Islamofascism is the problem, not 'Islamophobia'!

Kanchan Gupta via Atlas Shrugs:

Lets worry about islamofascism!

The resolution adopted by Muslim theologians representing the various schools of Islam at the All-India Anti-terrorism Conference organised by Darul Uloom, Deoband, ‘denouncing’ terrorism but condoning radical Islam’s ghastly excesses, apart from remaining silent on Islamist terrorism in India which continues to extract a terrible price, is of a piece with the Observatory Report on Islamophobia released by the Organisation of Islamic Conference at its recent meeting in Dakar, Senegal. Both documents seek to justify manufactured Muslim rage and lay the blame for the resultant death and destruction at the doors of everybody else but Muslims.

* The ridiculous ‘Declaration against Terror’ by the fanatical Deobandi sect

_42093954_pakistan-ap416.jpg

It is ironical that Darul Uloom, Deoband, should have taken it upon itself to preach to others the virtues of tolerance – Deobandis are known for neither tolerating others or their faith nor allowing Muslims the freedom to subscribe to modernism and its attendant values. Indeed, Deobandi madarsas at home and abroad, especially in Pakistan, are known to breed Islamofascists whose dark thoughts and darker deeds generate Islamophobia against which the OIC has demanded an international law. Of course, Islamofascism must remain unrestrained and Islamofascists must be allowed the right to practice their ideology of hate. To contest this would amount to Islamophobia, and Islamophobes, as we have now been told, have no right to exist. So, like the proverbial lamb, we should meekly surrender to our slaughter. The least we can do is believe the bogus declaration issued by mullahs who gathered at Darul Uloom, Deoband.

* Deobandi smoke & mirror campaign

Here’s a confession: There was a time of innocence when I believed in the thesis that there is more than one Islam. There were those with whom you could swap ideas, share jokes and even the cup that cheers. A decade later, during which time I spent three years in Cairo and travelled more than once into the heart of Islam – well, almost, since non-Muslims are not allowed beyond Jeddah, the gateway to Mecca and Medina – I stand converted to the view that any talk of there being a moderate Islam or Islam as a religion of peace merely because of the salutation sa’laam is so much bunkum.

In any event, the ummah sees Islam as a religion that demands absolute submission, which is not really the same as a religion that is predicated on peace and equality. And although the Quran does not stress on compulsion, it does not overflow with kindness towards those who do not submit to god’s will either. The best they can hope for is to be protected by a treaty (dhimmah), which in this day and age would mean unlimited appeasement, and the privileges of the dhimmi are purchased by paying jiziya apart from humiliating conditions of subservience, for instance communal budgeting and a ‘Muslim first’ policy, as is being done in our country.

Read it all

Our all time Video favorite:

Imam Al-Husainy on Hannity one more time:

****  Unsurpassed Islamofascist derailment, Hannity at his best…****

Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutros exposes the philandering Muhammad

The weekly show “Questions About Faith” on the Egyptian based Christian Al-Hayat satellite channel features an Egyptian Coptic priest residing in the United States. Father Zakaria Boutrus, the show, and Al-Hayat TV itself, have come under harsh criticism in the Egyptian press. Boutrus and his show have been accused of attacking Islam; of being supported by the U.S. to sow division and strife; and of “mocking the verses of Allah.”

Boutrus: “I live in a country (the U.S.) that respects freedom of speech. I exercise my freedom of speech and talk, and no one can deny my free will. Gone are the days of the sharp sword that cut off the tongues of our people and forefathers to prevent them from speaking in the Coptic language. Gone are the days people’s heads would be chopped off if they did not convert to Islam.”

Interviewer: “What should the Muslims do to make you stop saying these things?”

Moe was a horny toad:

Notice to readers:

Boutrus: “I live in a country (the U.S.) that respects freedom of speech” – is obviously no longer the case, since the youtube wankers have taken the video down. But read the transcript, its worth it!

“(Al-Halabi) says: ‘ If the Prophet wanted an available woman…’ – in other words, an unmarried woman, a widow, or a single woman – ‘…he was allowed to enter her…’ I don’t like to use the word i-n-t-e-r-c-o-u-r-s-e. ‘…without her guardian and without witnesses…’ Without witnesses. ‘…and against her will.’ Against her will. ‘If he desired a married woman, her husband had to divorce her for him. And if he desired a servant-girl, her master had to give her to him. He can even marry off the woman to whoever he wants, against her will.'”

Interviewer: “We know that the Prophet is allowed what others are not.”

Boutrus: “Why? Is he made of different stuff than the rest of mankind?”

MEMRI

*

Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1’

Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.

By Raymond Ibrahim

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.

Read it all

*   January 12, 2009

Father Zakaria Botros on “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet”

Botros.jpg

Life TV’s Father Zakaria Botros recently ran a show dedicated to discussing the question of morality and how it is—or should be—one of the hallmarks of “prophethood.” At the start, he posed the focal question of the show: “Was Muhammad the prophet a moral man—the most upright man, worthy of being emulated by the world?”

