Help keep Sheik Yer’ mami shakin!

Ignorance:

“The chief weapon in the quiver of all Islamist expansionist movements, is the absolute necessity to keep victims largely unaware of the actual theology plotting their demise. To complete this deception, a large body of ‘moderates’ continue to spew such ridiculous claims as “Islam means Peace” thereby keeping non-Muslims from actually reading the Qur’an, the Sira, the Hadith, or actually looking into the past 1400 years of history. Islamists also deny or dismiss the concept of ‘abrogation’, which is the universal intra-Islamic method of replacing slightly more tolerable aspects of the religion in favor of more violent demands for Muslims to slay and subdue infidels”

The Koran Versus Mein Kampf

A recent comment thread here at PI compared Herr Hitler’s Manifesto from over 80 years ago, “Mein Kampf”, to that “holy of holies” to Muslims, the Koran. Commenters have noted the remarkable similarities between the two, and indeed, the resemblances are more than skin deep and are worth examining in more detail. A closer look at the facts reveals that Islam (not ‘Islamism’) and Nazism are two kindred ideologies with many, many commonalities.
Let’s start with titles. The very title of Herr Hitler’s tome means “My Struggle” in English. One could even entitle this book “My Jihad” and this Islamic term would have the same precise meaning. “Kampf” in a Nazi ideological context and “Jihad” in the Islamic one are almost identical. That in itself goes a long way to explaining why ‘Mein Kampf’ is still such a best seller in current times all over the Islamic World, including in supposedly ‘moderate’ Islamic states like Turkey.
But the similiarities between the Koran and Mein Kampf don’t just stop there. Far from it. Fellow blogger and ally Freedom Fighter over at his/her blog Joshua Pundit has come up with an exceptional, enlightning list of how alike Islam and Nazism really are:
Mein Kampf- States that Germans are the superior race of mankind and that Germany is destined to rule the world , and dominate all other races and nations.
The Q’uran-States that Islam and Muslims are the superiors of mankind and that Islam is divinely mandated to rule the world and dominate all other races, creeds and nations.

…
Mein Kampf-Says that the German State is to have control over every aspect of life. Says all individuals must submit to the State.
The Q’uran-Says that Islam and Sharia is to have control over every aspect of life. Says all individuals must submit to Islam.
…
Mein Kampf-Says that Germans have the duty to claim their divinely appointed place in the world by whatever means necessary. Puts loyalty to the Volk (the race) above all other ethical considerations.

The Q’uran-Says that Muslims have a duty to wage Jihad and to advance Islam’s domination over the world (Dar Islam and Dar Harb) by any means necessary. Places loyalty to fellow Muslims (Umma) and Islam above all other ethical considerations.

…
Mein Kampf-Mandates that men are superior to women and that women’s place should be limited to procreation, the kitchen and the home.

The Q’uran-Mandates that men are superior to women and that women’s place should be limited to procreation, the kitchen and the home. (Admittedly, the Q’uran goes quite a bit farther than Mein Kampf on this topic)

…
Mein Kampf-Says that homosexuals are ‘race traitors’ and should be condemned to death. (Many, in fact were murdered in the concentration camps).

The Q’uran-Says homosexuals are unholy to Allah and should be condemned to death

…
Mein Kampf-Sets out a detailed model for world conquest, including rules for how conquered peoples are to be suppressed and dominated by the German race. States that the wealth, resources and property of subject peoples belongs to Germans by right and the right to life for subject peoples is dependent on Germans. States that non-Germans have no legal or civil rights.

The Q’uran-Sets out a detailed model for world conquest, including rules for how conquered peoples are to be suppressed and dominated by Muslims. States that the wealth, resources and property of subject peoples belongs to Muslims by right and the right to life for subject peoples is dependent on Muslims. States that non-Muslims have no legal or civil rights. (in truth, a lot of this has its basis in the Hadith and the Sunna, but both derive essentially from what’s in the Q’uran, along with all the other aspects of Sharia).

…
Mein Kampf-Divides the world into ‘German land’ and enemy territory. States that land with Germans living in it or land that once had Germans ruling it rightfully belongs to Germany, and Germany is entitled to get it back by any means necessary.
The Q’uran-Divides the world into ‘Dar al Islam’ (Muslim ruled land) and enemy territory (Dar al Harb). States that land with Muslims living in it or land that once had Muslims ruling it rightfully belongs to Dar al Islam, and Muslims are entitled to get it back by any means necessary.
…
Mein Kampf-Blames the Jews for society’s ills and says that they will be exterminated.

The Q’uran-Blames the Jews for society’s ills and says that they will be exterminated. (”On the day of Judgement the rocks and trees will call out ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me! Come and slay him!”)

Islam and Nazism. Mohammed and Hitler. As plain as day, they are cut from the same cloth.

From the Pedestrian Infidel Blog

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Background and justification to Amendment 28Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:Article IThe social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.Article IIAs representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.Article IIIImmediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.Article IVNothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.*

One Cannot Serve Two Masters

Many of our current political leaders like to claim “Islam is a religion of peace.” They are mistaken; Islam is not a merely a religion nor is it peaceful. Islam is more than a religion - it is a complete way of life that combines religion, politics and law. Islam is unique among things calling themselves religions because it allows the use of violence, coercion and deceit to spread itself and to take control over other beliefs and systems[1]. Islam recognizes no other authority on Earth. It’s actually a supremacist system[2] which asserts that Muslims should rule over all other peoples by force if necessary. Islam lays claim to the whole of the earth as a gift from Allah to the ummah ( the nation of Islam)[3]. Jihad [holy fighting to further Allah’s agenda on earth] is compulsory for believing Muslims. Because of this, U.S. citizens who practice the whole of Islam are treasonous and those preaching Islam in its entirety are seditious.

