Britain to Allow Islamic Extremist Into UK for Speaking Tour

Sometimes you feel like something can't get worse, then it does. The Brit government is set to let Ibrahimi Mousawi into the country for a speaking tour. Mousawi edits Hezbollah's newspaper. The very same Hezbollah the produces anti-Semitic television shows, affirms the Protocols, and claims Jews spread AIDS. Mousawi called Jews a "a lesion on the forehead of history", quite a man to have touring the country.

Thankfully the conservatives have spoken out against this rank hypocrisy.

I would be happy to let Mousawi stand up and make an ass of himself and his malodorous religion, but he should do it via video link as terrorists should not be allowed to travel about encouraging violence.

Fuck all. Britain is lost.

Hitch on Free Speech and the UN

Here is Hitch. I am also proposing we start referring to the UN as "Useless and Neutered".



The Master:

Chris Huhne, Start Underlining

Some arguments don't need to be refuted, merely underlined. Chris Huhne's ass hattery is such an example. Except you have to read two of his articles to find some good places to break out the highlighter. Thanks to the untiring critic of the obsequious British left, Styrer, for bringing these to my attention.:

One

Two

Some excerpts. Maestro, some highlighting music please.

Where does one start. Let's just begin with the fact that he selectively applies "freedom of speech" with regards to Wilders and Toben. The question must be asked, does Huhne quake and wet himself at the thought of marauding Muslim mobs (all the while blaming his own culture for their hate) or does he secretly have some affinity for Holocaust deniers? Or perhaps both.

Huhne said this of Wilders' movie:

In a civilised society, however, there has to be a dividing line between freedom
of speech and an incitement to hatred and violence. I carefully watched Geert
Wilders' film Fitna,
and in my opinion it crosses this line, and his own presentation would be just
as likely to cross this line if he entered the country. Fitna's shocking images
of violence and its emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing
serious harm to others

So Huhne is proposing that we censor images of violence perpetrated by Muslims so as not to offend Muslims? Or to keep them safe? Since when does obscuring the truth bring about a better world? I am curious, since Huhne watched the movie "carefully", where the emotional appeals are exactly? In fact Wilders makes little or no appeal. He merely quotes verses found in the Qur'an and places those next to acts of violence perpetrated by people who consider the Qur'an the inerrant word of God, and who cite these very verses as justification for their acts. Huhne is a bungling incompetent, perhaps going forward he could spare us his ill informed and idiotic anaylses.

There is no attempt to draw a distinction between radical Islamists and
moderate followers of the faith. The film is effectively a 16-minute incitement
to violence. No minority in this country – whether Asian, black or Yorkshiremen
– should be put in such a position.

There is no attempt to draw a distinction? What distinction is there to be made? The canonical texts of Islam are clear. The only distinction not made is that between combatants and non-combatants by the very suicide terrorists who perpetrated the acts highlighted in Fitna. Where are the Muslims who are condemning these tactics, and all jihad against infidels? The greatest scholars in Islam are reaffirming these passages, and jihad as a timeless struggle to kill or convert the Kuffar (infidels). There should be no distinction until Muslims make one for themselves and eschew violence, in all cases, against non-Muslims, gays, women, and any of their other attendant victims through the ages. The film is no incitement to violence, the verses it quotes ARE incitements to violence. The Qur'an IS an incitement to violence. The life of Muhammad is an example of and incitement to violence. Huhne is descended so deeply into self loathing that he feels a man who is stating that a hateful religion is in fact hateful needs to be censored for offending people of this religion.

In my view, there is a serious risk that Wilder's views could create substantial
harm to ethnic minorities in this country, and it is this prevention of harm
that justifies the restrictions to Wilder's freedom of speech. That is why (and
I say this rarely) the home secretary is right on this occasion.

Where exactly in the UK are minorities being persecuted or attacked? From all the reports I read, it is people from Muslim backgrounds that are committing the acts of violence. They are referred to as "Asian" in the media, to better obscure the ideological background, which encourages violence against non-Muslims. The violence includes gang rape, and assorted other violence. The Muslim response? A Muslim news editor demands that the Asian/Muslim community be given the resources to tackle the problem "within the religion and culture of these communities themselves". As if their "culture" has done a good job of stopping violence. Let them police themselves so they can more effectivel use gang rape as a tool redress harmed "honor".

Huhne on Holocaust deniers (Gerald Frederick Toben)? Well, now he is much softer:

We don't in this country tend to prosecute people for issues that we regard as
issues of freedom of speech

Oh really Chris? Even when that free speech posits that a minority of Brits (Jews) have conspired to defraud the world of money, based on an enormous hoax, concocted by a secret cabal of hook nosed Jews, with the complicity of all Jews, and blackmailing every government to comply? That doesn't count as inciting hatred? This is precisely what Toben said. Here are his comments in defense of Ernst Zundel (virulent anti-Semite and Holocaust denier). Some highlights:

The world has known that the Holocaust Racketeers, the corpse peddlers and the
Shoah Business Merchants are not only ‘off their rocker’, but since Norman
Finkelstein published his book The Holocaust Industry, we know that these
people, according to Finkelstein, are also a bunch of criminals who have no
respect for the victims — Jews and Gentiles alike — as long as they can make a
‘fast buck’ out of it

And in the Iranian media he said that Israel was founded on the Holocaust lie.

Wilders never called for violence and didn't attempt to incite violence, and has repeatedly repudiated violence as a solution. I say Toben has the right to deny the Holocaust. As Wilders has the right to criticize Islam. So the issue is, why, in his selective application of the right to free speech, does Huhne choose to stand with Holocaust denying fascists, instead of anti-fascist liberal democrats? Huhne is a miserable twat. Perhaps he can spare us sanctimonious self loathing diatribes in the future.

Update on Holocaust Denial

I was wrong in my article below. Bishop Williamson was allowed entry because he is a British citizen. I overlooked this critical fact. However I will shift the analogy as the Brits allowed Australian citizen and Holocaust denier Frederick Toben into the UK, he was detained while the magistrate decided not to honor the German warrant for his arrest for "anti-Semitism" and "Holocaust Denial".

The point being the Brits don't mind Holocaust denial so much. Jews seem to take it lying down, and won't riot at Picadilly Circus.

Finally..... Stats on Support for Shariah in the Islamic World

Overwhelming majorities support Shariah playing a LARGER role in the government of their countries.

The good news, there are actually people who support decreasing the influence of Shariah, just not many.

See pages 27-30.

HERE!

Articles of the Day

I will try to post articles everyday that I find relevant and thought provoking. Today's are:

Blue Skies and Bigots in the Swat Valley

Hate Speech at SFSU

Britain Testing the Lows of Capitulation once Again

The UK has done it again! Things are always darkest... just before they go pitch black.

