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/hinduism-studies-and-dhimmitude-in-the-american-academy/

19 October
Hinduism Studies and Dhimmitude in the American Academy
Posted in Book Reviews, HomePage, Newsletter / Make a Comment /

INDO-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN A NEW LIGHT

2009-10-21T15:03:00.000-07:00

To contain the power of the Soviet Union, the U. S. undertook the creation of certain defensive military alliances. North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO was established in 1949. The Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) both were created a few years later. The United States would have welcomed India's membership in these military alliances. Nehru was not amenable to any such partnership. Having received a cold shoulder from Nehru, the United States turned to Pakistan as a junior ally. Pakistan became a member both of SEATO and CENTO. Pakistan was not sincere in its anti-Communist zeal. Russia and China were not the enemies. It joined the military alliances for opportunistic reasons in order to receive American military aid. The weapons could then be used against India.

Spurned by America's military aid to Pakistan, India gravitated towards the Soviet Union. It consistently opposed the United States in the UN. For example, India championed China's admission to the UN. The United States opposed it. India supported Arab position against Israel. The U. S. took the opposite stand. It may be noted parenthetically that India's support of the Arab cause was rooted in its domestic politics. Anti-Israeli policies were popular with Indian Muslim voters, who constituted an important voting bloc for India's ruling Congress party. While these pro-China and anti-Israeli policies were popular at their time in India, history has shown them to be "failed" policies. These policies did not serve India well.

Indo-American relations reached a low point during the 1971 Bangladesh war. India supported Bangladesh's struggle for freedom from Pakistani war of genocide. America "tilted" to the side of Pakistan.

Indo-American relations improved a bit in the 1980s during the Reagan presidency (1980-88). The upward movement in relations continued during both the Bush presidency (1988-92) and the early years of the Clinton presidency. The two countries engaged in a dialog to redefine their "strategic relationship." Then Pokharan I and II happened in May 1998. India test- exploded its nuclear devices. This derailed the burgeoning Indo-American relations.

The United States government took a hard stand against India becoming a Nuclear power. I believe America's opposition to India's minimum nuclear deterrence is indefensible. It ignores India's legitimate security needs against rival China and unstable Pakistan.
--Dr. Madan Lal Goel

INDO-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN A NEW LIGHT

Dr. Madan Lal Goel
University of West Florida

No two countries are as misunderstood by each other as the United States and India. The misunderstanding goes back to a period after WWII, to a period when India achieved its independence from colonial rule and the United States emerged as one of the two global superpowers. Partly this is due to the relative lack of historical contact between India and the U.S. This lack of historical contact between India and the United States is in contrast to America=s much longer contact with two other Asian civilizations: China and Japan.

Indians generally misperceive the history of Indo-American relations. Many people in India have heard about the Boston Tea Party, and some believe that goods imported into the colonies from India were a major cause of the American Revolution. This is not so. All that happened was that tea that originated from India was dumped into the Boston Harbor by American freedom fighters to protest the British monarch=s policies of mercantilism.

Lord Cornwallis, Governor General of India from 1786 to 1793, provides another minor footnote to history. Before being sent to India, Cornwallis was the British General deputed to deal with the American revolutionaries. He was defeated at Yorktown in 1781 by American freedom fighters, thus sealing the fate of British power in North America. After his defeat, Cornwallis was sent to India as the Governor General of the East India Company. This development did not lead to any meaningful relations between India and the U.S.

It is interesting to note however that the British colonial yoke was imposed on the people of India just as it was lifted off the backs of the people in America. Along with Robert Clive and . . .

Continue at http://www.uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AIndoAmericanRelationsinaNewLight.pdf

In the War Against the jihad, "The Higher You Go, the Less They Know"

2009-10-16T16:14:00.000-07:00

From Bill Warner's politicalislam.com:

The Higher You Go, the Less They Know

October 6, 2009

In general, we hope to find superior qualities in our leaders. If they have succeeded in climbing to the top of a hierarchy, we believe they should be smarter, more charming or something that is better than the average Joe. It is unfortunate, but there is one area where the higher the rank, the less the person knows. Perhaps there is a high ranking official in government, industry, education or the media that has a clue about the doctrine of political Islam, but they have not manifested this knowledge publicly.

Here are two examples of ignorance at the highest levels. General Stanley McChrystal gave his assessment of the war in Afghanistan. He gives us exceptional false insights. Insights that should be brilliant because his report included advice from “a multidisciplinary assessment of the situation in Afghanistan”.

It turns out that the “right” name for our enemy is “insurgents”, not jihadists, but insurgents.

A more forceful and offensive StratCom approach must be devised whereby INS [insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the INS (insurgents) from the vast majority of the Afghan population.

Where does the military get its multidisciplinary assessment? Certainly they haven’t received information from anyone who knows the doctrine of political Islam.

At times McChrystal hints that he might understand what is happening.

“Many describe the conflict in Afghanistan as a war of ideas, which I believe to be true.”

However, nowhere in the 20,000 word report is there a single sentence devoted to the mind of jihad. The j word does not even occur. You have to read between the lines to fathom that Islam is involved. Instead, we have talk about “culture.” McChrystal is ignorant about Islam and the jihad he is trying to defeat.

An individual (from a private communication) who gives briefings on Islam to the military says that generals do not have any understanding about political Islam, nor do they even want to know. The lieutenant colonels and lower, understand the problem, but not the flag rank.

But you don’t have to be in the military to be a dhimmi-wit (a person with the mind of dhimmitude). This week, Sara Palin weighed in with her pronouncement that Indonesia was a fine democracy, which proves that Islam and the democratic process were compatible. In reality, the Indonesian democracy is bringing persecution of women, stoning of adulterers and gays, a creeping theocracy. The government wants to institute Sharia law with its oppression of all kafirs, including Christians.

In addition, Palin proclaimed that there was no war of civilization between us and Islam. She gives a long list of qualities that we will need to defeat the terrorists (there are no jihadists included in a dhimmi-wit’s thinking). But nowhere in her list is knowledge about the doctrine of political Islam and Sharia law.

She weighs in on the need to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, if we succeed in those countries we will have used our blood and treasure to put into place two constitutions that begin with the statement that Sharia law is the foundation of government. Sharia law is based upon ethical dualism and making the kafir submit in all political matters. This is insanity to support since Sharia law should be opposed in all ways at all times by all kafirs.

The problem is not limited to Palin and McChrystal, it is endemic to all of our leadership. You have to go to the bottom of the hierarchy to find any knowledge about Islam. If it is a church, then the congregation will have more knowledge than the minister. If it is the FBI, the agent on the ground will have a better understanding than the Director. Ditto for the universities and the media.

It matters little whether you are from the left or the right, dhimmi-wit leaders rule. The oddest thing is that having knowledge about political Islam means that you will be called a right-winger. Is knowledge conservative? Is ignorance liberal? Why can’t knowledge transcend politics?

All leaders should be asked the same questions: What are your ethics when you speak about Islam and know nothing about the actual doctrine or history? Why do you not want those who know to speak? Why do you try to silence those with knowledge?

We must demand better from of our leaders. How can our civilization survive being lead by ignorance, on the left and the right?

Bill Warner, October 6, 2009

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Mohamed El Baradei -- Watchdog or Lapdog?

2009-10-07T15:24:00.000-07:00

. . . Lapdog of Iran and its Mullahs that is, as that Islamic nation continues in its drive to achieve nuclear weapons production.

Can this Egyptian with the first name "Mohamed" be trusted to be fully impartial? You make the call, after you read the following:

The Real ElBaradei Unleashed

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Nuclear Proliferation: Watchdogs often bark loudest at those who pose no threat at all, such as the mailman. Mohamed ElBaradei, self-styled "nuclear watchdog," is now barking at Israel. READ MORE

You can shove your Koran up …”

2009-10-03T17:24:00.000-07:00

[your…”*ss or *rse]

from Bare Naked Islam's Weblog comes this gem:

Obama backs MUSLIM-DRAFTED BILL to ban free speech

with the Comment:

"This non binding UN resolution is another attempt by Obama to appease the Muslims and provide legitimacy to their mass demonstrations and city burnings whenever they think their prophet is slighted."

Via FaithFreedom.org we learn:

Message to the UN on the Occassion of the [Obama-ruled] U.S. approval of the Human Rights Council U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.

The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/10/a-public-service-game-changer.html

Oh, and as to the koran upshoving, you will have to go to http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/obama-backs-muslim-drafted-bill-to-ban-free-speech/
to get the whole story on that.

Are the Arabs and Jews Really "Cousins?" - What is the Origin of the Arabs? . . .

2009-10-01T14:13:00.000-07:00

. . . and how was the Arabs' original culture . . . destroyed and their history . . . replaced by legends [that is, by Islam. lw].

The Arabs got acquainted with the existence of Avraham and Ishmael only through the Jewish and Christian sources from which Islam drew its own scriptures. Therefore, according to overwhelming historic, archaeologic, scriptural and scientific evidence, neither Avraham nor Ishmael have ever been in Arabia from Midyan southwards

The foregoing and the following material is from THE ORIGIN AND IDENTITY OF THE ARABS by Avraham Sándor at THINK-ISRAEL http://www.think-israel.org/imninalu.araboriginidentity.html

Avraham Sándor is by his biographical description a Roma (Gypsy). Descended from a people whose origins are in the Indian subcontinent, his opinions should not be tinged by ethnic considerations.

NOTE on the Romas' (Gypsies') origins in India:
During these [Islamic] genocides [in India], a certain portion of the fleeing Hindus reached Europe. Today's Roma people of Europe (popularly called the 'gypsies', a term that they regard as a pejorative) are of Indian origin and have lived as wanderers in Europe for nearly a thousand years. It is believed that they originated in Northwest India, in a region including Gandhara, Punjab, and Rajasthan. In Europe, they survived by being musicians and performers, because European society did not assimilate them even after a thousand years. They have accepted their plight as street people without a 'home' as such. Their history in Europe is filled with attempts to eradicate them in various ways. (There is much justified criticism of India's caste system as a way by which diverse ethnicities dealt with each other. However, [we] have yet to see a comparison with the fact that Europeans dealt with non-European ethnicities using genocide [as in America], or by attempted genocide as in the case of the Roma.) - from The Hindu-Killers of Kandahar

For how the entire topic of this post affects today's political events, see WHO--AND WHAT--ARE THE ARABS?

***

A great amount of historic documents concerning early Arabs have been destroyed in Islamic times in order to annihilate the memory of the original background from which Islam emerged and how did it change the cultural features of the Arabs -- so, it is not a surprising factor that they did likewise with the peoples that they subdued. Only strongly established cultures resisted and were not "arabized" (like Jews, Assyrians, Coptic Egyptians, Armenians, that never surrendered to Islam). Yet, we still have enough elements to reconstruct the facts concerning the pre-Islamic Arabian culture, and it is interesting that it was a female-centred and even a female-ruled society. This characteristic regarded primarily the Central Arabian and also the Northern tribes, not properly the Southern Arabian culture. Therefore, in order to enable a better comprehensibility, . . . we will define with the term Arabian or Arab the peoples of the Northern and Central regions, and "Yemenite" those of the Southern kingdoms (the term Yemenite indeed indicates the right hand, meaning the south).

***

Also the Amazigh people under their warrior queen Kahena opposed a fierce resistance to the muslim invaders. Undoubtedly, the government system of pre-Islamic Arabians was not Semitic but Hamitic.

***

There are conclusive evidences that Arabians had a matrilineal succession, the husband entered the wife's clan and lived in her home, and it was generally the woman who decided to divorce. Women were free to choose their partner, and often married younger men. It was also usual that clans had female names, and there are some hints that suggest that even polyandry was practised -- a custom not found among Semites but within some peoples in India and other regions of Asia. Also their religion had the same character, as the worship of the goddesses, the "daughters of Allah" (name of a pre-Islamic moon-god) prevailed over that of the male idols. It is not the purpose of this essay to show the true origin of Islam, yet it is interesting how did it manage to reverse all the Arabians' culture -- it is not the sole event of this kind in history, just consider how Communism took the power over the deeply religious Russians, overturning many of their traditional values. The Islamic doctrines altered the genuine Kushitic nature of the Arabs and imposed the male tyranny, that includes women-beating and other aberrant humiliations like clitoridectomy -- characters that do not help to qualify Islam as Semitic either. The Islamic insistence on the rules that women must obey has not any ethnic connotation but is the result of a reaction against the freedom and power that Arabian women enjoyed when this religion was founded (by someone who experimented such a female "domination" in his own family). In fact, the Kushite cultural heritage lasted much longer in Central Arabia, the cradle of Islam, rather than in the Northern and Southern regions, where the Nabatean and Himyarite civilizations were in contact with the western world and had become quite cosmopolitan.

***

Taking account of the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient records, it is possible to establish that the term Arab was originally applied to the Nabateans, that inhabited the wilderness region to the east of Israel, from Edom to Syria (not properly in the mainland of Arabia). Such an identification is confirmed by historians of Roman times like Strabo and Josephus, that used the terms Arab and Nabatean as synonymous. The Nabatean sovereigns were usually called "kings of the Arabs" and their realm was known as Arabia, so that when the Nabatean Kingdom was annexed to the Roman Empire it became the province of Arabia.

The name Nabatean is referred to Ishmael's firstborn son Nebayot, founder of the tribe that prevailed over the northwestern branch of the Ishmaelites and evolved into an organized kingdom, while the southeastern ones kept their Bedouin life-style within the oases of Northern Arabia, of which the tribe of Qedar may be considered the most representative.

The region where the Nabateans settled favoured their development as a Semitic culture that progressively replaced their natural Kushitic character. Intermarriage with Arameans was common and determined the origin of the modern Syrians. In fact, there were no marriage restrictions neither for men nor for women among Nabateans to take foreign spouses, and it is likely that such a practice was even encouraged. Mutual assimilation with the local Semitic population was also decisive in the formation of the Arabic language, whose roots are clearly Aramaic. Unlike present-day Arabs, the Nabateans held women in high regard -- a characteristic common to most of the pre-Islamic Arabian peoples. Women had property and heritage rights, and the Nabatean queens were honoured even more than the kings.