Comparing the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights to Islam and sharia law shows they are antithetical and irreconcilable.

For instance:

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Contrast this with the Islamic law. People who leave Islam must be killed[4] by Muslims in authority. Muslims can also be tried and punished for not performing religious duties ( praying five times a day, attending Friday prayers at Mosques and so on.) Today in Saudi Arabia all religious texts other than Islamic ones are illegal to possess. The press has no guarantee of freedom or protection in any Islamic nation. Those Jewish and Christian people living under sharia are known as dhimmis, translated ‘protected peoples’, who must submit to the rule of Islamic law and must pay a protection tax called jizya[5] to remain in the good graces of their Muslim master. Religious minorities have no permanent protected rights under this arrangement if they fail to pay the jizya. No one, Muslim or otherwise, has the right to assemble or file grievances against the Islamic ruler. Disobeying the ruler amounts to disobeying Allah and that carries a death sentence.[6]

Property rights? We have Amendment 4 - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sharia provides none of this type of protection for Muslims, let alone dhimmi minorities.

Amendment 5 and 6 limit legal power against the defendant in legal matters.
Amendment 5 - […]nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - In all criminal prosecutions […] a public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, […]and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

In historic and current sharia practice evidence takes the form of the direct testimony of two male witnesses of good character (four in adultery cases). Circumstantial evidence and documents were usually inadmissible. Female witnesses were not allowed except in cases where they held special knowledge, such as childbirth. In such cases, two female witnesses were needed for every male witness and non-Muslims couldn’t testify against Muslims at all. Crimes against Muslims received harsher penalties than crimes against non-Muslims.

Amendment 7 guarantees trial by jury. Jury trials don’t exist in the Islamic system.

Amendment 8 prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, Allah commands crucifixion, amputation or exile for ‘mischief’ against Islam.[7] Stoning women for adultery is still carried out today under sharia in Iran. Hands continue to be amputated on thieves in Saudi Arabia as they have been since the seventh century. Other martial punishments like whipping are given for more minor offenses like alcohol use, an illegal substance under sharia. Islamic law also prohibits the charging of interest, music, gambling, representational art, photographic images of women and women themselves. Women are banned from complete participation in public life and are to be covered in various degrees according to geography and tradition.

Amendment 9 says the constitution shall not deny rights and Amendment 10 says - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Not so in Islamic nations. Power is concentrated in either the ruler[8] or the ulema, or the ruling council of Islamic scholars. They are the arbiters of Islamic law which comes from either the Qur’an, which is claimed to be the eternal, unchangeable word of Allah himself or from the Sunnah, or the body of Mohammed’s deeds and commands from either the Sirat e Rasullah [Mohammed’s biography by Ibn Ishaq] or the Ahadith [collections of reported sayings of Mohammed by, Bukhari, Muslim, Tabari and Ishaq]. All powers and rights belong to Allah alone.

Amendment 13 - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. […]

Sharia law continues to see slavery as valid, since the example of Mohammed and the Qur’an still show it as valid.

Also, Muslim men may have forcible sex with women they capture in jihad with Islam’s blessing.[9] In fact, slavery is the basic relationship of Islam. Humans are Allah’s slaves and Submission to the will of Allah is the purpose of life as stated in the Qur’an.[10] Indeed the name of the religion itself, Islam, means “Submission to the will of Allah”[11] as commonly understood in the Islamic world today.

Freedom of conscience to interpret, argue, discuss, criticize and debate are missing from Islamic tradition. Divine command theory, robot mentality, literalism, paranoia and conspiracy theories dominate Islamic traditions and thinking to this very day. Religious training and education on the whole amounts to rote memorization using the Islamic method. Mohammed actually told the people “Allah hates you for asking too many questions.”[12]

Separation of Church and State: This fundamental division of power began with Jesus of Nazareth and his “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Islam has the example of Mohammed, considered perfect, who had combined religious/ political/legal/social powers which came directly to Mohammed from Allah. Hence, political traditions in Islam stress authoritarianism and theocracy.

Islam is the concentration of religious/political/legal power into a person or persons ‘divinely chosen’ and this is the very thing the patriots of 1776 fought against. Islam is not compatible with the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the whole of American Experience. The Constitution and its Bill of Rights are designed to separate political powers, limit them at the federal level, defend individual and minority rights, ensure property rights, separate religion from government and provide protection for the freedoms of religion, conscience and expression. Islam and sharia law protect the rights of the Muslim collective at the expense of religious minorities and institutionalize unequal treatment under the law based on gender or religious belief. Islam does not protect the individual or minority in their physical well-being or in property rights. Sharia attempts to regulate everything, from trivial details of how to use the toilet all the way up to how a Caliphate should be established to rule the world. Islam is an all-encompassing rule for life to be followed without question. This is the exact opposite of a system which protects the individual’s rights of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Islam stands for slavery while the U.S. Constitution stands for liberty. They are diametrically opposed and incompatible. A person can’t simultaneously believe in Islam and the founding principles of the United States.

