Islamic Danger FU

Do Moslems Have A "Golden Rule" (Do onto others . . . )?

2010-04-05T15:18:00.000-07:00

The Pseudo-Golden Rule or Do Unto Which Others?

April 5, 2010

Muslims are very sensitive about the lack of a Golden Rule in Islam. So, when you bring this up they always rush to assert that Muslims love everybody, in particular, Christians and Jews. And, of course, Islam has a Golden Rule.

In a past newsletter, I argued that Islam had no Golden Rule. Marcelle Sagan replied to my post on the website of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center, a site sponsored by the royal house of Jordan. Given this source of funding, so you expect the highest quality of scholarship on Islam.
So let's take a look at some of Mr. Sagan's arguments, one at a time.

He makes the usual claims of Islam being the victim of ignorant Islamophobes and advances that anything a critic about Islam has to say never, ever, has any truth in it at all. This attitude comes directly from the Sunna of Mohammed. Mohammed was never wrong, Islam is perfect and anyone who does not believe this is a bigot. Mohammed was always the victim. When he attacked unarmed caravans in the sacred months, Islam was the true victim, not the murdered kafir (non-Muslim) Meccans.

Mr. Sagan argues that Islam is filled with statements about the Golden Rule. His first claim for the Golden Rule is this Koran verse:

83:1 Woe betide the unjust who, when others measure for them, exact in full, but when they measure or weigh for others, defraud them!

Giving Islam the benefit of the doubt, doing business in an honest manner could be construed as a very narrow, weak version of the Golden Rule. However, let's examine this verse in its context and with a frame of reference. When Mohammed moved to Medina, he found that the Medinans routinely cheated when measuring out goods in a sale. When the Meccan Muslims complained that they gave good weight and were being cheated by their Medinan Muslim brothers, Allah gave Mohammed this verse. The actual case involves Muslims selling to Muslims.

Here is a quote from the Hadith with some ethical advice along the same lines:

Bukhari 9, 86, 109: […] the Prophet said, 'In dealing with Muslims one should not sell them sick (animals) or bad things or stolen things."
Does this sound like the Golden Rule? Where are the kafirs (unbelievers) in this morality?
Then Mr. Sagan quotes Mohammed:

None of you believe until you desire for your brother, what you desire for yourself.
But who is a Muslim's brother? Humanity? Mohammed gives us his answer:

Bukhari 1, 2, 12: The Prophet said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself."

Bukhari 3, 43, 622: Allah's Apostle said, "A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection. "
What we see here is that there is a Golden Rule but only in an Islamic way. Muslims are to practice the Golden Rule, but only with other Muslims. This is ethical dualism.

Perhaps, Mr. Sagan missed the universal brotherhood hidden somewhere in the 6,800 hadiths of Bukhari. Do the math. There are 209 hadiths that mention the word "brother". Of those 209 hadiths, 96 concern blood kinsman ship and the other 103, each and every one, are about spiritual brotherhood where a Muslim is a brother to other Muslims.

Then Mr. Sagan uses an outright deception. He states that in Mohammed's farewell sermon, he said: "That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind." These words sound good until you read Mohammed's farewell sermon and find he says no such thing. In this sermon, Mohammed did say to treat your slaves well, that Muslims are brothers to each other, that your wives are your prisoners and to beat them if they disobey you. Oh yes! That is universal brotherhood, compassion and Golden Rule. The only times Mohammed ever said anything about humanity or mankind, it was that mankind had to submit to Islam.

Why did Mr. Sagan manufacture this quote? Because, Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive the kafir if it would advance Islam:

Bukhari 5, 59, 369: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). The Prophet said, "You may say it." […]

And finally, let us examine the Golden rule in Mohammed's life. Since he is the perfect moral example, his actions define morality. If we look in the Sira, Mohammed's biography, we do find incidences where he treated the kafirs well, but the treatment was always part of seduction and persuasion to get them to submit to Islam. If that did not work, then he attacked them. In the end, Mohammed violently attacked each and every neighbor he had. He was the ultimate bad neighbor. The Golden Rule makes you a good neighbor. Islam's dualistic ethics make Muslims the same kind of neighbor as Mohammed was.

The reason Muslims use deception about the Golden Rule is that they know not having it makes Islam look bad. Why do politicians, preachers, rabbis, educators and media commentators repeat the propaganda about how wonderful Islam is? Their duplicity or silence stems from fear and ignorance.

So, Muslims, preachers, politicians, rabbis, educators and media pundits are deceivers, but for different reasons. Muslims are following the example of Mohammed and our leaders are ignorant cowards. When seen in this light, even though they have been given no Golden Rule to follow, perhaps the argument can be made that Muslims are more admirable than these others.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam

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

Hero Worship and the Monoculture of the Anthill

2010-03-25T21:41:00.000-07:00

by Kenneth Roberts March 12, 2010

"Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom."So said Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher. Think of North Korea, Stalinist Russia, the Red Guards of China, Hitler's Germany, etc.Now consider this: Wherever Mohammed is most admired, there is the lowest regard for human rights, civil liberties and political freedoms, such as Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Tunisia.The reason for this lack of human rights is something that Muslims deny and block out of consciousness. Plainly, Mohammed was a dictator and an abuser of human rights. But Mohammed is said by Muslims to be perfect. It isn't abuse if Mohammed did it.

Mohammed took away the human rights of peaceful, pluralistic, cultured people. He insulted, robbed, assassinated, enslaved, and then expelled the rest of them from their properties and ancestral homeland in Arabia. Since the hero Mohammed committed these crimes, they are justifiable and good. Today, we call Mohammed's political program ethnic cleansing or 'genocide.' Aggressive ethnic cleansing is occurring today in Iran and Sudan. It is 'good', because the hero Mohammed did it.

Muslims imitate Mohammed, so Islam naturally creates a despotic form of government that represses women and minorities. It's Islam's DNA.

Islam, in theory, is a single imperial state. The constitution of Islam is the biography of Mohammed. The Koran calls Mohammed's life 'a beautiful example'. Muslims know this is true because Mohammed wrote it in the Koran.

Mohammed struggled (jihad) to create a monocultural society based on the model of the anthill. The queen ant rules; the soldier ants all think the same way, do their dance and attack the same external enemies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are either parasitized by ants or killed or expelled. Ants go out regularly to destroy other anthills.

In the ideology of Mohammed, this is the perfect model for Islamic society. There is even a chapter in the Koran called 'The Ants' and another called 'The Bee'. It is easy to see why Mohammed felt these animals ran ideal societies.

Mohammed didn't rule by popular vote. Mohammed's god told Muslims repeatedly to obey him. Whatever Mohammed decided, Gabriel always confirmed it shortly thereafter with a message from Allah himself. Thus Mohammed was never wrong. He ruled by divine decree. Allah constantly confirmed Mohammed's hero status in the Koran that was written by Mohammed!

Mohammed further claimed he was the owner of the earth and that Allah Almighty had created the universe for the benefit of Mohammed alone! This is a universal political claim. Mohammed said so. Mohammed is a hero, so it must be true. A true hero would not call himself a hero.
Muslims are lost in hero-worship.

Hero-worship of Mohammed is defended by law in all Islamic countries. Only hero-worship of Mohammed is ever expressed in the public domain. Dissent about Mohammed's hero status is never heard in Islamic countries, because ordinary Muslims, like the ants in their hill, immediately and instinctively rush to neutralize aliens, sting and eliminate them. Think of the cartoon riots! Think of the Teddy Bear crisis. Think of the pursuit of critics and apostates from Islam, how they are murdered by their own families or hunted by ordinary Muslims acting as vigilantes. The greatest crime in the world is to express scepticism about the hero status of Mohammed.

If an alien animal enters the anthill, perfect harmony and unity is quickly restored. The alien is surrounded by ordinary ants and cut to pieces. In Islamic countries, there is no real pluralism or the chaotic differences of opinion found in full democracies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are only allowed into an anthill so they may be parasitized for the benefit of the ants. In Islamic countries, the anthill or the beehive is the model for the organization of society. In Islamic countries, kafirs may work for Muslims, but not lead or rule over them. That is Mohammed's method and thus it is the Islamic ideal.

Hero-worship of Mohammed is everywhere in the Islamic state. So, for decisions to be perfectly acceptable, leaders must constantly appeal to his heroic example. If Mohammed did it, it must be 'good'. Logic has nothing to do with it.

Mohammed never defended the human rights of kafirs. In Mohammed's Medina, jihad occurred on the average of every six weeks. Medieval Islamic jurisprudence demanded a minimum of attacks. Unprovoked jihad expeditions against kafirs should be made a minimum of once yearly . The human rights of kafirs are unimportant, since jihad against them must take place so frequently and the very purpose of jihad is to remove the human rights of kafirs. This cannot take place in a democracy.

Ordinary Muslims assume Islam is benign, so they never concern themselves with the human rights of kafirs. Besides, kafirs have misfortunes coming to them, because they did not submit to Islam. Either way, no empathy is ever wasted on kafirs. Supremacists never apologize.

Only the politics of Islam are of concern to the kafirs. The only that kafirs care about are the things that affect our rights and our pluralistic free societies. Mohammed's method invades and destroys kafirs and their culture, just as anthills expand to annihilate neighboring anthills. This is the traditional jihad method: Invade, colonize, and then annihilate.

Mohammed is a hero, the perfect man, and so 'good' Muslims use Mohammed's monocultural model. This is why Muslims always strive (jihad) to create a monoculture of hero-worshipping wherever they go.

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

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

"your arguments are utterly wrong and stuppid. just mind this --Islam, in theory, is a single imperial state. The constitution of Islam is the biography of Mohammed. The Koran calls Mohammed's life 'a beautiful example'. Muslims know this is true because Mohammed wrote it in the Koran.--muhammed was an illiterate. he did not studied read and write.kuran is not the book of muhammed. kuran is the book of allah."
muhammed — March 15, 2010 @ 12:32 AM

"Hello muhammed,

You make a common mistake:

Muslim scholars derived the illiteracy concept for Muhammad from verses 7:157-158 of the Quran. In today’s standard Arabic, 'ummi' means 'illiterate', only one of the meaning of this word, but this is not a compelling evidence, since 'unscriptured' or 'gentile' (non-Jew) is also another meaning of it. If you study the Quran carefully, where this word is found, its usage has always been in the context of "the people of the scripture" vs. "the gentiles" or "the unscriptured". (See for example 3:20, 3:75, 62:2, 2:78). It is even possible to surmise that the "illiterate" meaning is secondary. It came to be used after the Quran was revealed, since it is reasonable to deduct "illiterate" as the opposite of "those who can read." This in turn may well be coming from "those who read the book," or "those who received the book," or "the people of the book" (ahl al-Kitab), which is precisely the opposite of "the gentiles."

Several hadiths reveal that Mohammed could read and also write when he chose to do so. If there was a Mohammed."
Democracyistheanswer — March 19, 2010 @ 12:24 AM

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/hero-worship-and-the-monoculture-of-the-anthill/

Islam: the Short of It

2010-03-01T00:15:00.000-08:00

by Fjordman

. . . I have come to realize that Islam is a secondary infection. Are Islamic teachings inherently violent? Yes. Can Islam be reformed? No. Can Islam be reconciled with our way of life? No. Is there such as thing as a moderate Islam? No. Can we continue to allow Muslims to settle in our countries? No. These few sentences contain all the information about Islam that you will ever need to know. It is still useful to know more about the way your enemy thinks and how to exploit his weak points, yet there is no point in spending too much time on studying the failed Islamic culture.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/fjordman-first-five-years.html

The View of the Future from Europe

2010-02-17T13:04:00.000-08:00

From The Green Arrow a British National Party (BNP) site
http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/index.php/writers/rugfish/1337-the-future-of-europe

Note: This has an either/or pointof view, it's either what you see or an alternative that has a "fascist" flavor. There must be a third solution as "Fascism" or "national socialism" that we have seen are not what is needed to replace what we have. Then, neither is Liberal-Leftist Communism.