***

The Nabateans learnt literature, sciences and arts from their neighbours and were Hellenized up to a certain degree; most of them also converted to Judaism and Christianity. It was in Roman times that they reached their splendour and expanded their influence over Central Arabia; cities like Khaybar, Yathrib and Mekka became important Nabatean centres. Most of the Jews dwelling in Arabia in those times were indeed converted Nabateans, as well as the Christians that settled as south as Najran, in the Yemenite region. Paradoxically, a large number of true Ishmaelites were murdered by the Islamic hordes in the massacres of Jews at Khaybar and Medina. The notions about Jewish and Christian traditions were actually the source from which Nabateans rediscovered their Ishmaelite origin, as the name of Ishmael was completely lost in their own tradition. The Arabic form of this name shows internal evidence that it was translated from Greek or perhaps Syriac. This remote connection with a Biblical figure was enhanced on purpose by the promoters of Islam in order to create themselves a prestigious ancestry, although without having actual proofs of the Ishmaelite descent of Nabateans.

***

The fact is that the name of Ishmael was unknown in Central Arabia in pre-Islamic times, and the Arabic form Isma'il, beginning with an aleph shows that it passed through the Greek and is not directly derived from the Semitic/Aramaic original name Yishmael, with an initial yod -- the change of a consonant/semivowel into a vowel is explained only if a Semitic name has been translated into a western language and then from the western form into another Semitic tongue, which is the case of Hebrew into Greek and then into Arabic. Indeed, there is no mention of Avraham or Ishmael in any ancient Arabian inscription, neither Sabean nor Minean, nor Safaitic, nor Lihyanite, nor Thamudic and not even Nabatean.

The Arabs got acquainted with the existence of Avraham and Ishmael only through the Jewish and Christian sources from which Islam drew its own scriptures. Therefore, according to overwhelming historic, archaeologic, scriptural and scientific evidence, neither Avraham nor Ishmael have ever been in Arabia from Midyan southwards.

***

On the other side, the Semitic empires of the Middle East, namely Assyrian and Babylonian, were not much concerned in conquering the Arabian tribes and only imposed tribute on them, eventually placed vassal kings of their choice in order to keep a sort of organized administration, but did not establish colonies. After the fall of Babylon, the Nabateans got in touch with the Persian and Greek cultures and sought to expand themselves towards the northwest. In this period, they absorbed some Semitic peoples whose kingdoms were ruined since long time like the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites and some Aramean tribes, which contributed to the formation of the Arab identity. These Arabs are those that in Roman times settled in the central region, slowly and merging with the local Kushite inhabitants.

***

Concerning the Yemenites, in early times they had been ruled by queens according to the Kushitic tradition. The Semitic Yoqtanites assimilated the original Hamitic tribes and adopted their female monarchy system. Since they did not leave any written account of their own history previous to the Assyrian period, the only available document regarding the Sabean monarchy before the 8th century b.c.e. is recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, that reports the journey of the Queen of Sheva to Jerusalem. The description of the Queen illustrates the daring character of a typical Arabian female ruler; she presented herself to test the mighty King Shlomoh with hard questions and spoke to him openly. The Hebrew expression "she came to Shlomoh" used in the Bible in 1Kings 10:2 and 2Chronicles 9:1 conveys an interesting implication: that she had the explicit purpose of sexual relations with the King, who was not reluctant to accomplish her wishes, as it is written in following verses that "King Shlomoh gave to the Queen of Sheba all her desire, whatsoever she asked", implying that he also satisfied her sexually. This event became the source of many legends suggesting that both sovereigns had a son that founded a Solomonic dynasty that ruled in Yemen (or Ethiopia). There are not reliable proofs that may credit such a possibility, except that about two centuries later the Sabeans had a Semitic-styled male monarchy, and one of the earliest kings mentioned was Yati'amar, which is a Hebrew name (Ithamar).

Since the 3rd century c.e. the Sabean Himyarite Kingdom was enjoying a cultural revival in which the historical Israelite presence played an essential role, so much that even the king Dhu Nuwas adopted Judaism (even though the ancient Sabean religion was still practised by most Yemenites). This new feature was not appreciated by the nominally Christian Ethiopia and the Eastern Roman Empire, that agreed in joining their efforts to overthrow the Himyarite Kingdom. The Yemenite economy was weakened because of the commercial boycott promoted by the rival states that subsequently moved war against the Himyarite Kingdom. Yemen fell under the Ethiopians, that occupied the country and settled their own dynasty in 525 c.e. Yet, the Ethiopian Axumite rule did not last long, the ambitions of Byzantium and Persia to take control over the region resulted in a victory for the Persians, that subjected the whole Southern Arabia around 570 c.e. until the Islamic invasion. The end of the independent Yemen paved the way for their unification with the Nabatean Arabs advancing from the north.

***

After a careful and accurate research about the origin and identity of the Arabs, we can distinguish the myths from the facts:

Myths:

Arabs are Ishmaelites: this is not true for the overwhelming majority of them. There are not written records by which not even a single Arab is able prove a direct descent from Ishmael. The alleged genealogies have been invented in Islamic times after some Nabateans converted to Judaism or Christianity discovered the possible link that they had with Ishmael, a name that was completely lost in Arabia and was translated from Greek sources.

Arabs are Semites: This is a relative truth -- the Arabic language is Semitic, because its sources are ancient Semitic tongues spoken by both Sabeans and Nabateans. Also Ghe'ez and Amharic, languages of the Ethiopians, are Semitic, nevertheless the Ethiopian people are Kushites, not Semites.

Arabic was spoken in ancient times: false, it is the most recent of all Semitic languages, and evolved from Nabatean, Sabean, Lihyanite, Safaitic, Thamudic and other tongues. There was not a single document written in Arabic until Roman times.

Facts:

Arabs are primarily Hamitic, with a relevant Semitic contribution.

Ancient Nabateans were mainly Kushitic. Although their forefather was Ishmael, he and his offspring married within the Kushite inhabitants of Northern Arabia, and were regarded as Mušuri (Egyptians) by the Assyrians, who did not recognize Arabs as a Semitic people.

Ancient Yemenites (Sabeans, Mineans and others) were of mixed Semitic/Hamitic stock.

The pre-Islamic Arabs had a Kushitic culture; they were mainly ruled by queens like the Nubians, Ethiopians and other Hamitic nations, and had a female-centred society.

Islam has reversed the original culture into a male-ruled society, yet not adopting a Semitic style but just imposing a system based on applying the opposite patterns to the previous social rules and customs.

Ancient Arabians had a great culture, that might have evolved into a modern civilization and a developed society like other peoples of the Middle East as the Jews or the Armenians, but their original culture was destroyed and their history was replaced by legends [that is, Islam. lw].

http://www.think-israel.org/imninalu.araboriginidentity.html

[emphasis mine. lw]

IS Islam different from Every other World-View System?

2009-09-30T14:12:00.000-07:00

Yes, Islam IS different!

Posted by Dharmaveer at http://dharmaveer.blogspot.com/2009/03/yes-islam-is-different.html
reprinted from http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-islam-different-from-every-other.html

I am tired of people who know nothing about any religion state, almost as a self-evident axiom, that "All religions are the same." No they're not!

Islam is VERY different from Hindu Dharma. Let's talk statistics for a while, shall we? Can you guys guess what percentage of the verses in the Kuran speak of Kafirs? 63%! In other words, more than half the Kuran is simply hate speech about Kafirs. More than half! There is not one good thing Muhammad had to say about Kafirs. The Sira (his biography and collection of quotes and anecdotes) is more than 85% about his battles with Kafirs.

Islam IS about Kafirs. Get that right - Islam as a religion is about one topic alone - Kafirs. And we are all Kafirs. Yes, that's right. We are what Islam is about. The only problem is that Islam does not say "Love these guys." It says "hate them, kill them, behead them, humiliate them, "subdue" them, make them pay taxes, convert them..." Islam is all about "them" - the "them" being us Kafirs.

Islam is not a religion that focuses on itself and its people. It focuses on Kafirs. Isn't that strange - that a religion should focus not on itself but on those who are not in it? Islam is all about "the evil others - the Kafirs." The Kafirs who allowed Muhammad to do his thing when they could have killed him. But they showed great tolerance and let him mock and abuse them. But when he became powerful, he simply killed them or forcibly converted them to Islam.

Read the Upanishads (which form the spiritual core of Hindu Dharma). They don't even talk about "us" or "them." They simply discuss how the Atman (roughly translated to 'soul') is related to the unity underlying all creation (called the 'brahman'). There is absolutely no sectarian language there. No wonder Hindus, to this day, are unable to fully fathom this hateful ideology called Islam.

The Kuran is a manual of hatred and violence which seeks to divide humanity into "muslims" and "kafirs" and recommends permanent warfare between them. No wonder muslims are unable to live peacefully with any other community, anywhere. Because their religion only speaks of cultivating hatred towards others.

The world must no longer keep silent about this ideology. We must call it for what it is. Enough of the political correctness. Enough of the deafening silence. Islam declared war on us 1400 years ago. It is time we at least asked "Why?" Why are you killing us? What have we done? Just because an arab man 1400 years ago said you must kill us? Is that reason enough to abandon all humanity, all rationality?

Moslems Terrorists are Damned Liars!

2009-09-30T13:53:00.000-07:00

Deceit by the recently arrested Islamics Najibullah ZAZI, his father, Mohammed ZAZI, and Queens mosque leader Ahmad Wais AFZALI

From Northeast Intelligence Network comes the following:

Islam, Najibullah ZAZI, a frog & a scorpion
Analysis & Editorial by Douglas J. Hagmann, Director,Northeast Intelligence Network

“There is no way I can have any connection to this terrorism.”

“I live here. I work here. Why would I have an issue with America?” “This is the only country that gives you freedom - freedom of religion, freedom of choice. You don’t get that elsewhere. Nobody wants to leave America. People die to come here.” –Najibullah ZAZI, now in custody on terrorism charges.

Najibullah ZAZI is a liar. His father, Mohammed ZAZI is a liar. And the Queens mosque leader Ahmad Wais AFZALI is a liar. . . . More

Continue at http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=3124

Why this Spate of Islamic Terrorist Attack Attempts in the US at this time?

2009-09-28T18:02:00.000-07:00

"But when the forbidden months [Ramadan} are past, then fight and slay thepagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
- Qur'an-(9:5)

Ramadan ended and America's enemies were busy trying to fulfill the madman of Makkah's admonitions.

Unaware of this (or is he?) Obama vacillates about what to do in Afghanistan (Islamic Taliban enemy and al Qaeda next door in Waziristan of Pakistan).

see

OBAMA SUCKING MORE AND MORE FROM THE PUBLIC COFFERS - while Afghanistan remains in limbo

While the sh*t or get-off-the-pot pressure and Obama's indecision about what to do in Afghanistan continues . . .

The EU (European Union) is EVIL! It needs to be DESTROYED!!!

2009-09-28T14:36:00.000-07:00

From Gates of Vienna: A Package Deal: "Fjordman"

Fjordman said...

The EU is evil and needs to be destroyed. Period. As we've pointed out here before, the EU is in reality the ANTI-European Union in that it is actively contributing to the displacement of native Europeans in their own countries by alien and hostile peoples. It also imposes a centralized, authoritarian bureaucratic structure which used to be alien to pre-Soviet Europe. It more closely resembles Ming Dynasty China. Throughout all of European history, no single authority has ever been able to successfully censor ideas throughout the entire Continent, which, frankly, has been one of Europe's greatest comparative advantages. The EU and national Multicultural elites are now purposefully destroying what has traditionally been Europe's greatest comparative advantages: High IQ combined with free inquiry.

9/28/2009 5:03 PM

The foregoing is a Comment at http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/09/package-deal.html

[bold and color emphasis mine. lw]

How they go about establishing an Islamic state in our (non-Islamic) lands

2009-09-20T06:45:00.000-07:00

Photo from Vlaams Belang website
via "Ramadan Riots in Brussels" at Gates of Vienna

There are riots in France, Brussels, Sweden and in the UK almost nightly now and very little news of them is allowed to leak out under the censorship that is now being practised by the marxist journalists who control the news media on the behalf of their New World Order masters.

And these so called "spontaneous" riots by the Cult of the Dead Paedophile are being carried out on the orders of the Immans who tell their "warriors" when and what to riot over. All part of a plan that they have honed to perfection over a 1000 years and you can read a brief synopsis of the moslem strategy in this article here [reproduced further down below].

--From While the Population Sleeps at The Green Arrow

The point of the following is that: there has been a pattern to the transformation of countries into Islamic States and there are planners behind these takeovers even when the vast majority of both Muslims and non-Muslims are unaware of these activities.

Compare the following recipe with what has happened and is happening in Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Sudan, Indonesia, India-Pakistan-Kashmir, Britain, Algeria, and USA. The pattern of infiltration, peaceful co-existence, expansion, covert efforts to destabilize, demands for legal exemptions to practice Islam, overt efforts to destabilize, demands for a separate state, and civil war are as old as Islam.

What appears to be new (starting in the late 1800's, but really picking up steam around 1980) is the global support network for these efforts

--Westminster Journal

Recipe for an Islamic State

Author: Green Arrow | [UK]
http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/index.php/writers/arrow-straight/178-recipe-for-an-islamic-state

When you are weak

1. Remember that when you are weak that you should blend in and very, very few people need to be aware of the objectives and the methods. The mass of the population does not need to know and should not know that there is a plan. Remember yours is a religion of peace. At this point you want everyone to believe you are a peaceful and productive part of society, especially Muslims themselves.

The Reliance of the Traveller (section r-8.2) by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri an analysis of the permissibility / obligation of lying by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali wrote:

Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.