Endnotes

[1] Qur’an 8.39 PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution[al-fitnah or disbelief and worshipping things other than Allah] is no more, and religion is all for Allah.[…]

Hadith Sahih Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’”

Qur’an 9:3 YUSUFALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans.[…]
Hadith Sahih Bukhari:V5B59N369 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslamah got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes,’ Maslamah said, ‘Then allow me to say false things in order to deceive him.’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say such things.’”

[2] Qur’an 3.110 YUSUFALI: Ye are the best of peoples [Muslims], evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

[3] In his Sahih, Imam Muslim recorded that Thawban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) as saying: “Almighty Allah has gathered the earth for me so that I could see all its corners. My nation will rule over all that which Almighty Allah has gathered for me.” http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545004

[4] Hadith Sahih Bukhari, V4B52N260: Ali burnt some people alive [former Muslims][..] the Prophet had said, ‘If somebody [a Muslim] discards his religion, kill him.’ “

[5] Qur’an 9.29 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [protection tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

[6] Hadith Sahih Bukhari V9B89N251 Whoever obeys me , he obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, he disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, he obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, he disobeys me.”

[7] Qur’an 5.33 YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world […]

[8] Hadith Sahih Bukari V9B89N258: The Prophet said, “A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it.
Hadith Sahih Bukhari V9B89N256: Allah’s Apostle [Mohammed] said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

[9] Qur’an 33.50 YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee […]

[10] Qur’an 51.56 PICKTHAL: I created the jinn [magical beings made from fire, i.e. ‘Genies’] and humankind only that they might worship Me.”
Qur’an 35.31 PICKTHAL: As for that which We inspire in thee of the Scripture, it is the Truth confirming that which was (revealed) before it. Lo! Allah is indeed Observer, Seer of His slaves.

[11] Islam is `the religion of peace’ because: the Arabic word Islam is derived from the Arabic word “Al-Salaam” which means peace.
It might seem strange to think of this as a misconception, but in fact it is. The root word of Islam is “al-silm” which means “submission” or “surrender.” It is understood to mean “submission to Allah.” http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html#HEADING1

[12] Hadith Sahih Bukhari:V2B24N555 “I heard the Prophet say, ‘Allah hates for you for asking too many questions.’”

Posted by ZackHighstreet

*

Europe Thy Name is Cowardice -

Veridical Snopes Translation

Commentary by Mathias Döpfner

A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, “Europe — thy name is appeasement.” It’s a phrase you can’t get out of your head because it’s so painfully true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word “equidistance,” relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim holiday.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, and Bush — supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair — recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in history will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road.

In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily [Germany's former Federal Minister of the Interior] justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we’re so moral? I fear it’s more because we’re so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy — because everything is at stake.

Yet while America’s so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive. We’d rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to “Reach out to murderers.” These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
****
German original
http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article353728/Europa_-_dein_Name_ist_Feigheit.html

20. November 2004, 00:00 Uhr
Von Mathias Döpfner

Europa - dein Name ist Feigheit

Der Kommentar
dein Familienname ist Appeasement!”, schrieb vor einigen Tagen Henryk M. Broder in der “Welt am Sonntag”. Ein Satz, der einem nicht mehr aus dem Kopf geht, weil er so schrecklich richtig ist.

Appeasement kostete Millionen Juden und Nichtjuden das Leben, weil die Alliierten in England und Frankreich zu lange verhandelten und zögerten, bis sie merkten, daß man Hitler nicht einbinden, sondern nur bekämpfen kann. Appeasement stabilisierte den Sowjetkommunismus und die DDR, indem Teile Europas den inhumanen Unterdrückungsstaat zur ideologischen Alternative verklärten. Appeasement lähmte Europa, als im Kosovo der Völkermord wütete und man so lange debattierte, bis die Amerikaner dort unsere Aufgaben erledigten. Europäisches Appeasement, getarnt in dem Nebelwort “Äquidistanz”, relativiert in Israel die Selbstmordattentate fundamentalistischer Palästinenser, anstatt die einzige Demokratie im mittleren Osten zu schützen. Appeasement prägt die Mentalität, wenn Europa im Irak über die 300 000 von Saddam ermordeten und gefolterten Opfer hinwegsieht und in friedensbewegter Selbstgerechtigkeit George Bush schlechte Noten erteilt. Und Appeasement in seiner groteskesten Form ist es schließlich auch, wenn man auf die eskalierende Gewalt islamistischer Fundamentalisten in Holland und anderswo mit dem Vorschlag reagiert, in Deutschland doch einen muslimischen Feiertag einzuführen.

Was muß noch passieren, bis die europäische Öffentlichkeit und das politische Führungspersonal realisieren: Es herrscht eine Art Kreuzzug, eine besonders perfide, auf Zivilisten konzentrierte, gegen unsere freien, offenen, westlichen Gesellschaften gerichtete System-Attacke fanatisierter Muslime. Ein Konflikt, der voraussichtlich länger dauern wird als die großen militärischen Auseinandersetzungen der letzten hundert Jahre. Geführt von einem Gegner, der sich nicht durch Toleranz und Entgegenkommen bezähmen läßt, sondern den solche Gesten, mißverstanden als Zeichen der Schwäche, nur anspornen.

