The Anti-Theist

News: Tunisian Pilot Begins Praying as his Plane Goes Down

2009-04-03T13:14:00.001-07:00

A Tunisian pilot began praying as his plane encountered troubles and went down off the coast of Sicily. Hmmm praying to Allah for help in an air disaster... I don't really associate Allah with air safety, but no matter. The Italians have jailed this twat, thankfully.

A pilot accused of praying when he should have been taking emergency measures to avoid a crash in which 16 people died has been sentenced to 10 years in jail by an Italian court.
Captain Chafik Gharby was at the controls of a plane belonging to the Tunisian charter airline Tuninter that crashed in the sea off the coast of Sicily four years ago. The 23 survivors were left swimming for their lives, some clinging to a piece of the fuselage that stayed afloat after the turbo-prop aircraft broke up on impact.
Gharby was at first hailed as a hero for having saved the lives of most of the passengers. But after an investigation, he, his co-pilot, and several Tuninter executives and technicians were charged with a range of offences including manslaughter

There we have it. Don't try to save the plane, ask Allah to save the plane. I can imagine many religious people who would be struggling away to save a crashing plane, it takes a staggering level of religiosity to actually pray while a plane is crashing when you could actively be doing something about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/tunisian-plane-crash-pilot-prayed

More Conspiratorial Ramblings from the Muslim World

2009-03-23T13:06:00.000-07:00

The conspiracy theories cooked up in the Arab and Muslim world are often quite preposterous but this one really takes the cake.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=16151

Anyhow this Yemeni man was sentenced to death for "making illegal contact with the Zionist Jewish Israeli entity". Quite a mouthful. The Yemeni prosecutor claims that this man email Ehud Olmert and then got a response from the Israeli Prime Minister. Here is the supposed exchange:

The prosecution charged Haidari with corresponding with Olmert through emails, one of which said: "We are the Organisation of Islamic Jihad and you are Jews, but you are honest, and we are ready to do anything."
The charge sheet said Olmert responded to Haidari, also known as Abu al-Ghaith, welcoming his offer to collaborate.
"We are ready to support you to become an obstacle in the Middle East. We will support you as an agent," Olmert was quoted as writing.

Ridiculous doesn't quite cover this. I really couldn't stop laughing. Apparently people in Yemen will believe in anything. As if Olmert searches his email daily looking for outreach from places like Yemen so he can recruit agents. Do the Yemenis think this is how spies make contact... by email the prime minister of an enemy state?

Simply too funny.

Australian Imam Vandalizes his own Mosque and Blames Islamophobes

2009-03-20T14:30:00.000-07:00

Here we go... duplicity at its finest.

"War is Deceit" -Muhammad

Here is the story to go with it:

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2202&Itemid=95

There you have it. Vandalizes his own mosque then blames the evil Kuffar. The idiot didn't even realize there was a camera videotaping him, how stupid can you be. It makes me wonder how many fake attacks have taken place (there have been several exposed in the Midwest of the United States) that didn't get exposed.

News: George Galloway Banned From Canada

2009-03-20T13:51:00.000-07:00

You know what... these Canadians aren't so bad, now are they? They stand up to the anti-Blasphemy laws, and now they ban infamous terror supporter George Galloway (who shall henceforth be called George Go-Away). Yes the Galloway who spoke glowingly of Saddam Hussein, who has lent moral (and perhaps financial) support to Hamas and Hezbollah and their anti-Semitic ramblings. I don't support the ban, I feel anyone should be allowed to speak their mind, but if we are going to ban people in the West, let it be no talent ass clowns like George Galloway.

Immigration ministry spokesman Alykhan Velshi said the act was designed to protect Canadians from people who fund, support or engage in terrorism.
Mr Velshi said: "We're going to uphold the law, not give special treatment to this infandous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas, a terrorist organisation banned in Canada.
"I'm sure Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won't be one of them."

That's right the Muslim spokesman for the Canadian Ministry of Immigration is condemning Galloway as a Cromwell. Well done Mr. Velshi, well said. But how did George Go-away react?

Mr Galloway, 54, said the ban was "not something I'm prepared to accept" and pledged to use all means at his disposal to challenge the ruling.

All means? Meaning more incessant whining? Perhaps the Hamas government will give him a stage, he fits in better in Gaza.

The Story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5024319/George-Galloway-vows-to-fight-Canada-ban.html

Islamist Hatred of Jews... it Is Not Even About Israel

2009-03-18T15:24:00.000-07:00

Following on my earlier post:

http://alrawandi.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-911-terrorists-say-about-islam.html

Where the 9/11 defendants detail that they hate and fight America because it is their Islamic duty to fight the infidels, I would like to present the views expressed below by Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qoub:

If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. We will never love them. Absolutely not. The Jews are infidels – not because I say so, and not because they are killing Muslims, but because Allah said: 'The Jews say that Uzair is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that Christ is the son of Allah. These are the words from their mouths. They imitate the sayings of the disbelievers before. May Allah fight them. How deluded they are.’ It is Allah who said that they are infidels.

Your belief regarding the Jews should be, first, that they are infidels, and second, that they are enemies. They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing. Allah said: 'You shall find the strongest men in enmity to the disbelievers [sic] to be the Jews and the polytheists.' Third, you must believe that the Jews will never stop fighting and killing us. They [fight] not for the sake of land and security, as they claim, but for the sake of their religion: 'And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back you’re your religion, if they can.'

This is it. We must believe that our fighting with the Jews is eternal, and it will not end until the final battle – and this is the fourth point. You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth.

That's right, even if Israel went away, they would still have to try to exterminate the Jews. So how are those peace negotiations coming along?

Roger Garaudy is the Epitome of Epitomies

2009-03-18T13:46:00.000-07:00

I have often thought there is a strong link (ideologically) between, fascism, pseudo-Marxism, Holocaust denial, anti-Israel sentiment and Islam. As I was trying to formulate why this is, I stumbled across an article on Jihad Watch... well it was a reprint there from the European Jewish Press but I shall put some of it here:

BRUSSELS (EJP)---An islamic religion teacher disputed the testimony of a Nazi camp survivor who recounted his story to students in a Brussels secondary school, Le Soir daily newspaper reported Tuesday. Henri Kichka, 83, from the Union of Jewish deportees in Belgium, had been invited last Friday by the school in Laeken, a Brussels commune, to describe how he survived Buchenwald and his family members were killed in the death camps.

During the meeting with the 150 students, the school was told by a teacher of Islamic religion that Kichka’s account “was largely exaggerated.”

Yes yes this is nothing new, a Muslim denying the Holocaust (or alternately saying the Jews deserved it). Anyhow, who does this denier cite... ah yes Roger Garaudy:

On Monday, the trade unions saw the videotape. “To us, there is no doubt, the teacher quoted negationist ideas from Roger Garaudy,” a French revisionist author and philosopher who converted to Islam and called the Holocaust a “myth”.

Converted to Islam you don't say????

Who is this Garaudy fellow... well he was a member of the French Communist party (he was kicked out for criticism of the USSR) then he became a Holocaust "revisionist", then he began the criticisms of Israel and its "founding myths", and then he converted to Islam in 1982. He was praised both by Hasan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and Ali Khamanei of Iran for his Holocaust denial. This seems like the natural progression of things... Communism... Holocaust Denial... Criticism of Israel... Islam.

News: Luton Protestors Claiming Benefits

2009-03-14T14:27:00.000-07:00

Ahhh yes, the British government continues to fund the domestic jihad against civil society. Congratulations on yet another own goal for the English side.

The mosque, with its distinctive golden dome dominating the skyline, is the most visible symbol of Islamic life in the town. It was also one of seven Muslim centres in Luton chosen to receive Home Office funding last year for a project called 'Preventing Violent Extremism'.
So far, £200,000 has been handed out via grants from the council. Another £400,000 has been set aside to capture the 'hearts and minds' of young Muslims.

All that money really seems to be paying off.

One in five of Luton's 200,000 population is Muslim. But in the Bury Park district, where Luton Central Mosque is situated, the figure is much higher. Indeed, the original indigenous white population has all but disappeared from these back-to-back terraces near the Kenilworth Road football stadium.
Bury Park has effectively become a town within a town, with its own madrasah (faith school), Islamic primary school and high street, where the local butcher has been replaced by the halal store and the corner shop by a Muslim grocery. Boutiques now sell Day-Glo saris and other traditional Asian clothes.

No shocker there. Separation from the Kuffar is important as the Qur'an says:

Qur'an 5:51

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

And it gets better:

Recently, Holocaust memorial ceremonies attended by many moderate Muslims were among the events the extremist group tried to disrupt. Almost all of the fanatics, according to the Muslim leader at the mosque, are on the dole or claiming benefits of some kind.

Can anyone say Jizay? Yes that's right, as of late Muslim leaders have popularized the view that claiming benefits is one way of collecting the jizya. A tax levied on the indigenous non-Muslims of lands conquered by Muslims so that they will not be harmed or killed. Here is what the Qur'an has to say about levying the jizya on the filthy kuffar:

Qur'an 9:29

"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

"Brought low" is the key term here. And of course the dhimmis (those required to pay the jizya) were to be smacked on the back of the neck by Muslims so that they would remember their "low" status. A big smack on the neck of the British taxpayer in Luton.

The Story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161855/Britons-HATE-Britain-The-Muslim-extremists-hell-bent-segregation-integration.html

News: Inhuman Tax on Pubs Forcing Closure

2009-03-14T14:14:00.001-07:00

I would like to make a direct appeal to the humanity of British lawmakers...