What has helped Tablighi Jamaat to expand (without creating alarm in the security agencies) is its policy of a deliberate black-out of its activities. It does not interact with the media and does not issue any statements or communiqués. It believes in human communication through word of mouth. (Comment: It does not bring out any journals or other propaganda organs to explain its policies and objectives. All explanations to its workers and potential recruits are given orally).

2. Begin immigration, legal and illegal, and start building up a population. Get the breeding engine started young and often. Remember that the younger they start the faster the turnover, the poorer the education of the girls becomes, and this also results in their increased willingness to have large families. Begin recruiting Non-Muslims, in particular women are prime targets.

Convince the powers that be that it is to their advantage to encourage immigration of Muslims since they provide a peaceful cheap labour force, or you can emphasize the refugee aspect and how welcoming these souls will improve how their country is perceived. Remember there is lot's of excess population in other regions of the Islamic world.

3. Build communities so that you can preserve your identity and magnify your strength.

4. Take advantage of the Islamists support infrastructure. For example seek funding from existing states and organizations (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, USA), go for training and organizational meetings on a regular basis, and get your training manuals.

5. Build the proper mind set, in both Muslims and Non-Muslims, slowly and carefully. Very slowly assume control of sources of information and education (religious and secular).

Make sure the seed for Sharia is well implanted, as a long term solution for problems, so you have fertile ground to call for it once you do have the power to pursue it openly. Get your version of the truth out to the public. Tailor your presentation of Islam to the locals. Are they educated, impoverished, picked upon for their beliefs, or have common issues? New histories: always the attacked, never the unprovoked attacker. Become the spokes-people for the communities. Coordinate opposition to dissemination of information that runs counter to your goals.

6. Hiding in plain sight. Set up multi-function organizations. The public face can be for business, charity, education, or religion. The private faces can be used to advance your cause. Prepare your "their not real Muslims", plausible deniability, and "they were attacked" defence strategies. Note goodwill can be traded for changes in behaviour.

Seek government funding. The people you help don't know where the money came from originally. They just know that you are helping them when the government didn't. Also as one Islamist said: if someone provides money for milk that frees up money for weapons. For example there is often money available for education. If Islam just happens to be one of the primary topics being taught, it was without your knowledge.

As you get stronger

1. Start raising issues regarding the difficulties the country places on practicing your religion. Work for increasing exemptions from various laws, protection from "hate speech", and tolerance of your "cultural / religious" differences.

2. Begin solidifying your control of the Muslim community. Use various forms of intimidation to ensure that people are moving in the desired direction and to silence dissent. Everyone, including Muslims, still believes that Muslims are peaceful; it's just a few fanatics who are misbehaving. Any push back should be highlighted in the media and community discussion as Muslims are being unfairly attacked, once again. Remember to play upon your "history" of being a persecuted people.

3. Study the opposition's resources, looking for opportunities to leverage them. Begin de-stabilizing the opposition. Start draining their resources and their belief in themselves. Encourage drug / prostitution activity, using their own people to promote it. They're only kafirs after all. As the opposition becomes unstable they are less able to help people in trouble. This provides opportunities for your charity organization to build support.

4. Obey the laws of the country, but note that it is more important morally to follow Shariah. Start promoting the "us versus them" mentality and pointing out the corruption that is inherent in the existing government. How it is the source of current problems.

5. Work your way up the governmental ladder. Gaining control in local communities first. Then expanding to higher levels. Trade support for changes in laws or access. For example gaining control of education is of particular importance.

6. The "fanatics" can now follow Muhammad's example of banditry for funding and growth of their gangs. Raid the diamond / gem / gold mines, gun shops, banks, and whatever to build their strength.

Demand your rights

1. You are being persecuted so badly that you can't practice your religion freely. You are the majority in your portion of the country and it is only right that you should be able to practice your religion fully. In Islam this means that Shariah should be the law for Muslims. Of course this will be a modernized version and it won't apply to non-Muslims.

2. Start unofficially implementing a local government and Shariah within the Muslim community. Become an increasing drain and nuisance to the established government. You want the government to feel that it is better off giving you what you want, than the prospect of having to militarily oppose its own people. Make sure the world knows that your community is being abused by your own government.

Go for the gold

1. Try to get the rest of the country. Most of this should be covert until the remaining government is extremely unstable. Let your fanatics infiltrate, in greater and greater numbers, stirring up as much trouble as possible. Of course you are making "every effort" to stop them.

2. Their government objects to your tactics and begins to counter attack, chasing the fanatics back into your territory. You are being attacked! Various compromises are reached and broken. Finally you must defend yourself.

3. Decide whether or not you are strong enough to do it on your own. If so go for it. This may take several attempts, since you may not turn out to be strong enough, or other countries may force you to back off. If the latter, see what you can get them to offer which will strengthen you. More money, land, or lifting of sanctions.

If you aren't strong enough to go it alone, remember you have brother countries in this effort. Don't take this route if you can avoid it, since there is typically a very heavy price, and it gives your opponent an excuse to bring in others.

You have an Islamic State, so now what?

1. This is similar to the consolidation stage above where you have gained partial control. You need to clean house and begin establishing a new international economy.

2. Prepare for the long-term for government, military, economy, and education.

Remember that the history of Islam was that when it stopped conquering, it died. It fed itself on the loot of its conquests. When it no longer had these revenues it imploded.

Source: Westminster Journal

ANTIDOTE: How to Stop Islamization - DRASTIC TIMES CALL FOR DRASTIC MEASURES

. . . and for more action items, see

Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures . . . and it's getting drasticker and drasticker all'a the time!

"Living with Terrorism" - Do we have to?

2009-09-18T13:44:00.000-07:00

"Terrorism"--the Islamic incursion into the West and its drive to Islamizise it--will not cease until the West (Europe, United States) is under Islamic domination or the Mohammedans are once again defeated--as has occurred several times in history. As we would rather not live under Islam (at least here in the United States), the second alternative is preferable. Ah, but how to achieve it? A careful examination of how Islam was beaten back before--sent to sulk for centuries in its misery until stupidly uplifted by the West's gift of oil wealth--will give the answer. The defeat of Islam, because that is what this war is about, Islam versus the non-Islamic world, can be accomplished. A study of prior defeats of the Moslems by the West will yield strategies and tactics that can be applied again. I will not go into detail here and send Moslems scurrying to maps and history books so as not to be forced to repeat their mistakes of the past. The Reconquista, Poitiers, Vienna show us what went right for us and what we could have improved upon. Economic, military, diplomatic, and political means must be used to achieve the ultimate goal: the sound defeat of the Islamic forces and the return of Islamic populations to Islamic lands.

Comment at http://blog.bearstrong.net/articles/2006/09/23/living-with-terrorism
by Leslie White, United States of America, 2006-09-30

Fitzgerald: Is Present-Day Jihad Caused By Spontaneous Combustion? - from Jihad Watch

2009-09-13T19:07:00.000-07:00

from Jihad Watch

Fitzgerald: Is Present-Day Jihad Caused By Spontaneous Combustion?
"The temporary lull in Islamic ambitions after the fall of the Ottoman caliphate has now spontaneously recombusted into nuvoIslamic [sic] ambitions for a world caliphate ala Al Qeda, Iran's Ayatollahs, Saud supremacy, etc" -- From a reader's comment on my article here.

It was not "spontaneous combustion" that brought back, in a big and most dangerous way, the pursuit of Jihad, which by now has gone beyond such original local victims of the post-war period as Israel and India. It now targets non-Muslim peoples all over, both in the Muslim-ruled lands, where they have steadily been persecuted, humiliated, and their numbers have declined, and in the lands of Dar al-Harb, where the Muslims who have innocently and far too negligently been allowed to settle in large numbers have taken advantage of every benefit the generous Infidel nations provide. These include the kind of education and medical care unobtainable in the Muslim lands. Muslims have also taken advantage of the edifice of human rights guarantees in order not to promote but rather to subvert the very legal and political institutions that gave birth to those rights, and have helped to maintain and even expand them.

The Return of Jihad is a result of the fact that Muslims became both more powerful, and more aware of their power and their ability to spread the message of Islam more fully to fellow Muslims -- and to disrupt, and demoralize, and confuse, and even bully non-Muslim peoples and states that remained, militarily, far more powerful.

Three developments that very largely explain this. I have gone over them many times before, but there is always a need to repeat the theme, until it sinks in.

The first is the tremendous transfer of wealth to the oil-and-gas-rich Muslim countries, almost all of them Arab — more than twelve trillion dollars since 1973 alone. That Money Weapon, the Jihad of Wealth, has paid for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da’wa, campaigns of propaganda by Western hirelings who are supposed to protect Arab and Muslim interests, and do so, not only by conducting insidious campaigns against obvious targets of Jihad (for example, Israel), but also in targeting individuals who show a willingness to stand up against Islam (e.g., Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali).

These campaigns also promote the continued power of these same Arab and Muslim states by trying to prevent a serious effort to curtail the use of oil. The Saudis hate the phrase “energy independence” — it happens to be a politically useful phrase for those who wish to encourage the use of other forms of energy and energy conservation — and are paying everyone and his brother to write Op/Eds about what the Saudi shills sweetly call “energy interdependence.” This latter phrase is a sly way to insinuate the idea that 1) it will be impossible to get off oil and 2) don’t even try and 3) Saudi Arabia is your friend and don’t tell anyone otherwise or there may be hell to pay.

That is an idle threat, by the way, for the Saudis are hopelessly dependent on the sale of oil, and hopelessly dependent for the running of their economies, and for their political survival, on the West itself. The reverse is not true, no matter how many well-connected Western hirelings tell us otherwise — including former American diplomats and C.I.A. agents (think of the likes of Raymond Close and James Akins). And Saudi money not only pays for thousands of mosques, and imams of the most extreme Wahhabi bent, but it also pays for madrasas, and teams of lawyers to help expand both in the face of local opposition from zoning boards or a worried populace. It also pays for tame journalists, and for academics of the venal esposito sort, and for chairs named after King Abdul Aziz, and whole departments or even centers, for “Islamic Studies” of one phony sort or another. For more on that, see Esposito’s fiefdom, which he continues to connect, shamelessly, to Georgetown. Or see the “Centers” at Exeter and Durham in Great Britain.

For especially delicate matters, however, the Saudis have learned to stand back and let more acceptable-sounding Arab countries be the front men, offering the financial support. Take the case of Tariq Ramadan. A full-time propagandist for Islam, Tariq Ramadan in colubrine fashion pretends there is some brand-new never-seen-before “European” Islam that will somehow develop in Europe, but the contents of which, and the difference between “European” Islam and the Islam to be found everywhere else, is never made clear, because no such difference exists. This “European” Islam is supposed to quiet the growing disquiet of Europeans at the Muslim immigrants who have turned out, in their attitudes and their behavior, unsurprisingly, to be akin to invaders in their midst.

When his contract in Geneva was not renewed, and when the jig in France and Switzerland was up, thanks to such studies as Caroline Fourest’s “Frere Tariq,” Ramadan knew it was time to move on, one step ahead of the Infidel posse. He tried to move to America, having convinced the Interfaith Racketeers, the Peace-and-Justice boys, Scott Appleby and company, spending that endowment of BigMac Money like there was no tomorrow, to invite him. But the American government, in a fit of actual intelligence (two kinds), prevented Ramadan from entering the country. So he moved on to two places. He somehow persuaded the good burghers of the Netherlands to give him a paid position and also landed at St. Antony’s College, Oxford — a college for graduate studies only, and one with a perfectly legitimate operation in East European and Russian Studies, along with a perfectly illegitimate operation in Middle Eastern Studies, at least as long as Albert Hourani was alive and running things, with no courses and no waiting. That’s the D.Phil., not to be confused with the American or continental Ph.D. All kinds of Arabs, especially those working on such fascinating topics as “the construction of a ‘Palestinian’ identity — see Rashid Khalidi for one good example — picked up their degrees from what was, in many ways, a unique diploma mill, undercutting the prestige that, many decades ago even an “M.A. Oxon.” once commanded.

Keep firmly in mind that the vast wealth from oil and gas that the Arabs and Muslims received was not the result of their own efforts. In fact, without the accident of geology, and the discovery of such oil wealth and of the means to transport and distribute and then use it — all done by the Western Infidels — the Arabs and Muslims would still be economically weak. That is their natural condition, because of Islam itself. And only the bonanza of oil helped them to become rich.

It is Islam itself that, absent the bonanza of natural resources such as oil, virtually ensures Muslim underdevelopment. There are a handful of exceptions, that is, Muslim-ruled states where some economic development does take place. There are a few places without oil where a non-Muslim minority — Chinese and Hindus in Malaysia, Chinese in Indonesia, Christians in Lebanon — serves as a catalyst and engine for the economy, helping local Muslims to act in ways that without such a non-Muslim presence would be far more difficult to achieve. For Islam discourages hard work. The Arabs, in particular, were used to living by raiding, the razzia (and where there were non-Muslims, on the Jizyah). But the Islamic work ethic is non-existent not only because of the traditional reliance on such raids, one Muslim tribe or group against another or all Muslims against all non-Muslims, but because inshallah-fatalism discourages hard work.

The second major development, mostly unrelated to the first but overlapping with it in time, is that the countries of Western Europe, for different reasons, allowed different populations of Muslims into their midst. They did this, in West Germany, with Turks who were supposed to come, earn money, send those earnings home, and eventually voluntarily be repatriated to Turkey. In Great Britain, in the late 1940s, a bill was passed that made it easier for members of the Commonwealth countries to enter Great Britain. And in the late 1950s a trickle of Pakistanis came, and then more, and then more, with the results we all see. In France, after the end of the Algerian War in 1962, hundreds of thousands of Muslim harkis arrived, that is, Arabs who had fought with the French and who would suffer greatly from FLN reprisals if not rescued. But then, following that, the French allowed in single Algerian males, for the same reason that the West Germans had allowed in single Turkish males. And just as the Germans changed that policy to allow in wives (sometimes “wives” meant “plural wives”), so too did the French, under Giscard d’Estaing, decide to deal with the perceived anti-social or even seemingly sociopathic behavior of some Algerian males by allowing in their wives, and their children, and then other wives. And the result is grim history.