Strict immigration policies are needed. One can dream can't one? lw

Rate Kewldude

RELATED

The Northeast intelligence Network has a U.S. perspective--with emphasis on Islamic infiltration and takeover--on the similar--and growing--problem here in the U.S.A. here's a sample:

The depth of the infiltration is significant and the consequences ominously prescient. Most recent statistics available show that one out of three African-American inmates in U.S. prisons convert to Islam while incarcerated. The type of Islam to which they convert teaches the same ideology as the 9/11 hijackers, which is the “Wahhabi” or “Salafi” form of Islam that originated in and is continually being exported from Saudi Arabia. Scholarly debate of the interchangeability of the terms or the terms themselves aside, it is important to understand that the ideology behind this “fundamentalist” form of Islam is completely incompatible with the culture, politics, and social fabric of the West. Nonetheless, it is being embraced by numerous groups, agencies and individuals inside the United States.

Read the whole thing . . . http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=3503

[link in foregoing quote from Northeast Intelligence Network mine, lw]

The "Arab World" and its Inhabitants

2010-02-16T19:17:00.000-08:00

By Forkinsocket

In America . . . we had all been sufficiently subject to ARAMCO propaganda (performed as a "public service" by the big oil companies, as part of their propaganda payoff to the Saudis for allowing them to find, produce, and then pay exorbitantly for the oil that happens to lie under the malevolent sands of "Saudi" Arabia), to believe that there is something called "the Arab world" and in this "Arab world" there are no Copts, no Armenians, no Assyrians, no Chaldeans, no Turkmen, no Mandeans, no Maronites, and of course no Berbers, no Jews (no, there never were any Jews in North Africa or the Middle East — they all came to Israel, you see, from Europe), for everyone in the Arab world was an "Arab."

***

The more the non-Arab Muslims of the world, and 80% of the world’s Muslims are not Arab, come to realize — and it would not be hard to help them to realize, for they will not be able to deny the facts, having experienced so much of it themselves — that Islam is a vehicle for that Arab supremacism, the more likely it is that at least some of them will fall away. And others, who may stick with a kind of "non-Arab" Islam (as if such were possible) will, in so doing, at least help to divide, and therefore to weaken, the Camp of Islam.

--Berbers, Islam & Christianity Click to read entire article

ONE WHO STOOD UP AGAINST THE JIHAD

2010-02-11T18:51:00.000-08:00

A MAN WITH HEART

photo from Jihad Watch

IN MEMORIAM à propos because he was here and he was brave

Obituary by Robert Spencer:

With great sorrow I must inform you that Tashbih Sayyed, a courageous foe of the global jihad, has passed away.
--Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch

Click here to read Articles By Tashbih Sayyed See why this was one brave man

Remembering Tashbih Sayyed
by Robert Spencer
Posted on May 24, 2007

My friend Tashbih Sayyed, a Jihad Watch Board member, died last week. When I got the news, I did not have words, and posted only this. Now, on Memorial Day, I wanted to try to make up for that.

Tashbih Sayyed was that most rare of human beings: a man absolutely fearless in his commitment to the truth. After 9/11, American Muslim advocacy groups began, with the willing complicity of the mainstream media, to flood the airwaves with a huge mass of disinformation and misinformation about jihad activity in the United States and around the world, and above all about its provenance within Islamic theology and tradition. Instead of acknowledging that there was a mandate to wage war against unbelievers that was rooted in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, Islamic spokesmen routinely denied this, and castigated those who contended otherwise as "bigots" and "Islamophobes."Amid all this Tashbih stood virtually alone as an honest man. He stood out sharply among contemporary Muslim spokesmen and activists by admitting that there was a problem within Islam that needed to be solved. As he once told me:

"My whole life is devoted to one end: to make the Muslims understand that their theology needs to be reformed and reinterpreted. Anybody who thinks that there's nothing wrong with their theology is either a blind person or an apologist. There are many things in Muslim Scripture that need to be reshaped and reframed and reinterpreted, so that they cannot be used by terrorists to justify homicide bombings and honor killings."This stance, of course, earned him ostracism and threats, but Tashbih was undaunted. I will never forget his reaction when I asked him whether he thought I should go ahead and write a sira -- a biography of Muhammad -- as I had been considering doing. He said "Of course you should" so quickly that it took me aback: usually when I broached the idea with people their reaction had been to tell me that if I did write such a book I would be threatened and possibly even killed. But Tashbih never flinched. He went on to explain to me that it needed to be done, that the truth needed to come out about these issues -- and clearly that was all that mattered, as far as he was concerned. He knew that if the world was going to prevail against the global jihadist threat, we would all have to take certain risks. And he himself never hesitated to put his life on the line for the truth.Would that now we had hundreds, and hundreds of thousands, and millions like him, with his quiet strength, his good humor, and his indomitable and unshakeable love for the truth. If we did, the outcome of this present conflict would not be in the slightest doubt.Tashbih, I am honored that you called me your friend, and I will miss you tremendously. And the forces of civilization have lost a warrior who cannot be replaced.

Posted by Robert on May 28, 2007 2:05 PM 21 Comments Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us Buzz up!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/remembering-tashbih-sayyed.html

　
With great sorrow I must inform you that Tashbih Sayyed, a courageous foe of the global jihad, has passed away.

After a long career at Pakistan Television, Tashbih's differences with the Zia ul-Haq regime in Pakistan (which gave the Islamization of Pakistan its first great boost) led him to come to the United States, where he founded two newspapers, Pakistan Today and Muslim World Today, and wrote eight books, including Mohammad – A Secularist's View. He appeared in documentaries including Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. He was the President and founder of The Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute, and a member of the Jihad Watch Board.

Tashbih was insightful, humorous, and above all, fearless in his opposition to the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism. Despite numerous threats and a relentless barrage of insults and personal attacks, he kept on trying to awaken the world to the magnitude of the threat we face, never trimming his truth-telling to fit current fashion.

He was a dear friend, and he will be greatly missed.

May his memory be eternal.

Posted by Robert on May 24, 2007 5:02 AM

Posted by Robert on May 24, 2007 5:02 AM 26 Comments Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us ARTICLEURL Buzz up!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/tashbih-sayyed-1941-2007.html

[NOTE: For several years I lived down the street from where Tashbih Sayyed has been laid to rest. I regret is that I had not known him in life. Leslie White.]

By Debbie Schlussel
As I’ve oft remarked on this site, the term “moderate Muslim” is generally an oxymoron and a term that rarely fits anyone from the “Religion of Peace.”Occasionally, though, there are exceptions. There are those rare, truly moderate Muslims who courageously speak out–at serious risk of life and limb–against the mass violence, hate, intolerance, and terrorism their religion has uniquely wrought. (And then they have to obtain personal bodyguards, asylum in the U.S., Conceal and Carry permits. and live in fear and danger thereafter.)One of these brave, admirable Muslim exceptions was Tashbih Sayyed, who, very sadly, passed away unexpectedly on Wednesday in Los Angeles at the age of 66. He first came to my attention in the early ’90s, when he bravely appeared in the PBS documentary, “Jihad in America.”
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/1338/tashbih-sayyed-rip-rare-courageous-moderate-muslim-dies-please-help-family-w-burial/

ByIslam Watch, Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims
Tashbih was insightful, humorous, and above all, fearless in his opposition to the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism. Despite numerous threats and a relentless barrage of insults and personal attacks, he kept on trying to awaken the world to the magnitude of the threat we face, never trimming his truth-telling to fit current fashion.

Tashbih Sayyed ― A Fearless Muslim Zionist - Rachel Neuwirth

FaithFreedom.org
Tashbih Sayyed's Writings
Submitted by admin on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 10:39
Printer-friendly version
Collection of Essays
Rantisi Will Bring More Terror 2004/03/30
Al-Qa'ida Uses Qura'an To Justify Killings Of Innocents 2004/03/22
Incitement To Hatred Oct , 28, 2003
Islamist Hydra Aug , 26, 2003

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/TashbihSayyed

RELATED

How Many Times Do the Islamic Terrorists Have to Hit Us . . . Click on it

Muslim World Today click on it . . . one of Tashbih Sayyed's magazines--Still being published TODAY!

Leftist Teamed with Moslems Intend to Destroy Our Civilization

2010-02-04T19:48:00.000-08:00

Fjordman says:

Next to the EU, the most dangerous people are the Leftists all over the Western world who are waging a Jihad to destroy their own civilization and have teamed up with Muslims to achieve this goal. Unlike neo-Nazis, these people are not only far more numerous but socially accepted and disproportionately represented in the media and the education system, where they systematically silence "racist" dissenters by destroying their livelihoods and reputations. They use an imaginary "far-Right" threat to crush people they don’t like.

--Fjordman, in "Why We Need Germany," at The Brussels Journal
From The Most Dangerous People in the World at Islamic Danger to Americans

Reflections on Islamic Culture

2010-01-25T00:06:00.000-08:00

Paul Eidelberg

Bat Ye’or, an outstanding scholar of Islam, calls Islam a “culture of hate.” If this is racism it is also the truth. Another scholar, Dore Gold, describes Saudi Arabia as “Hatred’s Kingdom.” If this is racism, it is also the truth. Saudi Arabia has established thousands of mosques—engines of hatred, hatred of the West, of America, of Jews, of Israel.

As a culture of hate, Islam may be more accurately described as culture of murderous hatred. Who does not know that Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran are the world’s leading patrons of Jihad?

Since the Quran exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain” for Allah (Sura 9:111), we may also say that Islam is a culture that fosters a love of death, a culture in which the love death surpasses the love of life. Perhaps because martyrdom, for Muslims, is the gateway to eternal life or paradise.

It follows that the purpose of bringing Muslim children into the world is to teach them that their highest goal in life is to slay and be slain for Allah, hence to become suicidal murderers of infidels!

This Muslim imperative cannot be overcome by logical reasoning, which means that devout Muslims are incorrigible. Thus, if an infidel refuses to convert to Islam, the Muslim imperative to slaughter him is inexorable—impervious to moral suasion.

You can no more talk a Muslim out of his murderous faith than you can talk a paranoid schizophrenic out of his fear of others. Some say Islam is a form of psychosis. One may then conclude that just as an individual can become a psychotic, so a nation can become psychotic if its people are educated, from infancy on, to believe in the Manichean world of Islam.

To enable Muslims to cope with their evil enemies, it is necessary to educate them in taqiyya—dissimulation and deceit—an art in which Muslims have no equals. Taqiyya is a military tactic Muslims employ to deceive and eventually conquer their enemies.

The late Professor Y. Harkabi, once head of Israel Military Intelligence, quotes Arab sociologist Sonia Hamady: "Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth"

Indeed, whereas truthfulness (in principle) is a Western virtue, mendacity is an Islamic virtue. This is why treaties Muslims have with infidels as well as with other Muslims are worthless. But this means that Israeli prime ministers who engage in negotiations with Muslims are fools.

Because truthfulness is not an Islamic virtue, Muslims have a tendency to believe in their own lies. Hence Muslims can lie with sincerity, which makes them the most effective liars. Unsurprisingly, Muslims have been called pathological liars in contradistinction to Western leaders, many of whom may be deemed “conventional” liars.

Is there a psychological nexus between the mendacity of Muslims and their love of death? Yes. A lie negates the connection between speech and reality.

Since the essence of speech is a sharing of one’s thoughts and feelings with others, false speech, like death, severs any bond with others. It is a denial of the “other,” of the other’s humanity. This is spiritual murder, which conduces to physical murder. In other words, lying is a denial of the “other” as a human being, and this makes his murder of no moral consequence.

People in the West are incapable of dealing with Muslims on a moral level. Western elites live under the illusion that all peoples are equal, meaning, equally amenable to Socratic dialogue and equally receptive to notions of right and wrong. This is not true.