Tim Martin, the group's chairman, said that the level of tax being levied on the trade was contributing to the closure of pubs in record numbers - according to recent figures 39 a week. He said that each of Wetherspoon's pubs generated average taxes of £530,000 but earned only £50,000 in after-tax profits. “The Government seems not to understand the economic impact of new taxes and legislation and continues to impose new burdens at a huge rate.”

Have they no decency?

The Story:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article5904097.ece

Opinion: The Vast Majority Isn't so Vast

2009-03-14T14:03:00.000-07:00

Charles Moore for the Telegraph.

Comparing the violence in Northern Ireland to Islamic violence is fundamentally bankrupt as an intellectual pursuit, namely because Islamic violence is a religious exercise, whilst the IRA engaged in violence both out of sectarian interests, but more largely due to their other (and always violent) motivation... socialism.

Among Muslims in Britain, such ambiguities can also be found. There is a strong strand in the current state of Islam which sees the religion as a political project. This creed, often called "Islamism", holds that no society is legitimate unless it imposes sharia – the law of God. There is no doctrine of tolerance, and a complete rejection of secular or Christian rule. Islamism spreads much more widely than the active advocates of violence. I have tried to get the Muslim Council of Britain, a sort of TUC of British Islam, to condemn the murder or kidnapping of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it has always avoided doing so.

Now why would the REFUSE to condemn the kidnapping of British troops... could it be the same reason why the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) refuses to condemn Hamas? Because deep down inside they support the actions... as Muslims, precisely because the actions follow from the canonical and exegetical texts?

So when, as happened on Question Time, people say that the Luton demonstrators "have nothing to do with Islam" and so should not be described as Muslims in the media, they are missing a key fact. So are the people who say that Irish republican killers should be called "common criminals". The key fact is that the extremists do draw on wider political or religious traditions in forming their views; and their actions do resonate among many from those traditions.

If, as in Germany this week, a deranged young man walks into a school and shoots people, it is tragic, but it is not part of a movement. Terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam (which forms – that phrase again – the vast majority of terrorist acts in the world since September 11, 2001), or by Irish republicans, is.

Thank you!

Since the problem is quite wide, we need, as a nation, to defend ourselves against it. We are choosing the wrong way of doing so. We so doubt our own legitimacy that we feel the need to delegate the task to our foes. Our Government feels that the only way to run Northern Ireland is to hand nearly half of it to Sinn Fein.

Thanks Mr. Moore.

The Article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/4987210/When-youre-fighting-terrorists-the-vast-majority-is-not-enough.html

Opinion: We Must Stop Appeasing Islamic Extremism

2009-03-14T13:55:00.000-07:00

Ed Husain for the Telegraph.

It's comfortable for us to think that these are the actions of a small minority – but are they? The vile mob that hurled abuse against returning troops does not operate in a vacuum, somehow removed from other Muslims. Only two weeks ago, the same group of extremists openly marched in Tower Hamlets, Britain's most densely populated "Muslim area". Where was the local outrage against these bigots? The nearby east London Mosque – Europe's largest Muslim institution – sends groups of young vigilantes to hound local prostitutes and drug dealers, but it turns a blind eye to extremism.

Indeed, could it be comfort that drives the appeasement of Islam... we just don't want to believe it? The obvious question when the "tiny minority" argument is made... well where is the majority to denounce them?

The existing strategy, "Preventing Violent Extremism", has made it easy for non-violent extremists. It has meant that supporting Islamism, condemning parliamentary democracy, advocating the destruction of Israel and calling for jihad against British troops in Afghanistan or elsewhere has been tolerated because it is not directly violent. Contest 2 must explicitly break with this approach.

Yes, it is the foolish and ignorant policies of the government that makes the spread of this extremism possible. They are just harmless until they are actually making the bombs.

The Article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4991879/We-must-stop-appeasing-Islamist-extremism.html

News: Bin Laden Lambasts Jahili Arab Governments

2009-03-14T13:48:00.000-07:00

Bin Laden is greatly inspired by Sayyid Qutb who wrote that Arab governments were functionally jahili (ignorant in a pre-Islamic fashion), Bin Laden has taken up the standard, seen here in a recently released audio tape.

In the recording, broadcast by Al-Jazeera television based in Qatar, a voice purporting to be the al-Qaeda leader attacked "moderate" leaders of Muslim countries for not strenuously opposing the Israeli offensive against Hamas.

"It has become clear that some Arab leaders were complicit with the Crusader Zionist alliance against our people," said the voice, which is yet to be verified.

The "Crusader Zionist Alliance"... tinfoil hats anyone?

More telling commentary from Bin Laden.

"These are the leaders that America calls moderate. The countries of the Muslim world from Indonesia to Mauritania are divided into two: some of them are crooked, while others are even more crooked.

"The Holocaust of Gaza amid a long siege is an important historical event that confirms the importance of distinguishing between Muslims and hypocrites."

When Bin Laden says "hypocrites" he is using an Arabic term munafiqeen which refers to the early period of Islam where new converts would pretend to be Muslim while secretly harboring their old religious views in order to gain the benefits of being inside the Muslim umma... namely keeping themselves safe from beheading.

The Story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/4991580/Osama-bin-Laden-attacks-crooked-Arab-leaders.htm

What the 9/11 Terrorists Say about Islam, Killing the Infidel is our Religious Duty

2009-03-13T13:51:00.001-07:00

I repeatedly tell people, "Don't believe me about Islamic fundamentalism, believe those that expound it." Well here they are in their own words.

Excerpts from the full statement of the 9/11 defendants:

**************************************

THE ISLAMIC RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NINE ACCUSATIONS

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

The 9/11 Shura' Council

Many thanks to God who revealed the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran, and may God praise his messenger, the prophet Mohamed, so that he causes mercy to the two realms. Also, may God praise the prophet's household, his entire companionship, and his followers until judgment day.

With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.

Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God. In addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, in the land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the rest of the world, where Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing of the innocent, and occupying their lands and their holy sites. Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity. However, today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy sites,and their religion as a whole.

******************************************

There you have it, yes they are pissed off about our "aggression", but they would kill us over our infidelity anyway. "Terrorizing" us is their religious "duty".

Enough said.

Iranian TV Show Scrapped After Child Calls Toy Monkey Ahmedinejad, Live

2009-03-13T12:27:00.001-07:00

Sometimes things happen that make you bang your head on a table laughing. This was one. Apparently there was a show on state television where a child was rewarded for behaving himself (perhaps learning to curse Jews in boisterous fashion) with a toy monkey. When asked what he called the monkey the boy replied; "Well, my father calls him Ahmedinejad".

My guess is there is a large stain in the dad's shorts right about now. It could be an extra offense because Iranian sponsored Hezbollah repeatedly refers to Jews as monkeys and swine. The TV show was promptly canceled.

The reason for cancellation?... the high "spiritual" and "financial" costs of airing the show. Indeed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4972554/Iranian-TV-show-scrapped-after-child-calls-toy--monkey-Ahmadinejad-live-on-air.html

Double Take, Iranian Solipsism

2009-03-11T15:16:00.000-07:00

Not long ago I had dinner with a Muslim scholar for whom I have great respect despite our grossly divergent views. He said that the problem with the Iranian government is that it consistently overestimates the role of theology in American political and social life. He really hit the nail on the head as anyone who listened to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's rambling Columbia speech would know. I'm-a-dinner-jacket rambled incessantly about the "prophets" and other ridiculous detritus thinking this would endear him to his audience and he could slip in the homosexual denialist opinions (the first homosexual denialist I have ever heard speak). Apparently they just don't exist in Iran.

Anyhow, this is simply a result of solipsism. The Iranians treat Islam as a foregone conclusion of all societies. They are of course first to demand Shariah be shielded from criticism at the UN, because, of course, this is a divine issue above thought or reproach. It is also evident in a comment I shall detail below from Ahmad Khatami in DEFENSE of the genocidal Sundanese regime of Omar al-Bashir. When queried, the Ayatollah gave a contemptible defense saying that instead of concerning themselves with the 300,000 dead Africans (killed by those professing the religion of peace) the International Criminal Court should judge the heads of the 'Zionist regime' (Israel) and "execute them because they are seditious on the land and are fighting against God and the Prophet."

I would like to take a moment and deal with this flat earth cretin who seems to think the world revolves around his mephitic theocracy. First of all this clumsy term "seditious on the land" refers to either the Islamic concept of fasad fi'l-ard (corruption in the land) or fitna (meaning a societal strife), either way it has absolutely no value for an international court made up of non-Muslims. This is like a Hassidic Rabbi asking the ICC to try the Chinese for eating pork, it makes no sense accept that it details an advanced state of delusion about one's own importance.

The Ayatollah (one could possibly site senility for his ramblings if it weren't ubiquitous to every Iranian official) says the Israelis should be executed for fighting "God and the Prophet". Again, he wants an international court to execute the heads of a multi-party, multi-ethnic, multi-religious democracy because they are fighting against his "God" and the prophet of that god. Is it an international offense to fight against an Arabian desert god, and a pedophile prophet? Only when you think you are the center of the universe.

Muslims are behaving like spoiled children, it's time to stop listening.

Islamic Radicals Target British Troops for Protest

2009-03-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

Yet ANOTHER revolting story of dhimmi capitulation coming to us from the United Kingdom. Bearded Muslim radicals have targeted British troops for protest as they returned from Iraq (a country the British are spending millions of pounds to rebuild for the ungrateful population).

The Times carried a story March 11th. Some excerpts:

Islamist extremists in the UK are plotting to repeat their protest of yesterday in which they held up banners labelling British troops on their homecoming parade as "cowards" and "butchers".