Only days after banning Geert Wilders from entering the UK, the Brits have allowed the Holocaust denying bishop, Richard Williamson into Britain. Williamson was just de-excommunicated by the Pope (himself a former member of the Hitler Youth). Here is why this whole thing stinks: Geert Wilders made a film that quotes ACTUAL texts cited by ACTUAL Muslims in the commission of ACTUAL violent acts. Now Williamson has forwarded a theory that states that demonstrable history is in fact a fake, that this hoax was perpetrated by a group of people (the Jews), who have conspired to enlist the help of every Jew and every government to extort money from non-Jews... and this just HAPPENS to be a clone of ancient anti-Semitic stereotypes (blood libel, Jews run the world, etc...). I commented on why Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism here. So Britain has denied the entry of an elected politician from a UN member state who did nothing but cite demonstrable fact in a short film, and allowed entry of a man peddling an anti-Semitic lie, denying demonstrable history, who had even been excommunicated by one of the greatest anti-Semitic organizations on the planet for being anti-Semitic.

Who does Williamson meet with upon arrival? None other than Holocaust denier and discredited non-scholar, David Irving. You can read all about that meeting here.

What kind of country listens to threats from a peer who has been convicted of reckless driving and killing a man (notice his close personal connections to the genocidal government in Sudan). {He has also been quite boastful in the Muslim world (media) about his ability to intimidate the British government} And what kind of country, after claiming free speech can be censored because people would be "offended" then allows a Holocaust denying, neo-fascist, religious cleric into the country?

I fully support Williamson's right to deny the Holocaust. It is offensive, stupid, and immoral, but all of those things are his right to embody. But how hypocritical could one government be, to in the course of a week deny a certain right to one man, and extend it to another? Does Britain even care anymore? Has the self hatred of the liberal government become so great that they cannot even muster the pretension of decency?

Just remember if you are planning a vacation to London, criticizing fascism will get you banned, and promoting fascism gets you admitted. It's hard to believe Orwell was an Englishman.

The British Left and I finally agree, we both wish they had never been born.

***EDIT*** I am updating this story in a new post.

David Miliband... Useless Idiot.

In the ongoing saga of the implosion of British society another figure slithers his way to the forefront. None other than Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs David Miliband. An MP from South Shields, and yet another member of Labour dedicated to the appeasement of Islam and the crushing of all that makes liberal society.... well liberal.

****

The Religion of Peace has nominated Miliband as Dhimwit of the Month for January 2009. A title rightly earned. There are two things about Miliband that catch my eye. One, his absolutely pathetic stance on Islam (now actively apologizing for Islamic terrorism), two, his appalling handling of the Geert Wilders incident.

For his part, Miliband has done a masterful job of apologizing for Islam (and of embarrassing Britain the world over, this actually got a formal complaint). Blaming the Mumbai attacks on the Kashmir conflict (very insightful considering none of the groups who perpetrated the attacks even mentioned Kashmir and targeted Jews specifically, who, to my knowledge, have not occupied Kashmir). Despite his ability to pre-emptively apologize for Muslim jihadists he is doing his part to make sure that such folks have a happy home in the UK. That's right Miliband actively campaigned for the release and return British resident Binyam Mohamed, the Ethiopian born convert to Islam arrested in Pakistan (funny place to go as an Ethiopian born UK resident) who was later transferred to Guantanamo Bay . Mohamed has claimed he was tortured in Morocco at the behest of British intelligence. He claimed to know that British intelligence was feeding questions to his Moroccan captors (it is always incredibly amazing the level of omniscience achieved by conspiracy theorists). Of course he can't explain how he knew... Maybe Allah sent a winged horse with supple 9 year old girls to inform him.

It is debatable whether Miliband did more damage with his mistreatment of Geert Wilders. After Miliband (and all of Britain) was threatened by a Muslim peer (Lord Ahmed) with marauding bands of Muslims (10,000 to be exact), Miliband was intrinsic in carrying out the ban and effective censorship of Geert Wilders. Of course Lord Ahmed praised Allah for a victory for the Muslim community. Indeed, for Muslims (always eager to suppress those who read Islam back to them), Miliband must seem like a god-send. Miliband was questioned about his role in this bit of fascism. Davey says that Fitna is "a hate filled film" when asked if he had seen the film, Mili-pants says he he has not! Watch the whole disgraceful interview HERE. This is classic behavior for the useful(less) idiots... explain that those who criticize Islam are racists without bothering to research the claims made. How embarrassing for Miliband, caught with his wanker out. Making claims about things he can't possibly know.

What a pathetic worm. Being an apologist for Islam is one thing, but managing to achieve "bunglin idiot" status as well is a doubly whammy.

A Good Friend and a Suicide Bombing

A dear friend has just come to stay with me. He has come from his country of birth, let's just say it is an Islamic nation with serious issues with security. He hadn't informed me why he was coming to the states, but no reason was really necessary as I am happy to see him.

Upon arrival he informed me of why he had come... he had nearly been killed by a suicide bomber. He described walking past a crowded market square when he felt a shock wave and saw body parts flying in all directions. He looked back and saw blood and body parts everywhere, survivors covered in dust and blood. People running in all directions. The scene of horror he described can hardly be related here (not to take an H.P. Lovecraft approach to nebulous horror, but it really is difficult to recreate the fear with which he spoke).

Terror of this nature has become so commonplace that we hear "suicide bombing" and we kind of shake our heads and go about our business. This kind of thing really brings into perspective what this is all about, the terror, the carnage, the destruction of innocent life. People don't do the research about this kind of thing. I once did some reading on suicide bombers in Israel, the contents were awful. One of the victims of a Palestinian suicide bombings had few external injuries, but her internal organs had been pulverized by the supersonic shock wave which ravaged her body. Such blast injuries are common with these kind of explosions.

This brings into stark relief how heinous a policy of targeting civilians really is, and the power of coercion it brings. If enough people see scattered body parts in the streets, perhaps they will give up. Sadly, it seems to work. And when you have a fith column of apologists lying to us about what these people want, we are really in a tough spot.

An Abridged Handbook of Islamic Sects and Trends

The other day I noticed a comment on richarddawkins.net by a normally insightful commentator; njwong, about the difference between Sufism and Wahhabism. Despite his usual insight I feel that the demarcation he makes is born of ignorance of these two "types" of Islam. So I am going to attempt to compile a list of common terms, groups, and influences that routinely pop up in discussions of Islam, and provide some abridged explanations (in no particular order, save in which they came to my mind). List of Terms:

Wahhabi(ism): A term used in a far too general a fashion. It is essentially a movement founded by Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the central plateau of the Arabian Peninsula (Najd) in the mid 18th Century. Descended from a long line of Hanbali scholars, Bin Abd al-Wahhab dedicated himself to correcting Islamic belief and practice, which he viewed as corrupted. His primary targets for reproach were Sufis (see below) and Shi'as. This is a term too widely applied these days for pejorative purposes. It was most likely first used by the Turks then later by the British. The descendants of Bin Abd al-Wahhab continue to hold the positions of official religious scholars in Saudi Arabia.