He opened the show by relying on an Ibn Taymiyya quote, which evaluated the signs of prophethood. Taymiyya asserted that there are many false-prophets, such as Musailima “the Liar,” a contemporary of Muhammad. Taymiyya concluded that many of these so-called prophets are, in fact, “possessed,” and that the only way to determine the authenticity of any prophet is by examining his biography (sira) and deeds, and see if he be found worthy of the title.

Being that this is the first of several episodes devoted to examining the concepts of morality and prophethood (with the notion that the former reinforces the latter), the theme for this particular episode was “purity” (tahara): “Was Muhammad a ‘pure’ man?”—in this context, a question concerning his sexual mores (or lack thereof).

After the preliminaries, Botros looked at the camera and gave a stern warning: “This episode is for adults only! I am going to discuss many things that make me blush for shame, so please: have the women and children leave the room.”

He then asked Muslims watching to keep in mind the question “Is this the prophet I follow?” as he delineated some of Muhammad’s sexual habits.

First, from the Koran, Botros read verses unequivocally stating that Muhammad is the paragon of all virtue and morality, such as “And most surely you [Muhammad] conform (yourself) to sublime morality [68: 4].” He further quoted the ulema, such as Ibn Kathir, all insisting that Muhammad was the “Noblest of all humanity, and the greatest of prophets.”

Botros and his ex-Muslim cohost—the priest had insisted that it be a man for this particular show, lest he be too ashamed to delineate Muhammad’s sexual habits—discussed Koran 4:3, which “limits” a Muslim’s wives to four, plus “what your right hands possess,” that is, slave-girls.

That was apparently not good enough for Muhammad, asserted Botros; an entire verse had to be “revealed” justifying more women for him (Koran 33:50). In fact, Father Botros has carefully compiled a list of all the women—66 are known—to have had sexual relations with Muhammad.

Botros said that was only normal: according to Sirat Al-Halabi, Muhammad can have a woman no matter what, even against her will; and if Muhammad desired a married woman, her husband would have had to divorce her. According to Ibn Sa’ad, who wrote another authoritative biographical account of Muhammad, “The prophet did not die till all women were permitted him” (see Kitab Al Tabaqat Al Kubra, v.8, 194).

The co-host, rather abruptly, interjected – “What of all those rumors that Muhammad exhibited homosexual tendencies?”

Botros dropped his face in his hands and mumbled, “So you still insist we discuss that?” The co-host was adamant, saying it was for Muslims’ own good to know everything.

Thus Botros, after profusely apologizing to his Muslim viewers, saying how embarrassing this was for him, declared: “Look! We’re merely readers here, bringing up what we have read in Islam’s own books! If Muslims don’t like it, they should go and burn these books.”

The first anecdote discussed by the priest revolved around a hadith that, while some ulema say is “weak,” is, nonetheless according to Botros, present in 44 Islamic books—including some highly respected collections, such as Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi.

According to this hadith, a man named Zahir, who used to declare that “the prophet loves me,” said that one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering that it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest—prayers and blessings upon him.”

Another curious hadith contained in Sunan Bayhaqi and which traces to Sunan Abu Dawud(one of the six canonical hadith collections), has Muhammad lifting up his shirt for a man who proceeded to kiss his entire torso, “from his bellybutton to his armpits.”

Botros looked casually at the camera and said, “Imagine if the sheikh of Al Azhar [nearest Muslim equivalent to the pope] went around lifting his shirt for men to kiss his torso” (he proceeded to make smacking kissing noises, for effect).

Said the co-host: “Surely there’s more?”

Botros: “Indeed there is. No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls”…

[Stay tuned for part II of “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet”]

Alright, here’s the update:

Father Zakaria Botros on “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet,” Part II

Botros.jpg

This being the continuation of Fr. Botros’ examination of Muhammad’s sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I. Last we left the priest and his co-host, the former noted that, “No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls.”

Botros proceeded to read aloud from various sources, such as a hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory.

Next he read a hadith of Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. Fr Botros also added that the Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” “After all,” added the perspicacious priest, “this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s ‘activities’ with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.”

With an extremely disgusted look on his face, Botros turned towards the camera and said: “Dear lady, imagine, for a moment, coming home to find your husband sucking on your daughter’s tongue? What would you do? It’s even worse: it’s your prophet—the most “morally upright” man, a man to be emulated by the world! A man who on record used to go around sucking the tongues of his wives, his daughters, and young boys: Are these the activities of the man described in the Koran as being the pinnacle of moral perfection?”

Cohost: “More!”

“Muhammad would not sleep until he kissed his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom [the priest provided the appropriate sources]. Dear lady! what would you say to your husband sleeping with his face in your daughter’s breast—is that the height of morality?!”

At this point, Fr Botros, looking downcast, began apologizing profusely, saying he could only imagine how all these anecdotes must be troubling for Muslims, to which the co-host reassured him: “It’s not your fault, father, but rather the fault of those Muslims recording these vile incidences. Either way: Muslims must know. More please.”