Funny I don't see them protesting suicide bombers as butchers and cowards, apparently only those brave enough to fight in a uniform and refusing to use children as human shields are cowards. The fifth column jihadists issued the following statement about the soldiers:

"They are terrorists and cannot be excused for simply 'carrying out their duty', which incidentally (and vividly) was also used by Nazi soldiers in Germany to justify their notorious and bloody campaigns in the early 20th century"

This is too rich considering this:

Or maybe this one:

When not denying the Holocaust these UK radicals are applauding it. Now they have the nerve to compare British soldiers to Nazis? Apparently Islam forbids a sense of irony. And in a final hurricane of hypocrisy the local Muslim apologist said the following:

Abdul Malik, a member of Luton’s Race Advisory Forum, also said that the protesters were likely to have been members of the banned group, but argued that such demonstrations - however "insensitive" - should be allowed in a democracy. "In a democratic system, however they are unacceptable, we must welcome their viewpoint and listen to it and give it attention," he said.

Are they even serious anymore? Thankfully they kept Geert Wilders out to stop inter community "strife". What a joke.

Hopefully the British don't incur a concussion by prostrating too quickly to Mecca.

George Galloway, Blathering Fucktard

2009-03-10T16:35:00.000-07:00

Just when you think you have seen the lowest of the low when it comes to self loathing Islamophilia George Galloway reminds us he is still alive by breaking political wind.

The report:

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Firebrand British MP George Galloway on Tuesday donated thousands of dollars and dozens of vehicles to the Hamas-run government in the Gaza Strip after arriving in an aid convoy.
"We are giving you now 100 vehicles and all of their contents, and we make no apology for what I am about to say. We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine," Galloway said at a press conference in Gaza City.

Galloway said he personally would be donating three cars and 25,000 pounds (35,000 dollars) to Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya as he dared the West to try to prosecute him for aiding what it considers a terror group.

"I say now to the British and European governments, if you want to take me to court I promise you there is no jury in all of Britain who will convict me. They will convict you."

Galloway made the announcement at an outdoor conference in the presence of several senior Hamas officials, and his words were greeted by shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Great)....

Oh yes, making no apologies for donating vehicles to a group that has called for the destruction of a UN member state. That has deliberately targeted women and children for violence, that has said all kinds of nasty and racist things about Jews, and assorted other non-Muslims. George Galloway gleefully donates to the cause of Islamic supremacism. Galloway was a friend to Saddam Hussein, no surprise that he is the closest British ally of Hamas.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOjOUnorBs-cH0fNOpyL0WxZ3DQA

Is Islam a Form of Fascism?

2009-03-10T13:07:00.000-07:00

Fascism:

"A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

I had the extremely unpleasant occasion to have an exchange with the archetypal self hating useful idiot who busied himself explaining, in sanctimonious fashion, that Islam is nothing like fascism and if we just showed Muslims more respect terrorism and such would simply evaporate. However useless the statement, this self flagellator did get me thinking about how Islam is, precisely, like fascism.

I will add yet another definition of fascism, from my beloved Wikipedia:

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race. Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.

If we take the above definition we can see that Islam is in fact a fascist enterprise. Namely that istseeks an authoritarian single party state. Islam demands the institution of Shariah, and that the leader of such a state would be the "shadow of god on earth", meaning that he would carry out the political and military aspects of the Islamic state (while the clerics would administer Islamic justice), meaning he would be amir al-mu'mineen (Commander of the Faithful), and would command the jihad conquest of non-Muslim areas. Shariah would be the exclusive law of the land and no new law could be enacted that contradicted any aspect of Shariah.

Islam promotes violence amongst nations demanding that jihad be conducted to spread the Islamic state and Shariah, subordinating all people to this ideology, regardless of local beliefs or customs. Islam refers to polytheists as the worst of peoples and Jews as descendants of "apes and swine". Islam institutionalizes inter-religious hostility. In summary Islam versus anyone else. This is why Islamic scholars have divided the world into two competing factions, Dar al-Islam (The Realm of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (The Realm of War). An area is either Islamic, or it is subject to the hostilities of the mujahideen commanded by the Caliph.

Now there is a slight departure here, the social Darwinism certainly does not apply to the Islamic form of fascism, but the notional ideology here is the same, namely that there is an external force exerting pressure to separate those that are "worthy" of survival and those that aren't. The social Darwinists (and I object to this being inextricably linked to fascism, but this is another matter) would say that there are environmental pressures that would shape the destiny of humanity, yet the fascist state must intervene to expedite this process by the domination and even extermination of these inferior people. Islam accepts that this external force is god, and that the Muslim is called to strive in his path to implement his will, that his religion, Islam, be spread to every part of the globe, that the inferior faiths of Christianity and Judaism be "brought low" (to quote the Qur'an) and others be exterminated or brutally oppressed. In both instances the fascist state assigns itself the right to carry out the mandate of an external and invisible force, one which places them at the pinnacle of society, to carry out the destruction and oppression of the inferior peoples.

Finally I would say the warrior mentality is common to Islam as well. Muhammad said that fighting one day of jihad is better than months upon months spent in a mosque. Ibn Qayyiam al-Jawziyya wrote in his work Zaad al-Ma'ad (Provisions for the Hereafter) that "jihad is the pinnacle of the Islamic faith, and that the Messenger experienced it in all its aspects". The warrior, the martyr, is rewarded with virgins in the hereafter, he holds the highest place in heaven. Furthermore, Islam views this state of war between the Muslims and the Kuffar (Infidels) as the natural order of the world. This is why truces are non-existent in Islamic law, save that they can be used to cease hostilities long enough for the Muslims to rearm and gain enough strength to overcome those they wish to conquer.

As we return to our definition, I have made a few edits (bolded italics):

Islamic Fascism is a radical, authoritarian religio-nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party religious state with a government led by a Caliph who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the Islamic state. Islamic Fascist movements promote violence between nations and religions as part of a theologically militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of divine order. In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, Islamic fascists believe only the divinely chosen can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive jihad mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed religiously inferior and degenerate.

With a few simple edits we have Islam and fascism defined. The fascism model fits Islam so perfectly, is it any wonder that Churchill said that Mein Kampf was "the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message"?

An Exegesis of the Opening Chapter of the Qur'an

2009-03-06T11:58:00.000-08:00

As I have discussed numerous issues on Islam on this site, I figured I should take the time to outline a classical exegesis of the opening chapter of the Qur'an, known as Surat al-Fatiha or "The Opening".

I shall quote the Fatiha here both in the Arabic, English transliteration and English translation.

By way of introduction, let me make some brief remarks on the position and importance of this sura. It is the opening chapter of the Qur'an, it is often referred to as Um al-Qur'an (The Mother of the Qur'an) or Um al-Kitab (The Mother of the Book). It is referred to subtely later in the Qur'an as Lawh al-Mahfuz (The Preserved Tablet). It is the position of many scholars of Islam, that the Fatiha is a summary of the entirety of the Qur'an. That every theme is contained in these 7 verses. It is recited at the beginning of every raka'a of the prayer, which means it is recited no less than 17 times per day (assuming one performs the five obligatory prayers), and is the only sura which is required to be recited during prayer. The Chapter is divided into seven verses. It breaks down into the three beginning verses which are dedicated to the description and praise of Allah, the last three verses which are pleas from the believer made to Allah, and a middle verse which serves as a transition.

Invocation:
بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمـَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Bismillahi al-Rahman-ir-raheem
"By the name of Allah the compassionate the merciful"

This is the invocation made at the beginning of every chapter of the Qur'an. However, the Fatiha is the only chapter where this is included IN the chapter and not as a disconnected pre-amble. All major scholars agree to this, save for the Shafi'i who do not consider this a part of the chapter and thus do not recite it as part of the chapter (as most Arabs are Shafi'i I shall exclude it from the chapter). This is often mistranslated as "In the Name of Allah", however the "bi" sound is what is referred to in Arabic as harf ul-ma'ana. Meaning "a letter with meaning", denoting it is neither noun nor verb, but has significance. In fact it means "by", not "in", and this should be translated as "by" the means (name) of Allah, not "in" his name. The very word "Allah" means "God", some say this comes from the Arabic conjunction of the definite article "al" and the word for God "Ilah" making it al-Illah, however most Muslim scholars debate this formulation saying Allah is the name God chose for himself above all others. The next to words mean "The Merciful, the Compassionate" (Often translated as "The Beneficent"). These are two among the 99 other names Allah has chosen for himself and are placed here as a reminder to believers that their piety will be rewarded with mercy and compassion.

1)
الْحَمْدُ للّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
Al-Hamdullilahi-rub il-'alameen
"All praise is for Allah, Lord of the Worlds"

This verse begins the praise and description of Allah. The word hamd comes from the verb h-m-d which means to "praise" and thus the noun is "praise". However this word is used exclusively for the praise of Allah, any other form of praise from a human to a human would be described by the verb m-d-h. The letters remain the same but are in a different order. In the trickiness of the Arabic language this could be accidental, or it could be some strange design of the early Arabs. The next two words describe Allah as "The Lord of the Worlds". Specifically the world (this one in which we live) is known as al-'Aalam, but here it is pluralized, and scholars of Islam have posited that this means 10,000 worlds, and that Allah is ruler of all. The question has been bandied about (uselessly as it makes no sense) that this could mean universes, dimensions, or inhabitable planets. All attempts to rationalize Abrahamic faith.

2)
الرَّحْمـنِ الرَّحِيمِ (1:

al-Rahman ir-Raheemi
"The Compassionate The Merciful"

Once again the Qur'an is drawing attention to these two qualities and descriptions of Allah. They remain in the case known as majroor in Arabic, meaning they are either in a genitive form or reside next to a harf al-ma'ana (or are the indeclinable noun). In fact they are a continuation of the description of Allah as "Lord of the Worlds". Thus that he rules these worlds with the exact same compassion that he rules this one, as evidenced by the opening verse.