Sufi(sm): From the Arabic word tasawuf, meaning "wool", given to these people due to their garments of wool. Sufism is generally associated with spiritual and esoteric versions of Islamic practice. Often they are viewed, particularly by foreign observers, as antinomian, monkish type figures. This is unfair as Sufism spans a great many forms of practice. Some are very tolerant (one such Sufi master had both Jews and Christians in his funeral procession) to orders like the Qadari Tariqa of which 'Izz al-Din al-Qassam was a member (eponym of the Qassam rocket, and an inspiration to Hamas). Sufis are usually organized into an order known as a tariqa, an Arabic word mean "road" or "path". A single shaykh will lead the order and will be the spiritual leader for his followers. Strange practices are sometimes associated with the 'passing on' of the order; Stefania Pandolfo noted that some Sufis in Morocco would drink the bath water of the shaykh who led the order. Sufis range from the ultra liberal to the highly conservative, and many have been deeply involved in resistance movements... namely Sayyid Ahmed Barelwi in the Northwest Frontier Province, and the timeless intellectual Shah Waliullah Dihlavi (who shared a teacher, Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi, with Muhammad Bin Abd al-Wahhab).

Salafi(sm): From the Arabic term, Ahl al-Salif al-Salih (People of the Righteous Forebearers). It is essentially an ultra-traditional interpretation of Islam, harkening back to the aforementioned 'forebearers', referring to Muhammad and his companions. These Muslims often take as their impetus a Hadith attributed to Muhammad in which he said; "Blessed is the one who has seen me, and blessed is the one who has seen the one who has seen me." This is sometimes used interchangeably with the term immediately below. Some Wahhbis eschew the term Wahhabi and prefer to call themselves Salafis. Salafis are more inclined to take issue with non-Muslims than Wahhabis (who are primarily concerned with incorrect practice from Muslims). Salafis range from the highly faithful (but inactive) to the highly radical violent types seen in al-Qaeda and other purification/jihad groups. One such "passive" group is the Jama'a-i Tabliq.

Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamma': A term meaning People of the Way of the Prophet and the Community. Essentially a group similar to Salafis who focus on the early period of Islam for developing the correct Islamic lifestyle.

Jama'a-i Tabliq: A group of highly fundamentalist Muslims who do not take action with regard to non-Muslims, but instead choose to proselytize to their fellow Muslims who they feel are practicing Islam incorrectly. This group is often found to promote the notion that all the problems of the Muslim Ummah can be corrected by proper worship, and that as a corollary the current problems in the ummah are a direct result of incorrect worship. These Muslims are not all that dissimilar from Wahhabis, however the Tabliq are often comprised of Muslims from the Subcontinent.

The Muslim Brotherhood: Known in Arabic as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, or Ikhwan for short. A movement founded in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna (who was greatly influenced by Rashid Rida' and Muhammad Abduh, who were in turn greatly influenced by a Shi'a Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani) who claimed that the Qur'an and the Sunnah would provide the perfect model for Muslim life, and that the Caliphate should and would be re-established from Spain to Indonesia... and eventually the entire world. The credo of the brotherhood is: "Allah is our objective. "The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." The Brotherhood has been repeatedly oppressed in a number of Arab states. With varying severity in Egypt (under Nasser, and worse after a member assassinated Anwar Sadat). Initially the Brotherhood had helped the Egyptian officers who overthrow Kind Farooq, but were betrayed and persecuted by Nasser. And also in Syria which led to the massacre at Hama. The massacre of Hama occurred after a revolt led by the Brotherhood. The Syrian military bombarded the city killing between 25,000 and 40,000 people.

Qutbist: So named after eponym Sayyid Qutb. Qutb was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and was executed by Nasser in 1966. He wrote several fundamental works:
-Ma'alim fi't Tariq "Milestones", a critique of un-Islamic governments in Muslim countries.
-Fi Zilal al-Qur'an "In the Aegis of the Qur'an", an exegesis of the Qur'an in which Qutb couched a scalding critique of Nasser's Egypt.
-Adalat al-Ijtima'iyya fi'l Islam "Social Justice in Islam", in this work Qutb laid out his vision for Islam as a social system.
Qutb began his career in S. Egypt (he was Nubian and thus black) where he worked for the ministry of education and wrote tawdry romance novels. Qutb was steeled in his Islamism after a visit to the United States in the 1950's (he studied briefly in Greely, Colorado) where he was revolted by the sexual immorality of Americans. Qutb's most important commentary was his labeling of non-Islamic Arab governments as jahili (the Jahiliyya is the period before Islam, which is best translated as "Period of Ignorance"). Qutb has been an inspiration to Osama Bin Laden.

Osama Bin Laden: A Saudi of Yemeni origin, his family grew wealthy in Saudi Arabia through their construction business. Bin Laden was a reasonably moderate young man, but after a trip to Switzerland he began to eschew Western values. He went to participate in the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He was inspired by the writings of Sayyid Qutb, and an indirect line of filiation can be drawn as Bin Laden's closest ally (an integral founder of al-Qaeda) Abdullah Azzam had taught in Medina alongside Muhammad Qutb, brother of Sayyid Qutb. Bin Laden has adhered, loosely, to the hierarchy of disdain set out by Qutb. First were atheistic communist societies and second were Western capitalist societies, which ‘worshipped money’, and were thus idolaters. Another principle Qutb laid out (in Milestones) which bin Laden adopted was takfir ("To declare a Muslim to be non-Muslim"... literally "To make them a Kafir). Since Islam had entered a period of "Jahiliyya", any Muslim not taking part in the solution was an infidel. This practice of takfir is how bin Laden has justified the targeting of Muslims in terrorist attacks; he simply views them as Kuffar.

Jihad: Jihad is accurately translated as "Struggle", yet its historical context often causes people to render it "Holy War". Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (most famous student of Hanbali scholar Ibn Taymiyya) best outlined what jihad is in his magnum opus, Zaad al-Ma'ad (Provisions for the Hereafter). He wrote that jihad was divided into two levels. The First al-Jihad al-Akbar (The Greater Jihad) which was comprised of the struggle for internal perfection of faith, and the second al-Jihad al-Asghar (The Lesser Jihad) often times known as Jihad bi'l-Sayf (Jihad by the Sword). The Greater Jihad means perfecting faith and the practice of Islam, eschewing negative behaviors and perfecting worship, it is know as a Fard Ayni (Individual Obligation of the Muslim). The Lesser Jihad is fighting for the spread of Islam, or the defense of its borders, it is known as a Fard Kifaya (Sufficient or Communal Obligation) this means that not everyone need participate in this jihad, but SOME from the community MUST step forward to fulfill the obligation. This is in turn divided into subcategories by al-Jawziyya:
-Jihad bi'l-Lissan "Jihad by the Tongue" which means to spread Islam by the word.
-Jihad bi'l-Qalam "Jihad by the Pen" which means to spread Islam by the written word.
-Jihad bi'l-Sayf "Jihad of the Sword" which means to spread Islam by the sword.
All of these are potential obligations, and can be simultaneous. Al-Jawziyya makes no mistake about the importance of BOTH forms of jihad writing "Jihad is the very pinnacle of Islam, and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, experienced it in every facet" (my translation).

Now I am tired. I shall revisit this as it requires updating. Please contact me with any other questions or suggestions for terms requiring definition.