Botros continued reading more revealing hadiths, including one from the Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”

Another hadith goes on to say that Muhammad ended up dying before this particular girl reached marriage age, to which the by now vexed priest, unable to contain himself, exclaimed, “Awwww! Poor prophet! He missed one!”

Botros then told viewers to keep this last hadith in mind, for “context,” as he read another hadith from the Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”

“What prophet is this you follow?!” cried the outraged Coptic priest. “Where is his morality? This is the man that Muslims follow slavishly? Use your minds?!”

It was late in the night, yet Fr Botros was not done cataloging his findings regarding the prophet’s “sexual” habits (these shows are an hour and a half long). So, when he moved on to a hadith depicting Muhammad laying next to a dead woman in her grave, as well as pointing to hadith categories called “intercourse with a dead woman,” I happily turned off the satellite and called it a night—till this moment, as I am (somewhat reluctantly) revisiting my notes to prepare this report.

***

Father Zakaria Botros on “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet” Part III

Botros.jpg

This being the continuation of Fr Zakaria Botros’ examination of Muhammad’s sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I and Part II.

Last we left the Coptic priest, he was reading from hadith reports stating that the prophet of Islam “admired” a 2-3 year old girl (saying that he hoped to live long enough to make her his wife), and “laid” in the grave with a dead woman.

In this episode, he began with the prophet’s “transvestite” tendencies. He read from several hadiths, including Sahih Bukhari—Fr Botros claims that there are no less than 32 different references to this phenomenon in Islam’s books—wherein Muhammad often laid in bed dressed in women’s clothes, specifically his child-bride Aisha’s.

Fr. Botros: “Perhaps Muslims think that he only dressed in Aisha’s clothes? Being that she was his “favorite,” perhaps after being intimate with her, he would merely lay in bed with her clothes?” (Here the priest put his face in his hands lamenting that he had to talk of such shameful things.)

Then he offered an interesting and revealing hadith, from Sahih Bukhari (2/911), which records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,” implying that it was something of a habit for the prophet to dress in female clothing.

Fr Botros next moved on to some commentaries in the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi—an authoritative exegesis in Islam. He read one anecdote where Aisha said that, one day, while Muhammad was lying naked in bed, Zaid came knocking; Muhammad, without getting dressed, opened the door and “hugged and kissed him”—in the nude. Elsewhere, Qurtubi concludes that, “the prophet—prayers and blessings upon him—was constantly preoccupied with women.”

Fr Botros to Muslims: “So this is your prophet—the most morally upright man? Instead of being preoccupied with, say, prayer or good deeds, he was preoccupied with women?”

He next read from Faid al-Qabir (3/371), wherein Muhammad is on record saying, “My greatest loves are women and perfume: the hungry is satisfied after eating, but I never have enough of women.” Another hadith: “I can hold back from food and drink—but not from women.” After reading these hadiths, Fr Botros would just look at the screen in silence, shaking his head.

He next read an interesting narrative (contained in Umdat al-Qari and Faid al-Qabir). Reportedly, Allah sent Gabriel with some sort of celestial food (called al-kofid) to Muhammad, commanding the latter to “Eat!”—identical to when Gabriel came to Muhammad saying “Read!” (i.e., iqra, the word for Koran). The report goes on to quote Muhammad saying that the food given to him “gave me the sexual potency of 40 heavenly men.” Fr Botros next read from the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi, where it says that the “heavenly man” has the sexual potency of 100 mortal men.

Wondered the priest: “So, doing the math, 40×100, we can conclude that Muhammad, whenever he ate his heavenly aphrodisiac, had the sexual potency of 4000 men? Really, O umma, is this the claim to fame of your prophet—that he was a raving sex maniac?” Then, less seriously, “Imagine the surprise when Westerners find out that, once again, it was Muhammad who first discovered Viagra!”

Zakaria Botros went on to read from more sources, such as Sunan al-Nisa’i, wherein Muhammad used to in a single night “visit” all his women, without washing in between. Asked the priest: “Why even record such obscene and embarrassing things?”

Perhaps most entertaining, Fr Botros spent some time analyzing an anecdote recorded in Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya we al-Nihaya. Here is a translation for this lengthy account:

After conquering the Jews of Khaybar, and plundering their belongings, among other things, a donkey fell into the lot of the prophet, who proceeded to ask the donkey: “What is your name?”

The donkey answered, “Yazid Ibn Shihab. Allah had brought forth from my ancestry 60 donkeys, none of whom were ridden on except by prophets. None of the descendants of my grandfather remain but me, and none of the prophets remain but you and I expected you to ride me. Before you, I belonged to a Jewish man, whom I caused to stumble and fall frequently so he used to kick my stomach and beat my back.”

Here, chuckling, the priest added, “a taqiyya-practicing donkey!” He continued reading, “The prophet – may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him – said to him, ‘I will call you Ya’foor. O Ya’foor!’ Ya’foor replied, ‘I obey.’ The prophet asked, ‘Do you lust after females?’ The donkey replied, ‘No!’”