3)
مَـالِكِ يَوْمِ الدِّينِ (

Maaliki Yawm i-deen
"Master of the Day of Faith"

The opening word in this verse is Malik coming from the verb meaning "to own" which is a derivative of all things to do with "kingship", mulk is kingdom. Malik is literally "King". So some would say Allah is "King of the Day of Faith". The "Day of Faith" is simply the Day of Judgment where a person's faith will be tested. The Qur'an is explicit about this last day saying "No other religion (other than Islam) will be accepted of them", meaning that all the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other assorted infidels will be condemned to the hellfire (which is described in both the Qur'an and the Hadith).

4)
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ

Iyyaka na'badu, wa iyyaka nasta'een
"To you we turn in worship, to you we turn for aid"

This is the transitional verse of which I spoke in my opening remarks. The firt phrase "to you we turn in worship" continues the theme of describing Allah and the believers duty and relationship to him, and the second shifts the theme of the verse to the Muslim as they seek aid from Allah. "Unto you" is fronted here (meaning the direct object is placed before the verb and the subject of the verb, which in Arabic is contained in the verb itself), the verse would have been more tradiontally Arabic if it had use the "you" as an enclitic suffix, saying Na'buduka, but the author of the Qur'an was very specific in making sure that the object was held up as the most important aspect of the verse. Thus using a more poetic construct to front and emphasize the object. The same holds true as the chapter shifts emphasis to the Muslim with iyyaka nasta'een, with similar fronted object (Known in Arabic as the Mafa'ul bihi).

5)
اهدِنَــــا الصِّرَاطَ المُستَقِيمَ

Ihdina al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem
"Guide us (to) the straight path"

This verse begins with an imperative verb, Ihdina with the enclitic suffix "we" (here "na"). The believers are imploring Allah, en masse, for guidance upon the straight path. The word for path al-Sirat is not actually an Arabic word by origin, which is interesting in that Muslims will contend that the Qur'an is the pinnacle of the pure language of Allah. However the word for path here is most likely derived from Latin or some other Mediterranean (pre-Islamic) language. It would be a sore irony for Muslims to think of this 17 times per day in prayer, so it is generally left undiscussed, or simply as a "miracle" of Allah.

6)
صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ
Sirat aladheena an'amta 'Alayhum
The path of those upon whom you have bestowed your blessings

Again we see the invasion of non-Arabic on the opening chapter of the Qur'an. in the form of Sirat. Now we see the verb na'ma from n-'-m. This literally means to bless or bestow. However the form used is confusing as it uses the second person singular past tense, which denotes familiarity (this is also the case in iyyaka). Usually when Allah describes himself, or when Muslims address him, the royal plurals are used. For instance the royal we or royal you. The second person plural is a sign of respect in Arabic, while the royal we is a sign of arrogance. And by no coincidence Allah describes himself as al-Mutakabar (The Arrogant).

7)
غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّينَ
Ghayri maghdubi 'alayhim, wa la Daaleen
"And not those who have earned your anger (condemned) and not those who go astray"

And here we have Allah dedicating the final verse to the non-believers. The Muslim is imploring Allah to spare him/her from the anger he has reserved for these two groups of people. Those who have earned Allah's anger are, of course, the Jews. The Jews angered Allah by killing "his prophets" and other assorted evils traditionally ascribed to Jews in anti-Semitic libels. And who is it who has gone astray? The Christians who bungled Jesus' (Arabic: 'Issa) message and began to worship him as a God. Now this ritual disdaing is encoded in the 17 raka'a (prostration) of prayer performed every day. Daily Muslims are called to remember those whom are ritually disdained in Islam, and eternally disdained by Allah. And by no coincidence, this is the message that Allah leaves for last, and by definition most lasting.

This concludes my exegesis of the opening chapter of the Qur'an. I hope it has been helpful.

Three Cheers for Italy as they Pull out of Durban

2009-03-06T11:53:00.001-08:00

Let's hear it for the Italians, who are actually getting it now. Europe might not be totally lost. The Italians have pulled out of Durban. The Daily Telegraph had the following reason:

"Foreign Minister Franco Frattini decided that Italy was withdrawing its delegation because it does not approve of the draft declaration, which contains unacceptable, aggressive and anti-Semitic phrases,'' a spokesman said today.

That's right, the OIC is attempting to have Islam held above reproach, while allowing it's own proponents (Imams) to say the following, which went uncondemned in the wider Muslim world:

"Oh Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. Oh Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, oh our God. Lie in wait for them. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people of Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, and You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers — oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

A prescient move for the Italians if you ask me. And the Italians hit the nail on the head with the following statement from their foreign ministry, saying attendance of the conference "would lend credibility to the efforts by some states to single out Israel for criticism ... and distract from the very real problems of state-sponsored racism in their own countries.'

I am going out for pizza.'

Aid to the Palestinians

2009-03-06T11:35:00.000-08:00

I try to keep things reasonably original around here, but Peggy Shapiro over at "The American Thinker" has written such a wonderful article that I must reword some of that article here and quote some excerpts.

One of the arrows in the quiver of the anti Israel crowd is the amount of aid sent to Israel, on a yearly basis, from the United States. And this isn't untrue, the US sends about $5 billion per year to the state of Israel in the form of loans and other gifts. But what about the money sent to the Palestinians? Well in 2009 the Palestinians are projected to receive $4.5 billion. And considering the Palestinians are about one third the number of Israelis, this works out to a high per capita receipt. In 2008 the Palestinians received $3.5 billion. The 2009 projection would mean over $4,000 per Palestinian household. And if you consider that the Palestinians have stayed "refugees" for 60 years, well the dollars seem to pile up (Palestinian refugee status is inherited generation after generation).

So where did the money go? How did the Palestinians (and their relief agency UNRWA) squander this money? Well first and foremost, the United Nations in its exceptionally finite wisdom staffs the UNRWA with Palestinians, which is a bit curious as it doesn't conduct outside audits of this organization. But the destructive power of an Islamic society is the ultimate cause, and I think it is summed up in this paragraph from Shapiro describing the almost entirely Muslim Gaza Strip:

Even if there is a miraculous shift in the Palestinian government and UNRWA opens its books to pubic scrutiny, money won't address the problems of a people who are so indoctrinated against Israel that hate trumps survival. When Ariel Sharon forced Gaza's Jewish inhabitants to move out, they left behind state-of-the-art greenhouses which produced high-end flowers, fruits, and vegetables to large international markets. Expecting the greenhouses to be an economic boon for Palestinian Gazans and thus a step towards peace, American Jewish donors contributed $14 million to buy the greenhouses from their owners and transfer them to the Palestinian Authority. Former World Bank president James Wolfensohn, who acted as the broker, threw in half a million dollars of his own money to make the deal happen. Within hours after the disengagement, Palestinians looted and destroyed the greenhouses even though they were destroying their own chances for an economic revival.

That is about it right there. Self sabotage. Rampant barbarism, lawlessness, and tribal thuggery are the orders of the day. After 1949 there were roughly 800,000 Jews in Israel and 700,000 Palestinian refugees (some say 800,000). Now let's look at the trajectory of those two peoples who inhabited the same land. It is quite telling indeed.

I would blame the Jews for all my problems if I were a Palestinian. How else would I cover up such gross incompetence, theft, and stupidity.

********

The original article on The American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/dollars_for_hate_1.html

CAIR Complains about Muslims Getting Caught Plotting Jihad

2009-03-05T15:18:00.000-08:00

Leave it to the Council on American Islamic Relations (an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror case) to come to the defense of jihadists plotting murder, instead of the law enforcement agencies who are attempting to stop them.

That is right, CAIR is now complaining because the FBI had infiltrated an Orange County (California) mosque. The undercover agent recorded Ahmadullah Niazi (the brother-in-law of one of Bin Laden's bodyguards) talking about blowing up buildings, acquiring weapons and sending money to jihadists in Afghanistan.

What did CAIR have to say?:

“infiltrating mainstream mosques the way FBI informants infiltrate white supremacist groups illustrates the FBI’s perception of American Muslims as a community that must be constantly monitored, instead of being treated as an equal partner in fighting crime and terrorism.”

That's right, the problem isn't that American mosques are centers of radicalism and terrorist plots its that the FBI is actually doing what it is supposed to do. Americans pay taxes so that the FBI will identify suspicious people and act against them in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States. to prevent terrorist attacks that will kill or harm American citizens. Of course CAIR wants Muslims to be seen as "equal partners". Why don't they start by turning over these kind of preachers and actively eschewing this kind of talk and behavior? CAIR continues to refuse to condemn Hamas, funny how that works.

The prosecutor for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 said that the recruitment, training, and weapons transactions actually occurred inside of mosques. This is nothing new, Jihadists in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan repeatedly use mosques to store deadly weapons and launch attacks, then cry foul when the very people they are attempting to kill attack them inside their mosques. The jihadists militarize their mosques, and then complain when that comes back to bite them.

This certainly explains why the FBI has broken off its relationship with CAIR. CAIR actively uses the pretense of civil rights to better disguise the fact that there is a minority (however small) of American Muslims who are actively plotting violent jihad, in of all places, the houses of worship of the "religion of peace".

HTML Links Dun Werk

2009-03-05T10:09:00.000-08:00

I cannot get the html links to work properly on either of the blogs I run. Must be my computer... Steve Jobs watch your ass, I am pissed. Anyhow, I shall repost my rant from Quidnuncs here:

**********************************************************************

Oh fer Chrissakes. I can’t get the html links to work on this computer of mine. This is clearly divine retribution for years of inattentive behavior…. and of course Bachanalian revelry at every chance I got.