For example, to reward good deeds with evil is abhorrent to people in the West. We have learned this is not the case of Muslims who sought to destroy Israeli hospitals that have healed them. (For an example of Muslim ingratitude, see Brigitte Gabriel, Because They Hate.)

It is futile to counter by citing exceptions. We are speaking of a culture, not of individuals who have not lost, or who have recovered, their humanity.

If these reflections on Islamic culture appear like racism, so be it. Islam’s love of death strikes me as a mental disorder, which places in question the sanity of any democracy that prohibits ethnic profiling?

Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?

2010-01-15T22:46:00.000-08:00

from politicalislam.com

After a murderous jihad at Fort Hood or the Christmas day airplane bombing attempt, did you hear: "Of course, not all Muslims are bad?" That brings up the question of how do you even tell if a Muslim is bad? Or good?

First off, what is a Muslim? A Muslim is a person who follows the doctrine of Islam. When that same person, does something that does not follow the doctrine of Islam, they are not a Muslim.

The common idea is that anyone who says that they are a Muslim has their every action and word dictated by Islam. Put another way, every Muslim is seen as perfect follower of Islam at all times and circumstances. However, the truth is that a "Muslim" is not always a Muslim. When they do not follow Islamic doctrine, they are no longer a Muslim, but are a kafir (non-Muslim).

Now, how do we know if a Muslim is good or bad? If they are following the Koran and the Sunna (the perfect example of Mohammed), they are a good Muslim. If they don't follow the doctrine, then they are not a Muslim. That means that from the stand point of Islam there is no such thing as a good or bad Muslim. You either are a Muslim or you are not. When anyone follows the Koran and the Sunna, they are Muslim. When anyone does not follow the doctrine of Islam then they are a kafir.

This means that a person called a Muslim has two modes of being-Muslim and kafir, or kafir-Muslim. The same person can be a Muslim in one moment and a kafir in the next.

What do kafirs mean by a good Muslim? Simple, the same way we judge all other people as good and bad-the Golden Rule. Do they follow the Golden Rule when they are with us? If so, then they are a good person.

Since the Koran and the Sunna do not have the Golden Rule, how are Muslims to treat us? Islamic doctrine lays out an alternative to the Golden Rule. Those who do not believe Mohammed are kafirs, and kafirs are treated differently from Muslims.

Islamic doctrine says a great deal about the kafir. Most of the Koran is about kafirs, 61%, only 39% is about Muslims. About 20% of the Hadith is about kafirs and 98% of the Sira is about kafirs. Mohammed was fixated on kafirs and annihilated every kafir by violence, exile or conversion. When Mohammed died, there was not a person alive in Arabia who would argue with him.

Mohammed's actions are pure Islam; therefore, annihilating kafirs and kafir culture is pure Islam. A Muslim has to be, in some way, in some form of action, eliminating kafirs and their world. The action against kafirs is jihad. There are four flavors of jihad and murder is only one. Deception, conversation, articles and TV appearances can be jihad of speech and writing. There is always the option of giving to an Islamic charity, since one of the Koranic uses of charity is jihad.

Every Muslim believes that all nonbelievers are kafirs. The Koran says that kafirs may be hated, plotted against, deceived, murdered, raped, enslaved, mocked and tortured. All of those actions are Islam and perfect doctrine. When a person is being a good Muslim, they are following Islam and that means that you are a kafir. Hate, deception, murder, mockery and torture are bad for kafirs, but good for Muslims.

Kafirs are pure other. Muslims treat other Muslims as brothers and sisters, but they can treat a kafir well or they can treat them as less than an animal. Islam has dualistic ethics, one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for kafirs. Dualism is bad. When a Muslim practices dualism, they are bad. There is no good in Islam for a kafir and therefore, there is no good in a Muslim for a kafir.

Does this mean that the Muslim at work is bad? Yes, when they are following the doctrine of Islam. Whenever they are not following Islam, that person can be as good as any other. It is not about people, but about doctrine. It is the doctrine of Islam to be bad to kafirs. When anyone is practicing Islam around a kafir they must be bad, since Mohammed was never good to kafirs.

Wait! What about the nice, pious Muslim at work? He is good, isn't he?

Is he nice because of the Golden Rule or is he practicing the Sunna of the charming Mohammed we find in the early Meccan days? Mohammed could be very polite with kafirs, however, if charm did not work, then other methods were used. Islam is a process of increasing force that can start out pleasantly.

We are left with an ethical confusion around any Muslim. They can seem pleasant, but nothing changes the fact that they see Mohammed as the perfect person to imitate. Nothing changes the fact that we are kafirs. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Who are we to believe-the Muslim at work or Mohammed? Every Muslim wants to imitate Mohammed; every Muslim is a Mohammedan. The problem is that Mohammed annihilated every kafir he ever met. It was a process. The process started out nice and when nice did not work, it ended in annihilation of the kafir. In Islam, nice is the beginning of bad for the kafir.

So how do you tell if a nice Muslim is good or bad? From the kafir point-of-view, there is only the fact that a Muslim is following Mohammed's example. And that is bad, very bad.

Bill Warner

[January 7, 2010]

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

Is the United Kingdom (UK) Sliding into Islamization Without a Whimper?

2009-12-30T20:44:00.000-08:00

Fjordman says

Tensions have been building slowly beneath the surface for many years and sooner or later these forces will be released in the form of a series of devastating earthquakes, followed by some secondary political and economic tsunamis. Some of the structures that currently appear to be rock solid will collapse like a house of cards during this period and the political landscape will change considerably. What appears unthinkable today will appear natural or inevitable twenty years from now. This is the discontinuity that El Inglés talks about. I would rank Britain as the Western European country most likely to first get a civil war caused by mass immigration and Multiculturalism.

***
There is no such thing as a universal nation. People want to live with their own kind. The only ones who are not allowed to do so are whites, and they are starting to get tired of this double standard. People of European origins are among the least ethnocentric people on the planet and are currently being penalized heavily for this. Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. It’s about time that whites reclaim the same right without apology. I am increasingly convinced that the developments we are witnessing are deliberate.

--Fjordman
at Are We Heading for a Crash? Here's Someone Who Thinks We Are

EDL demonstrators in Birmingham in September
Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

ISLAM IN BRITAIN

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

UK Casuals United

Whose streets? Our streets.........

"NO SURRENDER TO AL QAIDA"

"Mail on Sunday publicity our response"

The newspaper, ostensibly the Sunday Mail apparently had an article about the Brits who resist the Islamization of their Isle that starts off with,

On Platform One at Bolton station a mob of around 100 men punch the air in unison. The chant goes up: 'Muslim bombers, off our streets, Muslim bombers off our streets...'

To read more, go to http://casualsunited.webs.com/

CASUALS UNITED: Why do we say "No more Mosques"? Read this

Revealed: Muslim bomb plot gang's links to 'mega-mosque' in east London

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 4:20 PM on 09th September 2008

Ministers should review plans to build a "mega-mosque" in the East End in the wake of the airline bomb plot trial, the Tories urged today.

Shadow security minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones said the case had shown that the group behind the mosque may have given cover to extremist activity.

Tablighi Jamaat, which describes itself an Islamic missionary organisation, is pushing for the mosque to be built next to the 2012 Olympics site in Stratford.

But the group was revealed in court as having links to some of the terror suspects, with several having passed through other mosques run by the group. . . .
http://casualsunited.webs.com/mosques.htm

British Defence Leagues against Islamic Takeover of the UK

English Defence League

Members of the Mercian Regiment pose for pictures with EDL members

www.englishdefenceleague.org

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

Welsh Defence League

http://casualsunited.webs.com/wdl.htm

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

Scottish Defence League

Despite the lies of some members of the Scottish media we would like to confirm that the SDL is not a sectarian organisation and all members of Scottish society are welcome to join our protest against Islamic militant activity within our nation.

http://casualsunited.webs.com/sdl.htm

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

Ulster Defence League

The UDL is a division of the EDL and supports their campaign against Islamic extremists abusing our troops returning from battlefields abroad and any further attempts to Islamify Britain.

http://casualsunited.webs.com/udl.htm

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

Headline: English Defence League supporters and Moslems clash

Birmingham Moslems told to confront peaceful protest against extremists

Times Online: Moslems urged to confront protest

December 2009
EDL: Notts speech - Church leaders acknowledge
http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2009/12/edl-notts-speech-church-leaders.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The red cross on the masks of the EDL defenders is that of St. George. It is the flag of England.

"This flag was in use during the crusades and it was one of the national emblems of England as early as 1277. In 1497, this flag was flown by John and Sebastian Cabot on their voyages from England to Newfoundland and the North American continent, as well as by other English explorers. including Francis Drake, Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh. Even after the adoption of the British Union, which combined both the St. George's cross and the St. Andrew's cross, the St. George's cross still was flown from the foremast of English ships. Thus, we see this flag above the Mayflower when it landed at Plymouth in 1620."
http://www.anyflag.com/history/stgeorge.htm

EDL - English Defence League Xenophobia in Nottingham, England

The Case for Airline Profiling

2009-12-28T13:37:00.000-08:00

We have this "sacred" revulsion to profiling airline passengers before boarding. Not "racial" profiling--not all "Asians" nor "Africans" nor "Middle-Eastern-appearing" passengers, but depending on immediately prior flights, point of origin, layovers, etc.

The point is that full-body scans, said to be too expensive, full-body searches, said to be too intrusive, etc., need not be done to all passengers--so as to appear "even-handed"-- but confined to people whose body language, demeanor, behavior, etc. arouses the suspicions of trained security observers.

Say, for example, a person flies from Germany to France with a U.S. destination. The person originated his flights in Pakistan. A full-body scan might not be out of order.

A gang of Arabs males heading to Florida, their flight plan originating in Yemen might (should) arouse more suspicions than the elderly American couple who might have been the model for a Norman Rockwell illustration from the old Saturday Evening Post.

The American Norman Rockwell couple do not merit the same scrutiny as the group from the Arabian peninsula boarding a plane in London having flown there from Hamburg, Germany.

By now, you should get the idea. Nothing "racial," only prudent.

Why There Cannot Ever Be Any Peace With Islam

2009-12-10T15:38:00.000-08:00

Islam in its formative historical stage surfaced as a conquering and colonizing religious movement that arrogated public space and political power for itself alone. This serves as a model for reproduction in any future era thereafter, subject to the exigencies of power opportunities that are available to the Muslims. There are no fixed frontiers to delimit the scope of the future expansive drive, nor are there any moral or juridical restrictions in pursuing the war. Rather, the exaltation of battle by whatever means is designed to vindicate Islam’s global primacy. The horrors of victory, perhaps for the victors and the vanquished alike, are tangential to the satisfaction of exacting tribute and earning respect from the cringing adversaries of Islam. In this scenario, the minorities in the Middle East are fated, as capitalists for Marx, to disappear in the dustbin of history.

http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2009/07/muhammads-monsters-war-of-islam-against.html

originally published at http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=593

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. - This [excerpt is from an] article . . . taken from the Book, David Bukay (Editor), Muhammad’s Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide to RADICAL ISLAM for Western Audiences, 2004.

from http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=593

KNOW YOUR ENEMY - PART TWO

2009-12-05T19:20:00.000-08:00

Fitna and the Kafir, Part Two

for Part One, see KNOW YOUR ENEMY - PART ONE

By Kenneth Roberts

December 4, 2009

Both Sunnis and Shi'ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth.

Theologically, mocking Mohammed's method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah. Allah's method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah's Divine Command. In mere human philosophy, Mohammed's fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar.

Mohammed's method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed's method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots. It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.

Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one's own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children.

Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, "They are of them." In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark.

Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime.

Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/islamic-mind-major-nidal-hasan of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed's method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers 'are of them.' This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam.

Mohammed's brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed's method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed's method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed's ethical inconsistencies is fitna.

Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed's violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong.

Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean 'fitna'…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one's religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called 'special pleading'. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.

Inter-Islamic fitna, i.e. dissension or discord between Muslims, is the second class of fitna. Theological disagreements between Shi'ite Muslims and Sunnite Muslims are also called fitna. Both sides believe the other worthy of death for disagreeing with Mohammed. Unfortunately, both sides do not see that their own opinion of Mohammed's method may also be in error. Only the other fellow is in error and he is obviously a heretic. 'And Allah knows best.'

Consequently, there is no Sunnite mosque permitted in Teheran and no Shi'ite mosque permitted in Saudi Arabia's holy cities. Fitna/discord between Muslims themselves and between Muslims and infidels is primarily a political question about who possesses the political upper hand. This right of supremacy cannot be discussed, since it comes from Allah and is defended by sacred violence. What you believe about Mohammed determines your human rights status in an Islamic state.

Moreover, the concept of fitna makes pluralism practically impossible, since only one political party can be in perfect agreement with Mohammed. Having an opposition party in an Islamic country would be the evil of fitna...another opinion would obviously disagree with Mohammed and be condemned. Fitna paints Islamic countries into a philosophical corner where dictatorship is the only government system possible.

The ultimate use of fitna is a military one. Fitna is any utterance that demoralizes or confuses Muslim troops so they become weak as a military force, unconvinced of their political mission of world dominance and hesitant to commit jihad. Fitna undercuts the Islamic chain of command. Fitna destroys the cohesiveness and certainty of jihadists…that unquestioning certainty that makes them ready to kill the critics of Mohammed.

Faint-hearted, non-fanatical Muslims will not defend Mohammed's method or expand their Allah-given supremacy over the infidels. If Muslims are in doubt about the rightness of Mohammed's method, they will peter out, while the infidels win the earth for Satan. This must not be. Fitna must be stopped and reversed, since it impedes the Islamic state without borders. Fitna thus becomes a political charge of treason against the Allah-established Ummah (nation) of Islam. Fitna deserves the death penalty because Allah said it is worse than murder (Koran 2:191). It is every Muslim's duty to use sacred violence to stamp out fitna and create the utopian Islamic world where disagreement can no longer exist.

"And fight them (all infidels) until there is no more fitnah (disagreeing with Allah/Mohammed) and the religion (all-pervasive lifestyle and system of Sharia law) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (to disagree with Allah/Mohammed) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Koran 8.39)

"(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse." (Koran 9.33)
Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

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

THE UNCOVERED CONSPIRACY TO TRANSFORM BRITAIN

2009-12-01T20:26:00.000-08:00

by Melanie Phillips

Citing a recent article by Andrew Neather, "speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett," Melanie Phillips concludes that the extreme increase in Muslim population in Britain didn't just happen. "It was a deliberate policy of mass immigration ... to change the very makeup of this country without telling the electorate." Immigration controls were loosened, effectively reversing a stated policy limiting the entry of foreign workers, so that "some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since 2001." The Labour government continue to see it as a praiseworthy method to create a mullticultural England. Many a voter sees it as destructive of English culture. Moreover, if allowed to continue, it will introduce a huge number of immigrants — many of whom are iliterate and without skills — into an already overcrowded country. No wonder that the white working class is voting for the Britisn National Party, that strongly objects to unrestricted immigration. The article mirrors what is happening in much of Europe.
READ MORE

Jewish and Arab Co-Existence in Israel

2009-11-27T02:21:00.000-08:00

They Must Go

Who?

Click here

Can our government win the war on terror?

2009-11-21T15:23:00.000-08:00

.
Zack Lieberberg says

Of course, we can. And we can do it without wasting the lives of our soldiers and hundreds of billions of our dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All we have to do to achieve that victory is kick Islam out of the United States. Once the term Muslim American becomes no more than an oxymoron, we will be able to sell our no longer needed airport security equipment to Eurabia and bail out our ailing banks without using a penny of taxpayers’ money. I know it, you know it, Osama bin Laden knows it, and even George Bush, who seem[ed] to know nothing at all, kn[ew] it as well; even if this knowledge didn’t stop him from announcing to us on September 12, 2001, that Islam was not an enemy. His government [wa]s most definitely unable to win this war.

[and of course neither is the government of the un-American, Moslem fellow-traveller Barack Hussein Obama*, who declared in Cairo that the United States is "a Muslim nation"]

Revolutionary Situation in the United States
http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2009/11/revolutionary-situation-in-united.html

*NOTE: Watch Islamic Danger to Americans for a future post as to why Obama is not an American - in any sense!

Islam or the Massacre at Fort Hood

2009-11-18T02:36:00.000-08:00

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Inasmuch as the title of this article contains the word “or,” I will not say another word about Fort Hood.

I’ve studied the Quran and an awful lot of books about Islam, many by prominent authors—French, English, German, American, Israeli, Hindu, and yes, Muslim. But I must confess, at the risk of appearing arrogant, that despite the excellence of these books, that contain a great deal of obscurantism, including those of the doyen of Islamic studies, Bernard Lewis, seven of whose works are included in my “Islamic library.” I see in many of these scholarly works the fear of giving offense to a so-called monotheistic religion.

Scholars are not supposed to say unflattering things about people’s religion—especially today about Islam. Candor could lead to law suits, imprisonment for a “hate crime,” and even untimely death. Witness Theo van Gogh.

Of course, there are exceptions in this era of “political correctness,” such as Robert Spencer (The Truth about Muhammad) and Serge Trifkovic (The Sword of the Prophet). Add the gallant Ayan Hirsi Ali, who was raised in a strict Muslim family, and who is under constant threat. Her book Infidel reveals some unpleasant truths about Islam.

But what about scholars who wrote during and before the nineteenth century, hence before the resurgence of Islam and the current worldwide fear of what guarded commentators misleadingly but conveniently call “Islamism,” or “radical Islam,” or “Islamic fundamentalism?" Consider what the following forthright commentators say about Islam:

● The eminent English orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905): “The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known.”

● The world-renowned Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859): “I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.”

● The distinguished French historian and philologist Ernest Renan (1823-1892): “Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him.”

Finally, the memorable 14th century historian Ibn Khaldun, who was more Greek than Muslim: “Arabs are people whose savagery has become their character and nature.”

Strange as it may seem, insight into Islam can be elicited from C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature, which makes no mention of Islam. Rather, Lewis writes about Medieval Christianity, which calls to mind the Quran:

Savage beliefs are thought to be the spontaneous response of a human group to its environment, a response made principally by the imagination. They exemplify what some writers call pre-logical thinking. They are closely bound up with the communal life of the group. What we should describe as political, military, and agricultural operations are not easily distinguished from rituals; ritual and belief beget and support one another….

Sometimes, when a community is comparatively homogeneous and over a long period, such a system of belief can continue, of course with development, long after material culture has progressed far beyond the level of savagery. It may then begin to turn into something more ethical, more philosophical, even more scientific; but there will be uninterrupted continuity between this and its savage beginnings.

Now ponder Israel’s first pre-state Chief Rabbi, Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook (1865-1935), who was also well-versed in philosophy. Rabbi Kook maintained that Israel alone affirms “undiluted monotheism.” He admits, of course, that there are in the gentile world pious men, philosophers, men of God, but there is not a nation—besides Israel—whose soul, whose way of life, whose raison d’etre, signifies the Divine Idea in the world.

Rabbi Kook also maintained that unlike Judaism, gentile religions remain locked in a persistent struggle with indigenous cultures. These religions, he sees, were imposed on pagan nations which often revert to barbarism. Note the frequent eruption of fratricidal wars of Arab-Islamic states. Note, too, that Christian Europe has been periodically drenched in rivers of blood.

I think the preceding goes a long way to explaining not only the title of this article, but also the superficiality and unrealism of politicians and political analysts who, out of ignorance of history and culture, offer solutions to deeply rooted civilizational conflicts.

The Foreigner in Our White House

2009-11-15T23:56:00.000-08:00

. . . Barack Hussein Obama is, essentially, a foreigner. He may (or not) be born in the United States, but the values shared by the American people, the values that made this country great and prosperous, are as foreign to him as his Arabian, Kenyan, Indonesian roots are to us. He has nothing vested in this country. All his life here, he was closely associated with its enemies. He will destroy it with no regrets. The very fact that seven years after the devastating attack visited on the United States by Arabs, the Americans . . . place[d] an Arab into the White house demonstrates the depth of the crisis we are in.
--Zack Lieberberg

From Revolutionary Situation in the United States
Click on the above to read all about it

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

AND NOTE YE:

When you hear someone shout "allahu akbar!" shoot the bastard!
click on it

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

When Will the Iranian Revolution Be Over?

2009-06-20T16:08:00.000-07:00

. . . the "Second" Iranian Revolution . . .

From "Column One: Israel's rare opportunity"
By CAROLINE GLICK
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1245184875280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

. . . the vast majority of Iran's people wish to live in a normal and free nation-state. For them, the revolution means nothing but privation, suffering, repression and death. They do not hate America and they do not hate Israel. They do not seek nuclear weapons and they do not support the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah.
***
In an interview this week with National Review Online, Iranian expatriate Amir Taheri explained that Iran suffers from a divided psyche. On the one hand, the mullahs view Iran as a revolutionary vanguard of Islam. They do not see Iran as a nation-state. For them, the normal things that make up a life - economic stability, public safety and the hope that one's children will do better - are of little use as they march forward under the flag of jihad. Israel and the US are necessary enemies.
***
As Taheri put it, "When we consider Iran as a nation-state, we see Israel as its natural ally. The reason is that Israel, like Iran, is opposed to an exclusively Arab Middle East. Both want a pluralist Middle East in which there is room for diversity; a Middle East where one finds Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Christians and Jews, as well as Arabs."

If Israel extends a hand in friendship to these Iranian patriots, the worst that can happen is that they fail to overthrow the mullahs and we are left to acknowledge that we wished them well. There is no shame in that.

Indeed, if they fail to overthrow the regime, and Israel is compelled to attack their country's nuclear installations, it is hard to imagine that they will take it personally. Rather, recalling that it was Israel that stood with them first, they would no doubt understand why we were forced to act, and perhaps be inspired to try again to free themselves from the shackles of their hideous regime.

Also related:
Caroline Glick: protests in Iran leading to the overthrow of the one of the most heinous regimes on the face of the earth

Question posed in the title of this post: 　

When Will the Iranian Revolution Be Over?

Answer: When every mullah (ayatollahs etc.) is hanging from a lamppost.
　

Obama: Ignoramus-in-Chief or Liar- in-Chief?

2009-06-04T13:36:00.000-07:00

Does Obama Know what He is Talking About?

. . . the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam :"Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. ...The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military."3 source

from Obama: Ignorant of History?

Obama Photo: (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Moslem Integration into American Society:

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad aka Carlos Leon Bledsoe, home-grown jihadist, convert to Mohammedanism, shoots two American soldiers in Arkansas.

Gives the lie to Obama's Moslem-embracing speech in Cairo's infamous Mosque.

The President of "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world" according to his own words, this mutt--a charlatan and narcissist of the first order--shows where he stands as concerns the Islam's war against the United states and the non-Islamic world.

According to authorities, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad has admitted to the terrorist shooting [of two American Army soldiers. killing one]. He pleaded not guilty to the charges in court this morning.

A prosecutor said Muhammad admitted shooting Long and another soldier "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."
http://www.bucksright.com/abc-arkansas-jihadist-studied-in-yemen-was-on-watch-list-3082

Crypto-Moslem and Protector of Islam in America Barack Hussein Obama:

"I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son."
http://www.bucksright.com/priorities-obama-saddened-by-terrorist-attack-on-us-soil-3104

Stratfor Research believes it’s because law enforcement has been told to "back off" investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts.

[P]olitics may have been at play in the Muhammad case as well as in other cases involving Black Muslim converts. Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to "back off" of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts.