Cried the priest: “Even the donkey blushed for shame concerning your prophet’s over-sexed inquiries! Here we have what is supposed to be a miracle—a talking donkey; and of all things to communicate to this animal, your prophet’s most urgent question was whether the donkey lusts after females?”

Next, reading from Sahih Bukhari (5/2012), Fr Botros relayed an account where Muhammad went into the house of a young woman named Umaima bint Nua’m and commanded her to “Give yourself to me!” The woman responded, “Shall a queen give herself to the rabble?” Shaking his fist, Muhammad threatened her, and then sent her off to her parents.

Zakaria Botros: “You see, people, even back then, in those dark ages, there were still people who had principles, who did not give way to threats and coercion. However, the real question here is, why was Muhammad contradicting the commandments of his own Koran—“if a believing woman gives herself to the prophet” (33:50)—trying to coerce this young lady?”

Finally, with a most distasteful look on his face, the priest read from a hadith in al-Siyuti (6/395), where Muhammad asserts that, “In heaven, Mary mother of Jesus, will be one of my wives.”

“Please, O prophet,” quoth the Coptic Orthodox priest, “do not implicate our saints with your filthy practices…”

[Stay tuned for part IV of “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet”]

Father Zakaria Botros on “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet” Part V

Botros.jpg
“This is all from your own books, O Muslims!”

This being the continuation of Fr Zakaria Botros’ examination of Muhammad’s sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.

Last we left the Coptic priest, he was discussing Muhammad’s predilection for menstruating women—even though the Koran itself (as Fr Botros put it, “his own words”) forbid men from getting near to menstruating women.

Here, the priest was interested in examining Muhammad’s faithlessness towards his wives (though one would have thought the plural renders the notion of faithfulness moot), his sexually exploitative behavior, and his reliance on very obscene language.

First, Fr Botros spent some time discussing the well known story where the prophet betrayed his wife Hafsa with a slave-girl (Unfortunately, one cannot capture the hilarity with which the priest recounted this tale.)

In short, after sending Hafsa to visit her father, the latter, halfway there, realized that it was “her day”—that is, the day when, of all his wives, Muhammad would visit her for “conjugal relations.” She hurried back (Fr Botros added “She knew him well: if she wasn’t there on her day, he would go crazy and grab the first female passing by!”).

In fact, Hafsa caught Muhammad with a slave-girl on the former’s bed. Muhammad quickly evicted the slave-girl and told Hafsa that if she kept this between them, he would henceforth refrain from the slave-girl.

To no avail: Hafsa gabbed and soon all of Muhammad’s wives revolted against his incessant philandering; As Fr Botros put it, “When things got critical, Muhammad decided to drop a ‘new revelation’ on them; so he threw surat al-tahrim (66: 1-11) at them, wherein Allah supposedly chastises Muhammad for trying to please his wives by not sleeping around, threatening the wives to get in line lest the prophet divorce them—indeed, lest they all go to hell.”

Then, looking at the screen, Fr Botros asked, “Imagine, dear lady, if your husband asked you to go on errand and then you return before your time only to find him in bed with another woman? What sort of man would that make him in your eyes? Yet it’s worse—it’s your prophet, whom you all extol as the most perfect human, to be slavishly emulated!”

He then pointed out that “clever little Aisha knew him [Muhammad] well”: whenever such verses were revealed rescuing Muhammad, Aisha would often observe that “Verily, your lord [Allah] is ever quick to fulfill your whims and desires (e.g., al-Siyuti v.6, p.629).

Next the priest relayed an account portraying how the prophet sexually exploited a “retarded” woman. According to 23 sources (e.g., Sahih Muslim vol.4, p.1812) a feeble-minded woman came up to Muhammad saying, “O prophet of Allah! I have something for you.” He clandestinely met her out back and took this “something” from her.

Added Fr Botros: “I fear now that many believers will want to implement this sunna—don’t do it, guys, this is just to illustrate…. Listen you Muslims: don’t hate me for revealing all this to you; don’t lie in wait to kill me. I am merely revealing what your books contain. And, as always, we humbly await the great sheikhs and ulema to address these issues and show us where we went wrong.”

Next, Fr Botros discussed the sort of foul language Muhammad — the “greatest example” — employed: “Sorry, so sorry to reveal to you the sort of despicable language Muhammad used—language I am too ashamed to even mention. In fact, your prophet said one of the most obscene Arabic words—the equivalent of the ‘f-word’ [he counseled his Arabic viewers to google the “f-word” to understand what he was talking about]. “

Refusing to pronounce or spell this word, which he said appears in 67 books, including Sahih Bukhari, the text containing this word, “inkat-ha” — or, in context, Muhammad asking a man about a woman if he “f***** her” — was portrayed on the screen for all to read.

Then, “Quick! take that filth down! What would you Muslims do if the Sheikh of al Azhar went around using such language? Worse — it’s your prophet, the ‘greatest creation.'”

The host asked if Muhammad used any other foul language, to which the priest responded, “Oh, boy, did he ever; unfortunately this program is way too short to list them all.”