I pray, oh Flying Spaghetti Monster, return my ability to link html!!! The FSM giveth, the FSM taketh away. I think an “Our Father” ought to clear this up.

“Our Spaghetti, who art in Las Vegas, hallowed be thy name, the 4 course meal come, thy will be done, in my bunker in an undisclosed location, as it is in Vegas, forgive us our drunken fumblings with sorority girls as we forgive those who fondle us, for fuck’s sake lead us into temptation, and deliver us a pizza. Amen.”

Damn, still no html links… grrrr.

***********************************************

Since it didn't work I will now add a Hail Mary:

"Hail Ricky Martin, full of grease, the FSM is with thee, blessed art thou amongst boy bands, blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jeebus, Holy Martin mother of Menudo pray for us sinners now and at the hour of hour next big attempt to link html. Amen."

If that doesn't get html working, I might have to talk to a tech nerd..... Any takers?

Anti-Blashpemy Laws at the UN

2009-03-04T12:07:00.000-08:00

Resolution 62/154 (nonbinding) is an attempt to block free speech when such speech offends Islam. The entire resolution is some bit of Orwellian quackery that boggles the mind when one attempts to imagine what kind of person would write it. One paragraph from the preamble reads thus:

Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007.

Excuse me? "Deepen dialogue", "reinforce understanding"? Can someone show me where exactly Muslims are attempting to "reinforce understanding" between religions? Would that be in Saudi Arabia where no Churches or Synagogues are allowed to exist? Where you must be Muslim to be a citizen? Where the Qur'an is its constitution which says that on the Day of Judgment (Yawm al-Qiyama) that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah and "No other religion will be accepted from them"? Is this the kind of reinforcement we are hearing about? Or is it the reinforcement of understanding that the Iranians engage in when they persecute Baha'is? Or when they host Holocaust denial conferences? Is this the reinforcement that mandates the persecution of Ahmedis?

This is just the beginning, much like Hitler militarizing the Rheinland, it is only a small taste of what is to come. It is a central tenet of the Shariah that those who insult Muhammad be put to death. This is one of his self aggrandizing proclamations, rendering himself, and his faith, above reproach. Such self laudatory proclamations are the norm of Muhammad and his ficticious Allah. This became a problem in Andalusian Spain when the Zahiri (a now defunct literalists school of Sunni jurisprudence) and Maliki Qadis (judges) found themselves in an awkward position as Christian monks would scamper down to the local court and defame Muhammad and generally blaspheme in all directions in order to incur a death sentence and become a martyr for Christ.

This is where we are heading. Islam is not a faith which makes concessions, it isn't a faith that will say "You give us Shariah, and we will go easy on gays in Iran". No, it is only one way. Nothing is gained for civilized society by allowing such a resolution to become even "non-binding". Here is another passage from the "resolution":

...while manifestations of cultural prejudice, intolerance and xenophobia towards people belonging to different cultures, religions and beliefs generate hatred and violence among peoples and nations throughout the world.

Oh this is too rich. Where were these multitudes of Muslim humanists when Yusuf Qaradawi said of Jews:

"Oh Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. Oh Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, oh our God. Lie in wait for them. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people of Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, and You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers — oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

Wouldn't this count as generating "hatred and violence among peoples and nations throughout the world"? But you see, the Jews really deserve it, I suppose. This explains the nearly ubiquitous praise for Hitler which emenates from every anti-Israel rally where Muslims are present.

There will be no reciprocation of "tolerance", there will only be more rope taken, just like appeasing Hitler in his violations of the Treaty of Versailles, we will be setting ourselves up for catastrophy. We cannot afford to appease this any longer. It is one thing to have Muslims dictate the parameters of society in Muslim countries (this is self determination) but now we have the whimpering cowards in the west who will be allowing Muslims to dictate the parameters of our own societies. Stop the Quislings, stop Shariah.

First they came for Geert Wilders, but I wasn't a conservative, so I didn't speak up....

Now they are coming for you. It is time to speak up.

Hezbollah Operative: "We used to have sex with Syrian hookers"

2009-03-04T11:45:00.000-08:00

In the ongoing campaign of attempting to dispel the notion that the violent and despicable actions of Muslims have nothing to do with Islam, the following story came to my attention:

An interview with Hezbollah operative Rami 'Aleiq...

****

Interviewer: "When you were young, you were a thug. You stabbed your sister with a knife because she didn't want to wear the hijab. You were 14 years old at the time."

Rami 'Aleiq: "Right."

"We Would Have Sex With Prostitutes For 500 Syrian Lira per Half Hour... In Islam... A Girl Is Mature from the Age of Nine... I Was a Child, and So Was She... I Was Not Allowed to Touch Her" Without Contracting a Pleasure-Marriage

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD226909

****

This of course refers to the Shi'a practice of Zawaj Muta'a (temporary marriage). A man, who leaves home for a business trip of vacation (or just wants to go down to the local brothel), may make a temporary marriage contract with a woman (who is not his wife), and can make this contract for as long as he wants or as short as one day.

Once again we see the inherent respect for women in Islam.

A Response to a Request from Richard Dawkins

2009-03-03T11:43:00.000-08:00

Richard Dawkins wrote the following:

"I'd quite like to gather together evidence that (a) All Muslims are taught to believe that the Koran is the literal and inerrant word of God and (b) the Koran commands all true believers to kill infidels.

Richard"

I plan to answer this call.

I shall be doing additional research over the next few days to compile information for Richard to help swat the idiot who said that the fundamentalists are just dishonest.

Britain to Allow Islamic Extremist Into UK for Speaking Tour

2009-02-27T11:04:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-26T11:19:00.000-08:00

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

The Master:

Chris Huhne, Start Underlining

2009-02-26T09:14:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-26T06:16:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-25T13:22:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-25T09:37:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-25T07:27:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-02-23T13:21:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-23T09:47:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-20T12:11:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-20T07:12:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-02-19T09:52:00.000-08:00

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"

2009-02-18T13:15:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-18T08:24:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-18T06:20:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-02-17T12:33:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-17T09:35:00.000-08:00

A video of note:

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

Never a man at a loss for words.

9/11 Conspiracy Hycpocrisy

2009-02-17T09:04:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-17T08:37:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-13T09:37:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-13T07:40:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-13T07:19:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-13T06:21:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-12T10:29:00.000-08:00

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.

In Response to Steve Zara

2009-02-12T06:16:00.001-08:00

Steve Zara has posted a very well thought out blog post here:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/194719.html

Part of that was directed at me specifically, and part of it is using my post on Geert Wilders (see the post below) as a point of departure for commentary on 'cultureism'. So I shall take as my point of departure the comments that were directed at me and then comment more generally on the themes about which Steve writes. The comment directed at me is reposted below:

To deal directly with the topic of Al's post: Is Fitna bigoted? On balance, I
would say it is. It shows a selection of sutras (sic) from the Koran against a
background of atrocities and oppression. This simplistic message is clearly
intended to indicate group blame, and to create an impression about Muslims in
general. It does not show the truth: that everyone interprets and selects even
from doctrine that is supposed to be perfect and complete. It uses a common
political strategy: throw in enough guilt by association to encourage fear and
prejudice, but back off just enough to give plausible deniability.

I take away something very different from Fitna. It is a selection of Suras no doubt, but they are suras dealing with violence and the Kuffar (a derogatory term used by Muslims to refer to non believers) and violence that has been perpetrated by Muslims which would be ideologically linked to the Qur'an in general and possibly these suras in specific. Is this simplistic? No I don't feel it is, it is drawing a line of filiation from the canonical texts of Islam to the violence perpetrated by Muslims (in fact the perpetrators themselves state what their motivation is openly, and Wilders is a bigot for reading it back to them?). Is this unfair? No, it is a reality as we see a disproportionate amount of religiously driven violence being perpetrated by Muslims. To make the connection more apparent, Steve has said that verses of the Qur'an are taken piecemeal by Muslims, and this is no doubt true. But as we see the preeminence of verses espousing violence, bigotry and hate makes it more likely that one of these cherry-picked verses will be unpleasant, as a matter of probability. Add to this the principle of naskh (abrogation, which states that if two verses are contradictory, the one last revealed abrogates the former, and the later revelations are the more violent and intolerant verses) and we see that many more of the nice verses are excised away, leaving a greater portion of the relevant revelation violent and unpleasant. Furthermore, if you ask just about any Muslim on the planet if the Qur'an is the inerrant word of Allah in its entirety, he or she would say yes. The inescapable logical conclusion is that they must place equal weight on the verses that are unpleasant as the ones that have some valuable moral lesson. And if they don't, certainly their local imam would call them to account for this blasphemy.

It may create a view of Muslims in general, but that is unavoidable in any discussion of Islam and its canonical texts. But thinking about people in terms of groups isn't always a bad thing. For instance if I could demonstrate with certainty that 80% of Romanian immigrants will commit a crime, but I couldn't tell which ones specifically, wouldn't it be prudent to restrict immigration from Romania, or at least more intensely screen Romanians entering my country (a hypothetical country)? Wouldn't it be a dereliction of duty for a leader to let political correctness endanger lives?

There is a difference between enjoying having a cultural history, even a
cultural identity, and trying to claim privilege because of that identity. That
works for both those in the culture and those outside it. People in cultures
based on religion or race sometimes call for special respect for those cultures
because religion involves deep personal feelings, and race can be a source of
prejudice.

It is worth noting that not all cultures are equal. In our liberal western states there is a belief that all cultures have something to add, and, as a corollary, are thus equal. This is patently false, not all cultures are equal when we consider human rights, women's rights, honesty, etc... More specifically when we discuss a culture claiming superiority, Islam is a case and point example. Islam thrusts itself upon the world claiming superiority and dominance (and encourages violence to achieve these ends). Islam is a perfect example of religious arrogance. Why is saying this wrong? The textual evidence is manifest, the statements of prominent Muslims stating this are manifest, so why do we pretend it isn't the case?