Zwei amerikanische Präsidenten der jüngeren Vergangenheit hatten den Mut zu dezidiertem Anti-Appeasement: Reagan und Bush. Reagan beendete den Kalten Krieg, Bush erkannte - unterstützt nur von dem sozialdemokratischen Überzeugungspolitiker Tony Blair - die Gefahr des islamistischen Kampfes gegen die Demokratie. Seine historische Rolle wird in einigen Jahren zu bewerten sein.

Europa macht es sich einstweilen gemütlich in der multikulturellen Ecke, anstatt mit charismatischem Selbstbewußtsein die Werte der liberalen Gesellschaft zu verteidigen und im Spannungsfeld der wirklichen Weltmächte - Amerika und China - als attraktives Kraftzentrum zu agieren. Wir dagegen profilieren uns als Weltmeister der Toleranz gegenüber den Intoleranten, wie auch Otto Schily zu Recht kritisiert. Warum eigentlich? Weil wir so moralisch sind? Zu befürchten ist eher: weil wir so materialistisch sind.

Bush riskiert für seine Politik eine Abwertung des Dollar, eine zu hohe Verschuldung des Staates, eine massive und nachhaltige Belastung der amerikanischen Volkswirtschaft - weil es ums Ganze geht.

Doch während die angeblich so materialistischen Raubtierkapitalisten in Amerika ihre Prioritäten kennen, schützen wir die Pfründe unseres ängstlich verteidigten sozialen Wohlstandes. Bloß nicht einmischen, das könnte teuer werden. Da diskutieren wir lieber über die 35-Stunden-Woche, Zahnpflegeversorgungsansprüche und hören Fernsehpastoren zu, die den “Mördern die Hand reichen” wollen. In diesen Tagen erinnert Europa manchmal an eine alternde Tante, die ihre zittrigen Hände um ihre letzten Juwelen legt, während ein Räuber gerade bei den Nachbarn einbricht. Europa - dein Familienname ist Feigheit.

*

The myth of the ‘moderate’ Muslim

How do we avoid linking, if not equating, Muslim terrorists with practitioners of Islam the world over? The “silent majority”, as Brigitte Gabriel calls them, are the ones who in many ways make the violence possible. They say the same prayers. They go to the same mosques. They hear the same imams. They read the same holy book. Most, if not all, know who the radicals are because they are their parents, children or siblings. The “silent majority” support the Muslim charities and they know who is involved in terrorist planning but they stay silent. Silence is one form of approval. They will live with the benefits of a Muslim victory over the West. They will gladly accept the jizya and live off the fruits of non-Muslim labor. Peace can only exist between Muslims, not between Muslims and others.

*

The Vilification of Israel and the Jooozzz

The elitist leftist anti-semites are continuing the centuries-old tradition of demonizing and scapegoating the Jews. The old vilification was to accuse the Jews of deicide, which in a religious age was a most serious accusation. When natural disasters occurred in Europe, the Jews were accused of causing them. The communists accused the Jews of being rootless cosmopolitans, and the nazis accused the Jews of being communists. During the Nazi Holocaust, there was the demonization of the Jews by denouncing them as untermenschen, sub-human. This went beyond racism, into sub-humanism.

The neo-antisemitism of today continues the villification of the Jews, by demonization and scapegoating.

In the post-colonial era of today, the most extreme charge is racism, so the Jewish state is accused of being the new Nazi racist regime. That is the essence of Ward the Fraud’s (Ward Churchill) accusation, as well as the charge of some German church officials who visited the Middle East, and of neo-antisemites of continental Europe. That satisfies the European urge to blame the European Holocaust on its victims.

In Great Britain, which at one time used to boast that the sun never sets on the British empire, the neo-antisemites accuse the Jewish state of imperialism, colonialism, and racism, all of the things that Britain is expunging from its conscience. That is, when a Jewish family moves in Jerusalem from the Mea Shirim neighborhood, to a short distance away in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem, that’s imperialism, colonialism, and racism according to the neo-antisemites among the elite left of Britain. Can you equate a state (Israel) that is the size of New Jersey with a British empire on which the sun never set? It is ridiculous. Ward the Fraud does it too, but he prefers to use the Nazi imperialism in his equation concerning the Jews, in order to more strongly smear the Jews. To demonize Israel further, the elite leftist neo-antisemites of the UK (for example, those that head the unions of the UK) equate the Jewish state with apartheid South Africa — simply because it is the strongest charge in the post-colonialist anti-racist era.

Another vilification, this time of the scapegoating variety, is the accusation in the UK that the Jews are responsible for the global jihad and for islamofascism. They cannot believe that the perpetrators are responsible; it must be that the Jews are causing this. And on the TV hit piece by Amanpour called “God’s Jewish Warriors”, Amanpour herself said that the Jews have inflamed the Muslim world (which is her echo of the neo-antisemitic charge that the Jews have caused the global jihad and islamofascism). The reason for this scapegoating is the perception finally in the UK that the global jihad is a threat, and that islamofascism is a threat. So it is necessary for the neo-antisemites to scapegoat the Jews once more and blame them for this threat of the global jihad and of islamofascism.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

*

The Wankers from the ‘FREE PRESS”

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” -Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson said that long ago, and it is more true now than at any time in our country’s history.
But at what point did our press go so badly wrong?

The American Society of Newspaper Editors, in 1922, established their ‘Canons of Journalism’ spelling out what they considered to be the standards by which journalists operated, and the ideals to which the journalistic profession adhered. The ideals included the upholding of freedom of the press and thus the encouragement of the free debate which is essential in a democratic republic.