According to Qaid al-Qadir (v.1, p.381), Muhammad told Muslims to retort to uppity infidels by saying things like — again, he didn’t pronounce it, but the text appeared on the screen — “Go bite on your mother’s clitoris!” or, according to Zad al-Mi’ad (v.3, p305), “Go bite on your dad’s penis!”

Then, once again while shaking his head in sheer disappointment, “O prophet of Allah…prophet of Allah….Would that you would’ve heeded your lord Jesus’ counsel: ‘The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks’ (Luke 6:45).”

[Stay tuned for part VI of “The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet”]

Ali Eteraz, the Great Masturbator

ali_eteraz_140×140.jpg

* Ali Eteraz,  Islamo-socialist with a blog,  who, among other nutters and fruitcakes,- gets published in the Guardian’s ‘comment is free’, has a go at dissing Wilders film ‘Fitna’ and fails miserably.

Eteraz closing statement:

In terms of sheer originality, though, the best response to this film came from a friend of mine who watched the film – and calling it a film is to abuse both the English language and the legacy of cinema – on my computer with me:

“I could have masturbated in that time.”

* Robert Spencer (JW) takes this ‘moderate’  masturbator apart,  not for the first time.

* Read it all…

Muslim writer says Muslims should give the finger to those who ask them to condemn terrorist acts

“To blame all Muslims for the actions of jihadists would be asinine.”

Collectivists when they need to be, individualists when they don’t. Especially when it comes to answering Elephant-in-the-room questions from the kuffar.

It’s all in the book.

Watch out when there is another Muhammad cartoon-rage or a torn Koran. A  billion mad Muslims will be coming to get you. All of them individuals…..

Robert Spencer:

With Ali Eteraz I have had many exchanges in the past; you can judge for yourself about what they may or may not have revealed. In one of them, he stated feebly that peaceful Muslims should remain silent in the face of jihadist violence and supremacism, claiming that Martin Luther King, Jr., stayed silent in the face of racist oppression.

That was preposterous enough, but now Ali Eteraz has made an even more preposterous move, going from supine passivity to defiance:

“Muslims Should Raise the Other Finger,” by Ali Eteraz at True/Slant, November 26 (thanks to JW):

No Moe Free Speech Downunder

New Oz socialist government sez ‘NO’ “BUT'” to free speech:

Australia denounces anti-Islam film

Thanks to Mullah

From the ‘socialism is a mental disorder’ department: Australia has added its voice to the international chorus of outrage over an anti-Islam film posted on the internet by a right wing Dutch politician.

images48.jpeg

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said Geert Wilders’ film Fitna equated Islam with acts of terror and violence and was “highly offensive”.

“It is an obvious attempt to generate discord between faith communities,” Mr Smith said.

“Like leaders in the Muslim world and in Europe, I strongly reject the ideas contained in the film and deplore its release.”

* If Smith really said that one must assume that he either didn’t see the film or that he is completely ignorant of what’s going on in the world.

“In Australia we believe in the right to freedom of expression but we don’t believe in abusing that right to incite racial hatred.”

* My goodness: which ‘race’ is Islam again?

Muslim nations, the European Union and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have all expressed outrage over the film, posted on the internet last week.

Iran and Bangladesh warned the film could cause grave consequences and Pakistan has protested to the Dutch ambassador.

Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has called for Muslim nations to boycott Dutch products.

But Mr Smith echoed Dutch Muslim leaders’ calls for restraint, saying the best response was a “calm and responsible one”.

* Just what we need, a wannabe Euroweenie appeaser as Foreign Minister.

Fearing a repeat of violent clashes in 2006 that followed the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in Danish newspapers, the Dutch government has distanced itself from Wilders’ 17-minute film.

The head of the Freedom Party, which has nine seats in the Dutch parliament, Wilders has also called for the banning of the Koran in the Netherlands, calling it “fascist”.

© 2008 AAP

* Hugh Fitzgerald comments

*

From the ‘Bolt Blog’
Rob H replied to John
Mon 31 Mar 08 (06:44pm)
Thank God Smith was around to make this statement, before we all fell for
the Zionist plot. He’s foreign minister isn’t he? Hey why is he here? Who’s
looking after the rest of the world if Smith is at home? Why isn’t KRudd
making this kind of statement from home. Hey? Whats going on, the lights are
all out? What’s that smell of beeswax? How come petrol is priced so high?
How come house prices are forecast to go up? How come inflation is still on
the rise? How come they’re talking about higher unemployment? Black is
white? Incompetance is competance? Starting boarding schools for aboriginal
kids is not creating another stolen generation myth? Racism applies to
religions? How the hell did this bunch of tacco’s ever get elected. Whats
Happened to all the laptops? Where did Brumby’s missing billion go? Why am I
called a denihalist and skeptic becuase I want to save black Africa by
creating an ecomomy like ours and don’t believe that theories can kill? Why
did the diablical US government invent AIDS and then not give it to Obama
and his religious adviser or at least shoot them for giving out secrets?
Just a few questions I ask myself every day I make the mistake of reading
the papers in the age of KRuddism.