I used to think culture different from race. It is, but not as much as I
thought. I thought that you were born into race, but could escape from culture.
How naïve I was. This means that racial and cultural prejudice have the same
basis - fear and hatred of differences based on accident of birth.

This is a very nice notion, pleasant and warm and fuzzy in all the right places, but it doesn't change the fact that not all cultures are equal, nor should all be given respect simply for existing. But leaving culture aside, I specifically cited a religion, Islam. Islam is an ideology and regardless of how or where one was born, it remains a chosen ideology. People should not be judged based on some facet of their being over which they have no control (race, gender, etc...) yet the fundamental basis of any just society is the principle that people will be held accountable for their choices. Islam (despite its fatalistic nature) is a chosen ideology. The many unpleasant things that seem to be attendant are also chosen. Any person professing Islam does so through a choice, even if this choice is influenced in some way. People can and should be held to account for their choices. If you choose to espouse Islamic and Shariah supremacism you should be closely monitored, if you choose to act on this you should be prosecuted. I suspect Steve and I don't differ much here.

The initial point was about Geert Wilders and his right to say what he pleases about Islam. Furthermore I protested that the British government was caving into threats of violence from a group of intolerant bigots. Instead of telling the Muslim community that violence will not be tolerated as a response to criticism, the British government has chosen to suppress criticism by refusing travel to a man who has said nothing untrue. The truth always hurts the most it seems. Wilders has the right to say these things, however we feel. The scary thing for me about his prosecution is that it is supported by almost every Muslim to comment publicly, and by no coincidence in Shariah criticism of Muhammad or the word of Allah is a blasphemy worthy of death. And thus Muslims have called for Wilders' death and he now lives under guard. Others such as Theo Van Gogh were not so lucky, his criticism of Islam so enraged Muslims that one slashed Van Gogh's throat and stuck a knife in his chest warning other critics of Islam to shut up. Can one really say their is no connection between rising Muslim populations, insitutionalized Islamic intolerance and violence, and a rise in violence perpetrated by Muslims for crimes that are not crimes save in Islam? Is it any wonder that Islam is doctrinely anti-Jewish and anti-semitic incidents in European countries with large Muslim populations are on the rise? Is it any coincidence that Islam is institutionally misogynistic, and Muslim communities in France are shown to have far higher instances of domestic abuse directed at women? The 57 member OIC has made it a point to attempt to suppress criticism of Islam at the UN level, and it seems to be working. Only one group seems to be after this, only one group is threatening its critics with war, death, and oppression 'the group that shall not be named'.

In a civilized society each adult has the responsibility to look at the
situation they are in, and consider any privileges that they may have because of
their birth, and also to help deal with the flaws in their culture. Ignorance of
human rights is not an excuse for avoiding this, any more than ignorance of the
law of the land is an excuse to avoid prosecution. We have a duty to research
our responsibilities. But, that responsibility is a personal one. It should not
mean that group punishment, or even group hatred, is ever right even if some in
a culture threaten us all.

I can agree to a large extent with this statement, however some issues arise. If we object to policies centered on certain groups, does this mean that affirmative action programs should end? Governments the world over have used racial preference to attempt to redress past wrongs, would it be wrong of them to use group preference to prevent future wrongs? Is it wrong for Israel to gerrymander demographics through special marriage laws for people who marry a foreign Arab, but right for the United States to give preference to African American applicants to universities? Group based preferential treatment is either wrong or its not, we cannot logically pick and choose here. People tend not to think of the repercussions of certain ideas or policies. I once followed a discussion between Norman Finkelstein (a flagrantly anti-Zionist American writer and failed academic) and a detractor on the topic of Bernie Madoff and Jewish charities. Finkelstein said "I don't support ethnic based charities". I thought to myself; "I doubt he will be out picketing The United Negro College Fund".

Geert Wilders and the Weak Kneed Capitulationists

2009-02-11T08:10:00.000-08:00

All over the news recently (or rather the sources that bother to note massive and impending threats to our liberties) is the case of Geert Wilders, under prosecution for the production of his film Fitna. On January 21, 2009 a three judge court ordered prosecutors to try Wilders for "hate speech". This is an absolutely despicable act, one that a person would expect to see in the very dictatorial pseudo-fascist Islamic states that Wilders so rightly excoriates, not in a liberal European state. As this pathetic comedy plays out it will be an enormous pie in the face of the Islamists who have begun a campaign to suppress free speech the world over. Having already succeeded in their own miserable cesspools of countries they have moved on to places where women can drive.

The reason this may turn into a fiasco is because Wilders did nothing but read back what Muslim texts already say, and juxtapose these with pictures of acts carried out by Muslims who cite these very same texts for these actions. In furtherance of this Promethean display of irony, Wilders actually does use 'hate speech', but it isn't his own, it is that of the Muslim canonical texts. Muslims should be suing themselves, if anyone.

The real issue here isn't whether Muslims are outraged over offenses, which is a near hourly occurrence for these spoiled brats, it is that a western government has given in to their fascistic demands for blood over the execution of one of their sacred cows (ironically Muhammad Ali Jinnah once quipped about the partition of India "I want to eat the cow the Hindu worships"). Liberal democracies have one enduring quality, with which they can always best the Muslim world, and that is the freedom of expression. And now the Dutch seem ready to sacrifice this great virtue on the alter of cowering political correctness (perhaps they will keep the windmills and wooden shoes).

Alas, it isn't the wooden shoe people alone who have gone on bent knee to appease the Islamists, the British (never content to be bested by another country's obsequious whimpering) have issued a letter telling Wilders he is not welcome on British soil because he "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the U.K." by upsetting Muslims. No doubt this has something to do with a Muslim member of the British House of Lords, Nazir Ahmed, threatening to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to protest Wilders' appearance and the screening of Fitna.

See the letter here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024785.php#respond

And frankly who can blame the British law enforcement establishment, the very police that scurried in all directions like frightened rats when a Muslim mob charged them screaming Kuffar (a derogatory term best translated as "infidels") during a protest in support of the people of Gaza (read, 'Hamas'). Every once and a while (lately, in fact, all too regularly) there are such grotesque examples of hypocrisy that simply boggle the mind. This is one such instance... the British have welcomed with open arms all sorts of jihadists and Islamists who spend their government welfare checks in furtherance of the destruction of British society. Spewing hate, these ignorant thugs are allowed to reside in the UK, gleefully going about their dirty business, while one of the few men with the intestinal fortitude to stand up to this brand of hate is banned for preaching "hate". What form of sick self loathing has overcome our societies that we are unable to call a spade a spade, in fact a spade that calls itself a spade? It is a bit of comedy, this liberal defense of Muslims. The Muslims themselves spew this hate, citing their texts, whilst the useful idiots try to tell the rest of the infidels that this isn't really what the Muslims mean. And all the while Muslims listen to preachers who say "this is precisely what we mean". These useful idiots must feel like an attorney on the steps of the courthouse who proclaim their client's innocence to the media, while this very client stands round back confessing to a litany of crimes.

Do these politicians feel no shame as they sell out their peoples? Not just the non-Muslims, but the Muslims who wish a better life. Muslims who escaped the cesspools of the Islamic world to come to a place that respects individual rights. Won't these brave souls be surprised to learn that after escaping the clutches of this 7th Century fascism, that those they have trusted to help them make better lives have sold them out. Revolting.

With any luck the Islamists shall be hoisted by their own petard.

Why Iran Wants a Nuclear Weapon

2008-07-01T09:30:00.000-07:00

Today in the markets, a great deal of fear and uncertainty is rampant, largely due to Israeli statements to the effect of "We will attack Iran" (meaning bomb their fuel site at Natanz). These came from former Israeli intelligence officials, and not fringe hawks. The fear Israel has is that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon, and then carry out the threats issued by Ahmedinejad.

But why does Iran want a nuclear weapon? Is it to carry out the threats issued by the Imam Ruhollah Khomeini, or is it a strategic issue? There are competing interests in Iranian religious (ideological) and political arenas, but both seem to desire the acquisition of nuclear weapons. It seems to me that at the ideological level Iran is a fanatical regime seeking the destruction of a hated minority in the Middle East (the Jews). But at a political level Iran seeks nuclear weapons for security reasons.

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Iranians looked long and hard at US statements and actions. The US declared that there was an "axis of evil" and that these states cannot be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. The problem is, one did, North Korea. Iraq did not. Iraq was attacked and North Korea was not, and the only difference was that there was a demonstrated nuclear weapons program in North Korea. (This is not the only difference but for the point of this piece it may well be). The Iranians noted that a nuclear weapon can be a deterrent to US military action. Now Iran sees this weapon as a "must have" to deter action by both Israel and the US. The Iranian Shahab 3 missile can reach all of Israel, and if equipped with a nuclear warhead would functionally change the balance of power in the Middle East.

Once Iran has a nuclear weapon that could deter a full scale US assault (Iran has said it will treat a US or an Israeli attack as precisely the same thing), it can then proceed to squeeze the United States in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran strategically controls this strait, and could harass shipping lanes with artillery fire, missiles, rockets, along with the IRGC naval boats. For the Iranians they can bring physical harm to Israel with a nuclear weapon, and economic harm to the rest of the world by essentially closing the Strait of Hormuz. If this took place there would be a classic naval battle that would easily escalate into something much more, once US air power struck Iranian land assets.