And in Spain there were predominantly Moroccans, and in the Netherlands Moroccans and Turks, and in Scandinavia Arabs and Kurds, and in Italy Somalis and Egyptians and assorted maghrebins, and so on. And everywhere it was the same story, the same impossibility of integration, the same deep hostility, on the part of the Muslims, no matter how much solicitude was shown them, how many benefits made available to them. And no matter how much access they had to a more advanced, more generous, more just, better-ordered society, they did not exhibit, because they did not feel, any gratitude to the Infidels and the Infidel nation-states that made all this possible. Instead, they felt resentment — resentment that they, the Muslims, the “best of peoples,” were not on top, that they, the Muslims, “the best of peoples,” did not have the position that Allah so clearly intended them to have, that they, the Muslims, the “best of peoples,” did not have their demands met, did not have their commands obeyed, and their prohibitions observed.

And while the very first generation of largely-illiterate, and possibly still a little scared, immigrants sometimes worked, that very temporary work ethic soon went by the board. The level of Muslim unemployment rose. It was caused not by discrimination but because Muslims have found ways to easily go on the Western dole, and to receive free education, free medical care, free or subsidized housing. They supplement, where necessary, such benefits with crime. Nearly 60% of French criminals in prison are Muslims, and similar, or even higher percentages, can be found in some other European countries. And for some crimes — such as rape — Muslims constitute 70-80% of the rapists, even in Scandinavian lands where they represent 2-3% of the population.

They have made demands, and they will continue to make demands, for all sorts of changes in what is done. Sometimes it is for single-sex municipal swimming pools. Sometimes it is for prayer-rooms in schools and airports, or footbaths in both, or guaranteed times off of work. Sometimes it has to do with demands for the building of huge mosques and madrasas, or for speaker systems to broadcast the muezzin’s call to prayer. Sometimes it is for changes in school curricula, so that Muslims will not have to endure lessons on, say, the Infidel Kings of France, or the history of Christianity in Europe, or about European anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, or to be asked to read important writers if those writers — say, Victor Hugo (at this website’s search box, insert “Victor Hugo” and “Hugh” for more) — or Voltaire. And of course Muslims try to influence each country’s foreign policy, to make it more distant from America, more hostile to Israel, and more compliant with the demands of Muslim polities and peoples.

The third change that has made the Jihad possible is that of technological advances, the fruit of the advanced non-Muslim countries, both West and East, that have then been appropriated by Muslims and used to advance the cause of Islam. The illiterate villager in a remote part of Afghanistan learns, when the village acquires a radio transmitter, more about the message of Islam, and is possibly whipped up against the Infidels. That is one example. The villager — or urban dweller — in the Shah’s Iran, could listen to audiotapes of the Ayatollah Khomeini, audiotapes that he recorded during the months he lived in France, at Neauphle-le-Chateau. Then his loyal followers made hundreds of thousands of copies for distribution all over Iran. There are recruitment tapes for Al Qaeda that proudly show beheadings, of Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl, or British or Italian or American soldiers. There are the tapes that show, with equal glee, to the monotonous Arabic intoning of Qur’anic verses, American soldiers in tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles making their way along a road when suddenly, as in a comic book, BLAM!, and the vehicle hits an I.E.D., and the scenes of mayhem and death that follow are registered by some Muslim who has been ready to record the whole scene. Then that scene, and many others, go onto videotapes, or onto the Internet, to be seen by many other Muslims who are not offended, but inspired, by the gory displays of Infidel anguish and torment at the hands of those Muslim “warriors” — including the “warriors” who slit the throats of helpless, often completely innocent captives, such as Nick Berg. Berg went off naively to Iraq to help the Iraqis, having been raised with one kind of nonsense from his father, and having further believed another kind of nonsense about the wonderful “Iraqi people” whom we were helping, that was being put out early on by the American government, hellbent on misunderstanding the nature of the people of Iraq (not the same as “the Iraqi people.”)

All of these things — audiotapes, videotapes, the Internet, satellite television (see Al-Manar, see Al-Jazeera) — have been products of the advanced non-Muslim world. But the primitive Muslim world has money, from an accident of geology, and that money helps the funding of those who participate directly or indirectly in violent Jihad, as well as those who conduct Jihad through other, non-violent, often more effective means.

And that is the answer.

Not “spontaneous combustion” — which is merely a lazy getting-out of the duty to study, and to comprehend. That kind of phrase is of a piece with such expressions of frustration and unwillingness to figure out the causes of things, as “well, the Arabs and the Jews have been killing each other for centuries, so I guess they always will” or “no one can figure out why the Middle East is the way it is, I guess, so let’s forget it” or “I’m just getting sick and tired of the Arab-Israeli problem,” or, from a well-known commentator who becomes unaccountably lazy when he senses that the topic at hand requires a more attention and understanding of Islam than he, at least, is prepared to acquire, this remarkable and telling expression of peevish frustration on the part of one who refuses to do the work necessary for intelligent analysis and understanding: “Does anyone else feel, as I do, an almighty weariness with the Levant and its intractable problems, its immemorial rancors, its savage rivalries, its unappeasable grievances?” (He makes no mention of Islam, nota bene, a knowledge of which would, if intelligently brought to bear, explain that Levant, with its “intractable problems” and “immemorial rancors” and “savage rivalries” and “unappeasable grievances.” Now you can find, and place Your Very Own Example Here.

Leave “spontaneous combustion” to that lawyer and landlord in Dickens’s “Bleak House,” the deeply alcoholic Mr. Krook, who is among the bit characters embroiled in the coils of that endless case in Chancery, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, that goes on until the last farthing in the legacy has been used up on legal fees. The poetic license of Dickens — which has been renewed every year since his death — allows him to indulge, for the sake of fiction, in such things.

The rest of us do not possess that license, and are in other lines of work, and have different kinds of understanding. Here, we are devoted to understanding what makes certain large masses of people, in thrall to a primitive ideology, tick. Then we wish to discover what threats result from their beliefs and their newly-acquired powers, financial and military and demographic, and what we must consider as alternative ways of containing — not finding a “solution,” which is not the right way to think about the matter, but lessening the threat — the power of Islam, and limiting its presence in the Western world, or indeed in the non-Western, but non-Muslim world as well.

To simply attribute such a world-shaking menace as the Return of Islam and the revival of Jihad to something one breezily calls “spontaneous combustion” does not further the common understanding. Leave that phrase to Dickens. He can handle it. He can make poetic use of it. We others, we imperiled mortals, at least right here and right now, can’t.

Posted by Hugh
on September 13, 2009 7:24 PM |

http://64.130.13.128/2009/09/fitzgerald-is-present-day-jihad-caused-by-spontaneous-combustion.html

Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism

2009-09-04T03:25:00.000-07:00

by Fjordman

I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism, perhaps more so. Even in the heyday of the East Bloc, there were active dissident groups in these countries. The scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right.

But how is that possible? Don’t we have free speech? And we have no Gulag?

The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation.

What happened is that while the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we deemed it to be less threatening. The “hard” Marxists had intercontinental nuclear missiles and openly said that they would “bury” us. The soft Marxists talk about tolerance and may seem less threatening, but their goal of overthrowing the evil, capitalist West remains the same. In fact, they are more dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under different labels. Perhaps we should call it “stealth Socialism” instead of soft Socialism.

One of the readers of Fjordman blog once pointed out that we never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2. He was thinking of the former Soviet Union and the countries in Eastern Europe, but he should probably have included their Marxist fellow travellers, their sympathizers and apologists in the West. We never fully confronted the ideology of Marxism, and demonstrated that the suffering it caused for hundreds of millions of people was a direct result of Marxist ideas. We just assumed that Marxism was dead and moved on, allowing many of its ideals to mutate into new forms and many of its champions to continue their work uninterrupted, sometimes filled with a vengeance and a renewed zeal for another assault on the capitalist West.

We are now paying the price for this. Not only has Marxism survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger. Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

The Left have become ideological orphans after the Cold War, or perhaps we should call them ideological mercenaries. Although the viable economic alternative to capitalism didn’t work out, their hatred for this system never subsided, it merely transformed into other forms. Multiculturalism is just a different word for “divide and conquer,” pitting various ethnic and cultural groups against each other and destroying the coherence of Western society from within.

At the very least, the people living in the former Communist countries knew and admitted that they were taking part in a gigantic social experiment, and that the media and the authorities were serving them propaganda to shore up support for this project. Yet in the supposedly free West, we are taking part in a gigantic social experiment of Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration every bit as radical, utopian and potentially dangerous as Communism, seeking to transform our entire society from top to bottom, and still we refuse to even acknowledge that this is going on.

In Norway, a tiny Scandinavian nation that was until recently 99% white and Lutheran Christian, native Norwegians will soon be a minority in their own capital city, later in the whole country. And still, Norwegian politicians, journalists and University professors insist that there is nothing to worry about over this. Multiculturalism is nothing new, neither is immigration. In fact, our king a century ago was born in Denmark, so having a capital city dominated by Pakistanis, Kurds, Arabs and Somalis is just business as usual. The most massive transformation of the country in a thousand years, probably in recorded history, is thus treated as if it were the most natural thing in the world. To even hint that there might be something wrong about this has been immediately shouted down as “racism.”

Eric Hoffer has noted that “It is obvious that a proselytizing mass movement must break down all existing group ties if it is to win a considerable following. The ideal potential convert is the individual who stands alone, who has no collective body he can blend with and lose himself in and so mask the pettiness, meaninglessness and shabbiness of his individual existence. Where a mass movement finds the corporate pattern of family, tribe, country, etcetera, in a state of disruption and decay, it moves in and gathers the harvest. Where it finds the corporate pattern in good repair, it must attack and disrupt.” This corresponds exactly to the behavior of much of the Western Left in our age.

In Germany, Hans-Peter Raddatz in his book “Allahs Frauen” (Allah’s Women) dissects the destructive attitude of Multiculturalism that is shared by many civil servants, journalists, politicians and lawyers in Germany and the EU. In particular, he documents how the German Green Party has a program for dismantling and dissolving the Christian “Leitkultur,” or common culture, that so far has been the foundation of Germany and the West. Raddatz thinks that the decades of Muslim immigration are used as an instrument for breaking down the institutions, norms and ideas that the Left has earlier tried to break down through economics. From powerful positions in the media, public institutions and the system of education, these Multiculturalists are working on a larger project of renewing a Western civilization that, according to them, has failed.

A Norwegian newspaper called Dagens Næringsliv exposed the fact that the largest “anti-racist” organization in the country, SOS Rasisme, was heavily infiltrated by Communists and extreme Leftists. They infiltrated the organization in the late 1980s and early ’90s, in other words, during the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. They went directly from Communism to Multiculturalism, which should indicate that at least some of them viewed Multiculturalism as the continuation of Communism by other means. It speaks volumes about the close connection between economic Marxism and cultural Marxism. They just have different means of reaching the same ends.

Much of the political Left is simply engaged in outing their opponents as evil, instead of rationally arguing against their ideas. Attaching labels such as “racist” or even “Fascist” to anyone criticizing massive immigration or Multiculturalism has become so common that Norwegian anti-Islamists have coined a new word for it: “Hitling,” which could be roughly translated to English as “to make like Hitler.” The logic behind “hitling” is a bit like this: “You have a beard. Adolf Hitler had facial hair, too, so you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler liked dogs. You have pets, too, you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. You like carrots, you are just like Hitler.”

Any “right-winger” can be slimed with such accusations. Curiously enough, the reverse is almost never true. Although Marxism may have killed 100 million people during the 20th century and failed in every single society in which it has ever been tried out, there seems to be little stigma attached to being a Leftist. The fact that Leftists can get away with this and claim to hold the moral high ground amply demonstrates that we didn’t win the Cold War. We let our guard down after the fall of the Berlin Wall and never properly denounced the ideology behind it. This is now coming back to haunt us.

One member of an anti-immigration party in Britain stated that to be called racist in 21st-century Britain is “the same as being branded a witch in the Middle Ages.” He’s probably right, which means that anti-racism has quite literally become a modern witch-hunt.

Naomi Klein, Canadian activist and author of the book No Logo, is a darling of the Western Left. She claims that the real cause of Islamic terrorism is Western racism, traceable back to the personal experiences of Sayyid Qutb, theorist of modern Islamic Jihad, while in the USA in the late 1940s. “The real problem,” she concludes, “is not too much Multiculturalism but too little.” More Multiculturalism, she claims, “would rob terrorists of what has always been their greatest recruitment tool: our racism.”

Robert Spencer, however, is not too impressed with Klein’s logic or historical knowledge: “Qutb’s world-changing rage?” Is that rage really Qutb’s? Can modern-day Islamic terrorism really be attributed to him, and to his experience of racism in Colorado? One would expect that if that were so, there would be no evidence of political or violent Islam dating from before 1948. But in fact the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Qutb was part, was founded not in 1948 but in 1928, and not by Qutb, but by Hasan Al-Banna. It was Al-Banna, not Qutb, who wrote: “In [Muslim] Tradition, there is a clear indication of the obligation to fight the People of the Book [that is, Jews and Christians], and of the fact that God doubles the reward of those who fight them. Jihad is not against polytheists alone, but against all who do not embrace Islam.”