*

The Cost of Islamic Immigration

* For the first time we get some numbers: governments in Europe, Australia & elsewhere with large scale Muhammedan immigration have long been trying to hide the exorbitant cost associated with the establishment of an Islamic proletariat that keeps socialists in power, but saps the lifeblood from the welfare state.

630697_src_path25_wuuq.jpg

Here it its:

– France has 6,868,000 immigrants, or 11% of the population.

– Immigration reduces by two thirds the growth of the GNP.

– The cost of immigration in France is 71.76 billion euros.

– The revenue from immigration in France is 45.57 billion euros.

– The deficit from immigration shouldered by the taxpayers is 26.19 billion euros.

– When an immigrant does not return home at the expiration of his work contract, it is the State (the taxpayer) who bears the cost of welfare and social benefits.
– Non-European immigrants and their descendants receive 22% of all social benefits.
– The unit-price of requests for asylum is 15,000 euros.
– The majority of immigration expenses do not depend on the Ministry of Immigration headed by Brice Hortefeux.
– Expenses for security linked to immigration amount to 5.2 billion euros.
– The black market involves at least 500,000 immigrants and represents a loss to the State of 3.810 billion euros.
– 65 to 90% of prostitutes are foreign.
– The unemployment rate of immigrants is twice that of non-immigrants.
– Social benefits constitute 14% of the average revenue of immigrant households versus 5% for non-immigrant households.

Lots more from the Brussels Journal

* These costs listed above don’t include the billions in damages for the ongoing French intifadah, when tens of thousands of cars and businesses are burned….

*

UK: Migration has brought ‘zero’ economic benefit

Ten years of record immigration to Britain has produced virtually no economic benefits for the country, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

* 684  quit Britain every day

A House of Lords committee, which is due to report next Tuesday, will call into question Government claims that foreign workers add £6 billion each year to the wealth of the nation.

It is expected to say this must be balanced against the increase in population and their use of local services such as health and education, resulting in little benefit per head of the population.

“Our overall conclusion is that the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run,” the report will say.

The findings of the Lords economics committee threaten to demolish the key argument made by ministers to justify the highest levels of immigration in the country’s history.

The inquiry by the committee, which includes two former chancellors and several former Cabinet ministers, is the first to try to balance the costs and benefits of large-scale immigration.

The population is increasing by more than 190,000 every year, largely as a result of immigration.

Telegraph

*

DENMARK & THE EURABIAN NIGHTMARE

U.S. Must Learn European Immigration Lessons

by James Zumwalt

Thanks to Louis Stouch

Denmark was once a country with an extremely liberal immigration policy. Today it has one of the strictest in Europe. Why? A recipe for social disaster was at play in Denmark. Take a very liberal post-World War II immigration policy, combine it with a very generous welfare program, mix in Muslim immigrants demonstrating a stubborn unwillingness to integrate into Danish society while enjoying welfare status, add a dash of reality that that Muslim population is rapidly outgrowing the native one, and it does not take long to create a bankrupt state nurturing an anti-democratic guest population and seeking to eventually replace the host country’s laws and culture with its own. Susan MacAllen, an American citizen who lived in Denmark, last year wrote a fascinating, but frightening, article for Family Security Matters providing specifics as to how this happened and the steps being taken to reverse course.

danishmuslims2f6as.jpe

Supporting MacAllen’s concerns are statistics from a 2002 article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard. They point out that Danish Muslims, while making up only five percent of the population, consume 40% of welfare spending and are responsible for a disproportionately high percentage of the nation’s crime. Recognizing increasing population numbers favor them, Muslim leaders “openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough.”

*

In appreciation of the Danish landlord opening up his home to an economically-depressed tenant to live rent free, the tenant shows his appreciation by now threatening to take over home ownership. As a result, not only have immigration laws been severely tightened, but there is even a prohibition against building mosques — used as centers to promote anti-Western values — because they were becoming hotbeds of hatred.

* MORE

*

Dutch: 57 percent say ‘admitting large groups of Muslims is “the biggest mistake in Dutch history”

images47.jpeg

The results come from the History Monitor. This survey was carried out among a representative group of 1,069 people by De Volkskrant newspaper, Historisch Nieuwsblad history journal and TV programme Andere Tijden in consultation with history professors James Kennedy, Niek van Sas and Hans Blom.

Link

*

Omar Bakri loves Fitna: "could be a film by the Mujahideen"

* Absolutely. Islam is what Muslims do. Because the soldiers of Allah do all these things that are so offensive to Muslims, and keep doing them everyday in more than 30 theaters of jihad warfare around the globe: like using Koran verses to justify their atrocities. Why are these Muslims offended by Wilders and not by their fellow Koranists?

images46.jpeg

The formerly UK-based jihadist hits the nail on the head: for all the rage from Muslims about how Fitna “links Islam with violence,” that link has already been made by the jihadists, who never aroused any significant rage among their peaceful brethren. The jihadists quote Qur’an to justify their actions — it wasn’t Geert Wilders who had to go hunting in the Qur’an for verses that matched those actions.