The US is in a very difficult situation. It can allow Israel to pre-emptively defend itself (which seems to me a right, since waiting could mean the total annihilation of Israel), this will be treated as an aggression by both the US and Israel, and the response will not discriminate. Also if the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon and subsequently close the Strait of Hormuz, the US will view this as a restriction of international shipping and a causus belli. The situation is made more serious by Israel's absolute determination to remain in existence, and by the eschatological rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. At the UN Ahmedinejad made a speech to the General Assembly, after which he made an untranslated supplication for the coming of the Mahdi (the return of the 12th Imam from occultation, which will herald a coming of Islamic dominance and the end of the world).

Keeping these things in mind, we may well see a deadly confrontation in the Middle East by January of 2009 (Israel has made noises that it will not wait for the new administration to take office). If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, there will be a three way confrontation between nuclear powers at the center of world oil production and religious conflict. Iran will launch a multi-faceted response incorporating Hezbollah and Shi'a (secret) assets around the globe, which gives the situation the potential to spread rapidly.

There may be no good solution.

The Evolved Threat of Islam

2008-06-09T11:28:00.000-07:00

People think that combating terrorism, or Islamism is about fighting the benighted Oriental. This couldn't be further from the truth. The threat from Islamic radicalism and Islamic violence is quite adaptive. They adapt to their cultures (if they are migrants) and they adapt to western strategies to combat them. Several recent articles have articulated this quite well:

1) How (Not) To Spot a Terrorist, Foreign Policy.
2) Stumbling Towards Eurabia, The Journal of International Security Studies.

Something important to understand is that the people who articulate Jihad are not robed bandits in the mountains of Afhanistan. Many are well read, affluent, intelligent, and live in the west. The man most influential in articulating the new Jihad is Mustafa bin Abd al-Qadir Setmariam Nasr (known by his pen names Abu Musab al-Suri and Umar abd al-Hakim).

Al-Suri was born in 1958 in Syria and was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood there. He actively participated in the planning and training of the MB in Syria. He founded a militant off shoot of the MB called "The Fighting Vanguard" (al-Tala'iah al-Muqatilah) When the Assad regime finally crushed an MB inspired uprising in Hamma, killing 10,000-30,000 there. This destroyed the Syrian MB (then based in Baghdad) but galvanized al-Suri's will and determination.

He is a veteran of the Afghan Jihad where he honed his military skills (1987-1992). In 1988 he gained Spanish citizenship when he married Elena Moreno (reportedly out of genuine love and passion).

His most prominent and copious work is Da'wat al-muqawamah al-islamiyya al-'alamiyyah ('The Call for an International Islamic Resistance'). This has been a widely read and extremely popular work. He has written another work which indicates his willingness to learn from past experience, al-thawra al-islamiyyah al-jihadiyya fi suria - alam wa amal (The Syrian Islamic Jihadist Revolt, Pains and Hopes). This is a summary of his experience of the uprising with a view to taking lessons from the experience.

Al-Suri's new ideology is far more rational than other radicals, in his recent works he has advocated a break from the ideology of direct confrontation and the establishment of a Nizam, la tanzim (A system, not an organization). This was developed in the face of western intelligence organizations becoming more competent at infiltrating terror cells. In such a formulation the days of linked and organized jihad is over. It would consist of a series of unconnected, loosely organized, ultra radical, ultra violent terror cells. We have seen the establishment of such a cell in the Harbi format in France, when approached by law enforcement the group detonated a bomb in their apartment killing themselves to avoid capture.

Combine this loose organization with the Harbi doctrine of finding what is prohibited (drinking, sex, pork, etc...) now permissible in order to blend in to the local society. This renders these groups much more impregnable with regards to intelligence and counter-terrorism.

Take this and add in the fact that 50% of German Muslims believe that those killed fighting non-believers go to paradise, and 25% that say they would participate in armed struggle against non-believers, and you have yourself quite a problem. Being that 44% of German Muslims are fundamentalist (See Bassam Tibi's work on the matter), at the very least these people will be very reticent to turn over fellow Muslims who are engaged in the activities that al-Suri has outlined. Now we have a group adapting to blend in and carry out far deadlier attacks, combined with a highly radicalized local population. This is a recipe for disaster.

Being a Liberal Used to Mean Something

2008-05-29T09:39:00.000-07:00

Confessions of a former liberal:

As a former "liberal" I have a few statements to make. The very reason I was a liberal is because I felt it stood for something. I thought it stood for equality, for principles, for liberty, for standing up to lies and tyranny. Now I realize it has slowly become a bull shit whiners club. So much self flagellating and so little genuine critical thought.

Democrats ran the administration that defeated Nazism and the Japanese Empire, simultaneously, but what happened? These people were for the working class, they were liberal, and they wanted to make sure others had the same rights that they so valued. As I read the works of our founding fathers (United States) I see a group of people who view liberty as of paramount importance. The germinal works of the intellectual foundation of the United States clearly evidence a view that I can fully support.

We see liberals like Noam Chomsky (see below) who take every opportunity to distort reality and history to score points against the US. We see liberals who blame the United States for 9-11, saying we brought it on ourselves. They defend the Islamists, saying attacks on this pestilent ideology is Islamophobia. The biggest bit of nonsense ever. Islam is an ideology freely adopted by its adherents, not a race. Would these same whiny liberals object to the term "Naziphobia"? It is not denoting a hatred of Germans, it denotes a fear of "Nazism".

These liberals share a lot of common reasoning with the Islamists. For instance the grand mufti of Australia saying rape is the fault of the woman, is a lot like the liberals here saying 9-11 is the fault of America. This is even worse because if the analogy were reversed, it would be like the woman saying it is her own fault she was raped. And, no surprise, feminists lead the charge in this form of self flagellation.

Ironically, as it was the left in the US that fought and destroyed Nazism, it is the left in Europe that will usher fascism back into prominence. As they constantly apologize for the bigoted and violent rhetoric of Islamists living in Europe, as they continue to treat honor killings as individual events instead of part of a larger problem, they pave the way for reactionaries to rise to power. Once they allow a Muslim population to grow in numbers while simultaneously radicalising itself they allow neo-Fascists the opportunity of raising the specter of the "other", and they won't be altogether wrong.

Europeans have a history of appeasement of evil, it certainly seems the liberals in the US have adopted a similarly dangerous habit. I see the reason why so many neo-conservatives made the move they did.

2008-05-23T12:34:00.000-07:00

As I was reading through Zad al-Ma'ad by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (student of renowned Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taymiyya) I began thinking about the Islamic concept of Jihad.

Much has been made about the distinction between Jihad al-Akbar (The Greater Jihad, a spiritual and internal struggle for good) and Jihad al-Asghar (The Lesser Jihad, the outer jihad). My thoughts centered on the latter. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya names jihad as 'dharwat ul-Sanam' (lit. pinnacle of the camel's hump) of Islam.

He says (and I translate) that "Jihad is the pinnacle of the summit of faith, and the prophet experienced it in all its states". Al-Jawziyya divides the outer jihad into several categories. Among them:

1) Jihad al-Lisan (tongue)
2) Jihad al-Qalam (pen)
3) Jihad al-Qalb (heart)
4) Jihad al-Sayf (sword)

1) Jihad of the tongue, which is professing the "truth of Islam" to the unbelievers in an attempt to convert them, this also includes speaking against "injustice".
2) Jihad of the pen, writing against injustice or in support of the faith.
3) Jihad of the heart. If there is an injustice which cannot be stopped by word or deed, knowing its evil in the heart is a jihad.
4) Jihad of the sword.

This is where I came to rest.The jihad of the sword is two fold:
1) Ibtida'iyya (offensive)
2) Dafa'iyya (defensive).

The first is used to spread Islam into the Dar al-Harb (Realm of war) and the second is to defend the Dar al-Islam (Realm of Islam). I noticed further that in Islam there are two forms of general obligation:
1) Fard Ayni (Individual obligation)
2) Fard Kifaya (communal obligation)

The Greater Jihad falls in the first category and the Lesser Jihad in the second. This is important because Jihad al-Ibtida'iyya is an OBLIGATION. It is obligatory to engage in offensive jihad against the non-believers. It is obligatory on the community, thus not everyone must take up the sword against the 'kufar' (Infidels), but there must be some who do.

In this sense, the 9/11 atrocities where the manifestation of an Islamic obligation. For any objections to the loss of innocent life, the Islamic position is that it is permissible as long as pecunniary restitution is made to the families of those lost. It is also permissible in Islamic law to use human shields in the performance of both offensive and defensive jihad. Suicide, however, is indeed forbidden.As westerners we must look carefully at this doctrine of mandatory and exclusive warfare. The world shall be reduced to:

1) Dar al-Islam, where all will be Muslim. Those that remain Christian or Jewish will be forced to pay a sizeable tax. All those not in these two groups will be given the option of conversion to Islam, or death.

2) Dar al-Harb. The non Muslim world. This world is in a perpetual state of warfare with Islam.

Occassional treaties are acceptable, only so long as it increases Muslim strength for another onslaught. It is far more reminiscent of Orwellian war, which never ceases. We should look hard at the dystopia that this form of Islam seeks to impose, and determine how best to deal with it.

Darwinism and the Free Market

2008-05-21T08:19:00.000-07:00

Recently there was a great deal of debate on RD.net, surrounding Free Market Capitalism, and Socialism. There is an issue that remains unexplored (this will also be relevant to Creationism), that there is no need of a designer, to accept this for the process of evolution, but deny it to the process of economics is not only illogical, but foolish. Keep in mind that this is a comparison of the process.

Darwinism as I understand it is the process of natural selection acting on the various species of life that undergo various forms of genetic mutation, during their competition for resources. It is the non-random selection of randomly occurring mutations (to borrow from Richard Dawkins). This process requires no designer, and it evidences no designer, due to the fact that it is largely cold and uncaring, and that it has rendered species adapted to survive, yet physically imperfect.

