* Â Apologies: as reader Mullah pointed out, the above picture is not the actual campaign, Â but how blogger snapped shot imagines it could look.Â “Here, allow me to start things off with my own humble submission of what I think an Unindicted Terrorist’s marketing campaign might look like:”Â
bullseye, and Islam Is Peace!!! bomb belt]
Adding insult to injury: Islam is not ‘Peace’- Â it means SUBMISSION. Â Islam is the most oppressive belief-system ever known to man.Â
MTA officials said the ads are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Mayor Bloomberg agreed.Â The content of the ads themselves is not offensive or suggestive of violence or terrorism, officials said….
* For many New Yorkers these ads are extremely offensive:Â Â they are infuriating. Imagine for one moment if the Nazis had attacked the US and killed 3000 people, and then promoted Naziism by painting swastikas on subway cars and slogans claiming ‘morgen die ganze Welt’- who would put up with that?
Â The ads are being paid for by the Islamic Circle of North America, which, as Â notedÂ here, is one of the organizations listed in the infamous 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memo as participating in a “grand Jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Siraj Wahhaj, meanwhile, has warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has lamented that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” In the early 1990s he sponsored talks by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and Wahhaj was designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator.”
“Winner Takes Allah: MTA’s Islam Ad Furor,” by Jeremy Olshan for theÂ New York Post,
* Update:Â Azzem Khan, assistant secretary general of the Islamic Circle, defended Wahhaj:“Siraj Wahhaj is a fine American and is respected by Muslims and non-Muslims alike,” he said.
* Â Sheik yer’mami sez: Dreck is Dreck…
Just last year Sowdi Arabia paid for this insulting da’wa campaign in Britain:
So you’re telling me Churchill was wrong? Not!
Many at this site are familiar with Churchill’s comment about the menace of Islam to Western Christendom, and the fanaticism of Muslims (whom he called “Mohammedans” — a term that, given the centrality of Muhammad to Islam, as uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil — is hardly unfair or even, as some suggest, misleading).
It is a comment that deserves to be printed out, and placed on refrigerators everywhere, but especially on refrigerators in Georgetown, and McLean, Virginia, and Silver Spring, Maryland — and of course at Camp David and at the White House and in those office refrigerators that Congressmen may keep.
So here one mo’ time is Churchill, with everyone’s favorite quote about Muslims:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science — the science against which it had vainly struggled — the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
There is what Churchill saw, in the very same African neighborhood as Chad, where Jihad now rages — for Churchill, last-cavalry-charge-at-Omdurman Churchill, was reporting from what is now the Sudan, where Jihad also rages.
Chad: after listening to “an inflammatory sermon” against Christians and atheists, jihadis become “intoxicated by indescribable extremism…almost mad,” and go on wild rampage
The “fanatical frenzy” which is “as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog” and that can burst out, whether in the Sudan, or anywhere else.
Think of Pakistan. How many mob scenes do you need to recall — perhaps the one of the Pakistani mob besieging the American Embassy in November 1979 because one group of Muslims seized the Great Mosque in Mecca from another group, the Al-Saud? Think of Bangladesh — remember what has happened to hapless Hindus passing by a mosque as Friday Prayers are getting out? Think of all the cheering, clapping, delighted mobs of Muslims, handing out confetti if they were poor — in the “West Bank” — or treating others to multi-course dinners if they were rich, as in Riyadh and Jiddah, and all those in-between, in Cairo and Amman and elsewhere, who were simply delighted, in their fine frenzy, their ill-concealed hydrophobic blood-lust, when they heard the glad tidings about the attack on the World Trade Center.
And you need go no farther than supposedly “civilized” Lebanon, where the Christian presence is said to have uplifted, in an unrecognized mission civilisatrice, the local Muslims and quasi-Muslims, to see the same blood-lust on display just the other day, when a child-murderer was given a hero’s welcome, hailed by one and all, held up for the nation’s youth as an example of how to heroically behave.
Yet there is no need for Winston Churchill. There is a need, in each country, for sensible people to behave sensibly. Some of them may take time to comprehend a belief-system about which a few years ago they knew nothing. Some will take time to overcome the platitudes of the present, to remove the layers of indoctrination and self-indoctrination, the sheer crappiness of the age.
Not Churchill, but a hundred Jacques Barzuns are called for. They exist. Some of them exist outside the regular channels, the conventional institutions, the validation that those institutions offer and that so many who are incapable of making judgments without that validation by others fail to recognize. Many are lone wolves by nature. But they exist. Find them, support them, promote them, and if they happen to be candidates for office (that too can be achieved, in this suddenly topsy-turvy and most unsettled world), vote for them.
Want more? Here’s more:
It is, thank heaven, difficult if not impossible for the modern European to fully appreciate the force which fanaticism exercises among an ignorant, warlike and Oriental population. Several generations have elapsed since the nations of the West have drawn the sword in religious controversy, and the evil memories of the gloomy past have soon faded in the strong, clear light of Rationalism and human sympathy. Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions,and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis–as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder
and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British
squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction.The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed.”
And another one:
In one of V S Naipaul’s books – either ‘Among the Believers’ or ‘Beyond Belief’ – he records a Muslim telling him that the Friday sermon made him feel like he was high on cocaine. (I’ll look up the notes I took, later today, and find the exact wording).
Those of us who have watched ‘Islam: What the West Needs to Know’ need only recall the unforgettable footage at the end, showing a preacher in a mosque in Iraq, waving his sword about, talking about cutting off heads; and the frenzied chanting of ‘Allahu Akbar’, ‘Allahu Akbar’, which reminded me precisely of Nazi Nuremberg rallies and the chanting of ‘Heil Hitler’.
It’s interesting to compare Churchill’s masterly and deservedly quotable summary of the effects of Islam upon humans, with the words of the Jewish writer, A Carlebach, in Ma’ariv, October 7, 1955, words also deserving to be much more widely known; indeed, like Churchill’s, requiring almost to be committed to memory by all sensible Infidels, especially those in our diplomatic corps and our defence forces.
You can see the great English soldier/ journalist, observer of ‘South Asian’ and Arabo-African Muslim behaviour in Afghanistan, India and Sudan, and the obscure Jew, observer of Arab Muslim behaviour in and around the land of Israel, reaching precisely identical conclusions.
“These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam.
“Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression.
‘The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword.
‘The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world…their reactions — to anything — have nothing to do with good sense.
“They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat.
“You can talk ‘business’ with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah…This is what every grain in this country shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them — even the Crusaders — left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the flies have died.”
(He then goes on to identify Islam, Islam, Islam as the source of Arab Muslim hostility toward the Jewish state, but I won’t quote that part now; what’s relevant here is his ruthless diagnosis of the typical state of mind that Islam induces in human beings, and the outward fruit of that, over time – “on the path of Islam, even the flies have died”.
A Carlebach and Sir Winston Churchill would, I think, have understood each other very well.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmyÂ Â atÂ July 22, 2008 4:36 PM
One more Churchill? Here:
“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”