"Backlash & Islamophobia" Meets "Outreach & Bridge-building"

OIC: “legally binding institutional instrument”  needed to muzzle free speech about Islam and jihad

The Organization of the Islamic Conference continues to pretend that it is Western non-Muslims, not Islamic jihadists, who are responsible for the link between Islam and terrorist violence, and are hoping by means of laws against “incitement to religious hatred,” which are of course to be interpreted and applied by them, to render us mute and hence defenseless in the face of the advancing jihad. “OIC calls for urgent collective measures against Islamophobia,” by Habib Shaikh in the Saudi Gazette, September 27, via JW

Not a word about this:

Killing Christians in Somalia, Burning Bibles in Pakistan and Stealth Jihad

The mass media and the politically correct are in a spin because they cry “Islamophobia” but in the real world it is the followers of Islam who are slaughtering Christians in Somalia and it is only the Islamic faith which continues to kill apostates. Therefore, you had mass coverage about a pastor who was going to burn the Koran but you have a virtual silence about the annihilation of Christianity in Somalia and the burning of Bibles in Pakistan. (More)

FBI Escorts Known Hamas Operative Through Top-Secret National Counterterrorism Center as “Outreach” to Muslim Community  (pinch me: is this a nightmare or what?)

Sheikh Kifah Mustapha (third from left) touring the National Counterterrorism Center

A known Hamas operative and unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history – Kifah Mustapha – was recently escorted into the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and other secure government facilities, including the FBI’s training center at Quantico, during a six-week “Citizen’s Academy” hosted by the FBI as part of its “outreach” to the Muslim Community.   (Big Peace)
“Unidentified Muslim Men” Attack  Church in Karachi, Burn Bibles. (No Outrage)

Another shocking attack against Pakistani Christians has taken place, this time by a group of unidentified Muslim men who attacked the Nasri Pentecostal Church in Shah Latif Town, Karachi. (Continental News)

Barenaked Islam presents:


Backlash against Muslims who are trying to make the workplace shari’a compliant

PAKISTAN: Christian man burned alive, wife raped by police, because they refused to convert to Islam

The name of the man is Arshed Masih, and according to reports Islamic radicals tried to burn him alive right in front of a police station in the city of Rawalpindi. So did the police do anything to protect the Christian man? No, the police were too busy raping his wife. Now 80 percent of his body is burned and he is struggling to stay alive.

Vlad Tepes presents:

Student raped and left naked by roadside in Manchester

A Manchester student has been raped, beaten and left naked by the roadside in an attack police believe could have been carried out by a serial offender.   Continue reading /Al BeBeeCee

Ireland’s Catholic schools ban full Muslim veil

Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ireland have imposed a ban on Muslim girls covering their faces with a full veil.By Simon Caldwell Telegraph

marilyn manson burns the bible in front of huge crowd. No arrests.

Tim Blair

As she’s done previously, Elizabeth Farrelly presents a feminist challenge:

It is alarming to find one self agreeing with Fred Nile, especially on gender issues. But feminists should fess up. The burqa belongs in cultures that still have bride-price. It is an antediluvian title deed, an all-enveloping, owned sexual identity. It’s not for sale, because it is already bought and paid for.

3 thoughts on “"Backlash & Islamophobia" Meets "Outreach & Bridge-building"”

  1. What a joke that Saudi Arabia is asking others to take measures against Islamaphobia,
    The Saudi that have mosques around the world & do not allow any churches or synagogues on their land.
    The Saudi that finances Mosques & never comments on her Imams in many mosques that speech against Jews & Infidels.
    Truth & critics cannot be considered as Islamophobia.
    & Ideas cannot be fought by burning the books that contain them. Ideas and ideologies have to be fought by putting sound arguments against them. They can only be overcome by exposing their errors and/or immoralityot be considered Isamaphobia.
    Maybe money talk For many as per S.Arabia. BUT NOW TRUTH & FIGHT WILL CONTINUE as they continue believing in JIHAD against other’s religion.

  2. Hugh Fitzgerald on “Islamophobia”

    For a half-dozen years the Muslim states, who comprise the only suriviving bloc at the U.N., have been pushing this “Islamophobia” business. But the evidence, the daily Jihad News, of Muslim atrocities conducted against non-Muslims in the lands where Muslims rule, and of Muslim aggression and outrageous demands, in the lands where non-Muslims have not yielded to their new, and largely by now most disturbing guests (while the hosts whisper nervously to themselves: “What do we do now?” and “How do we get them to leave?” as those “guests” attempt to take over the first floor, and are even now eyeing the staircase to the second), for changes in the social arrangements and understandings, and legal and political institutions (including an end to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience as these are understood, and have been protected, in the advanced West), keeps piling up.