The Religious Cleansing of Bangladesh

The Hindu man to the left was beaten to death by Muslims after a Friday prayer in Bangladesh. Apparently the imam riled the congregants and immediately upon completion of the prayer the worshippers stormed into the street and grabbed the first Hindu they could find, and beat him to death. As you can see in the photo he begged for his life, to no avail. Someone once argued for religion saying "Wouldn't you feel safer knowing a mob coming down the street had just left a prayer service." Whoever said that wasn't a Hindu in Bangladesh.

While Muslims parade (read: 'riot') around claiming to be defenders of the "human rights" of Palestinians, remind them how millions of Hindus have been forced out of their homes and country and even killed by rampaging Muslims. Muslims hypocritically use "human rights" as a tool in their arsenal to wage their ongoing jihad against the state of Israel, but are quite a bit more shy when it comes to the Muslims systematically gang raping Christian women in the Sudan. {I commented briefly on gang rape as an institutionalized form of redressing offenses to "honor" here}

In 1947 when East Pakistan (as Bangladesh was then known) gained independence, Hindus comprised roughly 28% of the population. As of the most recent census data, the number has been reduced to 9.2%. This is largely attributable to a Muslim policy of religious cleansing of Hindus. As Hindus are polytheists, and polytheists are the most despised in Islam, it is not hard to motivate the Muslim masses to participate in such practices, or at least tolerate them.

In 1971 (during Operation Searchlight) and running clear through the Bangladesh War of Independence there was an active policy to kill both Bengali intellectuals, Biharis, and Hindus. Below is a quotation from "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900" (Ch.8):

"In East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) [General Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan and his top generals] also planned to murder its Bengali intellectual, cultural, and
political elite. They also planned to indiscriminately murder hundreds of
thousands of its Hindus and drive the rest into India. And they planned to
destroy its economic base to insure that it would be subordinate to West
Pakistan for at least a generation to come. This despicable and cutthroat plan
was outright genocide."

After 267 days of offensive operations the army of Agha Mohammed Yahya Khan had killed approximately 1.5 million people (intellectuals, ethnic Biharis, and Hindus). They had also created 10 million refugees (people who were forced to flee to neighboring India, which instituted a policy to turn most back or treat them as intruders which resulted in the shooting of a 12 year old girl ). It is worth noting that 1.5 million was a conservative estimate, other estimates have come in at 3 million dead in the genocide.

In June of 1988 President, Gen. H.M. Ershad signed an amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh stating that Islam was the state religion and that absolute faith and trust in Allah would be the basis of all action. Is it any wonder that a state now designated as officially "Islamic" would carry on persecuting the mushrikeen (polytheists)? And indeed it carried on in official state policy with the passing of the "Enemy Property Act" after the 17 day war with India. After the passage of this act the "Islamic" state began confiscating property belonging to Hindus, at will. And even when this law was repealed in 2001 (Property Return Bill) the State Minister informed the press in April, 2001 that this was for the sole benefit of Muslims.

Nor is this unique to Bangladesh. Afghanistan was similarly cleansed of Hindus... if one notices the mountain range "Hindu Kush" in Afghanistan, the translation of this is "Hindu Killer". Kush invariably means "killing" in Old Persian. This is in reference to the multitudes of Hindus who had died in the passes of these mountains after they had been taken as slaves by the Muslims (Islam permits the taken of slaves) and forced to march through the mountains.

There is no doubt that there are Muslim apologists who will say that this is a result of the nation state, identity, etc... The unfortunate fact is that it isn't unique or new when a Muslim population comes to control a region. In the original Islamic conquest it is estimated by some scholars that as many as 70 million Hindus were killed, and many more subtly forced to convert to Islam. Although things got better under the Mughal dynasty, this was due, possibly, to the fact that the Mughals were Timurids (Turko-Mongol), and not Arabs. By comparison, the conquest of the Mongols (Genghis Khan) looks mild versus what Muslims did in the subcontinent. Genghis Khan had a policy of including local religions in his empire, taking their input, and giving them freedom of worship. This much more accurately explains why the Mughals gave greater latitude to the Hindus than any false notion of Islamic tolerance.

Where is the Islamic basis for such behavior? Let's look at some verses from the Qur'an regarding polytheists.... Qur'an 9:5:

"When, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters
(polytheists) wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege
them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship
and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful. "

Explanation: Fight and kill polytheists until they become Muslim.

Qur'an: 89:6

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the
polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the
worst of creatures. "

The point is made. The Muslims have systematically killed, expelled, and oppressed Hindus in the Subcontinent. This is due to the Islamic principles of intolerance and hate for polytheists. Let us not fall into the trap of discussing human rights with Islam apologists.

Lieberman, Yisrael Beitenu...the Future of Israel.... and Europe.

I am going to try to tie these two seemingly disjointed topics into one, because I feel they are relevant to one another.

The elections in Israel have just been concluded, with a right wing surge in the Knesset. It looks as if Benjamin Netanyahu will be the the next prime minister (as Yisrael Beitenu has thrown its weight behind him). This has been a time of political turmoil in Israel as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (of the centrist party Kadima) has resigned after charges of corruption (which have affected Ariel Sharon the former Likud Prime Minister, and a number of other Israeli politicians) were forwarded. There has also been the Gaza conflict, that for whatever reason, became a sudden issue (rockets have been falling for years). This operation was launched under the leadership of a centrist prime minister (Olmert) and Labor defense minister (former Prime Ministe Ehud Barak). No doubt this was an attempt to show their "toughness" (and revive their relevancy) on the Arabs prior to the election to fend off the right wing, which is perceived as tougher on Arabs and more concerned with security.

In the elections for Knesset seats, Kadima (centrist) came in first with 28 seats, Likud (conservative) with 27 seats, Yisrael Beitenu (very right wing) with 15 seats, Labor (liberal) with 13 seats, and Shas (Haredi Sephardi and Mizrachi Judaism) with 11. Following this there were minor parties with a few seats. The important thing to note here is the popularity enjoyed by Yisrael Beitenu (meaning "Israel is our home").

Yisrael Beitenu is headed by a man named Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman is a Jew of Russian origin who resides in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim (near Bethlehem). Lieberman, although having been involved in governments and cabinets before, has made a resurgence (he had resigned from some posts and been sacked from another), particularly after the Gaza conflict. Lieberman provides an interesting and controversial solution to Israel's Palestinian problem. He has suggested that Israel cede territory that is primarily inhabited by Arabs which lies adjacent to the West Bank, to PA control, and annex areas of the West Bank that contain large concentrations of Israeli settlers (notably areas around E. Jerusalem). He has also said that any Arabs who choose to remain in Israel should take a loyalty oath or lose their right to vote (but could remain as 'permanent residents' if they didn't). He has also said the same oath should be required of certain Haredi groups... one can only assume he is referring to the Neturei Karta, a group of Orthodox Jews that reject Zionism as blasphemous (only God can return the Jews to Israel). It is worth noting that the Neturei Karta sent representatives to the Holocaust "Review" Conference in Tehran (please don't confuse them with decent people).

