Islam – submission | WarSclerotic | Page 5

Posted tagged ‘Islam – submission’

Western Publishers Submit to Islam

September 11, 2016

Western Publishers Submit to Islam, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, September 11, 2016

♦ For criticizing Islam, Hamed Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house. This is what the Soviets did to destroy writers: destroy their books.

♦ At a time when dozens of novelists, journalists and scholars are facing Islamists’ threats, it is unforgivable that Western publishers not only agree to bow down, but are often the first to capitulate.

♦ A Paris court convicted Renaud Camus for “Islamophobia” (a fine of 4,000 euros) for a speech he gave in 2010, in which he spoke of the replacement of the French people under the Trojan horse of multiculturalism. Another writer, Richard Millet, was fired last March by Gallimard publishing house for his ideas on multiculturalism.

♦ Not only did Rushdie’s publishers capitulate; other publishers also decided to break rank and return to do business with Tehran. Oxford University Press decided to take part in the Tehran Book Fair along with two American publishers, McGraw-Hill and John Wiley. Those publishers chose to respond to murderous censorship with surrender.

♦ It is as if at the time of the Nazis’ book-burnings, Western publishers had not only stood silent, but had also invited a German delegation to Paris and New York.

When Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses came out in 1989, Viking Penguin, the British and American publisher of the novel, was subjected to daily Islamist harassment. As Daniel Pipes wrote, the London office resembled “an armed camp,” with police protection, metal detectors and escorts for visitors. In Viking’s New York offices, dogs sniffed packages and the place was designated a “sensitive location”. Many bookshops were attacked and many even refused to sell the book. Viking spent about $3 million on security measures in 1989, the fatal year for Western freedom of expression.

Nonetheless, Viking never flinched. It was a miracle that the novel finally came out. Other publishers, however, faltered. Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. Most Western publishers are now faltering. That is the meaning of the new Hamed Abdel-Samad affair.

The Muslim Brotherhood gave Abdel-Samad all that an Egyptian boy could wish for: spirituality, camaraderie, companionship, a purpose. In Giza, Hamed Samad became part of the Brotherhood. His father had taught him the Koran; the Brotherhood explained him how to translate these teachings into practice.

Abdel-Samad repudiated them after one day in the desert. The Brothers had given all the new militants an orange after they had walked under the sun for hours. They were ordered to peel it. Then the Brotherhood asked them to bury the fruit in the sand, and to eat the peel. The next day, Abdel-Samad left the organization. It was the humiliation needed to turn a human being into a terrorist.

Abdel-Samad today is 46 years old and lives in Munich, Germany, where he married a Danish girl and works for the Institute of Jewish History and Culture at the University of Munich. In his native Egyptian village, his first book caused an uproar. Some Muslims wanted to burn it.

Abdel-Samad’s recent book, Der Islamische Faschismus: Eine Analyse, has just been burned at the stake not in Cairo by Islamists, but in France by some of the self-righteous French.

The book is a bestseller in Germany, where it has been published by the well-known publisher, Droemer Knaur. An English translation has been published in the U.S. by Prometheus Books, under the title Islamic Fascism. Two years ago, the French publisher, Piranha, acquired the rights to translate Abdel-Samad’s book about “Islamic Fascism” into French. A publication date was even posted on Amazon: September 16. But at the last moment, the publisher stopped its release. Jean-Marc Loubet, head of the publishing house, announced to Abdel-Samad’s agent that the publication of his book is now unthinkable in France, not only for security reasons, but also because it would reinforce the “extreme right”.

For criticizing Islam, Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house. This is what the Soviets did to destroy writers: destroy his books.

Mr. Abdel-Samad’s case is not new. At a time when dozens of novelists, journalists and scholars are facing Islamists’ threats, it is unforgivable that Western publishers not only agree to bow down, but are often the first to capitulate.

1856

For criticizing Islam, Hamed Abdel-Samad lives under police protection in Germany and, as with Rushdie, a fatwa hangs over him. After the fatwa come the insults: being censored by a free publishing house.

In France, for criticizing Islam in a column titled “We refuse to change civilization” for the daily newspaper, Le Monde, the famous writer, Renaud Camus, lost his publisher, Fayard.