At their 16th annual meeting in 1938, the ASNE felt compelled, in view of developments in the world (this was on the eve of World War II, with the rise of totalitarian governments in Europe, of course) to reaffirm their principles.

Unfortunately all citizens do not think through the meaning of a free press. Too many regard it as merely the profitable privilege of publishers, instead of the right of all the people and the chief institution of a representative government. A free press is that privilege of citizenship which makes governmental dictatorship impossible. When editors fight for the liberty to speak and write, they fight for the greatest of all human rights under government. He is not thoughtful who cannot see that democracy cannot exist except through the maintenance of a channel through which information can flow freely from the center of government to all the people and through which praise and criticism can flow freely from the people to the center.

In view of what we believe to be this growing lack of appreciation on the part of the public of the true value and functions of a free press, we hold that the members of this Society should carry on a constant campaign for the purpose of making the average citizen more acutely aware that a free press is not principally the editor’s privilege for himself alone, but his right and mandate to be of the utmost service to his fellow citizens in a republic.

While we abhor every sort of government citizenship that exists elsewhere and every suggestion of it that has been made or could be made in the United States, we take upon ourselves the responsibility of a censorship of good taste which will lead us away from such invasion of privacy as is not absolutely warranted by the public welfare.

We take upon ourselves a censorship that will lead to the elimination of propaganda.

We take upon ourselves a censorship that will lead to greater accuracy in the reporting and presentation of the news.

It has been well-said that “The press must stand guard over itself that it may be worthy to stand guard for the public.”

We call upon all editors, then, to recognize a growing criticism, to face it fairly, to set their houses in order, to be governed by good taste, a sense of justice, by complete devotion to the public interest, and to toil unceasingly to educate our readers to such a sense of the value of a free press in America that the citizens of this republic shall become the willing cooperators, the fellow warriors, in a never-ceasing fight for the maintenance of democratic institutions.”

*

The statement of principles was further revised in 1975.
The revised principles emphasized freedom of the press, and the principles enumerated in the document included responsibility, independence, truth and accuracy, impartiality, and fair play. So far, so good; there is not much to disagree with there.

Contrast their statement of principles with the mission statement which is on their website today.

ASNE’s priorities are:

* To protect First Amendment rights and enhance the free flow of information.
* To drive the quest for diversity and inclusion in the workplace and newspaper content.
* To promote the newspaper’s role in providing information necessary to the informed practice of citizenship.
* To encourage innovation and celebrate creativity in newspapers.
* To respect and encourage the involvement of all its members.
[...]
Continue to emphasize core values.
Awareness of the First Amendment and the role of the press in society.
Freedom of information.
Newspaper coverage of elections and other issues of democracy.
Diversity in newsrooms and news coverage.
Accurate, fair and complete news reports.
[Emphasis mine]

Notice the current emphasis on diversity. A page is devoted just to ‘Diversity’.

And here is the statement on newsroom diversity, from which I have excerpted:

While American newsrooms have become more diverse in recent years, newspapers will fall short of achieving racial parity in newsrooms with the population by 2000.

ASNE reaffirms its commitment to racial parity in newsrooms and to full and accurate news coverage of our nation’s diverse communities. The Society urges everyone in journalism — newsroom professionals, publishers, educators, journalism associations and others — to join the quest for greater newsroom diversity.

ASNE has adopted the following mission statement on newsroom diversity:

To cover communities fully, to carry out their role in a democracy, and to succeed in the marketplace, the nation’s newsrooms must reflect the racial diversity of American society by 2025 or sooner. At a minimum, all newspapers should employ journalists of color and every newspaper should reflect the diversity of its community.

The newsroom must be a place in which all employees contribute their full potential, regardless of race, ethnicity, color, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability or other defining characteristic.”

The Society of Professional Journalists also emphasizes ‘diversity’
And read the diversity guidelines:

On Oct. 6 at its National Convention in Seattle, the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to reaffirm their commitment to:

— Use language that is informative and not inflammatory;

— Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences;

— Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C.

[...]Visual images

— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing rescue and other public service workers and military personnel.

— Do not represent Arab Americans and Muslims as monolithic groups. Avoid conveying the impression that all Arab Americans and Muslims wear traditional clothing.

— Use photos and features to demystify veils, turbans and other cultural articles and customs.

Stories

— Seek out and include Arabs and Arab Americans, Muslims, South Asians and men and women of Middle Eastern descent in all stories about the war, not just those about Arab and Muslim communities or racial profiling.

— Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks.

— Make an extra effort to include olive-complexioned and darker men and women, Sikhs, Muslims and devout religious people of all types in arts, business, society columns and all other news and feature coverage, not just stories about the crisis.

— Seek out experts on military strategies, public safety, diplomacy, economics and other pertinent topics who run the spectrum of race, class, gender and geography.

— When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity.

— Do not imply that kneeling on the floor praying, listening to Arabic music or reciting from the Quran are peculiar activities.

— When describing Islam, keep in mind there are large populations of Muslims around the world, including in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, India and the United States. Distinguish between various Muslim states; do not lump them together as in constructions such as “the fury of the Muslim world.”

— Avoid using word combinations such as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim extremist” that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity.

And on and on it goes; read the rest for yourself if you can endure it, although it’s all rather predictable.

