How are Women Viewed in Islam?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geert Wilders Interview

A video of note:

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


Never a man at a loss for words.

9/11 Conspiracy Hycpocrisy

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

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

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

Comical.

A Convert to Islam on RD.net

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

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

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

I shall cite portions and respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Islam is the solution, the only solution."

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

A Comment on RD.net and the Wilders Debate

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


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

Here is the relevant portion of text of the comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Geert

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

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

Geert Wilders Denied Entry to the UK

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

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

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

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

Lebanese MP Reveals His True Feelings

Video:

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

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

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

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

Revolted yet again.

Another Response to Steve Zara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Response to Steve Zara

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

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

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.