One could speculate whether increased sensitivity to the issue due to a new administration caused mid-level bureaucrats to issue such an order to field operatives, or whether it was a direct order originating either from Eric Holder’s Justice Department or the Barack Obama White House.

At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.
http://www.bucksright.com/report-law-enforcement-told-to-ingore-radical-domestic-muslims-3108

What Will Work and What Will Not To Keep Us from Islamic Domination

2009-04-30T01:07:00.000-07:00

Sultan Knish in his "Winning the War on Terror" says,

"Islamic Terrorism has become to the early 21st century, what Communism was to the late 20th century, the ultimate existential threat that the civilized world was forced to grapple with. In this article I will take a look at a few of the existing approaches, and their pros and cons, for winning the War on Terror."

Before I give my "best" solution to end (by opposing) the threat facing all of us in the West*--and India and Israel--of being overwhelmed and dominated by Islam, you owe it to yourself to read Sultan Knish's "Winning the War on Terror" at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/04/winning-war-on-terror.html.
__________________________________________
*HERE in the United States the precursor of Islam is the socialist/fascist dictatorship being imposed on us by a narcissistic poseur of unknown but dubious qualities who sprang from an Islamic background and education.
___________________________________________

Read it, then come back here and see what will work to stop our enslavement, death, or bowing five times a day to a location where unreason and ignorance were spouted out by a lecherous ignoramus--which geographical spot being given the final Carthage treatment couldn't hurt and even do us some good.

While you're doing that, I shall amuse myself by figuring out the etymology of the title Sultan and the other proper noun it precedes, Knish.

Wikipedia defines the title thusly:

Sultan (Arabic: سلطان‎ Sulṭān) is an Islamic title, with several historical meanings. Originally it was an Arabic language abstract noun meaning "strength", "authority", or "rulership", derived from the masdar سلطہ sulṭah, meaning "authority" or "power".

As for "Knish," this derives from the common name for a delicacy defined as "an eastern-European Jewish or Yiddish snack food. It is a dumpling covered with a dough shell that is either baked or fried. In the most traditional version, the dumpling is made entirely of mashed potato."
--What is Knish?

But enough of that, let us get down to the less esoteric analyses of the problem confronting us (who do not want a sharia government oppressing us).

Results of my Analyses:

Sultan Knish's No. 8, and if that doesn't work, try his No. 7. Should that fail--well--there's always No. 5. that should stop this whole sorry mess that threatens to do us in.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/04/winning-war-on-terror.html.

Come to think of it, spend a minimum of time (3%) on No.8, a bit more on No. 7 (say, 7% of a total 100%), and 90% on No. 5.

Just kidding! Am I? Yeah, sure, lots'a laughs. What do you think we are? Better to believe nothing's happening, and the government is taking care of us. Make us all feel a heck of a lot better. And that's what it's all about, isn't it? Feeling good . . .

The End of the World as We Knew It

2009-04-27T18:38:00.000-07:00

Is This The End?

Interesting . . . and Most Informative

From "Caving"
at the Belmont Club

a couple of comments:

from Whiskey

[Excerpt]

. . . Pakistan falling into the Taliban’s control, Obama a Muslim himself from a Polygamous Father, smiling benignly as he does nothing to stop it or secure/destroy the nukes. NYC and perhaps other American cities die in a nuclear blast. Not from some "Good guy gone wrong" as in the feminized 9/11 fantasy of TV’s "Heroes" but real macho polygamists wanting conquest.

And in the great desire simply not to be incinerated, Obama will be removed via coup driven by the people, not the military and CIA (which will I think be reluctant passengers on the populist train). People will surprise you with a desire to live. Do awful things.
Apr 25, 2009 - 11:49 pm
　
　
Gordon DeSpain:

[addressing] Whiskey,

[Excerpt]

. . . 20 Markers of "The End of Golden Ages." You actually hit on it in your post above, but, seemingly as an aside: Marker #1 - "Women begin rising to positions of great power."

This phenomena appears 150 to 200 years into the life of a Civilization, and, begins the slide into footnotes in "Dusty Tomes" nobody reads. It is a natural result of the "Foraging Instinct," which is linked to a "primal, biological imperative" to build safe, secure, serene and beautiful nests, where they can raise their children without knowing or having to defend against violence.

The other markers are: a flood of rules, regulations, policies, procedures, edicts, decrees, taxes, permits, certificates, etc, flowing from a flood of Bureaus, Agencies, Departments, Offices and the odd rogue Tyrannizer (like a "Great Lady" advisor to the ‘King,’ demanding that he ‘do something’); imbalance of trade commences when the "Great Ladies" begin demanding exotic things to decorate and enhance ever larger, more enviable nests (Mansions, Palaces, Castles, Compounds of the Aristocracy/Nobility); flight of Capital and Industry to Foreign Ports where the exotic trinkets, toys and doodads originate; flight of Crafts, Skills, Trades, Artisans and Engineers (I’m one who fled years ago) following the Industries to other, younger, more vibrant, less restrictive, growing, thriving societies; importation of cheap labor, or, slaves (it’s nice if they import themselves); pushing away, denigration and tyranizing of the Common Citizen; denigration and pushing away of the Citizen Soldier; hiring of Mercenaries (Local or Foreign) as Bodyguards, City Guard (Police), and, Professional Military; and, the final blow - disarming of the Common Man.

[bold emphasis mine]

The last usually happens just prior to, or, as Alexander crosses the Bosphorus (welcomed by the people as a savior), or, as Obama climbs the Hill, bringing us a new society (worshipped by many).

There remains but the final step, the "Coup de Grace" of this Golden Age (see Marker #20, above).

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/25/caving/

Also, read
　
Obama, the Muslim Thing, And Why It Matters
by Pamela Geller
at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7688

The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within

2009-04-19T15:11:00.000-07:00

"Many Muslims insist that Islam is consistent with democracy and can be modernized, but these ideologies are at their roots inconsistent and thus incompatible. Even the act of lying is permissible in Islam."

from The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within

AND BE SURE NOT TO MISS . . .

Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?" *

At the tail-end of the Islamization of America post at Islamic Danger 2 U

______________________________________
* Obama, the Manchurian candidate

[from David Kupelian's "Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate"]

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79411

"If General Petraeus Had Read "War And Peace"

2009-04-15T04:57:00.001-07:00

A review of Hugh Fitzgerald's analysis of the war against the Islamics who attacked us can be found at How to Stop the Islamic Jihad--How to Defeat the Camp of Islam.

For the entire article, go to http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/36181/sec_id/36181

OBAMA ON WAY TO CHAVEZ -Type DICTATORSHIP

2009-04-12T19:29:00.000-07:00

Hugo Chavez, who has set himself up as the dictator of Venezuela--turning the society upside down, and threatening the United States, allying himself with such as Iran and North Korea and other enemies of the U.S.

The Chavez dictatorship turned Venezuela into a socialist/fascist tyranny. Elections condoned by such a disreputable inept as Jimmy Carter, the opposition silenced and crushed, the tyranny that Chavez is emulating is that of the murderous dictator Fidel Castro and his vicious brother Raoul. Chavez admires the Jew-hating statements, saber-rattling threats, and nuclear arming of Iran's Ahmadinejad.

What is a socialist dictatorship? How does it differ from such fascist dictatorships as national socialsim? In socialist dictatorships the government owns everything--the means of production, transportation, utilities, airlines, and banks.

In a national-socialist (fascist) dictatorships--think of Hitler and his nazis--the government controls everything but allows select industries to operate (albeit under government control).
　
From Pam Geller's "Atlas Shrugs," comes this report. And it's official, folks!. From the horse's as--ah--mouth: Obama and his DHS (Department of Homeland Security):

SHOCKING NEW REPORT! OBAMA'S REAL TERRORISTS: TARGETING PATRIOTS AND THE RIGHT

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/obamas-real-terrorists-targeting-patriots-and-the-right.html

[Excerpts]

(U) Key Findings (U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

Translation: There is no threat. Give us time, we'll create one.

— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

Translation: There is no threat. Give us time, we'll create one.

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

American sovereignty is a radical position now?

— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

Sounds like they are descrbing Bill Ayers and Bernadetter Dohrn, Obama's great friends and terrorist patriots!~

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Ah, there it is. take their guns away. Jail'em if they disagree.

— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement. —

Ban? What ban? This is a staging. Fake staging to seize weapons.

(U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Radicalize the nation's greatest patriots. Are you seeing this? The only radicalization happening on a national/global scale is Islamic jihad. Our vets????

[...]

Page 6 of 9 — (U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.

Gun control. Period.

THERE'S MORE! READ IT ALL AT:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/obamas-real-terrorists-targeting-patriots-and-the-right.html

Speaking of "Somali Elders" who were speaking for the pirates . . .

2009-04-12T13:52:00.000-07:00

"His Magnificence" in Somali Elder dress

Being fitted for the dress of a "Somali Elder"

"His Magnificence" in civilian dress

When Moslems lose, is it the will of "Allah?"

2009-04-09T04:38:00.000-07:00

Gates of Vienna: The Advance of Islam:

If Islam were not God’s own religion, Muslims reason, and if Muhammad were not the messenger of God, they think, then these conquests would not have taken place and would not have been so successful. These conquests can be considered as akbar dalaala alla Sidq muHammad, “the best proof of the sincerity of Muhammad,” as a comment in the Qur’an at one point expresses it.

The Advance of Islam
by Baron Bodissey

Translation from the Dutch of
The Advance of Islam
“Islamic ideology is not resistant to the free word”

By the Arabist Hans Jansen

[excerpt]

There is not a single Muslim who is unaware of this [the Mohammedans'] century of conquests. The military successes of that time are generally perceived by Islamic theologians as proof of the truth of Islam and the correctness of the statements made by Muhammad about himself and his mission. This century of conquest plays a major role in Islamic apologetics. If Islam were not God’s own religion, Muslims reason, and if Muhammad were not the messenger of God, they think, then these conquests would not have taken place and would not have been so successful. These conquests can be considered as akbar dalaala alla Sidq muHammad, “the best proof of the sincerity of Muhammad,” as a comment in the Qur’an at one point expresses it.

Europeans who are not used to employing this kind of reasoning in a debate are sometimes left mute when they are for the first time confronted with this assertion. At some of the meetings that purportedly contributed to the dialogue between Christianity and Islam, this argument was used. Perhaps that is, after all, a good thing, because what is the use of having a quarrel?
- - - - - - - - -
But it is a ridiculous Islamic fallacy. When Christianity was able to win the Middle East and Europe over, it was without using violence. Should the Christians then be impressed that others, namely the Muslims, have managed to conquer such an area using brute military violence? No, of course not. On the contrary.

COMMENT

Profitsbeard said...
That this vital information is pointedly avoided by the treasonous cowards in the West is more dangerous than Islam's threats.

We can defeat the jihad... if we admit that it is Islam's core dogma.

Until then, the incursions, stealth invasions and legalistic underminings of the West by Mohammedans, aided by the useful idiots among us, erode our Civilzation and make the future battle more deadly.
3/29/2009 1:25 PM

Zenster Part I
Zenster said...
Europeans who are not used to employing this kind of reasoning in a debate are sometimes left mute when they are for the first time confronted with this assertion. At some of the meetings that purportedly contributed to the dialogue between Christianity and Islam, this argument was used.

How then do these Islamists explain the way that the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) has been in a perpetual state of economic and cultural stagnation for nearly a MILLENNIA, even as Europe and America have entered the space age?

Will of Allah my arse!

We should not enter into silly contests of miracles, but may establish that a religion like this needed to make use of the force of arms to achieve approximately the same thing that Christianity managed to achieve without violence. As Muslims continue to purge all competing religions from their lands, Christians had better begin to consider how Islam's conversion by the sword mandates its DEFEAT by the sword. Several centuries and even recent history have all shown the tremendous folly of negotiating with Muslims. The punishment awaiting Islam for how it has defiled humanity is long overdue.