*

We all know that the media is self-consciously doing these things; there is a dominant leftist mindset that pervades journalism these days. And we don’t have to read websites like those linked above to know that there is an agenda; there is a glaringly obvious pattern to the way our ‘free press’ tells these stories.

It is no accident that our newspapers are full of stories about ‘diversity’ and ‘underrepresented communities’ and poor suffering immigrants and ‘hate crimes’.

The TV cable news channels are just as biased, except that they are more monotonous in repeating and repeating the same insignificant stories to the point of nausea; for example, the ridiculous live coverage of Paris Hilton’s arrest or court appearances. The world is full of momentous events and issues these days, and our TV cable channels can give us mostly gossip and empty celebrity stories alternated with propaganda. It’s hard to escape the impression that the TV ‘news’ channels are mainly designed to distract us from the important events of our times. They are meant to keep our attention focused on the trivial and the vacuous and the tawdry, while our world is rearranged and overturned.

Go back and read the early Statement of principles by the ASNE back in 1938; their talk of the vital importance of a free press as the line of defense against a dictatorial government is ironic, when we look at how very unfree our press is now. While at times, the mainstream ‘old media’ play at being adversarial towards our present administration, in most respects it seems as though the media and our present rulers are all singing from the same hymnbook: they are all singing the praises of holy diversity and multiculturalism and tolerance. There is no balanced viewpoint in the traditional media; the blogosphere is now the last line of defense against the monolithic ideology that dominates our ‘free’ press.

The old media and the journalism profession today are as hollow in their pretensions to honesty as was Pravda in the old days of the Soviet Union. The fact is, they are purveyors of a totalitarian ideology, as was Pravda, and no dissenting viewpoints are allowed to be presented.

Their choice of stories also seems to reflect the leftist agenda, with a constant returning to themes such as ‘discrimination’ towards victim groups: gays, immigrants, especially non-white, non-Christian immigrants. There are never any stories depicting the negative effects of immigration on the majority American citizens. Where are the stories telling of the people who have lost their jobs to illegals, people like the construction workers who have almost all been displaced, in some areas, by crews of cheap illegal labor? Or the meatpackers, whose once well-paying union jobs have been given to illegals who work for half the wages or less? What about the disabled people who are waiting years, in some cases, for subsidized housing because of the large number of immigrants who are added to the waiting lists? The media never tells us these stories.

The media answer critics who complain of leftist bias by the token inclusion of a few safe ‘conservative’ writers, the ones who never question Holy Diversity or Open Borders or the gay agenda. These PC ‘castrated conservatives’ as Carleton Putnam called them represent their excuse for balance.

Despite the presence of a few tired ‘conservative’ columnists who crank out pro-administration boilerplate, there are precious few real conservative voices in the regular media. The reporting , however, is almost always slanted toward leftist themes: exploited, suffering immigrants, poverty, racism, ‘hate groups’, global warming, and so on. We all know the constant refrains.

And the idea of hiring ‘diversity’ reporters seems to be meant to promote particularistic minority points of view at the expense of the majority. Some newspapers hire gays to present the gay point of view, while black columnists write about the ‘African-American community’. Notice that increasingly stories on immigration and border issues are written by people with Hispanic names. No bias there, I’m sure. And now there are many Moslem-sounding bylines, often writing stories about the ‘Muslim community’. The implicit assumption here is that whitey can’t write an unbiased story, so we hire ‘diverse’ reporters to report on their own ‘communities’ — but obviously they are presenting a biased point of view. Pro-minority bias is good, in the old media’s perspective; it’s to be preferred. There seems to be an effort to get us accustomed to having these different minority groups interpret reality for us, and to condition us to loss of majority status.

This recent article from Jakarta Post discusses the media’s role in monitoring ‘hate and xenophobia’:

More than 80 media practitioners are meeting here Monday and Tuesday for the second Global Inter-Media Dialog to discuss this particular issue.

With the theme, “Primetime Diversity — Journalism in a Troubled World”, the gathering is facilitated jointly by the Norwegian and Indonesian governments, and it follows the successful inaugural dialog held in Bali last year.

“The media must transform diversity, which is a fact of life, into pluralism, which is a set of values,” Dodou Diene, a top United Nations official, said during the meeting’s opening day.

Societies must recognize, accept and then defend and promote diversity, said the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and related intolerance.
[...]
He noted with concern how xenophobia and racism had found their way into the election platforms of political parties in some European countries, and that once elected they would push to turn their anti-immigration agendas into policy.

He also attacked scholars who give intellectual legitimacy to racism and xenophobia, singling out Harvard University professor Samuel Huntington, who wrote about the so-called “Latin threat” to the U.S. in a recent book.”

There you have it: the UN has decided this is to be a worldwide agenda, but focusing of course on European and European-derived countries which are resisting the global, open-borders agenda.

There seems to be no escaping this relentless push.

Reading newspapers has become a grueling chore for me these days: I read many newspapers for the sake of keeping a finger on the pulse, but there is always the necessity of filtering what I read, and taking much of it with copious amounts of salt, because of the ever-present bias. Reading the old media, and watching the cable news channels, and local news, is something which I find truly tedious and grim.

Do they know, these media people, how odious their ‘product’ is to many viewers and readers? Do they care? They seem to value the agenda more than profitability, which makes no sense from the business point of view.