Paul Berman does not share Klein’s interpretation, either. According to him, Qutb’s book from the 1940’s, Social Justice and Islam,’ shows that, even before his voyage to the USA, Qutb “was pretty well set in his Islamic fundamentalism,” although it may have gotten worse after his meetings with Western “immorality.” According to Berman, the truly dangerous element in American life, in Sayyid Qutb’s estimation, “was not capitalism or foreign policy or racism or the unfortunate cult of women’s independence. The truly dangerous element lay in America’s separation of church and state — the modern political legacy of Christianity’s ancient division between the sacred and the secular.” Islam’s true champions had to gather themselves together into what Qutb in his book Milestones called a vanguard. This vanguard of true Muslims was going to resurrect the caliphate and take Islam to all the world, just as Muhammad had done.” Both Milestones and parts of Qutb’s perhaps most important work, In the Shade of the Qur’an, are available online in English. In Milestones, he writes that Jihad will continue until all of the world answers to Islam, that “Islam came into this world to establish God’s rule on God’s earth.” “Islam has a right to remove all those obstacles which are in its path,” it “has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions” around the world that are in opposition to this. “God’s rule on earth can be established only through the Islamic system.” What does this have to do with Western racism? Why did Jihad start a thousand years before Western colonialism ever touched Islamic lands? What about the tens of millions of people massacred in India because of Islamic Jihad? Was that due to Western racism, too? Naomi Klein doesn’t say, she just blames the West. And she is far from the only one suffering from this delusion.

Commenting on the Jihad riots in France in the fall of 2005, philosopher Alain Finkielkraut stated: “In France, they would like very much to reduce these riots to their social dimension, to see them as a revolt of youths from the suburbs against their situation, against the discrimination they suffer from, against the unemployment. The problem is that most of these youths are blacks or Arabs, with a Muslim identity. Look, in France there are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult — Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese — and they’re not taking part in the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an ethno-religious character. These people were treated like rebels, like revolutionaries. (…) They’re ‘interesting.’ They’re ‘the wretched of the earth.’ “Imagine for a moment that they were whites, like in Rostock in Germany. Right away, everyone would have said: ‘Fascism won’t be tolerated.’ When an Arab torches a school, it’s rebellion. When a white guy does it, it’s fascism. Evil is evil, no matter what color it is.”

In an interview with Danish weekly Weekendavisen, Finkielkraut said that: “Racism is the only thing that can still arouse anger among the intellectuals, the journalists and people in the entertainment business, in other words, the elites. Culture and religion have collapsed, only anti-racism is left. And it functions like an intolerant and inhumane idolatry.” “A leader from one of the organizations against racism had the nerve to refer to the actions of the police in the Parisian suburbs as ‘ethnic cleansing.’ That kind of expression used about the French situation indicates a deliberate manipulation of the language. Unfortunately, these insane lies have convinced the public that the destruction in the suburbs should be viewed as a protest against exclusion and racism.” “I think that the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”

Maybe the French have fallen prey to the nihilism of Jean-Paul Sartre? Roger Scruton wrote about his continued influence in The Spectator: “The French have not recovered from Sartre and perhaps never will. For they have had to live with an intellectual establishment that has consistently repudiated the two things that hold the country together: Christianity and the idea of France. The anti-bourgeois posture of the left-bank intellectual has entered the political process, and given rise to an elite for whom nothing is certain save the repudiation of the national idea. It is thanks to this elite that the mad project of European Union has become indelibly inscribed in the French political process, even though the people of France reject it. It is thanks to this elite that the mass immigration into France of unassimilable Muslim communities has been both encouraged and subsidised. It is thanks to this elite that socialism has been so firmly embedded in the French state that no one now can reform it.” “Man cannot live by negation alone.”

Karl Marx himself has stated that “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism,” a sentiment that corresponds almost exactly to the Islamic idea that “peace” means the absence of opposition to Islamic rule. Cultural Marxism — aka Political Correctness — and Islam share the same totalitarian outlook and instinctively agree in their opposition to free discussion, and in the idea that freedom of speech must be curtailed when it is “offensive” to certain groups. Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good and everything rightist is a priori oppressor and evil. Facts don’t matter. Justice is determined by who you are and not by what you have done.” “Political correctness is an intellectual sickness. It means expediently lying when telling the truth is not expedient. This practice is so widespread and so common that it is considered to be normal.” Sina also quotes historian Christopher Dawson in writing: “It is easy enough for the individual to adopt a negative attitude of critical skepticism. But if society as a whole abandons all positive beliefs, it is powerless to resist the disintegrating effects of selfishness and private interest. Every society rests in the last resort on the recognition of common principles and common ideals, and if it makes no moral or spiritual appeal to the loyalty of its members, it must inevitably fall to pieces.” This will be the end result of Multiculturalism, and one suspects that this was the point of it to begin with.

Another former Muslim, writer Ibn Warraq, visited Denmark to launch his book Why I am not a Muslim. In an interview, Ibn Warraq stated that especially among the Left there is a post-colonial guilt complex that constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle to any criticism of Islam and Third World cultures. The Left have thus put their own, universal values aside in favor of a dangerous relativism. Ibn Warraq pointed out that more than fifty years after the West left its colonies in the Third World, Leftists are still blaming all the ills of Africa and the Middle East on the former colonial powers, while the same left-wingers only ten years after the fall of Communism blamed Russia’s troubles on unrestrained capitalism. “The Left refuses to seek answers elsewhere. At the same time they are, because of Marx, accustomed to look for economic explanations to everything. Consequently, they seek the explanation to Islamic terrorism in the economic situation. But it is a great mystery to me how 200 dead people in Madrid are supposed to help the poor in the Islamic world.”

Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who has personal experience with living under Socialism, warns that it may not be as dead as many seem to think: “We can probably confidently say that its “hard version” – communism – is over.” However, “fifteen years after the collapse of communism I am afraid, more than at the beginning of its softer (or weaker) version, of social-democratism, which has become – under different names, e.g. the welfare state – the dominant model of the economic and social system of current Western civilization. It is based on big and patronizing government, on extensive regulating of human behavior, and on large-scale income redistribution.” “The explicit socialism has lost its appeal and we should not have it as the main rival to our ideas today.” Klaus warns that illiberal ideas are making a comeback in different shapes: “These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (Thomas Sowell) on others against their will.” “The current threats to liberty may use different ‘hats’, they may better hide their real nature, they may be more sophisticated than before, but they are – in principle – the same as always.”

“I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based – as de Jasay precisely argues – on not distinguishing rights and rightism), ideology of ‘civic society’ (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society. I also have in mind multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.”

Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist. He was one of the first to expose the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the USSR, and spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as a heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC’s compulsory TV licence, which he considers “such a medieval arrangement I simply must protest against it” “The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech — publicising views they don’t necessarily agree with.” He has blasted the BBC for their “bias and propaganda,” especially on stories related to the EU or the Middle East. “I would like the BBC to become the KGB successors in imprisoning me for demanding freedom of speech. Nothing would expose them more for what they are.”

He is not the only one who is tired of what he thinks is the Leftist bias of the BBC. Michael Gove, a Conservative MP, and political commentator Mark Dooley complain about lopsided coverage of certain issues: “Take, for example, the BBC’s coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an “icon” and a “hero,” but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as “polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man.” This despite the fact that under Yassin’s guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds.” “A soft left worldview influences too much of what the corporation produces. We have a right to expect more honesty from the broadcasting service we are being asked to pay for.”

Vladimir Bukovsky thinks that the West lost the Cold War. “There were no Nuremberg-type trials in Moscow. Why? Because while we won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas. The West stopped one day too soon, just like in Desert Storm. Just imagine the Allies in 1945 being satisfied with some kind of Perestroika in Nazi Germany — instead of unconditional surrender. What would have been the situation in Europe then, to say nothing of Germany? All former Nazi collaborators would have remained in power, albeit under a new disguise. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union in 1991.” “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.” “It is no surprise, therefore, that despite the defeat of communism, the radical Left in the West still arrogates the moral high ground to itself.”

“When the Nazis lost the Second World War, racial hatred was discredited. When the Soviets lost the Cold War, the tenet of class hatred remained as popular as ever.” Bukovsky argues that while there might have been a Western military victory, Socialism still prevailed as a popular idea ideologically throughout the world. He writes: “Having failed to finish off conclusively the communist system, we are now in danger of integrating the resulting monster into our world. It may not be called communism anymore, but it retained many of its dangerous characteristics. . . .Until the Nuremberg-style tribunal passes its judgement on all the crimes committed by communism, it is not dead and the war is not over.”

Cultural Marxism has roots as far back as the 1920s, when some Socialist thinkers advocated attacking the cultural base of Western civilization to pave the way for the Socialist transition. Cultural Marxism is thus not something “new.” It has coexisted with economic Marxism for generations, but it received a great boost in the West from the 1960s and 70s onwards. As the Soviet Union fell apart and China embraced capitalism, the economic Marxists joined in on the “cultural” train, too, as it was now the only game in town. They don’t have a viable alternative to present, but they don’t care. They truly believe that we, the West, are so evil and exploitative that literally anything would be better, even the Islamic Caliphate.

The Free Congress Foundation has an interesting booklet online called Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology, edited by William S. Lind. According to Lind, Political Correctness “wants to change behavior, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has.” “Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought.” “Political Correctness” is in fact cultural Marxism. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the translation, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?” Lind thinks there are major parallels between classical and cultural Marxism: “Both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on [University] campuses where ‘PC’ has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.” “Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.”

“Just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good,” for instance feminist women. Similarly, “white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.” Both economic and cultural Marxism “have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired.”

Raymond V. Raehn agrees with Lind that “Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state.” According to him, “Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media.” “He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.” Another one of the early cultural Marxists, Georg Lukacs, noted that “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.” At a meeting in Germany in 1923, “Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.”

William S. Lind points out that this cultural Marxism had its beginnings after the Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 failed to take roots in other countries. Marxists tried to analyze the reasons for this, and found them in Western civilization and culture itself. “Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?”

John Fonte describes how this cultural war is now being played out in the USA in his powerful piece “Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America.” According to him, “beneath the surface of American politics an intense ideological struggle is being waged between two competing worldviews. I will call these “Gramscian” and “Tocquevillian” after the intellectuals who authored the warring ideas — the twentieth-century Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, and, of course, the nineteenth-century French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville. The stakes in the battle between the intellectual heirs of these two men are no less than what kind of country the United States will be in decades to come.”

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Marxist intellectual and politician, “believed that it was necessary first to delegitimize the dominant belief systems of the predominant groups and to create a “counter-hegemony” (i.e., a new system of values for the subordinate groups) before the marginalized could be empowered. Moreover, because hegemonic values permeate all spheres of civil society — schools, churches, the media, voluntary associations — civil society itself, he argued, is the great battleground in the struggle for hegemony, the “war of position.” From this point, too, followed a corollary for which Gramsci should be known (and which is echoed in the feminist slogan) — that all life is “political.” Thus, private life, the work place, religion, philosophy, art, and literature, and civil society, in general, are contested battlegrounds in the struggle to achieve societal transformation.” This, according to Fonte, “is the very core of the Gramscian-Hegelian world view — group-based morality, or the idea that what is moral is what serves the interests of “oppressed” or “marginalized” ethnic, racial, and gender groups.” “The concept of ‘internalized oppression’ is the same as the Hegelian-Marxist notion of ‘false consciousness,’ in which people in the subordinate groups ‘internalize’(and thus accept) the values and ways of thinking of their oppressors in the dominant groups.” “This is classic Hegelian-Marxist thinking — actions (including free speech) that ‘objectively’ harm people in a subordinate class are unjust (and should be outlawed).”

He tracks how the ideas of Gramsci and cultural Marxists have spread throughout Western academia. Law professor Catharine MacKinnon writes in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), “The rule of law and the rule of men are one thing, indivisible,” because “State power, embodied in law, exists throughout society as male power.” Furthermore, “Male power is systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the regime.” MacKinnon has argued that sexual harassment is essentially an issue of power exercised by the dominant over the subordinate group.” At an academic conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska, “the attendees articulated the view that ‘White students desperately need formal “training” in racial and cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should override white notions of privacy and individualism.’”

This can sometimes amount to virtual brainwashing disguised as critical thinking. Fonte mentions that at Columbia University, “new students are encouraged to get rid of ‘their own social and personal beliefs that foster inequality.’ To accomplish this, the assistant dean for freshmen, Katherine Balmer, insists that ‘training’ is needed. At the end of freshmen orientation at Bryn Mawr in the early 1990s, according to the school program, students were ‘breaking free’ of ‘the cycle of oppression’ and becoming ‘change agents.’ Syracuse University’s multicultural program is designed to teach students that they live ‘in a world impacted by various oppression issues, including racism.’”

John Fonte thinks that the primary resistance to the advance of cultural Marxism in the USA comes from an opposing quarter he dubs “contemporary Tocquevillianism.” “Its representatives take Alexis de Tocqueville’s essentially empirical description of American exceptionalism and celebrate the traits of this exceptionalism as normative values to be embraced.” As Tocqueville noted in the 1830s, Americans today are “just as in Tocqueville’s time, are much more individualistic, religious, and patriotic than the people of any other comparably advanced nation.” “What was particularly exceptional for Tocqueville (and contemporary Tocquevillians) is the singular American path to modernity. Unlike other modernists, Americans combined strong religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group affiliations.”

This battle is now being played out in most American public institutions. “Tocquevillians and Gramscians clash on almost everything that matters. Tocquevillians believe that there are objective moral truths applicable to all people at all times. Gramscians believe that moral ‘truths’ are subjective and depend upon historical circumstances. Tocquevillians believe in personal responsibility. Gramscians believe that ‘the personal is political.’ In the final analysis, Tocquevillians favor the transmission of the American regime; Gramscians, its transformation.”

“While economic Marxism appears to be dead, the Hegelian variety articulated by Gramsci and others has not only survived the fall of the Berlin Wall, but also gone on to challenge the American republic at the level of its most cherished ideas. For more than two centuries America has been an ‘exceptional’ nation, one whose restless entrepreneurial dynamism has been tempered by patriotism and a strong religious-cultural core. The ultimate triumph of Gramscianism would mean the end of this very ‘exceptionalism.’ America would at last become Europeanized: statist, thoroughly secular, post-patriotic, and concerned with group hierarchies and group rights in which the idea of equality before the law as traditionally understood by Americans would finally be abandoned. Beneath the surface of our seemingly placid times, the ideological, political, and historical stakes are enormous.”