JW-link

*

Qaradawi weasels and lies:

satellite.jpeg

“We need scholarly refutations to claims that Prophet Muhammad incited the killing of men and women,” he stressed. […]

* That will be tough, given the evidence of the early Muslim sources on Asma bint Marwan, Ka’b bin Ashraf, Abu Afak, the Jews of Khaybar, the Banu Qurayzah Jews, etc. etc.

Qaradhawi accuses:

“What the Dutch politician did is tantamount to opening fire on the Qur’an,” Qaradawi said in exclusive statements to IslamOnline.net.

Lies:

“We ask them to better understand the Islam’s message of peace, mercy and human brotherhood,”

* here’s What the Holiest Book of Islam Really says about Non-Muslims

Qaradawi seeks retaliation:

“Heavyweight Muslim countries should have a manly stance in defense of Islam and its prophet,” he added.“The peoples need to pressure their governments to take such a stand and prove to the world that the Muslim Ummah is still alive.”

* In other words, strongarm the West into dhimmi silence.

More

*

Pakistan: Fitna Rage in the making. “Foreigners will be attacked. The situation will change, change, change”

quran_drawing_248.jpg

* But maybe its not ‘Fitna’ at all. Its all about ‘blasphemous’ drawings…

*

“Anti-Quran film sparks protests in Muslim world,” from CNN-IBN:

New Delhi: Muslims in several countries are protesting a film by a Dutch lawmaker’s film, saying it insults the Quran.
Hundreds of Islamists staged angry protests across Pakistan after the release of the film and a militant allegedly linked to al-Qaida’s No 2 leader also warned that the film will spark reprisal attacks.
Small groups of demonstrators, mostly followers of hard-line religious groups, rallied in major cities, demanding Pakistan cut diplomatic relations with the Netherlands. A banner at one demonstration read, “We hate the uncivilized West.”

More here

*

Dutch Business: “We rather lose our culture than a dollar”

Bernard Wientjes, chairman of the Dutch employers’ organisation VNO-NCW:

“A boycott would hurt Dutch exports. Businesses such as Shell, Philips and Unilever are easily identifiable as Dutch companies,” he was quoted as saying.
Malaysia’s former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad suggested a boycott on Saturday, echoing a similar call by media in Jordan.

Dutch businesses threaten to sue over anti-Islam film,” from Agence France-Presse

*

Louise Arbour totally derailed:

*  Traincrash or rather ‘staying the course?’

U.N.’s Arbour on Fitna: “They should offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others”

* Never mind obout our rights!

Spencer comments:

Questions for Ms. Arbour: Is not being offended a human right? Should “appropriate restrictions” target the clear and present danger of possibly having one’s feelings hurt? In that event, there will need to be a U.N. court on every elementary school playground.

“Louise Arbour condemns the film ‘Fitna’,” from Kuwait News Agency:

louisearbourtehran.jpg

****

Honest Muslim Discovered: “We hate you for your disbelief and defiance”

* A Muslim blogger writes to Geert Wilders:

* Resisting Islam causes wars, for which the infidels are responsible:

But we don’t hate you for your freedoms as we don’t consider those freedoms. We hate you for your disbelief and defiance.

So keep warning, and we too will keep warning. Islaam denounces Democracy, Islaam denounces Christians and Jews, Islaam denounces the corruption of the disbelievers upon the earth, and Islaam is coming to crush the armies of disbelief and smash the false governments and religions of the world to bring humanity from darkness into light.

Although we hate you for the sake of Allah and pray for your destruction, we are happy that you made this film because no matter how negative the disbelievers try to portray Islaam, in the end, it is Islaam that spreads far and wide. The media in America did its best to portray Islaam as an evil religion after the 9/11 attacks, but just look to how many thousands of people accepted Islaam after the invasion. So Islaam will spread all over Europe, and we will win in the end and we will humiliate you in the end.


Congratulations Geert. Your movie has created more Mujaahideen amongst the Muslims.

****

Denmark: Islamic Mafia Puts Ad's in Papers

Muslim World League puts ads in papers

The following advertisement appeared in Denmark’s largest national newspapers this week (in Danish):

Freedom of expression at any price?

Appeal to the Danish people

* Islam invented freedom of expression. After that, Islam invented the wheel:

Freedom of expression and the right to your own opinion are guaranteed in Islam and is one of Islam’s most important contributions to the world more than 1400 years ago.

Factually it ensures all heavenly revealed religions and denominations and promises humanity the right to think and express oneself freely, as long as those expressions don’t cause insult or discrimination of others or rouse hate based on religion or race. One of the worst forms of religious discrimination is ridiculing the prophets and the messengers.

* You can have any kind of freedom as long as it doesn’t offend the Koranimals. What kind of BS is that?