Because of the “confession” that is part of the Christian liturgy, Christians are perhaps trained too well in the confession of guilt, and that contrasts with the views of most Muslims, who are in fact proud of the warfare of Islam against the Christians, and of the military triumphs that were achieved, at least in the early days. That Muslims are largely immune to any sense of guilt requires aggrieved parties to force Islam into making amends. There is much that Islam has to answer for even as it continues to violate human rights and commit crimes against humanity. What is it that allows thinking people to ignore this well-established pattern of past and present misanthropy?
3/29/2009 3:28 PM

Zenster said...
PART II

To this day they consider — and this is what modern people find the strangest — that the success that the early Muslims were able to obtain on the battlefield is a proof of God’s favor. Oddly enough, the defeats suffered by the Muslims are not seen by them as a proof to the contrary.

This is precisely what makes Islam so insidious. Confronted with defeats, Muslims do not retreat into self-examination or amendment of their conduct. Such setbacks are always viewed as punishment for not being Islamic enough. Thus are even the most vivid learning opportunities used, instead, to further entrench barbarous Islamic behavior. This is a core aspect of Muslim fanaticism and a strong argument as to why force of arms is the only sure method of reversing such pseudo-religious mania.

For if God is interfering with their wars, then, for example, in the conflict between Israel and the Arabs he is on the side of Israel.

Such a notion will only apply to rational minds. Muslims, however, are not at all rational. Few other cultures are capable of so thoroughly embracing cognitive dissonance as those of the Arab Muslims. Consider the following examples:

"The Holocaust never happened and this time we will complete what Hitler left unfinished!"

"The 9-11 attacks were staged as a pretense to wage war against Islam and Osama bin Laden is our hero for giving America a black eye!"

Both require the ability to simultaneously believe entirely contradictory ideas without experiencing any discomfort or internal conflict. Now, imagine just how fanatical such an unreasoning mind can be.

This is why Islam must be brought to heel through the use of of overwhelming military force. No other method can possibly oblige the Muslim mind to understand how Allah is a false deity and unworthy of worship.

Research with a scientific approach that might anger the Muslim elite is usually ignored by Western scholars. Not because the members of that elite might raise arms themselves, for they are all nice civilized people without blood on their hands.

This is no longer the case. Darfur is a pluperfect example of how Western scholars have so whitewashed Islam that they are now complicit in numerous ongoing Muslim atrocities that totally defy any pretense of their's being "The Religion of Peace". [spit]

The list is long, and nowadays can be found in many reference books, and it gives a pretty good idea of how false and mean people can be to one another, while always looking up piously and muttering that it is only about the implementation of the laws of God.

Considering that shari'a law dictates such minutae as how to wipe one's posterior and the exact amount of allowable fecal matter to have remaining on one's hands, I'd wager that this brutal legal code goes well beyond what God ever had the time to dictate.

Shari'a law serves one purpose alone and that is to control a large population so completely that, for fear of being put to death, they comply unhesitatingly with every last dictate until there is no time to rebel or even question such abject autocracy.

The wonderful Roman rule nulla poena sine lege, “no punishment without [clear] law” is obviously not the case under Islamic law.

I would venture it is exactly the opposite. Islam always maintains a veiled threat of imminent violence. It does so with very clear laws of such great number that violent retribution is guaranteed and it only awaits discovering exactly which rule any given individual has broken. This foreboding aspect tends to quell all opposition before the fact and inhibits any rebellion.

This article should be required reading in all Western political offices. PERIOD.
3/29/2009 3:38 PM

More--Read the whole Thing at . . .
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/03/advance-of-islam.html#readfurther

WHAT TO DO ABOUT THOSE PESKY SOMALI PIRATES?

2009-04-08T19:00:00.000-07:00

Are They Connected to the World-Wide Jihad and Al Qaeda? How?

We will try to answer those questions, as we examine what these Somali Pirates do and what should be done about them,

Should Somali Pirates Be Captured?

Readers will recall that the British Navy has been advised not to engage pirates on the grounds that if captured, the buccaneers can claim asylum in Europe. The Times Online reported that "the Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights. Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain. The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft."
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/04/08/yo-ho-ho-and-a-bottle-of-rum/

The Captain’s Journal has weighed in saying:
This is easy. We tell the LOAC and ROE lawyers that they’re special and that they should go to their rooms and write high-sounding platitudes about compassion in war so that they’re out of the way, we land the Marines on the ship, and we kill every last pirate. Then we hunt down his domiciles in Somali and destroy them, and then we find his financiers and buyers and kill them. Regardless of the unfortunate potential loss of Ukrainian or Russian civilian life upon assaulting the ship, this weaponry and ordnance should never have been shipped in this part of the world without escort (and perhaps it shouldn’t have been shipped even with escort). Negotiations will only serve to confirm the pirates in their methods. It’s killing time. It’s time to turn the United States Marines loose.

Ralph Peters has weighed in saying:
Piracy must be exterminated. Pirates aren’t folk heroes or champions of the oppressed. They’re terrorists and violent criminals whose ransom demands start at a million bucks. And they’re not impressed by the prospect of trials in a velvet-gloved Western court. The response to piracy must be the same as it was when the British brought an end to the profession’s "golden age:" Sink them or board them, kill them or hang them.

Lt. Col. P at OpFor has weighed in saying:

Kill all of the pirates.

Seriously. Why do we allow a handful of khat-addled assholes to dominate one of the world’s most important sea lanes? We, the western powers, have sufficient naval units in the area to take care of the problem in very quick order. What we lack is the will. We apply an idiotically high standard of judicial due process to a situation that doesn’t lend itself well to a judicial solution. Anyone who has dealt with Somalis can tell you that they laugh at western legalisms, and what they perceive as western weaknesses. And then they redouble their violent efforts to take what they want from you. They do react very well to a boot on their necks, and a gun to their heads. Then they tend to wise up quickly.
Here’s how it needs to be done. Oil tanker sends distress call, takes evasive actions insofar as it is capable. (Or better yet, armed men aboard oil tanker defend by fire.) Coalition forces despatch (sic) vessels and boarding parties. Pirates who survive ensuing gun battle are lined up by the rail and shot in the head, then dumped overboard. Pirate boats are burned. If their bases or villages on the coast can be identified, said bases are raided and destroyed. No fuss no muss, no ransom, no hostages, no skyrocketing costs.
Apparently, the lawyers don’t think like we do. But for the time being, the lawyers are setting the agenda.

[color and bold emphasis mine. lw]

http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/rules-of-engagement/

Map from www.noburqua.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

What Do the Pirates Say?

The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said
"We just saw a big ship," the pirates’ spokesman, Sugule Ali, said in a telephone interview. "So we stopped it."

"Killing is not in our plans," [Sugule] said. "We only want money so we can protect ourselves from hunger."

When asked why the pirates needed $20 million to protect themselves from hunger, Mr. Sugule laughed and said, "Because we have a lot of men."

In a 45-minute interview, Mr. Sugule spoke on everything from what the pirates wanted ("just money") to why they were doing this ("to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters") to what they had to eat on board (rice, meat, bread, spaghetti, "you know, normal human-being food").

He said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. "We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits," he said. "We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard."

He insisted that the pirates were not interested in the weapons and had no plans to sell them to Islamist insurgents battling Somalia’s weak transitional government. "Somalia has suffered from many years of destruction because of all these weapons," he said. "We don’t want that suffering and chaos to continue. We are not going to offload the weapons. We just want the money."
He said the pirates were asking for $20 million in cash; "we don’t use any other system than cash." But he added that they were willing to bargain. "That’s deal-making," he explained.
Piracy in Somalia is a highly organized, lucrative, ransom-driven business. Just this year, pirates hijacked more than 25 ships, and in many cases, they were paid million-dollar ransoms to release them. The juicy payoffs have attracted gunmen from across Somalia, and the pirates are thought to number in the thousands.

What Do Somali Officials Say?

The piracy industry started about 10 to 15 years ago, Somali officials said, as a response to illegal fishing. Somalia’s central government imploded in 1991, casting the country into chaos. With no patrols along the shoreline, Somalia’s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax.
"From there, they got greedy," said Mohamed Osman Aden, a Somali diplomat in Kenya. "They starting attacking everyone."
By the early 2000s, many of the fishermen had traded in their nets for machine guns and were hijacking any vessel they could catch: sailboat, oil tanker, United Nations-chartered food ship.
"It’s true that the pirates started to defend the fishing business," Mr. Mohamed said. "And illegal fishing is a real problem for us. But this does not justify these boys to now act like guardians. They are criminals. The world must help us crack down on them."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/africa/01pirates.html

Will These Somali Pirates Kill?

Somali Pirates Kill Three
By Annie Jacobsen
13 Dec 2008
Three crew members from the Greek chemical tanker MT Action have been killed by Somali pirates. From the Khaleej Times:
"Three of the crew members appear to have died in fishy circumstances," Andrew Mwangura, the head of the Kenyan arm of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
"Fishy circumstances" is an unfortunate euphemism for being killed. The boat has been released, minus three living humans.
The big question being tossed around at the Pentagon is, will the U.S. military use air power to attempt to curb the jihadist takeover of Somalia?
That was "Pre-Obama Thinking in U.S. About Somali Pirates"
www.theaviationnation.com/wp-content/images/p...

from The Washington Times:
Somali pirates are trained fighters who frequently dress in military fatigues and use speedboats equipped with satellite phones and GPS equipment. They are typically armed with automatic weapons, anti-tank rocket launchers and various types of grenades. Far out to sea, their speedboats operate from larger mother ships.
Most hijackings end with million-dollar payouts. Piracy is considered the biggest moneymaker in Somalia, a country that has had no stable government for decades. Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think-tank Chatham House, said pirates took up to $80 million in ransoms last year.
Before this latest hijacking, Somali pirates were holding 14 vessels and about 200 crew members, according to the International Maritime Bureau.

Is This Piracy Related to the Jihad? Connection to Al Qaeda?

Jihad Watch had this to say about this latest act:
As we have shown here before, this piracy is jihad-related. What will Obama do? Offer to talk without preconditions with the pirates? "Somali pirates hijack U.S.-flagged container ship," by Daniel Wallis for Reuters, April 8
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025578.php

More evidence that the supposedly "random" Somali pirate attacks are, in fact, associated with al-Qaeda's jihad. Incidentally, piracy as a jihadist activity has a pedigree at least as old as the Barbary conflicts with Europe and the United States, and the Islamic slave raiding pirates vividly described in Giles Milton's book White Gold.

"Al Qaida + Pirates = Jihad on the High Seas," from the Jawa Report, October 2:

Al Qaida has claimed responsibility for the increased pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia this year. So far this year there have been around 60 attacks against cargo ships in the Gulf of Aden, in 2007 there was 13. The islamic pirates are currently holding up to 300 crewmen hostage and 14 cargo ships for ransom.