If ‘diversity’ is so all-important to these media drones, why on earth is there so little real diversity in their ideas, in the themes they present, in their word choice, in the viewpoints they allow to be expressed? It is all so wearyingly uniform and drably predictable. If real diversity were valued, we would see a much more varied picture of our world in the media; we would have a multiplicity of ideas and opinions presented, and a much freer exchange of ideas. We would have a much greater range of voices.

The blogosphere is stepping into that void, providing that range of voices which the mainstream media shut out.

A couple of weeks ago, the L.A. Times ran this piece which slammed bloggers, specifically bloggers who presumed to undertake criticism, and write book reviews. The writer sniffs that this art should not be attempted by amateurs. He says dismissively that blogging is somewhat like fingerpainting.

Most of us who blog are used to this kind of sneering superiority from those who consider themselves professionals and artists of the word. And it’s understandable that they feel threatened: how dare the amateurs infringe on their territory? The fact that newspaper readership is dwindling all over the country, and that many newspapers are foundering, surely gives the professional journos a sense of insecurity.

If blogging is like fingerpainting as Schickel says, then I suppose what the professional journos, with their ‘diversity guidelines’ and politically correct templates, are doing is the verbal equivalent of paint-by-numbers.

Surely deep down they must be envious that the blogger is much more free to write from the heart and write the truth, whereas the journalists, God help them, are condemned to keep rewriting the same old stale PC template stories again and again and again. How many times can they write the ‘Muslim community fears backlash’ story or the ‘Immigrants fear ICE raids’ story or the ‘Migrant workers exploited’ story? How many times can they write the ‘School officials troubled by achievement gap’ story?

The fact is, the blogosphere arose because the once-free press gave up its freedom and its commitment to truth and accuracy and chose to undertake a leftist social engineering project. Instead of being commited to a pursuit of the facts and an honest presentation of those facts to the public, the old media began to regard themselves as some kind of moral arbiters, who have to oversee the ignorant masses, and herd them in the correct direction. They began to position themselves as teachers and preachers, rather than as fact-collecters and reporters. Instead of restricting the didactic pieces to the Op-ed pages, almost all ‘news stories’ are full of editorializing and preaching, presenting a consistent, liberal point of view.

And yes, we bloggers editorialize and preach, but at least we offer another side to the story, and we don’t hide our editorializing and pretend it’s objective reporting as the dishonest old media do.

If bloggers are so resented by the ‘respectable’ old media, then they should stop and think why people increasingly turn to the Internet for their news and the blogosphere for commentary and discussion. If the media find bloggers to be a thorn in their side, good. In a just world, that would provoke the old media to reconsider what they are doing wrong, and try to correct it. But I think they are beyond correction, so they must decrease while the bloggers increase. And are the media really free to change anyway? Far from being the independent press that our Founders foresaw, they are basically just the creatures of globalist big business and their leftist One World partners.
*

In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Who ever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” - Benjamin Franklin

Our freedom of speech has been subdued in the ‘respectable’ media, and the Internet, being the last bastion of free speech, will now be the focus of the next struggle. It’s important that we prepare to deal with the continued assault on our free speech as it moves on to the next phase.

Muslim Students ‘being taught to despise unbelievers as filth’

Pupils protest as college linked to Iran puts fundamentalist text on curriculum, reports our correspondent
By Sean O’Neill
MUSLIM students training to be imams at a British college with strong Iranian links have complained that they are being taught fundamentalist doctrines which describe nonMuslims as “filth”.
The Times has obtained extracts from medieval texts taught to the students in which unbelievers are likened to pigs and dogs. The texts are taught at the Hawza Ilmiyya of London, a religious school, which has a sister institution, the Islamic College for Advanced Studies (ICAS), which offers a degree validated by Middlesex University.

The students, who have asked to remain anonymous, study their religious courses alongside the university-backed BA in Islamic studies. They spend two days a week as religious students and three days on their university course.

The Hawza Ilmiyya and the ICAS are in the same building at Willesden High Road, northwest London — a former Church of England primary school — and share many of the same teaching staff.

They have a single fundraising arm, the Irshad Trust, one of the managing trustees of which is Abdolhossein Moezi, an Iranian cleric and a personal representative of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme religious leader.

Mr Moezi is also the director of the Islamic Centre of England in Maida Vale, a large mosque and community centre that is a registered charity. Its memorandum of association, lodged with the Charity Commission, says that: “At all times at least one of the trustees shall be a representative of the Supreme Spiritual Leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Both the Irshad Trust and the Islamic Centre of England Ltd (ICEL) were established in 1996. Mr Moezi’s predecessor as Ayatollah Khamenei’s representative, another cleric called Mohsen Araki, was a founding trustee of both charities.

In their first annual accounts, lodged with the Charity Commission in 1997, the charities revealed substantial donations. The Irshad Trust received gifts of £1,367,439 and the ICEL accepted an “exceptional item” of £1.2 million.

Around the same time, the ICEL bought a former cinema in Maida Vale without a mortgage. Since then it has received between £1 million and £1.7 million in donations each year which, it says, come from British and overseas donors. The centre declined to say if any of its money came from Iran.

Since 2000, its accountants have recorded in their auditors’ report on the charity’s accounts that they have limited evidence about the source of donations.

The links between the two charities and Iran are strong. The final three years of the eight-year Hawza Ilmiyya course are spent studying in colleges in the holy city of Qom, the power base of Iran’s religious leaders.

The text that has upset some students is the core work in their Introduction to Islamic Law class and was written by Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, a 13thcentury scholar. The Hawza Ilmiyya website states that “the module aims to familiarise the student with the basic rules of Islamic law as structured by al-Hilli”.