Britain’s Anthony Browne writes in The Retreat of Reason of how the Politically Correct are more intolerant of dissent than traditional liberals or conservatives, since Liberals of earlier times “accepted unorthodoxy as normal. Indeed the right to differ was a datum of classical liberalism. The Politically Correct do not give that right a high priority. It distresses their programmed minds. Those who do not conform should be ignored, silenced or vilified. There is a kind of soft totalitarianism about Political Correctness.” “Because the politically correct believe they are not just on the side of right, but of virtue, it follows that those they are opposed to are not just wrong, but malign. In the PC mind, the pursuit of virtue entitles them to curtail the malign views of those they disagree with.” “People who transgress politically correct beliefs are seen not just as wrong, to be debated with, but evil, to be condemned, silenced and spurned.” “The rise of political correctness represents an assault on both reason and liberal democracy.” Browne defines Political Correctness as “an ideology that classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated.” He also warns that “Good intentions pave the road to hell. The world is not short of good intentions, but it is too often short of good reasoning.”

However, Anthony Browne focuses more in the geopolitical situation to explain the rise of PC than on Marxist strategies: “Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation.”

“To some extent, the rise of the eastern powers, China and India, will ensure in coming decades that western guilt will shrivel: finally having equal powers to compare ourselves to, the West will no longer feel inclined to indulge in self-loathing, but will seek to reaffirm its sense of identity. (…) in the long-run of history, political correctness will be seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the uniquely unchallenged position of the West and its unrivalled affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the East is likely to spell the demise of political correctness.”

Lee Harris in his article “Why Isn’t Socialism Dead?” ponders whether Socialism isn’t dead because Socialism can’t die. The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has argued in his book, The Mystery of Capital, that the failure of the various socialist experiments of the twentieth century has left mankind with only one rational choice about which economic system to go with, namely, capitalism. However, says Harris, “the revolutionary socialist’s life is transformed because he accepts the myth that one day socialism will triumph, and justice for all will prevail.” Thus there is “an...analogy between religion and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the apprenticeship, preparation, and even the reconstruction of the individual — a gigantic task.” “It may well be that socialism isn’t dead because socialism cannot die. Who doesn’t want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?”

Maybe Socialism is a bit like the flu: It keeps mutating, and as soon as your immune system has defeated one strain, it changes just enough so that your body does not recognize it and then mounts another attack.

Political Correctness can reach absurd levels. Early in June 2006, Canadian police arrested a group of men suspected of planning terror attacks. The group was alleged to have been “well-advanced on its plan” to attack a number of Canadian institutions, among them the Parliament of Canada, including a possible beheading of the Prime Minister, and Toronto’s subway. However, the lead paragraph of newspaper Toronto Star’s story on the arrests was: “In investigators’ offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.” Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said that the suspects were all Canadian residents and the majority were citizens. “They represent the broad strata of our community. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed,” he said. However, there was one common denominator for the suspects that wasn’t mentioned: They were all Muslims. The front page article in the New York Times (June 4), too, was a study in how to avoid using the dreaded “M” word. The terrorist suspects were referred to as “Ontario residents,” “Canadian residents,” “the group,” “mainly of South Asian descent” or “good people.” Everything conceivable, just not as “Muslims.”

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair noted proudly during the press conference following the arrests, “I would remind you that there was not one single reference made by law enforcement to Muslim or Muslim community.” Before launching the anti-terror raids, Canadian police received “sensitivity training” and were carefully instructed in Islamic traditions such as handling the Koran, the use of prayer mats, and blowing oneself up in the course of an arrest. As Charles Johnson of blog Little Green Footballs noted: “Do the Canadian police extend such considerations to Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other faiths? If they don’t, then the Moslems have already won important recognition as a ‘special’ people.” Commenting on the arrests, the Globe and Mail stated that “It may have been the most politically correct terrorism bust in history.” Canada’s secret security apparatus had been “putting serious effort into softening its image” among Muslims for much of the previous years.

The federal government in Canada was considering changes to the Anti-Terrorism Act to make it clear that police and security agents did not engage in religious profiling. The Calgary Sun interviewed a Canadian criminologist, Professor Mahfooz Kanwar, who stated that “Multiculturalism has been bad for unity in Canada. It ghettoizes people, makes them believe, wrongly, that isolating themselves and not adapting to their new society is OK. It is not.” “Political correctness threatens us because we can’t fight something we refuse to label and understand.” Kanwar said the amount of political correctness during the arrests of 17 Muslims in the Toronto area was “sickening.” “Political correctness has gone too far. Political correctness threatens our society,” said the Pakistani-born Kanwar. “It is the responsibility of the minorities to adjust to the majority, not the other way around,” added Kanwar. Meanwhile, the Canadian Islamic Congress blamed the Canadian government for not showering enough money on the problem. They wanted more funding for research “to scientifically diagnose problems and devise solutions.”

They also wanted a nation-wide “Smart Integration program,” whatever that means. Given the fact that Muslims in Canada had quite recently been pushing for the partial implementation of sharia laws in the country, one would suspect that “smart integration” would mean that non-Muslims should demonstrate a little more appeasement. After all, if Canadian authorities listen to the advice of their compatriot Naomi Klein, these planned mass-killings of Canadian civilians were all due to Canadian racism and because the country wasn’t Multicultural enough. Muslims want to kill Canadians, Canadians smile back, tell them how much they “respect” them and ask what more they can do to please them.

This is what Political Correctness leads to in the end. It’s not funny and it’s not a joke. Political Correctness kills. It has already killed thousands of Western civilians, and if left unchecked it may soon kill entire nations or, in the case of Europe, entire continents.

As I have stated before, Islam is only a secondary infection, one that we could otherwise have had the strength to withstand. Cultural Marxism has weakened the West and made us ripe for a takeover. It is cultural AIDS, eating away at our immune system until it is too weak to resist Islamic infiltration attempts. It must be destroyed, before it destroys us all.

The Leftist-Islamic alliance will have profound consequences. Either they will defeat the West, or they will both go down in the fall. We never really won the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. Marxism was allowed to endure, and mount another attack on us by stealth and proxy. However, this flirting with Muslims could potentially prove more devastating to Marxists than the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As William S. Lind points out: “While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Americans realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance” and “multiculturalism.”

Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance or diversity, it is an anti-Western hate ideology designed to dismantle Western civilization. If we can demonstrate this, an important part of the battle has already been won.

21 Feb, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fjordman is based in Norway. He contributes in Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna and Faith Freedom International amongst other Websites. His personal blog (currently inactive): www.fjordman.blogspot.com

http://www.islam-watch.org/Fjordman/political_correctness_marxism.htm

What Are Islam's Weak Points?

2009-09-03T03:22:00.000-07:00

By Fjordman

How do we defeat Islam? What are Islam's weak points, and what are ours? Ali Sina from Faith Freedom International wants to confront Islam by education. I support and applaud his efforts, but I don't think they will solve all the problems. Quite a few hardcore Islamists have more than average education, for instance. Educating non-Muslims about Islam the way FFI and Jihad Watch are doing is thus probably more important than educating Muslims. Islam has rational components. It is an excellent warrior creed (or at least used to be) and is great as an excuse for plundering the wealth of others. But first and foremost, it is an irrational cult based on fear.

Muhammed was a brilliant intuitive leader/general, and he and his companions devised a near perfect closed system of war aginst the rest of humanity. Only by showing that Allah is not infallible can we be victorious in keeping our freedom, our life, our liberty and pursuit of our happiness. Muslims are extremely childish in their view of themselves and the world - they are superstitious and thus afraid of dogs, of the Koran getting dirty etc. They continually tell us the truth about their paranoia, and their intentions. Therefore, one of the best tactics for us to take in the War on Terror is to mock them and exploit their childishness, so that they will expose themselves to everyone.

The Judeo-Christian, Western culture is based on guilt, and Muslims exploit this by playing on our guilt complex. The Arab-Islamic culture is based on shame. It's time we learn to play on their shame, just as they do on our guilt. They feel humiliated and paranoid about everything. In defense of their egos and by extention their religion they do stupid things, such as the London bombings and sharing the beheading videos with the rest of the world. While these tactics are successful in terrorizing people, they also alert Western people and other infidels that Islam may not be the "religion of peace and tolerance" that it claims to be.

There are a few issues central and vital to Islam and on which it is really vulnerable on, such as women's emancipation. If Islam really does go for it, Islam is dead. If it doesnt then its dead in the long run. The most important and valuable soldiers of Islam are not male Jihadis, but women. Muslim women are the frontline soldiers of Islam in the West, as they were in Bosnia. However, women are also the Achilles heel of Islam. Give young Muslim girls in the West, the legal power that they do not have to follow the dictats of the imams or the mullahs, or give them the notion that they can report mullahs for religious harassment, then one starts a chain reaction that continues into the home and community. The French ban on hijabs in schools is the right first step.

The Jihadis have a clear moral purpose, and we have to need to define an even more powerful moral argument as to why our cause is more just, more moral and better - not just to our public, whose unwavering support we need, but to many Muslims around the world. Once we have such a clear moral purpose, then indeed we can go to full scale war, if that is needed. What is the magic formula that will mobilise us, give us a clear moral superiority that will sustain us through thick and thin?

It should be done by giving Islam its proper name: Slavery and apartheid. Women are the slaves in the cult of Islam (submission = slavery). One peculiar thing about male supremacy or any form of slavery, is that it enslaves both parties. Muslim men should realise, that the emancipation of women also emancipates and frees men. This has been the lesson in the West. And so it has continued. Thus Muslim men should not be frightened in letting go - they will also be freeing themselves from the chains of islam. This inevitably leads us to ask, can we somehow re-define Islam, in particular for a Western audience, not as a religion but as a political ideology, and one whose tenets are sufficiently evil, so that it merits destruction, much as Nazism. This construct has to take place so that the Western populace sees it as justifiable to actually give the physical and moral support that is required for such a large undertaking. In passing it is worth noting the political difficulty that Bush and Blair are having in Iraq in sustaining political support for the war, once they had proclaimed that Islam is a RoP - they had conceded the moral ground.

Islam is institutionalised slavery, and the Jihad's main purpose is to garner slaves, both men and women, from the lands of the Free. Muslims, both men and women, then become the first slaves of Islam. Two points come to mind immediately. 1. The institution of slavery crushes the spirit of slaves. They were unable to think for themselves as a consequence. A striking feature of Islamic societies. 2. Runaway slaves used to be beaten, and oft executed, as a lesson to other would be runaway slaves. The same punishment is Islamically sanctioned for the Muslim apostate.

Many practices of the rituals of Islam are completely out of variance with what is tolerable in the West. I hope that in Europe, we adopt fairly stringent rules on where one can wear the hijab. Certainly in these days of video surveillance, the wearing of the hijab or burqa, can be seen as trying to circumvent a public safety requirement. Schools, universities, airports and government offices must be declared places where one is not allowed to smoke (on grounds of personal safety) or wear the burqa (on grounds of public safety). All these make the West an inhospitable environment for Islam, which is all to the good.

Islam is a way of life for a tribal and nomadic culture. Each tribe guarded its patch and at the same time engaged in raids against other tribes for booty and women (same thing). Mohammed's significant contribution was to codify a disparate code extending over several tribes into a single one. A similar thing was achieved by Genghis Khan, and in much the same way, was eminently successful in expanding the domain of his empire of booty. Through history there has been conflict between settled or agricultural communities who invented agriculture, and the nomadic one. Settled communities eventually had surplus and were able to devote more time to other pursuits that led to civilisation. The nomadic culture OTH depended on raids and the ensuing booty. Islam would have died away had it not been so succesful in mixing the divine and the nomadic culture, which led to conquest of settled and prosperous communities, and then living off the proceeds of empire. Civilisation of the settled communities though marched on and the empire of the nomad came to an end when the Ottoman empire was dissolved. Islam was in the process of withering away as a consequence but for a couple "miracles" that saved Islam's bacon.

First was the oil bonanza, and the second, the far more important one - the open door policy of the West as regards immigration. Immigration of muslims is really an invasion, an invasion that had been stopped for good but for the cupidity of Western politicians in allowing millions of Muslims into the West. Now we have to live with the horrendous consequences of those decisions. We are being dragged back to the Middle ages where religion was the decisive factor in political discourse. Muslims live by the islamic code ie the nomadic code. One sees this in the way that islamic areas in the West become ghettos in quick time- it is part and parcel of the nomad way of life, as he simply ups tent when the resources have run out and moves to greener pastures - in this context, where the benefits are more generuous. Through history one has seen that the nomadic life style and the settled life are diametrically opposed. When both are forced to live side by side, as we are now doing in the West, a severe clash is inevitable.

Some claim that Islam will die as a global force during this century, simply because its core ideas aren't flexible enough to adapt to a modern world. This pre-supposes that Islam will have to rely on its own tenets. Islam is basically parasitical, and will continue to survive on the back of the rest of humanity as long as we allow it to do so. The roots of Jihad have been invigorated primarily due to immigration to the West and Saudi money. The only way that islam will die out, is if it is contained within dar-ul-Islam. No immigration and all contact reduced to the necessary. This will buy time. Solutions like making them fight among each other, pushing Muslims all out of Europe etc. is buying time - future generations still have to solve the problem. There is nothing wrong with buying time - the advent of the modern age and technologies like TV/cable/Internet MIGHT slowly eat away at Islam and slowly solve the problem. The problem is still whether the time taken by the modern world to penetrate inside Islam will be too long for the world to survive.

Ending the problem for good would require large parts of the opinion makers of the world recognizing that Islam is not a "religion" but an "ideology". Once that is done then the ideology would have to be tackled on all levels just like Communism. However, attaining the "moral high ground" is good and necessary, but will not by itself be enough. Who ever won a war while trying not to hurt the enemy’s feelings? The playing field will NEVER be level. Islam fights from Heaven. You cannot change that fact, for devout Muslims. There is no higher place than heaven. Muslims have no need for a level field. They, according to their Koran is the word of God. There is no "high ground" that we can occupy, in regards to Islam, in the eyes of Muslims, only in our own. The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the "moral high ground" in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. In the end, it is possible that we will win or lose by the sword. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological war with force on certain occasions. Holding a higher moral standard isn't going to defeat an Iranian President with nukes, threatening another Holocaust.