It's the trifecta:
Somali pirates hijack cargo ships in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Then the pirates collect the ransom paid for the release of cargo ships and crewmen. This is known as jihad al-mal, monetary jihad.
Large sums of the ransom money goes to al Shabaab, the islamic Youth Movement. Al Shabaab uses the ransom money to fuel the jihad on land. Both groups are linked to al Qaida, it's all about the jihad.
H/T: Dinah Lord
From Frontpagemagazine:
In a recent communiqué, the Islamist organization claimed responsibility for this year’s surge in pirate attacks in the vital Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Dozens of vessels from different nations have been seized and held for ransom, shaking the world’s shipping industry. Al-Qaeda calls its maritime campaign "a new strategy which permits the mujahedeen" to hijack shipping, since "fighters who aspire to establish the caliphate must control the seas and the waterways."
Counterterrorism consultant Olivier Guitta revealed the al-Qaeda connection in his Asia Times column, writing that the terrorist organization "intends to take control of the Gulf of Aden and the southern entrance of the Red Sea." Guitta called the area "strategic" for the radical Islamic group.
Posted by Raymond [Ibrahim]
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022954.php

Find out
More about Recent Somali Pirate Attacks from the AP at http://ap.onlineathens.com/pstories/world/20090407/426785612.shtml

17,000-ton container ship Maersk Alabama, when it was operating under the name Maersk Alva, which has been hijacked by Somalia pirates with 20 crew members aboard, Wednesday April 8, 2009, while sailing from Salalah in Oman to the Kenyan port of Mombassa via Djibouti. (AP Photo/Polfoto, file)
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/08/somali-pirates-seize-21-american-sailors/

SUGGESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON "HOW TO STOP SOMALI PIRACY" AT:

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/somalia-piracy-backgrounder.html
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-interesting-gates-comments-on-lcs.html
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/04/09/piracy-the-only-solution/

Comment:

Her again we run into the old bugaboo: The Rules of Engagement (ROE). The one for dealing with the Somali pirates are designed not to stop piracy but to keep from killing the pirates.

The same goes for the ROEs forced on our troops at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The intent of these ROEs is to protect civilians from being killed. As irregulars such as the Taliban and other Moslems on jihad do not wear a uniform but must blend with the populace--as is the case with all guerrillas--this puts additional stress on troops in combat situations. It also kills troops on our side, while they are trying to save what could be innocent noncombatants.

The point of mentioning this here is that in the case of the Somali pirates as in the case of fighting the war against Islamic terrorists on jihad we want to fight without hurting or killing our enemies.

Wars are not won that way. Read about how World War II was won against Germany and then against Japan. Civilians were not targets, but neither were they spared. You want to break the will of your enemy, not show him how high-minded and moral you are and lose the lives of your troops.

If you want an example of how to fight a war and not win, no better example exists than Israel where moral highmindedness beats out winning to defend and preserve your people. Israeli soldiers are forced to take casualties in order to preserve the enemies' lives. House-to-house and room-to-room fighting is preferred by Israel to levelling positions from which enemy fire originates.

Of course, in the case of Israel, world opinion dictates the ROEs. As it appears it does in our wars and defensive or protective actions.

Did the Saudi king buy the U.S. via the "Presidency?" . . .

2009-04-07T02:32:00.000-07:00

. (you should pardon the expression--"presidency," I mean) or "Is it the Saudi's creature that occupies our white house?"

Photo title: "Submission"

"As you probably know the Koran calls for submission, hatred, violence, murder, terrorism and war. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims."
-Geert Wilders

from O-bow-ma and the Saudi King

by Ali Sina

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/04/04/o-bows/

[Excerpt]

The question that begs an answer is why a haughty man like Obama who snubbed the prime ministers of America’s closest allies, UK and Canada, to the point of rudeness is acting so slavishly towards the head of a religion and a country not so friendly to America?

Does Obama owe loyalty to Sheikh Abdullah? Did the latter finance his campaign? Obama spent nearly a billion dollars in his campaign. Never in history, a politician had this much money at his disposal to campaign. He never disclosed the source of that money. There were allegations that he received huge sums of illegal donations, mostly from Arab/Middle Eastern sources. There were also multiple donations of the maximum $2,000 dollar allowed, by the same donors. Could all these money have come from one source, the very man who Obama bowed so obsequiously to kiss his hand? Until an inquiry is made into the source of Oabama’s campaign financing we shall never know, but by the servile way he acted towards the King, we can guess that he was probably expressing his gratitude to his patron and sponsor.

I know every American with a grain of dignity will cringe seeing such an ignoble gesture of obeisance from their president towards the head of another state, particularly a state that hates them. I also know how Muslims rejoice watching America bow to Islam. This picture must be the wet dream of every Muslim.

Is Obama a closet Muslim? The jury is still out. But what is certain is that such a disgraceful act by an alleged American president towards the symbolic head of Islam is not a good omen. What concerns me is the hidden reality that may lie behind this gesture. Have Muslims succeeded to conquer America? Jihad can take many forms. Deception is one of them. Instead of waging a war that they knew would not win, they used deception. They bought the media, who in turn deceived the Americans, who with their own votes installs Islam’s Trojan horse, right in the White House. What a coup d’état?

Interestingly Saudis call any black man abd, (slave). Obama confirms their stereotyping. This buffoon, with all his pomposity and haughtiness at home and towards American allies, cannot act presidential when meeting his Arab masters. He reverts into his roots and acts like a slave. This must be the most disgraceful act by any American president in the history of America. Obama will bring more shame and dishonor on America and on the blacks than they bargained for.
More . . .

O-bow-ma and the Saudi King

Read the whole thing . . . and the Comments.

The Bush Islamic Doctrine

2009-04-04T03:16:00.000-07:00

The Bush Islamic Doctrine
from Political Islam
Posted in HomePage

We were introduced the power of political Islam on September 11, 2001. For a few people 9/11 was a declaration of war against our civilization and those people have been struggling against Islam. It is time to stop and ask: How are we doing? We are losing on every front.

A definition: Kafirs are the non-Muslims who are fighting against Islam. Dhimmis are the apologists for Islam—the media, Obama, George Bush, the professors, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis.

Why are the kafirs losing? Because Islam is so strong? No, because we are waging war with a strategy that is destined to fail. We are losing because we using a losing strategy. George Bush planted the seeds of our strategy when he declared that 9/11 was an act of terrorists and he laid out the strategy that would lead to our cultural self-destruction. Here is the Bush Islamic doctrine:

· Islam is a religion similar to Christianity. Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same god.
· The problem is terrorism, not Islam, hence, “The War on Terror.”
· There are moderate Muslims and a few extremist Muslims.
· A good Muslim means that Islam is good.
· “Radicals” cause the violence.
· Islam is found in the Koran.
· The “bad stuff” in the Koran is just how it is interpreted.
· Good Muslims will reform the “terrorists.”

Not a single item is true. Each and every one is false and has no basis in Islamic doctrine. But everybody bought it. Why? For the same reason that Bush said it. It was the academic doctrine of Islam that the Ivy League taught. The media, professors, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis had all been taught the same doctrine to interpret Islam. The Bush doctrine is not only unquestioned, but now has achieved the status of revealed truth. To deny it is to be a bigot.

So Bush did not create the doctrine, he was just a spokesman for the elites. There is a great irony in calling it the Bush doctrine, since more progressives/liberals/Leftists/Democrats believe it than do conservatives. Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama are advocates of the Bush doctrine.

Let’s see how the Bush doctrine works to prevent actual learning about the truth of Islam. Take the jihad in Mumbai, India where several Jews and hundreds of Hindus were injured and murdered. The words “Islam” and “Muslims” were barely mentioned by the media. The problem was terrorism, not jihad. The dhimmis did not want to malign the moderate Muslims by bringing up the Islam angle. It was just a few radicals who had highjacked Islam who attacked the kafirs in Mumbai.

How many mindless (mindless on the part of the Christians and Jews) interfaith dialogues have we seen? Religious leaders all get on stage and go on about how they worship the same god. Not one of these so-called Christian and Jewish leaders has actually read the Koran. It is the Koran that defines Allah and if you don’t know what is in it, you don’t know anything about Allah. But not to worry. The Bush doctrine holds it to be true and that is enough. What religious leader has had the time over the last eight years to read the Koran or the life of Mohammed? They have had plenty of time, but they don’t need to do so; they are comforted by the lies of the Bush doctrine.

The Cork in the Bottle
Let’s say that you are talking to a dhimmi and you bring up some evil of Islam. What do they say?

· Christians did bad things, too.
· There is violence in the Bible, too.
· They (jihadis) are some fundamentalist/radical types. All fundamentalists are bad. Most Muslims are just like everybody else.
· The ultimate mind cork: “I know this Muslim at work. He is nice. Subtext: I can’t hear you.” (A good Muslim means that Islam is good.)

Every thrust is parried with the Bush doctrine of Islam. The Bush doctrine is the cork in the bottle. Every time we try to pour some wine of truth into a dhimmi’s head, it is corked by the Bush doctrine.

Terror
And how have we responded to the Bush Islamic doctrine? For the most part, we have bought the Bush terror model of Islam. We try to stuff everything into terror/jihad. Since no one likes terror/jihad, it can be condemned. But Islam is very clever. There are four kinds of jihad—sword, pen, tongue and money. If they skip the terror part and go straight to the soft jihad, then the kafirs talking about the terror/jihad approach to Islam are soon ignored. The media skips the terror/jihad now. There have been numerous jihadist events in America, but the FBI and the media never admit that Islam is involved. The worst was Mumbai, India. It was pure jihad, the attack on the Jews proved that, but Islam and the Muslims were never mentioned. No Islam here. Move right along. There is no man behind the curtain.

The terror approach bears a relationship to crying “Wolf!” After while, no one really worries about terror and the lack of it proves that Islam is good.

The major problem with dealing with “terror” is that it takes away from watching the real destructive force in America—Sharia law and the slow Islamification of our culture.

Education and Debate
When you are trying to educate someone about Islam, it helps to go over the Bush doctrine and point out that not a single statement in it is true. Up front, challenge their beliefs.

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-bush-islamic-doctrine/

The current President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of United States armed forces, whom we rely on to protect us from the Islamics who seek to subjugate and destroy our country and us

Note: at least Bush bowed only his head, he did not grovel before Arabian "royalty"*

____________________________
*The muladí** Obama appears to be overwhelmed by the magnificence of the "guardians of the two holy places" (Also self-styled as "Guardians of Mecca and Medina" and “Guardians of The Two Holy Mosques.”

**[footnote within a footnote]
The Spanish and Portuguese word muladí is derived from Arabic muwallad. The basic meaning of muwallad is a person of mixed ancestry, especially a descendant of an Arab and a non-Arab parent, who grew up among Arabs and was educated within the Arab-Islamic culture

[Barack Hussein Obama is the issue of an Arab (Kenyan+Arab) and a non-Arab parent, who was educated within the Arab-Islamic culture (in Indonesia)]

___________________________
Photo of Obama bowing in awe before Arabs, the "True Moslems," courtesy of

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Obama Bows Before his Master
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/04/friday-afternoon-roundup-obama-bows.html

. . . and from The Muslim Question 2

comes this . . .

"We Can Safely Assume He’s Not A Jew"
by Lawrence of Bessarabia

The internet is awash of images of the President of the United States bowing in submission and subservience to the King of Saudi Arabia.

My first thought on seeing this was of Mordechai of Purim fame refusing to bow down before Haman, because as a Jew he bows only to The Lord.

We can safely assume now that Obama is no Jew.

http://tmqblog.com/2009/04/03/we-can-safely-assume-hes-not-a-jew/

Muslims Get Pork Banned at G20 Summit Banquet

2009-03-30T18:47:00.000-07:00

(. . . and at other places, especially in the UK)

Photo courtesy of http://islamicdangerhistory.blogspot.com/2008/02/moslems-riot-in-denmark-again-history.html

Story at Islam In Action: Muslims Get Pork Banned at G20 Summit Banquet
and at
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/islamic-supremacism-at-the-g20-summit.html

COMMENT:

Pork these Moslems! Pork 'em for trying to impose their ill-conceived "rules for living" on the world.

Based on a primitive's ramblings and remembrances of what he heard about the extant religions, these rules are as worthless as is the entire Islamic ideology--except for giving its followers permission to rob, rape, maim, kill, and overrun the lands of all those who do not follow it.

By placating these Mohammedans, our side loses the best weapon it has for survival: keeping these primitives separated from us.

This can be effected first by keeping Moslems out of our countries and countries and not allowing those already in them any special rights and privileges.

Second, Mohammedans must be allowed to stew in the cesspools of their own making without us giving them any relief.

Any aggressive action by Islamics outside of the areas they occupy must be punished with such severity that it will not be repeated.

We must look back on our history and use the same strategy and tactics that had beaten back Moslem forces and kept them confined in their areas before.