This is a highly controversial solution because it requires ethnic gerrymandering and the illegal annexation of illegal settlements. It has drawn criticism from right and left. The left claim it is racist and anti-democratic, and the right claiming it is giving up parts of the land of Israel and any such action is wrong from a Zionist perspective. Lieberman has had run ins with MK's from Arab parties (Balad, etc...) who have accused him of racism. Not only have Arabs made this claim so has Ophir Pines-Paz who called him a racist after threatening to "take care of" Arab ministers (saying they would be tried for treason and executed for meetings with any hostile government or entity). Lieberman had also suggested that sweeping military actions be conducted in the face of any Palestinian aggression, saying that the IDF should bomb commercial centers in Ramallah and other West Bank towns. This drew a stern rebuke from President Shimon Peres.

I think that in the end, Israel will have to make unilateral decisions regarding its borders and citizens. I also think Lieberman has made an insightful statement , saying that peace negotiations are based on three false premises:

1) The Israel-Palestinian conflict is the root of instability in the Middle East.
2) The conflict is territorial and not ideological.
3) The establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict.

I think that Lieberman is substantively correct here. And because of this I made the first statement, Israel will have to make unilateral decisions. The Palestinian territories are disjointed and filled with a people that have no desire to see commitments entered into by their leaders (Oslo etc...) fulfilled. Hamas is too powerful and too destructive. Israel will have to define its final border on its own. Unfortunately, due to the building of the security barrier, this won't be on the international recognized 1967 border. The Israelis will end up annexing areas with large settler presence so as not to uproot them. This will draw international condemnation and further hurt the image of Israel. But based on past experience it may be the only possible solution. Palestinians still hold the view (by and large) that Palestine is from the "River to the Sea. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" is a ubiquitous chant at rallies, and obviously leaves no room for Israel. Negotiations are a waste so long as the partner holds dear Israel's destruction.

The surge in popularity of both Lieberman and Yisrael Beitenu (made up of secular as well as religious Russian Jews) is important because it is evidence of what happens when dealing with a Muslim population (in this instance, but any implacable group in theory) becomes impossible. The Israelis left Gaza and Hamas was elected, it took over violently and carried on in its policy of indiscriminate violence (rocket fire). Negotiations with the PA have failed. The PA has not followed through on even its most basic commitments from Oslo (the Israelis have also failed to dismantle settlements, or even stop their growth ). The situation is not progressing, solutions must be reached, and now unilaterally.

This relates to Europe because similar situations could occur. If the Muslim population in, say, Britain is not helped (or forced) to integrate, and it remains a separate, secluded, group then the rise of right wing politicians is inevitable. In fact this is already happening as the BNP has seen an increase in popularity. Muslims have created enclaves which are "no go" for infidels. The constant push down the one way street of compromise with Islam (Islam takes and never gives) is going to frustrate citizens who don't want Shariah courts, bans on alcohol, and violent mob behavior every time a Muslim sensitivity is offended. Europe take heed, end the appeasement or get a Euro version of Yisrael Beitenu.

Video: Islamic States Blocking Discussion of Female Genital Mutilation Based on "Insult Laws"

What these cretins fail to realize is that real girls are being mutilated while they are stifling debate on the grounds that Islam will be insulted, or maybe not, maybe they view FGM in a positive light. Everyone should be enraged.

32 countries have FGM practiced regularly, 29 of those are members of the OIC!

Pakistan's Deal with the Devil

The latest news is that Pakistan has struck a peace deal with the Taliban (and it isn't just the Pakistanis who are knuckling under it is the Danish too). Where to start, where to start. Well let's start by saying not all Pakistanis with any authority think it is sane. But the fundamentals of the deal are that the Taliban will be allowed to administer the territory under Islamic law, despite the fact that Pakistan has 12,000 troops in the region, and the Taliban only about 3,000. Despite a superiority ratio of 4:1, the Pakistanis will give in. Why is this, and what is the history?

The Northwest Frontier Province has long been problematic. In the 19th Century Reza Khan led a rebellion against the governing authorities there, and when he concluded a peace treaty, one of his former followers, Sayyid Ahmed Barelwi, broke from his movement and created his own. Barelwi was a curious mix of Sufi (Chigishtiyya, Muhammadiyya) and Wahhabi. Writing a book on Tawhid (the ubiquitous theme of all the works of Bin Abd al-Wahhab himself) entitled Sirat al-Mustaqim (The Straight Path). It may be coincidence (or not) that Barelwi was a Sufi, and the Taliban has its roots in the Deobandi Sufi Tariqa in the Subcontinent. For my money, Barelwi is the most important progenitor of Islamic resistance in the NWFP. And to this day, the NWFP maintains its staunch Islamic character.

One would be right to ask, "Why would the Pakistanis do this?" And the answer isn't quite so easy. Pakistan has a number of strategic concerns which flow directly through the NWFP. First is that Pakistan still fears India and wants to keep the NWFP both placated and a contiguous portion of Pakistan for the purpose of strategic depth if a conflict were to arise with India (which doesn't seem all too remote at this point). Indeed this has been an overt policy for the Pakistanis, and it is also why a porous border with Afghanistan provides some benefits for the Pakistanis as well.

Why else would they do this? Well the ISI (Pakistani intelligence, which, along with the military, has great power in Pakistan) has long maintained a working relationship with the Taliban. The reason, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan is Pashtun (roughly 34%) and Pashtuns make up (16%) of the Pakistani population. The ISI fears that any form of ethnic nationalism (Pashtun) in Afghanistan could spread to its own Pashtun population creating great instability and overcoming the unity enjoyed in a nominally 'Islamic' state. Thus the ISI has a strong interest in keeping Afghanistan defined on religious terms, and the Taliban is integral to this. Thus the Pakistanis are all too willing to allow the Taliban to fester, and to allow the border to be a relative non-issue with regards to the movement of their forces.

What will the results be? More of the same. Persecution of minority religious groups, degredation of women, and destruction of schools (especially girls schools). Yes indeed, the Pakistani government plans to allow the Taliban authorities there to administer Shariah law in the NWFP. This will spell doom for women and minorities in the region. Already women are being beheaded for perceived violations of "morality", and we can only expect this trend to increase once the Pakistanis give formal approval for such behaviors. And what is the response of the west? The US remains silent, and the ever obsequious British have begun broadcasting messages begging Pakistanis not to attack (or hate) the British. Once again British cowardice and capitulation requires a special aside in a post here. It is truly stunning the depths to which the British will sink in their Islamo-sycophancy, perhaps if they beg and plead enough... nah.



Any hope for a decent life for the people of the NWFP is now lost. And all the British can do is beg for mercy. Someone get me a drink.

Orientosis, Also a Plague from the West

In 1952 in Iran a book was published by Jalal Al-e Ahmed, the son of a cleric, entitled "Occidentosis: A Plague from the West". The term used in Persian was Gharbzadegi, a term coined by Ahmad Fardid at the University of Tehran in the 1940's. Indeed there was a degree of this in the muddled post-colonial mess in the Middle East. In fact we see such sentiments in Iran, when the Pahlavi Hat was instituted by Reza Shah (1925-1941). {More can be read on this transitional period here}. The hat was of western design and had a brim which made it quite difficult to perform the obligatory prayers of Islam. The hat was declared the official hat of all Iranian men in 1927 (see Houchang Chehabi for more).