Before he suddenly became “unpopular” in the Paris’s literary establishment, Renaud Camus had been friends with Louis Aragon, the famous Communist poet and founder of surrealism, and was close joining “the immortals” of the French Academy. Roland Barthes, the star of the Collège de France, had written the preface to Renaud Camus’ most famous novel, Tricks, the cult-classic book of gay culture.

Then a Paris court convicted Camus for “Islamophobia” (a fine of 4,000 euros), for a speech he gave on December 18, 2010, in which he spoke of “Grand Replacement“, the replacement of the French people under the Trojan horse of multiculturalism. It was then that Camus became persona non grata in France.

The Jewel of Medina, a novel by the American writer Sherry Jones about the life of the third wife of Muhammad, was first purchased and then scrapped by the powerful publisher Random House, which had already paid her an advance and launched an ambitious promotional campaign. Sherry Jones’s new publisher, Gibson Square, was then firebombed by Islamists in London.

Then there was Yale University Press, which published a book by Jytte Klausen, “The Cartoons That Shook the World“, on the history of the controversial “Mohammad cartoons” that were published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, and crisis that followed. But Yale University Press published the book without the cartoons, and without any other images of the Muslim prophet Mohammad that were to be included.

“The capitulation of Yale University Press to threats that hadn’t even been made yet is the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism — particularly Muslim religious extremism — that is spreading across our culture,” commented the late Christopher Hitchens. Yale was possibly hoping to get in line for the same $20 million donation from Saudi Arabia’s Prince Al-Wwaleed bin Talal that he had just bestowed upon George Washington University and Harvard.

In Germany, Gabriele Brinkmann, a popular novelist, was also suddenly left without a publisher. According to her publisher, Droste, the novel Wem Ehre Geburt (“To Whom Honor Gives Birth“) could be judged as “insulting to Muslims” and expose the publisher to intimidation. Brinkmann was asked to censor some passages; she refused and lost the publishing house.

This same cowardice and capitulation now pervades the entire publishing industry. Last year, Italy’s most prestigious book fair in Turin chose (then shelved) Saudi Arabia as its guest of honor, despite the many writers and bloggers who are imprisoned in the Islamic kingdom. Raif Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and a 10-year sentence, and a $260,000 fine.

Many Western publishers are now also “rejecting works by Israeli authors“, according Time.com, despite their political views.

It was after Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses that many Western publishing houses first bowed to intimidation. Christian Bourgois, a French publishing house, refused to publish The Satanic Verses after having bought the rights, as did the German publisher, Kiepenheuer, who apparently said he regretted having acquired the rights to the book and chose to sell them to a consortium of fifty publishers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, gathered under the name “UN-Charta Artikel 19.”

Not only did Rushdie’s publishers capitulate; other publishers also decided to break ranks and return to do business with Tehran. Oxford University Press decided to take part in the Tehran Book Fair, along with two American publishers, McGraw-Hill and John Wiley, despite the request of Rushdie’s publisher, Viking Penguin, to boycott the Iranian event. Those publishers chose to respond to murderous censorship with surrender, willing to sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of business as usual: selling books was more important than solidarity with threatened colleagues.

It is as if at the time of the Nazis’ book-burnings, Western publishers had not only stood silent, but had also invited a German delegation to Paris and New York. Is it so unimaginable today?

Categories: Censorship, Islam - submission, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist freedom, Publishers, Western civilization
Tags: Censorship, Islam - submission, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist freedom, Publishers, Western civilization

Comments: Be the first to comment

Salman Rushdie Reveals the Power of Today’s Islamism

September 9, 2016

Salman Rushdie Reveals the Power of Today’s Islamism, Counter Jihad, Bruce Cornibe, September 8, 2016

Author Salman Rushdie, of the controversial novel The Satanic Verses, has spent a large stint underground being protected by the British government. This is because he allegedly blasphemed Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Rushdie, whose life has been greatly affected by Sharia inspired laws, is speaking out against the politically correct climate of our time, The Washington Times reports:

“Today, I would be accused of Islamophobia and racism. People would say I had attacked a cultural minority,” the writer [said]. He cited as an example of the change the handling of Charlie Hebdo, where an often scabrous satirical newspaper was threatened for years by Islamists and eventually numerous employees there were killed in a terrorist attack.