Besides likening unbelievers to filth, the al-Hilli text includes a chapter on jihad, setting down the conditions under which Muslims are supposed to fight Jews and Christians.

The text is one of a number of books that some students say they find “disturbing” and “very worrying”. Their spokesman told The Times: “They are being exposed to very literalist interpretations of the Koran. These are interpretations that would not be recognised by

80 or 90 per cent of Muslims, but they are being taught in this school.

“A lot of people in the Muslim community are very concerned about this. We need to urgently re-examine the kind of material that is being taught here and in other colleges in Britain.”

Mohammed Saeed Bahmanpour, who teaches in both the Hawza and the ICAS, confirmed that al-Hilli text was used, but denied that it was taught as doctrine. He said that, although the book was a key work in the jurisprudence class, its prescriptions were not taught as law. When he taught from it, he omitted the impurity chapter, he said.

Dr Bahmanpour said: “We just read the text and translate for them, but as I said I do not deal with the book on purity. We have left that to the discretion of the teacher whether he wants to teach it or not.

“The idea is not to teach them jurisprudence because most of the fatwas of Muhaqiq are not actually conforming with the fatwa of our modern jurists. The idea is that they would be able to read classical texts and that is all.”

Dr Bahmanpour said that Mr Moezi had no educational role at either the ICAS or Hawza Ilmiyya. Mr Moezi has been the representative in Britain of Ayatollah Khamenei since 2004 when he also succeeded Mr Araki in the role and as a trustee of the ICEL and the Irshad Trust.

The Islamic centre’s website reports Ayatollah Khamenei’s speeches and activities prominently and one of the first sites listed under its links section is the supreme leader’s homepage.

A spokeswoman for the ICEL also confirmed its links with the Iran’s spiritual leadership but said the centre was a purely religious organisation.

Middlesex University, which accredits the ICAS course but not the Hawza Ilmiyya, said: “The BA in Islamic studies offered by the Islamic College of Advanced Studies is validated by Middlesex University.

“This means that Middlesex ensures that the academic standards of this particular programme are appropriate, the curriculum delivers to the required standards, learning and teaching methods allow achievement of standards.”

THE DOCTRINE

‘The water left over in the container after any type of animal has drunk from it is considered clean and pure apart from the left over of a dog, a pig, and a disbeliever’

‘There are ten types of filth and impurities: urine, faeces, semen, carrion, blood of carrion, dogs, pigs, disbelievers’

‘When a dog, a pig, or a disbeliever touches or comes in contact with the clothes or body [of a Muslim] while he [the disbeliever] is wet, it becomes obligatory- compulsory upon him [the Muslim] to wash and clean that part which came in contact with the disbeliever’

From the al-Hilli text

July 4: What are we fighting for

1. Equality of rights before the law:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence

“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, F. J. Goulding, translator, London, 1970.

2. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” — Declaration of Independence

Non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

*

How come nowbody goes on a Madonna Urinal Rage?

*

Immigration, Assimilation & Nationbuilding:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Theodore Roosevelt, 1907.

*

Islamo-Fascism Denial

By Robert Spencer

Islamo-Fascism” has connections to fascism, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, because “both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind.” Both are nostalgic for past glory, obsessed with real and imagined humiliations and thirsty for revenge, filled with anti-Semitism, and committed to sexual repression and its subordination of the female.

There is nothing artful or contrived in the term “Islamo-Fascism.” It is derived from history itself. Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which today’s radical Muslim groups descend) was, after all, an open admirer and supporter of Adolf Hitler — as was the principal theorist of the modern jihad, Sayyid Qutb. During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, cousin of Yasir Arafat and spiritual godfather of Palestinian nationalism, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, pronounced his pro-Nazi sympathies openly and proudly. In May 1941, he issued a fatwa calling upon the Germans to bomb Tel Aviv, and in November 1941 traveled to Berlin and met with Hitler. He implored the Nazi dictator to help implement a Final Solution in the Middle East. Then he went to the Balkans, where he spearheaded the creation of Muslim units of the Waffen SS.

More

*

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.

The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

-John Stuart Mill.

*

Islamophobia:

“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.”

— Former Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan

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 — 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 guide 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 on whose watch for more black African deaths occurred than anyone since Leopold III of Belgium — really thinks that the word “Islamophobia” came into use because it actually described a real, and deplorable condition; that it describes an 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 ability 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.

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 “Islamophobic”:

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 marks 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 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 at November 1, 2007 11:25 AM

*

Islamic Multiculturalism — the Endless Jihad

Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims

by Abul Kasem

12 Jul, 2007

Introduction

These are days to be politically correct with Islam, even when it (Islam) wants to subjugate the entire world under its fold. Many western governments have a lofty ideal—to create a society, where people of different race, religion, culture, and tradition live together in peace and harmony, without losing their root identity. For many years, this policy has sprouted large-scale migration from many impoverished Islamic nations to wealthy countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, New Zealand, and a few European nations.

Happily adopting this Kafir multiculturalism, many migrants have successfully integrated with the host nation. This has enhanced their life style, quality of living, and a good perception of human bondage. They are pleased to practice their respective religions with full freedom, and maintain their tradition and culture without encroaching on others freedom to do so. There is, however, one exception—Islam. Islam is at odds with this Kafir Multiculturalism, even though they use this policy to their advantage.