Another watershed event was the Tanzimat in Turkey (1839-1876) which was a reorganization of the Ottoman Empire, and concluded with the First Constitutional Era. This included financial reorganization based on the French system. However the Turkish contribution to colonial sycophancy did not end here, there was a period of "The Young Turks" which saw further reforms, and the famous Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk). These periods saw the end of the Ottoman empire and the institution of a secular state in what had previously been the seat of the Islamic Caliphate. Indeed there were more than a few instances of this gharbzadegi.

I would like to take this as a point of departure to comment on another "plague" I see, and if I may coin the term, Sharqzadegi (Orientosis). Yes indeed, there is a growing fetish in the western world, particularly in centers of academia, which takes as its raison d'etre, the inversion of perceptions of Islam and the Middle East. The publication of Edward Said's "Orientalism" in 1978, was essentially the start of this self flagellating movement. Said coined the term Orientalism, which was the 'skewed' depiction of Arabs and Muslims in writing and art in the west. {This theory appears to be on its way out as the inestimable Ibn Warraq has published a rebuttal}. And indeed there had long been an obsession with certain things Middle Eastern, many of which was concocted. For instance the 'belly dance', which was taken from some form of traditional dance, and transformed into a night club performance. So alien was this that in Arabic the belly dance is referred to as raqs sharqi (Eastern Dance). The obvious problem here is the Arabs referring to the dance as "eastern" which wouldn't make much sense if it were a cultural practice they themselves created and performed.

Today we see a large crowd of 'academics' and a potpouri of apologists running about telling us how Islam isn't barbaric (which it clearly is) but that it is a light unto the world, a religion that gave us everything from the number zero (a lie) to capri pants. This rehabilitation is an intellectual exercise. And what an exercise for the mental masturbationists... a complete inversion of perceivable reality, take the mephitic cesspools of Islam and dig for diamonds in the rough to show us all we were so wrong to think that a culture that stones women for adultery isn't actually the pinnacle of civilization. {I have commented on this kind of laudatory commentary on Islam HERE}.

The field is littered with these types, one as bad as the next, whether it be Karen Armstrong, who doesn't bother to engage with facts when dealing with the Muslim world issuing idiotic statement after idiotic statement. She has been given a good smack now and again for her obsequious apologetics, but largely continues on, unencumbered by facts. The list continues, John Esposito, Juan Cole, Noah Feldman, ad nauseum (I can't emphasize the 'nauseum' part enough). Needless to say the rehabilitation of a conquesting, Jew hating, violent, misogynistic cult, is not hard to find.

But this Orientosis should not come as a shock, this kind of behavior is quite common amongst the privileged liberals of the west who wish they had never been born. Oh yes, Buddhism was all the rage, with young privileged, middle class children becoming Buddhists. Spending their parents' money for trips to "holy sites" across the globe. And it isn't just the kids, adults have the same problem. Delusion isn't just for children. Disdain for one's own culture has drawn more than a few to Islam, several names come to mind.... John Walker Lindh and Adam Gadahn. Of course when a young man like Lindh becomes a Muslim in Marin, California and jets off to Afghanistan to fight with al-Qaeda, people speculate that he suffers from some mental illness, and rightly so. Why is it that no one makes such speculation when a so-called 'academic' does the intellectual equivalent? Well fear not, Dr. Al is on the case, ready with a diagnosis for the Islamophiles and useful idiots.... Orientosis.

How are Women Viewed in Islam?

Oh how I grow sick of listening to Muslims explain to me how wonderful Islam is when it comes to women, all the while telling me that the west is abusing women by letting them choose how to dress. I thought I would take a brief moment to comment on how women are treated in the Muslim world, in practice. There is plenty to be said of the textual basis for treating women as unclean, property, and inferior.

Now that we have dealt with the Qur'an and its awful approach to women (the Hadith are rife with similar commentary such as Muhammad saying that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women), we can move on to the treatment of women in the Islamic world, and we can see if it follows from the texts (I know this got Geert Wilders in trouble, but I will also read Islam back to anyone who wants, or does not want, to hear it).

One principle regarding a sex crime (rape) in Islam is that there must be four witnesses to prove rape. So when a woman was gang raped in Saudi Arabia, the judge sentenced her to 100 lashes and a year in jail for committing adultery (as prescribed by the Qur'an). The rejection of the rape report and the punishment meted out to the woman were both in perfect accordance with Islamic Law and the texts of Islam. Some scholars of Islam say that, in fact, the women deserve to be raped for their illicit dress.

Of course often enough there is a lack of a legal structure (or simply a functioning government) so Muslims must take matters into their own hands. And it isn't just in Pakistan were women are brutalized for immorality. It is right here in a secular western democracy, were Muslims carry out their violent misogyny. A Muslim man beheads his wife in what is known in Orwellian terms as an "honor killing". His wife had requested a divorce. It is impermissible in Shariah for a woman to initiate a divorce in Islam. On the other hand a man my divorce his wife with ease, it is as easy as saying talaq three times.

It is a wonder that Muslims even bother to keep up the PR charade. Who would believe the cries of innocence from a suspect who repeatedly and habitually confesses to the crime?

This post will be the first in a series of posts on Islam (tomorrow will be Jews, the following apostates, then gays, etc...). Hopefully (or as the Muslims say Insha'allah) this will bring to light the fact that the current practices of Muslims are firmly rooted in the texts of Islam.

Geert Wilders Interview

A video of note:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54d_1234534586


Never a man at a loss for words.

9/11 Conspiracy Hycpocrisy

I was inspired to write this after reading the following from Big Bang....

"9/11 was also an inside job and therefore the so-called war on terror is a phony. I wonder how many here considering your islamaphobian mindset will admit this?"

I wish these people could get their shit together... "Muslims have been wronged by the west, the evil imperialism of the west.... the chickens have come home to roost!.... But the Jews did it".

Comical.

A Convert to Islam on RD.net

Well, well... I have been informed that RD.net now has a resident convert to Islam named "Big Bang". He had said in one post that he was a "revert to Islam" ('revert' a rehabilitative term used by Muslims suggesting that all children are born Muslim and only stray later to things like Christianity, or Hinduism... a fundamental Muslim doctrine) and he followed this with "alhamdililah" (of course a mistransliteration and mispronunciation of alhamdulilah, perhaps he should have done some more research before "reverting"). I was reading (more like wading) through some of his posts, and found quite a gem, one which demands a riposte, but since I have been banned by the rationalist Gestapo, I will comment here, and hopefully this post will come to light just enough to dispel this Promethean effort in ass clownery.

The post by the self congratulatory Big Bang can be found here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3609,Why-Women-Are-Bound-to-Religion-An-Evolutionary-Perspective,R-Elisabeth-Cornwell-PhD,page2#341960

I shall cite portions and respond.

