News: Bin Laden Lambasts Jahili Arab Governments

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

An Abridged Handbook of Islamic Sects and Trends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orientosis, Also a Plague from the West

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Convert to Islam on RD.net

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

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

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

I shall cite portions and respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Islam is the solution, the only solution."

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

A Comment on RD.net and the Wilders Debate

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


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

Here is the relevant portion of text of the comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lebanese MP Reveals His True Feelings

Video:

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

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

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

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

Revolted yet again.

Geert Wilders and the Weak Kneed Capitulationists

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.