Further reading:

World War IV

Islam also teaches Muslims to see themselves as part of a nation of Muslims who happen to live in different countries – even in non-Muslim ones. Their loyalty to the nation state is subordinated to the loyalty to the Ummah. This is so even if they are second or third generation British or American or whatever. Each new generation will be taught by Islam to maintain its primary loyalty to the Ummah. Even new converts switch loyalty. In World War IV, the US has handicapped itself by making false declarations such as “Islam is peace”. All world wars have at least three components – the military, ideological and the economic. In World War III, the ideological component was more important than the military one. In World War I and II, it was the military component that was more important. Yet by praising Islam, Bush and Blair have already given up the ideological warfare without firing a shot.

You cannot defeat Islamism without defeating Islam. It is like trying to fight Communism while praising Marxist economic theories! In the Cold War, the US and its allies did not hesitate to argue that Marxism is a false ideology. Marx's ideas are wrong and cannot lead mankind to a better future. The democratic world must make the same case against Islam. Otherwise, we cannot win without relying heavily on the military component, which means more bloodshed. Perhaps we cannot win at all. Remember what Sun Wu said in his classic, “The Art of War”. The side with the higher moral standing is more likely to win. To do this, a leader must convince his people that their cause is just. You cannot persuade your people to make exertions if they do not understand what they are up against. Thus the burden of ideological warfare falls on groups like FFI.

Once were warriors: Why Islam failed Muslims

Islam is a warrior’s creed that served its early followers well. From impoverished desert tribes, they rose to forge an empire in a short time that stretched from Spain to India. The ethos it engendered – brotherhood for believers, contempt and hatred for non-believers, belief in heavenly rewards for fallen warriors, a high fertility rate (which requires the subordination of women), blind obedience – created formidable warriors. But these same qualities are handicaps for Muslims in the age of the microchip. Today they lead to poverty, belligerency, war and defeat. Many Muslims look back with fondness to their days of glory and try to recover their former days by using the old methods. That is why there is today a rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism across the Muslim world. They are bewildered at their weakness and look for conspiracy theories. Muslims think their failure is due to some Jewish or American plot not realizing that failure comes from within themselves. They are out of touch with reality. Once were warriors, Muslims are now like Don Quixote tilting at windmills in a world they no longer understand.

posted by Fjordman
December 20, 2005
at http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-are-islams-weak-points.html

Fjordman is based in Norway. He contributes in Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna and Faith Freedom International amongst other Websites. His personal blog (currently inactive): www.fjordman.blogspot.com

comments

Islam: America's New Firebell in the Night

2009-08-17T18:19:00.000-07:00

by Allen Hunt
Townhall.com

I did not know Thomas Jefferson, and I am no Thomas Jefferson. But Jefferson rightly foresaw that slavery and the question of its morality and expansion would be America's “firebell in the night.” We are still coming to terms today with the awful legacy of slavery in a free land.

However, Islam represents today's “firebell in the night.” The so-called “religion of peace” stands as a small, but growing, presence in America, and its slowly increasing demands for accommodation have thus far generally met with acquiescence and ignorance. One cannot help but wonder how long it will be before America awakens to the very real threat within its own borders, a threat not only to life but to freedom as well.

Rifqa Bary provides the latest demonstration that Islam's core DNA is incompatible with Western society. Meanwhile, America continues to heap politically correct platitudes on Islam as if it were merely a misunderstood religion, whose aims are like any other religion. Every so often, I sound the “firebell in the night” as a warning that our failure to assess Islam properly places our very freedoms in peril. Despite my warnings, Islam continues like colonial and antebellum slavery as an issue long-ignored or glossed-over.

Seventeen-year old Rifqa Bary sits in the custody of the state of Florida, awaiting a ruling to determine her fate. Either she will be allowed to remain in Florida on her own or she will be returned to the custody of her parents in Ohio, from whom she fled after receiving death threats for converting from Islam to Christianity. She now seeks refuge with a Christian family in Orlando. Rifqa claims that, upon discovering her conversion, her father began to threaten to kill her as prescribed in Islamic law. Thus, Rifqa claims her life literally hangs in the balance. It is clear in her mind that, if she is returned to her parents, she will be killed.

The real question is, “Does anyone care?” When Rifqa appeared in court last week, her father was present. Rifqa curled up in a fetal position in fear of confronting her father and possibly facing a return to her parents in Ohio. Rifqa awaits her fate. The world awaits the ruling.

At first blush, this appears to be a family feud, where miscommunication has filled a teenage girl with anxiety and fear.. By drilling a little deeper, the obvious reveals itself: Muslim women live a perilous existence, even in America, the land of the free. Rifqa's situation provides insight into key areas where Americans are shockingly ignorant about Islam.

First, America has already experienced the Islamic custom of “honor killing,” where the men in a Muslim family murder one of their own female relatives for having done something that brought “shame” to the family, like being raped or rejecting an arranged marriage. Documented recent examples in Texas, Michigan, New York, and Georgia illustrate the reality of honor killing in America. Most recently, the bodies of seven Muslim girls and women arrived in the morgue of Kingston, Ontario, after having been victims of drowning, with the male members of their own families being the primary suspects for the murders.

Of course, little has been made in the press of these honor killings in America and Canada because it is politically incorrect, even insensitive, to point out the horrors of Islam, even when they occur in North America. To offer a critique of Islam is not only politically unacceptable, it can be dangerous. Witness last week's announcement that the esteemed Yale University Press will not reproduce the famous Danish cartoons of Mohammed in a book they are publishing about, well, those very cartoons. Readers of The Cartoons that Shook the World will find themselves in the unenviable Orwellian position of reading thoughts about cartoons they cannot view. Yale Press said the risk of “instigating violence” was simply too high.

Meanwhile, Islam continues its slow, kuzdu-like creep into American freedoms. The reality is clear. First, prevent freedom of speech by stoking the fear of violent reprisal. Second, squelch the equality of women by slaying those who fail to remember their place and role in the family. Finally, crush freedom of religious expression by executing those who would dare leave Islam for another faith.

It is this last dimension of free religious expression where Rifqa Bary faces the greatest threat. Were her parents to kill her for bringing shame to the family, it would not only be the most recent example of honor killing in America. Even more significantly, Rifqa has also rejected Islam itself. She has made the decision above all decisions in Islam. She has chosen to reject Islam and embrace Christianity instead. According to Mohammed, she must die. By killing his own daughter, Rifqa's father would attain the highest approbation of the Prophet himself.

Islamic Hadith deal specifically with the sin of apostasy and how to deal with the apostate. The words provide little comfort for Rifqa Bary. She not only has dishonored her parents and family, but she has also dishonored Mohammed and Allah.

"Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except .. a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate." (Bukhari 83.37)

"[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84.57)

The examples of Islam's incompatibility with Western life and values continue to grow. The bodies slowly pile up.The demands for accommodation accrue. May Rifqa Bary not be the next victim of America's desire to turn a blind eye in response to the ugly realities of Islam and its perverted understandings of freedom.

The immorality of slavery continued to rear its head over and over again in various ways as America struggled to come to terms with its existence within a land based on freedom. History books are littered with the Nat Turner revolt, the Dred Scott case, the Brooks-Sumner affair, the Missouri Compromise, and countless other examples of America's great wrestling match with its own ideals of freedom and the reality of slavery and racial division. Resolution finally began with the Civil War, but we are still reconciling that division even today.

One can only wonder how long it will be, and how many dead bodies it will take, before the American people wake up to the firebell in the night that Islam represents with its very real threats to our core freedoms. Should we wait too long to address the struggle, the consequences and aftermath could take centuries.

What is the best course of action? An honest conversation, filled with reality and facts, instead of mindless political correctness and sensitivities, would be a really good place to start.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Picture thanks to BareNakedIslam

He was a born a Muslim and in the Islamic religion, once you are born a Muslim you are always a Muslim. And there is no evidence that he was ever baptized, so he is not a real Christian.

--from IRS Staffer fired for calling Obama a Muslim
Bare Naked Islam's Weblog
　
Obama appears to be more than comfortable with this deal with the devil as he abets the institution of an Islamo-Christian ethic, which would destroy the very foundation of this great country. Never mind that Muslims persecute Christians in every country they finally dominate. That is of no importance.

Why is this immense effort necessary? We act as if we were a slave of the Muslim world. This sickness of licking the boots of an ideology that wants to destroy us is incomprehensible.

--Pamela Geller Obama's State Department Submits to Islam

The real hate-mongers

2009-07-29T20:49:00.000-07:00

.
Red Squirrel writes:

Allah IS Shaitan and the Paradise that Jihadists crave is Sheol

I knew it! Shaitan is Evil and Paradise is Sheol ( well that's one way of putting it)

This ----is not a personal attack on Muslims. I have met some very nice people in my time who just happened to be Muslims, which I am sure we all have. This is a philosophical viewpoint, and it is my opinion and it belongs to me, an opinion which I am fully entitled to hold, express, and disseminate; it's my right as an independent, thinking, freedom loving and individual Human being.

The Far Left: The real hate-mongers

They hate me, so they call me a 'hater', they are control freaks so they call me a 'fascist,' I identify most strongly with my own cultural heritage, so they call me a 'Nazi'. I believe that people in general prefer to live among their own homogenous racial and cultural groupings, so they call me a 'racist' ( a highly ambiguous term anyway)

They do this to anyone who gets . . . Read on

Understanding Afghanistan and the Taliban

2009-07-12T00:20:00.000-07:00

Pakistan, the ISI, and the Taliban

[First published at Islamic Danger to Bharat (India) on Saturday, April 11, 2009]

"Why the Pakistan intelligence agency's close ties with the Taliban should not be condemned"
--Robert D. Kaplan

from Wider still yet wider
at Pajamas Media
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/11/wider-still-yet-wider/#more-3237
April 11th, 2009 4:13 pm

Richard Fernandez writes:

Robert Kaplan describes the logic for negotiating with the Taliban in order to “make progress and find an exit strategy” in Afghanistan. But halfway through the article the reader will come to the realization that Kaplan isn’t talking about the War in Afghanistan at all, but about something much larger: Pakistan, India, Pashtunistan, the Great Game. The discussion is about the Taliban only in the sense that when you talk about a dog, it necessarily includes the tail. Kaplan places the origins of the Taliban in Islamabad — and the region.

Remember, it wasn’t radicals burrowed deep within the ISI who made the decision to help bring the Taliban to power in the mid-1990s: it was the democratically elected government of the western-educated Benazir Bhutto who did that, on the theory that the Taliban would help bring stability to Afghanistan. This history indicates the degree to which talking to the Taliban has broad support within the Pakistani political establishment.

[quoting excerpts from the Robert D. Kaplan article at The Atlantic]

The Pakistani military and political establishment both view Afghanistan through the lens of their conflict with India. When they look to the west they envision an “Islamistan” of Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries with which to face off against Hindu-dominated India to Pakistan’s east. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, with his pro-western and pro-Indian tendencies, gets in the way of this Pakistani vision. But even if Pakistan were to come to terms with Karzai, it would still need to have lines of contact with all Afghan groups, including the Taliban….

. . . Sugata Bose, a history professor at Harvard, in 2003 described the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier area as “historically no frontier at all,” but the very “heart” of an “Indo-Persian and Indo-Islamic economic, cultural, and political domain that had straddled Afghanistan and Punjab for two millennia.” The fact, which we all keep repeating, that there is no solution for Afghanistan without a solution for Pakistan, is itself an indication of the extent to which both countries are joined. This makes it even more crucial for the ISI to maintain contacts and highly developed networks with all principle Afghani political and guerrilla groups.

[end quote from The Atlantic]

[quoting again Richard Fernandez at Pajamas Media]

You can see where this is going. The idea is to resolve The War in Afghanistan in the framework of some grander regional bargain which will ’suck the life’ out of radical groups like al-Qaeda.

Where have we seen this before? Veterans of the Bush Administration, who were reviled for accepting the doctrine that terrorism was largely state-supported or state-enabled, may now be watching a revival of their doctrine under a new brand name: shut down the state support for terror with diplomacy and voila! once you mop up the puddle it won’t come back. Except this time, the job is going to be accomplished not by a demonstration of military action, but a still undetermined combination of demonstrations of resolve and diplomacy. But since the Bush doctrine was never wholly reliant on arms and never completely without diplomacy, what this probably means is that the Obama administration simply means to alter the proportions between these two ingredients. They are going to get their chance to try out the new approach. How they will fare only the future will show.

The original The Atlantic article "Talking to the Taliban" can be found at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/pakistan-taliban

[This concludes the reprinted post Pakistan, the ISI, and the Taliban from Islamic Danger to Bharat (India)]

Here's More from "Talking to the Taliban" by Robert D. Kaplan

[excerpt]

Of course, we can and should demand that Pakistan cease helping the Taliban to plan and carry out operations. But cutting links to the Taliban altogether is something the Pakistanis simply cannot do, and trying to insist upon it only worsens tensions between our two countries.

So what do we do? There are those who say we should abandon the Afghanistan enterprise altogether, with the exception of direct strikes against al-Qaeda. But President Barack Obama has already decided against that, and is adding both troops and civilian experts to the campaign, which amounts to Afghan nation-building in all but name. The hope is that by turning the tide of the war in our favor, the Pakistanis will, for the sake of their own self-interest, cut a better deal with the pro-western Karzai, even as they continue to maintain less-harmful, low-level links with the Taliban. That is the best we can expect.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/pakistan-taliban

Related references:
Trouble in Afghanistan! Who's Winning?