"The wrongs that women suffer in Muslim lands is due (i
repeatedly point this out but it conveniently gets ignored) to ignorance and
cultural factors you sick and blind islamaphobes. "

I hear this bit of apologetics quite regularly, with the usual interstitial bouts of outright denial. This is quite a broad comment he has made here, unfortunately he does not bless us with a citation, or even a half assed reason. No doubt the suffering of women is due to "cultural" factors, the culture of Islam is at fault. Many apologists have said that it is the Arab culture that degrades women and that Islam would liberate women if only the Arabs would implement the Shariah fully. Let's not forget that Muhammad said that the Arabs were the best of people and that the Qur'an is an explicitly immutable Arabic text (Inna Anzalna Qur'anan Arabiyyan.... "Verily we have revealed an Arabic Qur'an"). The fact is that all the unpleasant aspects of Arab culture were enshrined in Islam, and this is precisely the cultural factor at work. If one looks at the opalescent profile of worldwide Islam we see certain unifying factors.... the relevant one here is the degradation of the woman in society. The only unifying factor is Islam, as I am sure Mauritanians have little in common culturally with Malaysians, save for Islam.

"Still, women are more oppressed in the west. They get raped
left,right and center and rarely are the rapists punished. In the name of 'art'
they sell their mothers,daughters and sisters. Adultery, family breakdowns and
all the ill-social and consequences are there for all to see. "

"Raped left, right and center", Oxford comma omitted for effect, apparently. Anyhow, this seems to me inaccurate, but let's assume it isn't... the perpetrators of rapes are hunted by law enforcement and prosecuted. The women are given counseling if they choose, and medical treatment. Unfortunately in many Muslim countries gang rape is an institutionalized form of punishment for perceived infringements of "honor", most recently in Pakistan. How are victims treated? A woman in Saudi Arabia was raped, when she reported the rape she was condemned as an adulterer and sentenced to 100 lashes. One could reasonably conclude that this would make rapes go unreported. What makes this comment even more sadly amusing is that in Islam a man's wife may not refuse him sex... in essence, spousal rape is acceptable. It is nothing short of shocking idiocy that a Muslim would criticize the western world for "adultery"... Islam permits adultery, in point of fact, by allowing a Muslim to keep women as sex slaves (concubines, referred to in the Qur'an as "what the right hand possesses"), and that these slaves cannot refuse sex. In one instance of epileptic fit Muhammad both sanctioned adultery and rape, and our local Muslim convert accuses the west of social dysfunction... ridiculous.

"Although the Muslims are in the worsest state in their
history, they are still BY COMPARISON socially(family/community) morally and
spiritually superior. We do not want your material and individualistic lifestyle
imposed on us, it brings nothing but misery."

What a joke. Palestinians dressing their children up as suicide bombers, terrorists in Afghanistan using 10 year olds as suicide bombers, rape victims lashed, gays hung, ad nauseum. What can one say.... other that "worsest" isn't a word.

"Islam is the solution, the only solution."

Dare I say.... 'final solution'?

A Comment on RD.net and the Wilders Debate

Since I have been banned from RichardDawkins.net I am forced to comment here about the insanity there. The following comment was brought to my attention by the ever prescient and entertaining Styrer. He asked for my commentary, and I plan to give it to him. Here is the link to the comment in question:


http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3597,Dutch-MP-refused-entry-to-Britain,BBC,page4#339916

Here is the relevant portion of text of the comment:

"Not that I am against [crucial edit] opposing Islam as a
religion, but not from the point of view of privileging Christianity and/or
Judaism, as Wilders
does. The Abrahamic
religions are after all cut from the same cloth; they have all drunk from the
same poisoned well of tribal barbarism.

Where I disagree with Hitch (and
Sam) is that Islam is inherently more barbaric or conducive to violence. Wrong.
The societies in which Islam predominates are today more backward, that is the
difference. When those societies were relatively more advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity"

It is difficult to know where to start with this bit of regurgitated nonsense propaganda. But I shall give it a whack. Whether or not Wilders priveleges Christianity is irrelevant, and is also his right, just as Muslims are free to privilege Islam in their proselytizing of infidels. The Abrahamic religions are cut from the same cloth indeed, yet they maintain remarkable differences. The Qur'an is rife with calls for violence and oppression, those verses do not need to be recited here as they can be found by even a doltish self flagellator with a google search. One often hears the ignorant retort "Well the Old Testament says awful things as well", oh and indeed it does, but the Torah (OT) is a book that functions as a description of the history of a people. When god told the Jews to murder a tribe of people, it was just that, limited to the tribe mentioned. These are as much descriptive as anything else. Now the Qur'an doesn't speak specifically about tribes, it speaks generally of disbelievers. Thus the calls for violence don't have a limitation, one delineated in the text. If we leave the Qur'an we find ample reinforcement in the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) for this near limitless violence.

"The societies in which Islam predominates are today more
backward, that is the difference. When those societies were relatively more
advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity. "

This here, right here, is what drives me up the damn wall. This kind of parroting of myth and half truth is where our problem lies, this fetishization of all things non-Western. The inversion of reality, that a barbaric faith is ACTUALLY the exact opposite. Islam is clearly barbaric and violent, so the intellectual exercise to say the exact opposite is of primary importance. What nonsense. These places are backwards precisely because of Islam, how else do you explain countries awash with unprecedented oil wealth where female rape victims are beaten for adultery? What is the critical element here? Islam.

Let's move on to this 'golden age'. Indeed Islam produced some great scholarship as it spread like a pack of locusts across the globe. Devouring local knowledge, and rehashing it and producing new knowledge. But this was quickly put to death. After the Abbasid Caliph, Harun al-Rashid ushered in a period of mihna, in which literalism and rationalism were pitted against one another. The literalists (Asharites), armed with the totality of Islamic canon promptly thrashed the rationalists (Muatazilites). The rationalists were run out of town, tarred and feathered for heresy. And by no small coincidence the vast majority of scholarly production came from the Muatazilites. Rationalism was crushed, Baghdad was sacked by Hulagu, the library burnt, the Caliph stuffed in a carpet and rolled down the stairs of his palace.

The notion that Barbarians can bring benefit is not particularly special, by comparison Genghis Khan was a brutal but just leader. A man who had many redeeming qualities, but never enough to rehabilitate the destruction he wrought. Islam destroyed itself, setting quite a precedent, namely that when the texts are examined, a literalist will win. The Qur'an is not a book of allegory and metaphor, it is a book of clear and timeless commands for domination and austerity, no western scholar proved this, Muslims did. It did not help that Sunni scholars determined that the doors of Ijtihad (interpretation of the religion) were closed, leaving the Sunni world with four schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali) all vying for who shall be most austere as well as patronage of the ruler of the day, whomever it was.

Is it any wonder that the period between the destruction of Islamic rationalism and present day has been a descent into further barbarity... by the miracle or miracles reflecting the very texts Muslims deemed literal and eternal? The citation of the Golden Age of Islam as a meritorious period is simply disingenuous in the extreme, it is not meritorious, it is an example of how an honest adherence to a religious text will destroy a functioning society.