“Instead of responding to attacks against freedom of expression, voices were raised to decry blasphemy and to propose compromise with terrorism. There is no blasphemy in a democracy,” Mr. Rushdie said.

In the interview, the writer decried the reluctance of Western governments to use the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” preferring instead to attribute terrorist attacks to “unbalanced” people or to a generic thing like “radicalism” or “extremism,” even when the attackers themselves say Islam is their motive.

The ‘Islamophobia’ narrative that seeks to silence any kind of criticism of Islam is in fact a type of anti-blasphemy tactic used by Islamists. Quran 33:57 states, “Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” The worst part is that prominent institutions and figures are pushing this narrative. The University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race & Gender (CRG), has even released an “Islamophobia Reporting App” for one’s cell phone. The same CRG, whose definition of ‘Islamophobia’ includes, “a perceived or real Muslim threat[.]” Also, one can speculate that London’s new Islamic mayor, Sadiq Khan, is going to try and target critics of Islamic doctrine in his effort to police “online hate crimes[.]”

Rushdie also makes good points about the dangerous atmosphere caused by Islamists leading up to the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015, and the failure of many Western leaders to call out Islamic terrorism by name. The Obama Administration’s response, or lack thereof, after the attack is pretty telling of its hesitancy to confront Islamic terrorism – the U.S. President and top-ranking U.S. officials didn’t join the Hebdo rally in Paris. Whether President Obama approves of the provocative magazine or not, he needs to still stand in solidarity against terrorism and the shedding of innocent blood.

This hyper-sensitivity against offending Islam not only shows religious favoritism to a particular group in society but also enables the Islamists and jihadists to advance their Sharia agenda. If the Salman Rushdie case and others like Charlie Hebdo do not awaken the West to action, then we can continue to watch our Western civilization and its liberties slowly vanish.

Categories: Blasphemy, Charlie Hedbo, Islam - submission, Islamic slaughter, Islamophobia, Media and Islam, Obama and Islam, Salman Rushdie, Sharia law
Tags: Blasphemy, Charlie Hedbo, Islam - submission, Islamic slaughter, Islamophobia, Media and Islam, Obama and Islam, Salman Rushdie, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hugh Fitzgerald: Those Danish Right-Wing “Racists,” Their “Harsh” Demands and “Hate” Speech

September 8, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald: Those Danish Right-Wing “Racists,” Their “Harsh” Demands and “Hate” Speech, Jihad Watch, Hugh Fitzgerald, September 8, 2016

denmark-migrant-and-native

The other day the New York Times published a story about how Danes are souring on Muslim immigrants, and how some feel guilty about it:

Johnny Christensen, a stout and silver-whiskered retired bank employee, always thought of himself as sympathetic to people fleeing war and welcoming to immigrants. But after more than 36,000 mostly Muslim asylum seekers poured into Denmark over the past two years, Mr. Christensen, 65, said, “I’ve become a racist.”

He believes these new migrants are draining Denmark’s cherished social-welfare system but failing to adapt to its customs. “Just kick them out,” he said, unleashing a mighty kick at an imaginary target on a suburban sidewalk. “These Muslims want to keep their own culture, but we have our own rules here and everyone must follow them.”

When Christensen says “I’ve become a racist,” he has internalized the false charge made by Muslims, and their willing collaborators, that those who are sensibly anxious about Islam are “racists.” Since that scare-word automatically consigns one to the outer darkness, when even perfectly intelligent people with perfectly reasonable grievances turn that word on themselves, it is clear that something is amiss. Mr. Christensen needs to be unapologetic for his views, and he should start by watching his language: Islam is not a race, antipathy to Muslims does not constitute “racism.” Leave that word alone.

If Mr. Christensen wishes to feel guilty, he ought to feel guilty only about what future generations of Danes will inherit: a country which, because of the numbers of Muslims allowed in during Mr. Christensen’s time, will be far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for native Danes than it might otherwise have been.

As the Times story notes, “Denmark, a small and orderly nation with a progressive self-image, is built on a social covenant: In return for some of the world’s highest wages and benefits, people are expected to work hard and pay into the system. Newcomers must quickly learn Danish — and adapt to norms like keeping tidy gardens and riding bicycles.”