The Situation in Afghanistan
and
Fighting Wars to Lose . . .
or "Why Since World War II, the U.S. has lost every war it ever was drawn into."
http://inslamic-danger-redux.blogspot.com/2009/06/fighting-wars-to-lose.html
also--from before the injection of U.S. Marines into Afghanistan:
The "War in Afghanistan"--Is This How It Looks For Us Also?
excerpt from A British View of this War:

Also, check out these linked references:

British leader defends Afghan mission

Understanding Afghanistan
Atlantic articles from the 1950s and the 1980s offer background and perspective on a nation in conflict.

All Counterinsurgency Is Local
By Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason
Prosecuting the war in Afghanistan from provincial capitals has been disastrous; we need to turn our military strategy inside out.

More at right sidebar of http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/pakistan-taliban

Culture of Hate: A Racism which Denies the History and Sufferings of its Victims

2009-07-09T14:20:00.000-07:00

from north-of-africa.com

Culture of Hate: A Racism which Denies the History and Sufferings of its Victims
Bat Yeor
[posted on] 26 June 2009

At the dawn of the new millennium, the world is being confronted with an absolute culture of hate, characterized by paroxysms of international terrorism against civilians, and religious intolerance. This culture of hate has multiple heads from Algeria to Afghanistan, to Indonesia, via Gaza and the West Bank, Damascus, Cairo, Khartoum, Teheran, and Karachi. It scatters the seeds of terrorism from one end of the earth to the other.

This hate, which suppresses freedom of thought, and condemns difference, calls itself "Islamic jihad." It draws on religious texts whose interpretation other Muslims dispute. Moreover, because these moderate Muslims challenge this interpretation of jihad, wishing to live in peace with the non-Muslim peoples and nations of the world, their lives are threatened. There is constant bloodshed in Algeria. Jihad is disseminating death and terror in Israel. In Southern Sudan, jihad has caused the death of some two million people, generated an even larger number of refugees, lead to the enslavement of tens of thousands, and produced deadly famines.

In Indonesia, some 200,000 deaths resulted from jihad violence in East Timor. Christians have been pursued, and massacred, and their churches burned down by jihadists in the Moluccas and other Indonesian islands. The death toll in these violent attacks is over 10,000, while an additional 8,000 Christians have been forcibly converted to Islam, including many who were circumcised. Atrocities are also being committed by jihadists in both the Philippines, and some northern Nigerian states. Hundreds of innocent people died when jihad struck at the Jewish Community Center of Buenos Aires in Argentina, and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In Egypt, jihadists have massacred Copts in their churches and villages, and murdered European tourists. Christians in Pakistan and in Iran live in terror of accusations of blasphemy, which, if "proven," can yield a death sentence. And a cataclysmic act of jihad terror resulted in the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians of multiple faiths and nationalities in New York, on September 11, 2001. None of these victims were guilty of any crime. They were murdered and mutilated out of hate.

It is this hate that Israel is fighting. The Durban World Conference Against Racism-where the culture of hate was rehabilitated, not condemned-ended only three days before the jihad terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. When proposals were made condemning Zionism, this conference was encouraging jihad, the culture of the war against infidels, while ignoring the principles of freedom and human rights. This was negationist racism. The word "Zion," which designates the land of Israel and its capital Jerusalem, exists in texts dating back almost three millennia. It was the Emperor Hadrian who first called the country Palestine in 135. In this Palestine, Arabic was not the common language, the Bible and not the Koran was taught, and the population was mainly Jewish. Palestine was colonized five centuries later by the Arab armies of the Islamic jihad. Many Jews were massacred at that time, others deported to Arabia as slaves, the whole population expropriated and reduced to the condition of dhimmis, as were all indigenous Jews and Christians in the south Mediterranean countries conquered by jihad, including those in many European countries.

Should these countries conquered by Islam - Portugal, Spain, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, and the southern regions of France and Italy, for example - still be considered Arab Muslim lands? Turkish jihad conquests imposed the sharia as far north as Hungary and southern Poland, and, on all of central Europe within the Ottoman Empire, including regions of Greece, former Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria, until the end of the 19th century. Are those countries also to be identified as Muslim lands, in which non-Muslim inhabitants must return to the condition of dhimmis, whose testimony concerning Muslims is rejected by Islamic courts? Will they again be required to don discriminatory garments such as the Taliban demanded of the Hindus, or be subject to the continuing prohibition on building and renovating their churches, like the Copts in Egypt?

If the liberation movement of the Jews in their ancestral homeland is interpreted as racism, then all the movements of liberation from expropriation and servitude imposed by jihad are racist. Such a stance reinstates the imperialism of the Islamic jihad, which has claimed millions of victims over three continents during more than a millennium, deported an incalculable number of slaves, and annihilated entire peoples, destroying their history, their monuments, and their culture. Have the Copts of Egypt a right to their history and their language? Do the Kabili of North Africa have a right to theirs? We must acknowledge all the victims of the racism that jihad creates, a racism which denies the history, sufferings, and memories of those conquered.

Arab racism consists of calling the Land of Israel, Arab land, whereas no Palestinian province, village, or town, including Jerusalem is mentioned either in the Koran or in any Arabic text before the end of the ninth century. On the contrary, these locations are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, which represents the religious and historical heritage of the Jewish people. The Bible, which tells the history of this country, tells it in Hebrew, the language of the country, and not in Arabic. Palestinian racism consists of asserting that the whole history of Israel, biblical history, is Arab, Islamic, and Palestinian history. The kings and prophets of Israel were Arab, Palestinian, and Muslim kings and prophets, as were Jesus, his family, and the apostles. This Arabization and Islamization of the Bible thus robs not only the Jews but also the whole of Christianity of their history. New theologies of substitution are developed, transferring Israel’s heritage to Arab and Muslim Palestine.

The imperialism of jihad consists of appropriating the whole history and identity of the peoples who were conquered and thrown into the nonexistence of dhimmitude. This is a total negation of the other, a refusal to acknowledge him as an equal. Israel’s battle is not a battle of colonists, as some European political circles like to claim, because Europe itself had a colonial history on all continents, which it projects on to Israel. Similarly, Europe projects its own history of Nazism on to the Israelis, thereby revenging itself on the revelations of historians. Israel’s battle is not a battle against the Muslim world, it is a battle against the unbridled hate of jihad. Israelis are struggling to maintain their liberation from the yoke of dhimmitude, which was imposed in order to eradicate the Jews in their indigenous homeland. That is why Christians who reject the new theologies of substitution are joining Israel in its fight, as are Muslims who refuse to allow the values of Islam to be perverted by the ideology of jihad. It is through this common effort that reconciliation between peoples can be achieved, replacing the culture of hate with a culture of friendship.

By Bat Yeor

August 2, 2002

Bat Yeor is the author of three books on jihad and dhimmitude, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam (1985), The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude(1996), and Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2002). Andrew G. Bostom, M.D., associate professor of medicine at Brown University Medical School contributed to this essay.

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=595

KABYLIA INFO FORUM ARCHIV ADMIN CONTACT
News
Art & Culture
Society
History & Civilisation
Useful Links

http://www.afrique-du-nord.com/:
Wafa Sultan contre Barack Obama- Qui devons-nous croire ?Qui devons-nous croire ? par Wafa Sultan
Après le discours du Président Obama au Caire, beaucoup de mes lecteurs arabes du Moyen-Orient ont réagi avec stupeur. L’un d’entre eux a déclaré, “Qui devons-nous croire, vous ou Obama ?” - En particulier quand Obama a dit que “l’Amérique et l’Islam se chevauchent et partagent des principes communs de justice, de progrès de tolérance et dignité pour tous les êtres humains.”. Certes, à la lecture (...) suite

Barak-Hussein Obama : « j’ai foiré » ou « j’ai merdé »

Claim that Koran is "Unchangeable" word of God Found to be False

2009-06-24T19:19:00.000-07:00

Gerd R Puin’s photo of one Sana’a Qur’anparchment, showing layered revisions to the Qur’an
From FaithFreedom.org

Definite proof that the koran has been altered and re-altered since its first being put on animal skins..

A discovery of a veritable heap of ancient koran fragments--dating from the mid-7th Century C.E., is evidence that there were emendations of the original texts--many--and that it destroys . . .

. . . the orthodox Muslim belief that the Qur’an as it has reached us today is quite simply “the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God”. It means Qur’an has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by Human hands.

The sacred aura surrounding this Holy Scripture of Islam, which remained intact for over 14 centuries is gone with this astonishing discovery and the core belief of billion plus Muslims that the Qu’ran is the eternal, unaltered word of God is now clearly visible as a great hoax, a totally downright falsehood. Not only this; the Qur’anic claim that nobody can alter the words of God is also a fake. Qur’an is supposed to be, if we borrow words from Guillaume (1978, p. 74), “The holy of holies. It must never rest beneath other books, but always on top of them, one must never drink or smoke when it is being read aloud, and it must be listened to in silence. It is a talisman against disease and disaster“. Muslims call the Qur’an ‘Mother of Books’ and believe no other book or revelation can compare (Caner & Caner, 2002. p.84). However, it’s all gone now. The end result of whole Islamic struggle for fourteen centuries is a big zero.

As if it is not enough, many manuscripts showed the sign of palimpsests, i.e., versions very clearly written over even earlier washed off versions. The under-writing of palimpsest is, of course, often difficult to read visually, but modern tools such as ultraviolet photography can highlight them. It suggests that the Sana’a manuscripts are not the only variants, but, even before that, Qur’anic text had been modified and re-written on the same paper. It means, Allah’s claim (Q 56: 77-78; 85:21-22) that original text is preserved in heaven on golden tablets, which none can touch except angels is also a fairy-tale.

Read the whole thing at
ANCIENT QUR’ANIC MANUSCRIPTS OF SANA’A AND DIVINE DOWNFALL
By Sujit Das
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/16/ancient-quranic-manuscripts-of-sanaa-and-divine-downfall/

Iran's Tragedy: the coming of . . . Guess What?

2009-06-22T14:48:00.001-07:00

First, we read . . .

Cyrus The Great's Prayer @ Persepolis:

"God Bless Iran & Iranians"

Then . . .

From Iran-Online
http://www.iranian.ws/iran-online/iranian-tragedy/index.htm

. . . Since day one of mullahs' regime, Iranians are subject to unfair humiliation abroad by international communities due to rogue behavior of mullahs and their non-stop support for terrorism around the world to protect islamic and arab values, from 1000 miles away in Israel to next door Iraq. Disregarding Iran & Iranians' national interest is barefaced mullahs' name of the game. Mullahs care more about arabs in Israel and shits of najaf or karbala in south of Iraq than Iranian people or Iran's national interest inside or abroad. Mullahs' support goes for very same people whose trying to wipe us all off the planet, from our history to our name. The very same people while were so obsess with pan-arabism leadership of saddam, attacked Iran to manage second invasion barbaric arab muslims which failed miserably.

You may already be aware that the two major news agencies of BBC and Reuters have begun to refer to the "Persian Gulf" as the "Arabian Gulf!"

And Now, it is getting worse. National Geographic Society's mapmakers altered the 8th Edition of the society's influential Atlas of the World to include Arabian Gulf as an alternate name (in parentheses) under the traditional title. This is a slap in the face of any true Iranian, to sit back and watch these organizations deliberately, and systematically, try to wipe us off the face of the map!

These organizations know, or should know, that Iran, or Persia as they call her, is a country with an ancient civilization going back over thousands of years, and that the gulf to the south of Iran has always been called the "Persian Gulf" since the very first maps of those regions were drawn. For thousands of years, the people of ancient Persia and their descendants in modern Iran have called it the "Persian Gulf".

We suppose this is Reuters, BBC and now National Geographic's way of telling us that the West no longer considers us as Iranians (Persians), and that we are Arabs as far as they are concerned!

[The following is A Plea to Iranians]

Are you an arab?

Please, if you do consider yourself a true-blooded Iranian, write to these news agencies and organizations, express your discontent and disgust with their campaign that is aimed at erasing our identity and replacing it with those of the Arabs! We are particularly counting on those of us who live in the West, and have an easier access to computers and Internet, to be vigilant insofar as sending an email to these offending news agencies & organizations , and to encourage others to do the same. . . . tell these organizations: In a respectful way. . . BBC, Reuters and most importantly National Geographic. . . .

[end of "A Plea to Iranians"]

Did you guess correctly?

(what is "Iran's Tragedy?")

still not sure what it is?

Look at . . .

ARAB DEATH CULT CRUSHES ANCIENT CIVILIZATION
http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2008/08/arab-death-cult-crushes-ancient.html

and

Civilizations Struggling Not To Die: 1. Persian Empire (Present Iran)
http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-civilization-and-islam-can-iran.html

We have been struggling with Islam for 1400 years now. We are still alive! Lets keep our holy Persian Culture alive so we will not join the long list of old civilizations extinct by the Islam & presently called "Just another Arab Muslim State"!

The Lowdown on Iran's "Presidential Candidates" - from Iranians

2009-06-21T11:55:00.000-07:00

from "Iranian Presidential Candidates" Bahman Aghai Diba - Persian Journal
Iranian.ws
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_29446.shtml

The Iranian presidential candidates [that] . . . registered . . . . Almost 500 persons . . . registered. Most of the candidates look[ed] like:
1- Intellectually challenged or mentally retarded persons.
2- The troubled souls that they think they having nothing else to do.
3- The people that have lost their relations with the realties and live in fantasies

Looking at these people, I raised the question to myself: why these persons think that they have the right to a president in Iran? What gives the permission to these persons to think that they have a chance to be the president of Iran?

I immediately found the answer: they see the present rulers of Iran and they think they are better than these persons to run the country. They think if such persons that have the highest posts in the Islamic Republic of Iran are good to be the president or the supreme leader, they have chance too.

The present Supreme Leader in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that runs everything from the army to radio and TV, is a good example. How did he become the Supreme Leader? Did he possess special talents? Did the people of Iran vote for him? Did he make a coup? or lead a revolution? Not at all

In fact, when the previous supreme leader died, this one was not even an ayatollah. However, a number of Iranian clerics made a story for him. They said the former one had once said in private that this guy was a supreme leader material. As far as the demands of the Iranians were concerned, they could not be more wrong.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_29446.shtml