More on Geert

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=5253

A video of Wilders after his arrest at Heathrow. He calls Gordon Brown the biggest coward in Europe. The British have caved into threats of violence, coward is an accurate term.

Geert Wilders Denied Entry to the UK

The saga continues to unfold.... Geert Wilders has been denied entry to the UK, he was being held at a Heathrow detention center pending deportation. In light of this affront to the EU (which allows for the travel of its citizens and certainly the elected leaders of member states) and freedom of speech let us examine the rank hypocrisy of the UK government. David Miliband, when confronted by Dutch Foreign Minister, Maxime Verhagen, said of of his decision to exclude Wilders; "A hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred in this country is contrary to our laws". Woh woh woh pump your brakes Davey, let's look at your policy a little closer... didn't the British government admit Ijaz Mian who said:

"You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir. We have to rule ourselves and we have to
rule the others... King, Queen, House of Commons: if you accept it, you are a
part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a
Muslim, you have to fix a target. From that White House to this Black House, we
know we have to dismantle it. Muslims must grow in strength, then take over...
You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state-within-a-state -
until you take over."

I seriously have to ask if Miliband is putting us on? Is this a joke? Is he a complete idiot or a liar? Wilders pointed out that people like Mian are intolerant and take their inspiration from the Qur'an, Wilders is banned. Mian calls for the destruction of British society, and the Brits let him waltz in, hopefully they didn't issue him a welfare check on arrival. If I were British I would probably choke on my scone. The British government is in such gross dereliction of duty that the least that should happen is expulsion from office for these self destructive morons (Davey Miliband being the first to go).

Brits... What kind of circus are you running over there?

Lebanese MP Reveals His True Feelings

Video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bd8_1234480168

Lebanese MP Ghassan Matar reveals his true feelings. Let's do the laundry list:

-All Americans are legitmate targets: Check
-Feels joy at American casualties: Check
-Cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Check
-Says Jews are genetically wired to be evil: Check
-Says Jews rule the world through money and deceit: Check
-Lies about contents of the Torah: Check
-Says there is no difference between Zionists and Jews: Check

There is little need to comment on these kind of things, just follow along with a highlighter.

Revolted yet again.

Another Response to Steve Zara

I must agree with you Steve, we can do no more than treat people as individuals, which I think I have been saying we should. But we can use group identity to help narrow down the individuals we want to investigate, to save both time and money.

"As for Wilders, and his right to say what he likes, there have been many
troubles associated with religious groups in the history of the British Isles. A
recent example is those in Ireland. There were certainly Catholics who were
terrorists. But did that mean that we said that terrorism was a characteristic
of Catholicism? Or that all Catholics shared the responsibility to some extent?
No, we dealt with those who were planning and executing acts of terror as
appropriate. We also, most of us, condemned those who tried to spread general
hatred of Catholics based on the acts of a few. As individuals, we have all
kinds of rights. But those in public positions have different responsibilities
because they are privileged. "

So this analogy has been made before. I am not familiar with all the details of the Catholics and their activities in the Isles. However I assume you are referring to the N. Ireland situation. In which case I feel you are making a bad analogy. I was actually going to write a post on how the N. Ireland situation is completely different from that of Muslim terrorism, but I will touch on it here. First, the IRA had specific national and political goals, ones that did not extend beyond what was the contiguous region known as Ireland. The IRA never sought the destruction of Britain, nor the death or conversion of all non-Catholics. The Islamists seem bent on both the destruction of non-Muslim polities and the death or conversion of their inhabitants. This is evidenced by any number of their statements, and these aren't what are at issue because I feel we agree on the nastiness of religion and Islam in specific.

Now the Catholics in N. Ireland had a daily grievance, occupation of their land. Now can you please tell me what several British born Muslims, who live in total freedom, and relative economic prosperity are doing bombing the Underground? What analogy is there to be made? None at all. Catholicism was wrapped up in a larger struggle for self determination. British citizens, Muslim or not, already have self determination. The reason for the bombings of 7/7 was something else. Something common to a certain group and not found elsewhere.

Indeed there are plenty of non-Muslim terror organizations, the LRA of Uganda, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, numerous far right ultra-nationalist groups in Eastern Europe, etc... But these other groups do not have a religious nature to them like Islamist groups do, this is fact.

"What people have to be responsible for is what they do - their actions. Those
actions can include promoting oppressive aspects of an ideology. They can be
held morally responsible. Of course, legal penalties for that is a quite
different matter. What we have to avoid is thought crime."

I agree with you here, we cannot have thought crime. But let's see what the reaction to perceived threats to Muslims is:

A boy with the mental capacity of a five year old is charged with a race crime in Britain because he got into an argument with a person of "Asian" descent:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3761056.ece

A teacher sacked for criticising Islam (Actually making a factual statement):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6326277.stm

All this special treatment for Muslims has got them feeling... well.... special, like they can run their own enclaves as they see fit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574694/Bishop-warns-of-no-go-zones-for-non-Muslims.html

All this special treatment for Muslims, doesn't this strike you, Steve, as being group based preferential treatment? Doesn't this irk you?

"Is it reasonable for people who live in a culture to explicitly deny that
culture, as against try to live quiet and peaceful lives, trying to respect the
rights of others within it?"

We aren't talking about people born in the Swat Valley who have never met a non-Muslim, we are speaking of people who are either naturalized or native born citizens of a western country. They can't plead ignorance... well I guess willful ignorance. What I am saying is that the current situation is untenable. Society should demand that these miscreants get with the program. It is high time the governments of the west stop appeasing the nasty violent tendencies displayed by many in the Muslim communities. It is wrong to deny someone's right to free speech because a group has decided it will unleash wanton violence in the face of this speech (A British Muslim peer said it would be 10,000 Muslims). Another example, German police broke into an apartment to remove an Israeli flag from the window (a clear violation of free speech) so that the pro-Gaza rioters below would not further destroy the city. Instead of policing criminals, the police chose to illegally enter a home, and curtail the free speech of the occupants, all to appease the Islamists and useful idiots below:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/024760.php#respond

In the current situation, the government treats any offense against Muslims as a race crime, attempts to prosecute teenagers with down syndrome for a dispute on a playground, offering Shariah courts to appease Muslims, allow Muslim rioters to run buck wild through the streets of London destroying shops with no police opposition, allowing Muslim students to skip Holocaust memorial days, and banning foreign critics of Islam for entering the country when this person has done nothing but make truthful statements. With all this preferential treatment it is curious that you are worried we will start treating Muslims as a group. We already do, for their special status they now have. This has done nothing but embolden them. Sure the useful idiots feel they are making accommodations, but they are showing weakness, perhaps it will be deducted from future jizya payments. What do you expect them to think? Their religion says they are superior and that other should convert, die, or pay tribute. Then when the non-Muslim societies in which they live start paying tribute... the logical conclusion is obvious. Defending the religion that shall not be named is reinforcing the most disgusting aspects of that religion. Rights are individual based, I suggest we start defending those instead of the current police where we give ONE group special treatment.