Keeping Islamic countries completely isolated at this time is not possible as they provide a market for armaments (Saudis etc.) and technology (Iran etc.) and other goods.

This opening is provided by Islamic purchasing power obtained through control of oil resources. Depriving Islamic control of major oil reserves or switching to alternate energy will alleviate this situation.

These actions must, at this time, be confined to a wish list. No Western government nor a majority of Western countries' populations appear to be willing to go down that road.

What can you, as an individual, or part of a pro-survival minority, do to keep Islam out of our lives?

Briefly, do not buy products from Islamic countries, do not deal with Islamic businesses in your country (e.g. Ethan Allen furniture) that finance the Islamic jihad, on a local level, do not give in to Islamic demands for special rights.

Support the availability of pork products, and pork those Islamics who demand that they be removed to follow the dictates of a mentally deranged primitive who lived in the 7th century.

. . . And see below

Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures
[This post has new IMPORTANT information added!]
. . . and it's getting drasticker and drasticker all'a the time!

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE REGARDING "HOW TO COMBAT ISLAM" THAT YOU WILL EVER READ!

BELIEVE ME! ('cause I've read a lot of 'em)

It ain't Politically correct, and it ain't nice. But then neither is Islam. So, take your pick.

The man who wrote these methods of counter-Islam speaks from experience.

Listen to him, PLEASE:

[Quote]

Islam is a primitive and brutish religion and unfortunately hence, only
primitive and
brutish methods work with islam

As a rule of thumb, muslims are peaceful as long as they are below a
certain
critical threshold
As soon as they cross that threshold, they are a menace

The key then is to dilute muslims below the critical mass

This critical mass is a function of the local kafir community

For example, among a sikh host, the critical % for muslims is about 65%
Among PC infected white Europeans, this critical % is 5%

The first and foremost is to recognise that the lands of islam are lost
forever
and the only thing to do is to evacuate the residual kafirs
A cordon sanitaire needs to be imposed on darul islam
mid-east Christians, bangladeshi hindus, etc this extra 20 - 30 million
kafirs
will dilute the muslims below critical mass
In addition, east asians, south americans can be imported to dilute
muslims
below critical mass

The next thing is to raise fertility of kafir women
In short we have to counter breed against islam
He that is born will die , she that is born will breed 5 , either as a
free
kafir woman now,
or inside an islamic harem later

This demographic surge of islam will end in 30 years, contain this and
islam
will implode
Muslims were 12% of the world in 1900, and 21% today, solely by
breeding

Islam is like a shark, to breathe, a shark has to swim, keep a shark
still
and it dies
Similarly a contained islam, unable to expand will implode from within

Next, is to import kafirs with a history of success against islamic
street
rioting
Importing Caribean blacks or Sikhs will do the trick
Indian Punjab was 33% muslim in 1947, the sikhs reduced it to 0% in 2
months
The sikhs used islamic method on muslims
When the sikhs ruled Pakistan, they shut down all the mosques and
mullahs
were thrown to
their deaths from minarets
When the mullahs declared jihad agains the sikhs, the sikhs invaded
Balakot
( near Afghanistan )
and cut up the chief mullah and burnt his body
The sikh general Nalwa used mass reprisal terror against muslim
civilians
and it was very effective
For any act of islamic terror, he burnt down the nearest muslim town
and no
one allowed to escape
The sikhs have an interesting method to prevent PC
The golden temple has a muslim atrocity museum
You can see sikh gurus tortured to death for refusing to convert to
islam
etc
This is kind of a holocaust museum
In addition, sikhs have a daily evening prayer called Ardas wherein
they
remember all the sikh victims of muslim atrocities

Next is a policy of active containment
For example strict law enforcement
In Gujurat, Modi has tamed the muslims by periodically cutting off
electricity to muslim areas
and getting them to sweat in the hot Indian sun
and giving the police a free hand to thrash muslims
Strict law enforcement has a side effect, each time the more jihadist
elements come out to protest, thrash them
and the rest get tame

Interestingly the only 2 areas in India free of islamic terrorism is
Indian punjab, where sikhs solved the problem in 1947 and Gujurat where Modi used
islamic methods on muslims

Also another tactic used by hindus in India is economic boycott
For example even in Mumbai, no hindu rents a house to a muslim

My favorite is guided tours of kafir women inside muslim ghettos, where
they can see lecherous islamists
in action first hand and get cured of PC

I would also advice on switching to bio-diesel
Jatropha grows in semi-desert and many trains and cars in India are
switching to biodiesel from Jatropha
Jatropha is far more effective than ethanol

I also suggest setting up pig abatoirs near muslim neighborhoods
Remove halal food from schools based on animal cruelty
Any other tactic for making their daily life miserable

Also consider unleashing Christian missionaries on muslim immigrants
Use rice-Christitianity methods, conversion for services

The spanish inquisition took 120 years to get spain rid of muslims
The sikhs managed it in east punjab in 2 months

But overall the main enemy is within
The politically correct, kafir needs to be defeated before islam can be
tackled

Please add links to http://www.bharatvani.org/

this has online books on islamic atrocities in India

[End of Quote]

Oh, and if you're wondering, "What did the Moslems ever do to the Sikhs to deserve such drastic treatment at their hands? Take a gander at

Islam in the Punjab of India
or, if this has been made unavailable by the Islam-intimidated censors,
http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/islam-in-punjab-of-india-moslem-mughals.html

And now here is what YOU can do.

STOP ISLAM!
AT HOME, HERE, NOW

BRITONS NEVER WILL BE SLAVES?
SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF VIKINGS WIMPS, SUBJECT TO ISLAMIC LAW?
THE FRENCH (Les enfants de la Patrie) RULED BY MUSULMANS?
DAS STOLZES DEUTSCHES VOLK (THE PROUD GERMAN PEOPLE) BEING BUFFETED ABOUT BY MOSLEM CLERICS?
TWICE THE TURKS WERE STOPPED AT THE GATES OF VIENNA, BUT NOW THE TURKS ARE FAR PAST VIENNA--THEY NOT ONLY WANT TO BE PART OF EUROPE (EU), THEY--AS MOSLEMS--WANT TO BE THE RULING IDEOLOGY OF EUROPE!

WE KNOW THE PROBLEM OF ISLAMICS OVERRUNNING AND TAKING OVER TERRITORY CAN AND MUST BE STOPPED!

BUT MANY OF US ARE LIVING UNDER LAWS THAT CAN BE USED BY THE JIHADISTS AGAINST US--TO SUBDUE US--TO SHUT US UP--AND ULTIMATELY TO FORCE US TO LIVE UNDER ISLAMIC LAW (SHARIA)

HOW CAN WE STOP ISLAM FROM TAKING OVER OUR COUNTRY?

1. Don't Rent to Moslems

Oh Heavens! Here in America (the U.S.), you are running head-on into the Fair Housing Laws. That is, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin.

So, what to do?

a. Pig images outside of building
b. Display Crosses
c. Keep plenty of dogs on premises
d. Display Stars of David
e. Display pictures of the Holy Virgin and Jesus
f. Festoon building with Christmas lights

2. Selling a House

a. Have dogs and running about the property when showing

To Repel Islamics in all Real Estate Transactions:

Use OUR seasonal symbols--much as crosses are used to keep vampires at bay--to repel Islamics. Halloween brings witches and goblin decorations but also lends itself to having pig masks about. Thanksgiving can be celebrated with images of kneeling pilgrims. Christmas and Easter are times of great religious outpourings with nativity scenes, palm crosses, etc. And don't forget the Hannukah menoras.

This holds whether you are religious or secular--be creative!

Now, I realize that all this is not PC. But, in time of need, the devil will eat flies (In der Noht, frisst der Teufel Fliegen).

I know, I know, there are some perfectly charming people who happen to be Moslem. I have known some myself. Probably (one hopes) that they will remain "perfectly charming" and not turn into nasty (and deadly) jihadists. But, how's one to know? How can we tell when the "nice" son (or daughter) of the Moslem family next door decides to join THE JIHAD?

We cannot. The only "moderate" Moslem is one that is no longer alive. If he (or she [Muslimah]) wakes up (while still alive) and sees how repulsive the ideology codified in the Koran is--and tried to leave Islam--becomes an apostate--he or she is under Islamic sentence of death.

In denying real estate--whether for a convenience store or for a MOSQUE--to Moslems, you will run into "Fair Housing" laws here in the U.S. Be creative. I will not publicly suggest that you circumvent any law. If you use the suggested techniques, you will not be doing so.

You must put economic self-interest aside--and be an idealist--or you will become a slave of Islam.

2. Economic Boycott

a. Don't Buy from Moslem Businesses

Do not deal with Moslems, no matter how doe-eyed and sweet, how polite, at convenience stores, gas stations, etc.

Do you know that Ethan Allen furniture is run by a Moslem? Sadly, this so-American brand name is not a true American firm. Its owner supports Islamic supremacy causes.

Do Not Buy Ethan Allen Furniture!

The practice of boycotting local Moslems is repulsive. It is reminiscent of what the Nazis did to Jews, The difference, however, is that while the Jews did not have an agenda for taking over the country, Moslems do.

Don't know whether it's a Moslem business?

Find them here:

Islamic Finder

or here:

Islam Finder

3. Local Action

a. No Mosques! Do not allow mosques to be built. Use ordinances, codes, zoning restrictions, etc. to keep this from happening.

Get involved in local government, school boards, neighborhood groups to keep the mosques out of your bailiwick.

b. Not only do NOT vote for, but actually oppose any Moslem candidate running for political office. No matter what party nominates him or her.

c. School Boards must not allow Ramadam or any religious dispensation for Moslems. No halal food in school cafeterias.

d. Organize attorneys to fight (pro bono, if possible) any attempts by Moslem groups to force ordinances or laws on local government such as removing crosses etc.

Even if you are secular, join with religious groups to oppose Moslem attempts to Islamicize. Make alliances with any group that has the same goal as yours--to keep Islam out of America.

e. Do not make Moslem friends, no matter how nice they are--at work, in the PTA, in the neighborhood. You will meet perfectly decent Moslems. Do not succumb! You are fighting to keep your country from going Islamic.

ISLAM IS NOT "JUST ANOTHER RELIGION," it is a foreign ideology whose proponents will eat you alive, if given half a chance!

f. Spread anti-Moslem sentiment among ethnic groups that are vulnerable to Islamic "missionaries" (Da'awa).

The Caribbean Africans suggested by my East Indian colleague COULD be vulnerable. Point out the Arab (Moslem) predeliction for slave trading. The Islamic references to blacks as "raisins" can serve you well there.

g. Keep Moslems from joining any lodge or Veterans organization to which you belong.

h. If you have any more ideas, post them here under COMMENTS [here] and I will add them.

[the foregoing is taken from http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/even-more-drastic-times-call-for-even.html]

Also see How to Stop Islamization--Drastic Times Call for Drastic Measures

ISRAEL AND THE WEST

2009-03-22T15:18:00.000-07:00

from the International Free Press Society

"I am not Jewish but…"

by Rupert Murdoch

[excerpt]

IN THE WEST, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States. Tonight I say to you: Maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel.

In this new century, the "West" is no longer a matter of geography. The West is defined by societies committed to freedom and democracy. That at least is how the terrorists see it. And if we are serious about meeting this challenge, we would expand the only military alliance committed to the defense of the West to include those on the front lines of this war. That means bringing countries such as Israel into NATO

The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.

In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace, who reject freedom and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb and the human shield.

Against such an enemy, I will not second-guess the decisions of a free Israel defending her citizens. And I would ask all those who support peace and freedom to do the same.

Adapted from a March 4 speech to the American Jewish Committee by [Rupert Murdoch] the chairman and CEO of News Corporation on receiving its National Human Relations Award.

http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/03/rupert-murdoch-waxes-eloquent-on-israel-and-the-west/