In connection with our continuing efforts to lessen the consequences of the Danish caricatures we have visited Denmark several times. We have seen the Danes as a peace-loving people, who prize coexistence of different cultures, civilizations and religions, and therefore we are now convinced that the reprinting of the insulting cartoons are not typical of the Danish people.

mo-toon.jpg

In Muslim perception all prophets, including Moses, Jesus and Muhammed, peace be with them all, are in a special status, which will keep them from insult or ridicule. They should be respect by all people instead of having false accusations directed at them.

We were very surprised with the connection made between charges against several individual people of wanting to take revenge on one of the cartoonists, and a deliberate insult of Muslim nations deep in their most dearly religious feelings by reprinting the cartoons. We will stress here that Islam condemns all actions which weaken society’s security, in particular murder and arson. Factually Muslims still lack a formal dissociation from the reprinting of the insulting cartoons from relevant authorities. We are convinced that a dissociation will contribute to preventing additional repetitions of such unfortunate measures.

* Islam vs. Free Speech: The Case of Denmark

Finally, we would like to call on all rational and peace-loving people and economic and cultural organization to to make an effort to the extreme for ensure good cultural and economic relations between people from Denmark and the Muslim world.

The Danish Conservative party sees this ad as mafia-like threats against Danish authorities.

They say that the organization is trying to threaten Danish authorities so that they’ll condemn the Muhammad cartoons in order to prevent more unfortunate measures.

Read it all

islamdm2803_468×330.jpg

Westergaard: Pissing on Wilders won’t save your ass…!

* Whatever motivated this fatwa-plagued cartoonist to do this, his indignation doesn’t sound genuine.

muhammadcartoon.jpg

Westergaard wants to sue Wilders:

“You can’t just steal other people’s works. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it’s all about copyright,” Mr Westergaard said.

“I won’t accept my cartoon being taken out of its original context and used in a completely different one.”

More from ABC

Spiegel Online:

Westergaard: Wilders has a overly generalized perception of Muslims as potential terrorists. But it’s not like that at all — I know a lot of Muslims living here in Denmark who accept democracy completely and who live their religion as a very private matter. I hope that all Muslims will adapt to secular society. There is currently friction between Muslim and Christian culture. But I am quite sure, that our Western democratic culture will prevail over the darker version of Islam. We must have Islam-light.

* Islam light? Sure thing. But you have to invent it first, Kurt…!

*

ABC hires Islamo Spin-doctor to discredit Wilders 'FITNA'

* Whatever it takes to pull the Islamic wool over naive infidel eyes & ears…

abc_fitna_080328_ms.jpg

Quran ‘expert’ by ABC News Reveals the Meanings Behind the Quranic Verses in the Film

By REHAB EL-BURI

The leader of Netherlands’ anti-immigration party, Geert Wilders, posted an anti-Islam film Thursday that was expected to raise an uproar among Muslims. So far, the fallout has fallen flat.

Wilders posted his film on the Internet after local distributors declined to release it. His film entitled, “Fitna,” which translates to “Discord” in Arabic, suggests the Quran promotes violence and acts of terrorism. The 10-minute film shows various verses of the Quran followed by a montage of violent photos and video ranging from the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center to photos of the Shiite ritual of self-flagellation.

Wilders concludes the film with a graphic, saying it is up to “Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses of the Quran. Muslims want you to make way for Islam, but Islam does not make way for you.” Wilders urges his audience to “stop Islamization, defend our freedom.”

So far, the protests over the film have been largely over legal issues. European news reports say Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard will sue Wilders for using his copyrighted image of the prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. News reports also say Dutch rapper Salah Edin is seeking legal recourse for his picture appearing in the film mistaking him for the man who murdered Dutch film director Theo van Gogh.

Small protests over the controversial film have sprouted in the Muslim world but have remained nonviolent.

ABC News spoke to a Quran expert to investigate what the verses in Wilders’ film mean. Below are expert Mohammad Al-Hayek’s translations of the meanings of the verses used in “Fitna.”

* Who is this ‘Koran expert?’

Verse from Fitna: (Chapter 8; Verse 6) Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies.

Al-Hayek: The purpose of this verse is to urge Muslim governments to be militarily strong in order to intimidate its enemies. Building up power is meant to serve as a deterrent to those wanting to attack Muslims.

This chapter was revealed about the major Battle of Badr that took place between the Muslims and the Quraish tribe of Mecca in the second year of the established Muslim state. The verse immediately after it says, “but if the enemy inclines toward peace, do thou also incline toward peace.” Muslims are commanded to halt war immediately if the enemy shows signs of peace. Even in war, Muslims are instructed in the Quran to adhere to strict rules of engagement.

* Mohammad Al-Hayek is simply trying to tell us infidels that these verses, similar to Bible verses, relate to historical events and have no relevance to today’s idiotically named ‘War on Terror’. That, of course, is false: Muhammad has declared war ‘on all mankind, until all profess there is no God but allah and Muhammad is his prophet’. These verses and all those relating to jihad in the Koran are to be followed to the letter and are the perfect model of conduct for every Muslim. Unfortunately, the Peacenix from the ABC prefer to be deceived instead of asking for a second opinion…

Read the whole thing

*