But just look at how the Times reporter then slants the story at every point: “The center-right government has backed harsh measures targeting migrants, hate speech has spiked, and the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second largest in Parliament.”

“Harsh measures targeting migrants,” “hate speech has spiked,” “anti-immigrant party.” It all sounds so terrible, until you ask a few questions.

What “harsh measures” are these? Apparently the “harshest” measure, passed in January, empowers the Danish authorities to confiscate valuables from new arrivals, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to offset the cost of settling them. It has seldom been enforced, and does not apply to the first $1,500 a migrant possesses.

Why exactly is this considered “harsh”? Should migrants not be expected to contribute, when they are capable of doing so? After all, they arrived uninvited, are immediately the recipients of a cornucopia of expensive benefits, and these benefits now flowing to them were paid for by generations of Danish taxpayers, who thought they were providing for poorer members of their own, that is Danish, society.

Is it “harsh” to require immigrants to pass exams in Danish? At present, only 72%, or a little more than 2/3, manage to learn even elementary Danish. Is it “harsh” to make immigrants take a citizenship exam, requiring them have studied the laws and mores of the Danes, given that they have the great good fortune to have been admitted to this peaceful pleasant land? Is it wrong to require immigrants to study the history of Denmark, since they have decided they’ve come to Denmark to stay? If the goal is to integrate these foreigners, the free courses and tests required will only further that goal.

And why are these putatively “harsh” measures described as “targeting immigrants,” rather than, in less loaded words, described simply as “applying to immigrants”? Since these are measures to further the successful integration of immigrants, of course they apply only to — but do not “target,” which has a distinctly menacing ring — immigrants. As to the casual assertion that “hate speech has spiked,” where is the evidence for this? Since not a single example of such “hate speech” appears in the entire Times piece, the reader must simply take it on faith that Danes – again labelled as “right-wing” – have been guilty of “hate speech.”

Let’s try to figure out what the reporter had in mind as conceivable “hate speech.” Suppose a member of the Danish People’s Party points out that Muslim Somalis in Denmark commit ten times as many crimes per capita as native Danes. That is a statement of fact, not “hate speech.” Or suppose a member of the Danish People’s Party notes that Muslim immigrants receive a much larger benefits package, and for a longer period, given their high unemployment, as compared to what non-Muslim immigrants and native Danes receive. Would that be “hate speech,” or simply a statement of fact?

“There is new tension between Danes still opening their arms and a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims and shut Denmark off from Europe.”

So the reporter sees a Morality Play with two kinds of Danes: the Good Danes, “still opening their arms,” and the Bad Danes, “a resurgent right wing that seeks to ban all Muslims.” But even the Good Danes did not invite the Muslims in, and never quite were “opening their arms.” And even if the Bad Danes want to end Muslim immigration, none have as yet called for removing all of the Muslims already in Denmark. Not quite a Morality Play.

The Times reporter continues:

There is tension, too, over whether the backlash is really about a strain on Denmark’s generous public benefits or a rising terrorist threat — or whether a longstanding but latent racial hostility is being unearthed.

First, what does it mean to write “there is tension” over whether the “backlash” is about “a strain on generous public benefits” OR “a rising terrorist threat”? “Tension” over trying to apportion blame for the anxiety Muslims have caused? Why can’t there be anxiety among Danes about both the cost to their welfare system of Muslim migrants, and about the threat of Islamic terrorism to their very lives? Why can’t there be more than one reason for growing antipathy to Muslim migrants in Denmark?

And then there is that other proffered reason, which Muslims and their apologists find much to their liking: Could anxiety about the effect of Muslim migrants on Danish society reveal “a longstanding but latent racial hostility”? Just think, this “racial hostility” has been so longstanding but so very latent that no one noticed it, and strange to say, now that the Danes have revealed themselves as “racists,” their “racism” apparently doesn’t apply to all black people, for black African Christians in Denmark have rarely had any troubles, while, strange to say, even white Muslims (as from Syria) have engendered antipathy. So this hostility must have to do not with race but with Islam. The Danes are not revealing “racial hostility,” but well-grounded fears about Islam and the behavior of Muslims. Those who talk about a “latent racial hostility” in this famously tolerant country are deliberately trying to make the Danes feel guilty about their well-justified fears, and to deflect attention away from Islam