    A piece on “Islamophobia at the U.N.” at the time of the first UN conference on “Islamophobia” does not date:

    Fitzgerald: “Islamophobia” at the UN

    “When the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry — that is a sad and troubling development,” Annan said. “Such is the case with ‘Islamophobia.’

    The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety.”

    The “world” was not “compelled to coin a new term” — it was Muslims who coined the word, and they did so deliberately. For that word so deliberately kept undefined is merely a weapon employed to deflect criticism, to label all those who may offer criticism of Islam and of its adherents, basing their criticism not on some blind prejudice, but on their own observations and study. Indeed, the entire Western world — its political leaders, its media, its university departments of Middle Eastern studies — have all been engaged in a massive effort to deflect criticism or disarm it. It is despite all that that Infidels everywhere are coming to some conclusions about Islam, and the more they study, and the more they observe, and the more “Interfaith” gatherings and little Muslim Outreach evenings they attend, all of which end up being dismal exercises in Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque argumentation, the more wary, and critical, and indignant, and sometimes more, they become. The game is up. From a Beslan school full of children to a Bali nightclub full of revellers, from Madrid subways to Moscow theatres, from New York skyscrapers to Najaf mosques (where Sadr’s bezonians tortured, killed, and stacked the bodies of Iraqis who had opposed their reign of terror), from Istanbul to India, the evidence just keeps piling up. And the evidence, too, of what is actually in the Qur’an and hadith and sira — and how many Infidels, a few years ago, even had heard of the “hadith” and the “sira,” or had any idea what was really in the Qur’an, or had ever heard of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya — is now online, and it can easily be read. And all the excuses, all the nonsense, can no longer be offered up — for we Infidels, fortunately, have the guidance of defectors from Islam, ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq (whose own three-part guide, posted at Jihad Watch, to debating Muslims, and how not to be intimidated or snookered, will for many prove invaluable).

    Kofi Annan, as Oriana Fallaci notes in her Fallaci Intervista Fallaci, looks, on the surface, to be far more presentable, and far more decent, and far more intelligent — grey hair, gravelly voice, grave mien — than in fact he is. The words quoted above are the words of a simpleton. Perhaps Edward Mortimer, that early admirer of Khomeini and Nazi-Zionist conspiracy theorist, who feels a special responsibility to protect Islam, is the main puppet-master here, or perhaps it is Ms. Rishmawi (the “Palestinian” behind-the-scenes operative who was so influential with Mary Robinson, she of the antisemitic lynch-mob meeting in Durban in September 2001). Or perhaps it is Annan — the man who is responsible for more black African deaths than anyone since Leopold III of Belgium, who really thinks that the word “Islamophobia” came into use because it actually described a real, and deplorable condition — that is, unfair, unjust, prejudiced and irrational (i.e. without foundation, against reason and logic) phobia, or hatred, of Islam. What is unreasonable or irrational would be the opposite — that is, the continued inability of many Infidels to regard Islam as just another “religion” worthy of respect, perhaps at the edges a bit rough, but hijacked by a few extremists, or even many extremists, but having a decency at its core, a real religion of “peace” and “tolerance” as a number of Western leaders have insisted.

    If, upon reading and studying Qur’an and hadith and sira, and if, after looking around the world over the past few years, and if, after having studied the history of Jihad-conquest and Muslim behavior toward dhimmis — Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists — you do not feel a deep hostility toward the belief-system of Islam and toward its adherents (for the category of “moderate” is nearly meaningless, given the dangerous use to which “moderates” can be put in continuing to mislead the unwary Infidels), then it is you who are irrational, and need to have your head examined.
    Kofi Annan is not the worst secretary-general of the U.N. That prize, so far, goes to Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim. But Annan still has some months, or even years, to go. It may soon be neck-and-neck. It may be a photo finish. And that’s not all that will be finished.

    The word “Islamophobia” must be held up for inspection, its users constantly asked precisely how they would define that word, and they should be put on the defensive for waving about what is clearly meant to be a scare-word that will silence criticism.

    So let us ask them which of the following criticisms of Islam is to be considered “Islamophobia”:

    1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9 — because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

    2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advise as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

    3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya — would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?

    4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.

    5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels — all Infidels.

    6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying garb on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law — and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”

    7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.

    8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of the dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.

    9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.

    10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.

    11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty — and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.

    12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here — would you like me to read it now for the audience?

    13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.

    14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known — and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.

    15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.

    16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.

    17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want — whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.

    18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses — and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.

    19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete — with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.

    20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.

    21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform — except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.

    22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages — for example, from Leviticus — that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”

    23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.

    24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves.

    25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).

    26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated. “ I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.

    27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.

    I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

    If this is “Islamophobia” — show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

    [Posted by Hugh on December 14, 2004]

Comments are closed.