The Free Market, as I understand it is paraphrased as an "invisible hand" which guides the market and the allocation of capital and resources. For instance the interplay of supply and demand in say..... the stapler market. Staplers are made by companies to fit a demand, and this supply will act in a natural way in its reactions to demand. Scarcity of staplers, increases the cost due to the demand remaining constant. The actors in the market act according to the invisible pressures that are exerted upon them. No government need regulate the number of companies providing a service. For instance a monopoly may arise, but the monopoly could never charge more for its product than another company could. For instance if there was only one company making staplers, and it cost them $1.00 to make each stapler, it could charge $10 for each stapler, but in such a case, another company could come along and charge $5.00 for each stapler and steal market share away from the other company. The original company could lower prices to $3.00 per stapler and take its market share back. This could continue until the company that best "adapts" itself to survive on the lowest margin (say $2.50 per stapler) will survive, while other companies can compete with a similar price, a superior product, or other competitive advantage.

The development of competitive advantage is forced upon a market by these invisible forces. In a market designed and manipulated by a large government, such advantages cannot be developed and people will not do their best work or come up with the greatest innovations. For instance company "A" selling staplers for $2.50 while making them for $1.00 could funnel money away from dividends to shareholders to do research on a new type of cheaper stapler production. While company "B" continues with business as usual. Company "A" then announces it can produce staplers for $0.25 per stapler, and will sell them for $1.75. Company "A" has maintained its $1.50 margin on each unit it produces, while cutting cost to the consumer by $0.75, and can then take more market share from other companies. This is the "leap" in evolution of the market, it is undesigned and produces the most efficient products, the most efficient means of cost control, and the best value to consumers and the market at large.

Thus I find it interesting that Creationists are often the staunchest defenders of the free market, because the free market embodies all the principles of Darwinian natural selection and evolution. It also follows that a Socialist economy more closely resembles the false notions contained in Creationism. It is no wonder that the same sort of thinking occurs in Socialist thought and Creationist thought. The dodging of questions, the straw manning, the claims of "That's not my Christianity/Socialism", these are ubiquitous to both "theories" because they are both equally intellectually bankrupt.

Self Flagellating, the Case of Noam Chomsky

2008-05-20T07:01:00.000-07:00

There will be a running series here on Noam Chomsky. One post to deal with each of his distortions and lies. I at one time considered myself a staunch member of the left, although I find directional terms to represent political views to be somewhat useless now. During this time, I found Chomsky to be an invaluable contributor to the discussion in America and on America. I still regard his writings as such, but I have noticed a disturbing trend, namely that he often distorts the truth, and maintains a curiously ineffective moral compass. Today we talk about Noam Chomsky and Faurisson Affair.

Robert Faurisson was a French professor of literature at the University of Lyon. He is a Holocaust denier who, in two letters to Le Monde, denied the existence of any Nazi gas chambers. He is an outright denier who has written articles for the Journal of Historical Review (Published by the Holocaust denying Institute for Historical Review). The IHR has had such "esteemed" contributors as David Irving, Ahmad Rami, and Ernst Zundel (repellent anti-Semites to the man).

After these letters were published, Faurisson was fired from his position, under the guidelines of the Gayssot Act, which prohibits Holocaust denial. A petition was circulated in support of Faurisson's right to free speech, and Noam Chomsky was a signatory. I can only concur that Faurisson had his rights violated, and that more broadly Holocaust denial laws are anti-libertarian and a waste of time. However Chomsky went beyond simply signing the document...

Chomsky wrote:

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in the denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even the denial of the holocaust."

A PDF copy of the newspaper article criticizing Chomsky can be found here.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/rubinstein-chomsky.pdf

The letter itself can be found on Chomsky's site, here:
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm

The denial of the Holocaust is a clear instance of anti-Semitism on the part of Faurisson, and is so in general. We will leave aside Faurisson's ties to Neo-Nazis and his "friendship" with Ernst Zundel and Ahmad Rami. Denial of the Holocaust entails certain attendant consequences, unavoidable and unacceptable. Holocaust denial absolutely asserts the following:

1) The Jews fabricated a massive lie.
2) The Jews profit from this lie.
3) They have fabricated stories (matching) for every survivor.
4) This hoax involves all Jews.
5) This hoax involves almost every government.

The consequence of this? That the Jews lie to extort gentile money, and influence other governments to pay this extortion money, and enlist still other governments to support them. This is an age old anti-Semitic line "The Jews are greedy, dishonest, and run the world." Such anti-Semitism is unavoidable. So to deny the Holocaust, with such abundance of evidence, means that one must have the anti-Semitic conclusion in mind, and can't simply be "evaluating history". This can be seen when we look at Holocaust deniers themselves. To a man, liars, anti-Semites, bigots, the mentally deranged, Muslim radicals, and discredited non-scholars. Most deniers are more than one of these things. Thus if the Holocaust is a hoax, it is only the above "brave men" who have uncovered it.

We have shown Chomsky's assertions to be utter rubbish, but he is not finished soiling himself... Chomsky went further:

"Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a Neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

So Chomsky goes further than saying Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitism, he says that a famous Holocaust denier, aligned with neo-Nazis, and counting virulent anti-Semites (Ahmad Rami) as "friends" is NOT an anti-Semite.

For the connection between Faurisson and Neo-Nazis see:

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Fresco81a/

Chomsky has a broken moral compass. He is unable to discern reality in his constant need to demonize America and Israel. He often chances upon some legitimate observation, but in general he flails away in some self flagellating seizure, bending truth to fit a priori conclusions. This no doubt will serve to preface my next post (coming later this week) on Chomsky's whitewashing and downplaying of the Khmer Rouge genocide....

On Failed Ideologies

2008-05-19T11:31:00.000-07:00

Lately I have been doing some reading, prompted by discussions with self styled "Socialists". Mostly impressionable liberals, dedicated to acting contrary to the status quo, not out of principle but out of contrarian tendencies. These people have failed in the most simple task, an analysis of Communism/Socialism.

I have been reading "The Communist Manifesto" and"1984" (George Orwell for you science folks). The one thing I noticed was how easily Communism and Socialism lend themselves to a state apparatus like the one described in “1984”.

There are several issues that come as necessary consequences of Socialism. First one must understand what Socialism means. It is a theory that strongly resembles religion, for once you note a flaw or weak point, the socialist immediately says “Nay sir, this is not MY socialism, ‘tis but a straw man.” This is all too reminiscent of “Nay sir, this “hell” you speak of is not my Catholicism, ‘tis but a straw man.” Indeed, indeed. The only fair method to judge Socialism (here I shall use this as a synonym to the degree that it corresponds to Communism) is to read its proponents and critically view its various (and often bloody) instantiations in the world, both past and present.

Socialism is somehow rooted in what might be termed an honorable notion, the equality of all and justice for the working class. It claims for itself, a promised utopia, yet delivers only a dreary dystopia, one best described through the eyes of Winston Smith. Yes this fictional “Ingsoc” (“English Socialism” Orwellian term) is seen most well embodied in North Korea, a country whose system promises all the Utopia of the Manifesto, and delivers all the destruction of “Ingsoc”.

Socialism requires control of all resources, currency, credit, material, and labor by a government. This creates quite a problem, because it effectively ends a free market. The free market works well (although not perfectly) because it naturally allocates resources and avoids a massive bureaucracy.

For instance, in a Capitalist society, such as the United States, I may travel back and forth to the coast (for recreation) as much as I please, so long as I can afford this in currency earned through my labor and my skills. These skills acquired at a price, namely a college education, both costly and long. In a socialist country, the government must allocate resources. To decide who should get what is difficult, because some obviously need more than others. Thus a massive bureaucracy must arise. How much fuel should a person get to drive, how much if he is married, if he has children, if he has a sick father in Arkansas, or Arizona, or Alaska? What is the formula? Thus such an allocation becomes either formulaic, unbending to actual needs, or at the discretion of a bureaucrat. This is only one example of the absolutely destructive nature of Socialism.

Second is the destruction of ambition, motivation and innovation. For instance, one may innovate for one of two reasons. 1) Benefit for mankind. 2) Personal profit. Capitalism allows for both forms of motivation, socialism only one. Thus Socialism would certainly inhibit the growth and forward progress of society. Also, in a socialist country, one would be paid how? On how hard he works? No, impossible, this is capitalism, but rather on the fact that he exists. Thus the man who works in the health department 12 hours a day to help people and the man that shows up for 7 hours and takes a 2 hour lunch would be paid the same. In fact, why even come to work? Why not sleep in and collect your food rations later? It would punish the hard working and reward the lazy.

Finally liberty. Capitalism gives you the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. For instance, in the US, one may live as a communist, vote for the Communist Party, live on a commune, espouse communist views, read communist books, and travel to communist countries. This is of no concern to the government, and no concern to the citizenry. But in a socialist nation, the government must absolutely crush and capitalism, and must imprison or snuff out such people. One could not, conversely, go live on some land and build a society of capital. Simply put it would attract those in society who wished for a better life, who had ambition, and socialism would crush this to maintain its system. Such an act would prove the superiority of the free market, and has done so in China, Vietnam and Laos. Socialism requires Orwell’s Thought Police, they are intrinsically linked to Socialism.

Since everyone is doing it.....

2008-05-19T11:03:00.000-07:00

Since everyone is getting a blog, I figured I had better do the same....

I picked a saucy name in order to create that acrimonious environment I so thoroughly enjoy elsewhere!

I will be sure to write something very provocative, very insightful, and definitely amusing, every week.