The Times reporter does concede that “perhaps the leading — and most substantive — concern is that the migrants are an economic drain. In 2014, 48 percent of immigrants from non-Western countries ages 16 to 64 were employed, compared with 74 percent of native Danes.” There then follows the sensible comments of immigration officials about the need to avoid “parallel societies,” and the story of one Muslim immigrant family’s success (but no similar stories about the many cases of immigrant unemployment and crime), that of an Iraqi engineer who allows his children to eat pork at school, and who with his family attends church to learn about Christianity. How typical do you think this Muslim immigrant family is?

This report from Denmark, with its loaded words – “right-wing,” “hate speech,” “targeting immigrants,” “harsh measures” – does not leave much room for thoughtful analysis of what is clearly a grave problem everywhere in Western Europe. That problem, let me repeat, is that Muslim migrants, in large numbers (one million arrived in Germany alone in 2015), have been moving into Europe, bringing Islam with them in their mental luggage, putting great strain on the welfare systems of every country in which they end up, and on the criminal justice systems because of their sky-high crime rate, and, given Muslim terrorist attacks in nearly a dozen Western countries, on the security services too.

Yet it is amazing that even now, after all the murder and mayhem that has been committed by Muslims, and not only those of ISIS who dutifully cite Islamic texts to justify their every act, people in Denmark are embarrassed to admit to an anxiety about Islam, and instead accuse themselves (“I’ve become a racist”) rather than ask what it is about the ideology of Islam that makes it uniquely difficult, perhaps even impossible, for Muslim migrants – always with a few remarkable exceptions — to integrate.

That is the question to be asked again and again: what explains the success of so many non-Muslim immigrants in managing to integrate into many different European countries, and the failure of so many Muslim immigrants to do so in those same countries? And why do the peoples of Western Europe allow themselves to feel so apologetic about their anxiety about, and antipathy toward, Islam? And when will we, the world’s Infidels, dare to study the texts that explain Muslim acts and attitudes, or shall we forever deny ourselves the right to engage in such study, that is, from doing the one thing that makes the most sense?

Categories: Denmark, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam in Europe, Islamic culture, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Language, Media and Islam, Welfare
Tags: Denmark, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam in Europe, Islamic culture, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Language, Media and Islam, Welfare

Comments: Be the first to comment

France: On Its Way to Being a Jew-Free Nation?

September 8, 2016

France: On Its Way to Being a Jew-Free Nation? Gatestone Institute, Robbie Travers, September 8, 2016

♦ Incitement to murder Jews was described by the French press as “mild mannered”.

♦ In 2014, supposed anti-Israel protesters attacked a Paris synagogue and trapped the congregants inside. The attackers’ chants apparently included “Death to the Jews,” “Murderous Israel,” and “One Jew, Some Jews, All Jews are Terrorists.”

♦ The terrorist attacks on Jews in France are the culmination of years of Jew-hatred tolerated with little official criticism.

♦ With ISIS and Hamas banners and flags flying, groups in Paris pledged the genocide of the Jews with impunity. When chants of “Death to the Jews,” ring out publicly, is it surprising that people might actually begin to think that killing Jews is just fine?

During the past 15 years, it is estimated that tens of thousands of Jews have fled France.

Of these, approximately 40,000 have fled to Israel, according to Israeli figures. Many thousands of others have fled to Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. France is increasingly becoming a nation in which it is no longer safe to be openly Jewish.

To explain why so many Jews are leaving Europe, it helps to understand the increasingly toxic context developing in France for Jews.

Synagogues and Jewish schools across France are regularly guarded by police officers and soldiers. Jews in Europe see their holy sites and places of worship under threat.

In December 2015, 14 Jews were poisoned by a toxic substance which had been smeared on to the keypad to access a Paris synagogue. No one was killed by the poison, but “25 firemen rushed to the synagogue, where they treated congregants and traced their condition to the daubed lock.”

Another Paris synagogue was vandalized and a window smashed. Synagogues seem to be one of the targets in a new wave of anti-Semitism rising across France and Europe.

On the way to a synagogue, a 13-year-old boy was called a “dirty Jew” and then seriously assaulted. The attackers are said to have attacked the boy because of he wore a skullcap. Only 71 years after the end of one of the darkest periods of European history, after which we pledged “never again,” it seems to have become open season to hate and persecute Jews.

The terrorist attacks on Jews in France are the culmination of years of Jew-hatred tolerated with little official criticism. In 2014, supposed anti-Israel protesters attacked a Paris synagogue and trapped the congregants inside. The attackers’ chants apparently included “Death to the Jews,” “Murderous Israel,” and “One Jew, Some Jews, All Jews are Terrorists.”

It seems people who openly call for hatred against Jews, to the point of murder, can now claim to be just “anti-Israel,” rather than anti-Semitic. Incitement to murder Jews was described by the French press as “mild mannered”. When talk of racial murder is dismissed in such a way, is it any wonder that radical clerics continue to preach vicious dehumanising hatred that culminates in violence?

If the media were more accurate, it would describe these “anti-Israeli” protesters as “anti-Semitic” and “inciters of violence and genocide.”

When swastikas are painted in one Paris’ largest squares by those claiming to oppose Israel, and ISIS and Hamas banners and flags are flying, and groups pledge the genocide of the Jews with impunity, is it any wonder that individuals might support these groups? When chants of “Death to the Jews,” ring out publicly, is it surprising that people might actually begin to think that killing Jews is just fine?

Both far-right Islamists and neo-Nazis joined forces in Paris during a “Day of Rage.” More than 17,000 of them marched, chanting “Jew, France is not for you.” Is it surprising that Jews are flee the country in increasing numbers?

When Islamists chant outside a central Paris synagogue, “Hitler was right,” whilst some of his victims still walk this earth, is it surprising people in French society may start to emulate him, or at least aspire to?

Synagogues are not the only institutions facing serious threats. Jewish schools across France are under heavy guard by police and soldiers.

1578-2

French soldiers guard a Jewish school in Strasbourg, February 2015. (Image source: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)

The tragedy is that we have allowed French and European societies to need these guards by tolerating those promoting injustice, prejudice and hatred.

Paul Fitoussi, principal of the Lucien de Hirsch Jewish school in Paris, summarises why France has become so toxic for Jews:

“People nowadays think it is dangerous to be Jewish in France because there was a series of events: The kidnapping and murder of Ilan Halimi ten years ago, the terror attack at the Jewish school in Toulouse four years ago, the stabbings in Marseille, last year’s attack at Hyper Cacher market – there is a problem. For the French, worrying about security issues is new to them. I talk to the police but they do not know what to do. They brought armed soldiers to the schools, but I know that in the long term this is not a solution.”

There seems to be a common thread running throughout the incidences above and attacks on Jews today. In the Ilan Halimi case, the victim was targeted on the basis of his race, and the perception that being a Jew made him wealthy. A similar attack was noted by a fifth-grader at the Lucien de Hirsh school. He said his attackers, foreign in origin, “asked if I was Jewish, I said yes, they said that the Jews are full of money, and if I did not give them my coat, they will kill me.” It seems that stereotypes of Jewish wealth perpetuated often by Islamists and others now seem commonplace in French society, and individuals are increasingly threatened with murder, robbery and extortion.

Not even public transportation is safe for Jews; in December, 2015, a man on a train in Paris verbally abused a group of Jews, stating that he wished to kill them. “If only I had a grenade here,” he said, “how do you call it, a fragmentation grenade, I would blow up this wagon with the fucking Jewish bastards.”

There has also been, since 2000, a troublingly large increase in the number of violent anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims in France. Multiple official figures have illustrated that in the last 20 years, the number of violent anti-Semitic acts has tripled. In France in 2014, there were 851 recorded anti-Semitic incidents, more than doubling the total from 2013.

Jews may represent less than 1% of France’s expanding and diverse population, but they are the victim of 40%–50% of France’s recorded racist attacks.

Jews are only the start of where Islamists begin to target people to whose existence they seem to object. Next, Islamists come for the LGBT, as seen in the Orlando shooting and with ISIS throwing gay people off buildings, and of course Christians, as we have seen in slaughtered in just one small example on a Libyan beach; and most frequently other Muslims, the majority victim of Isla mists. Evidently no one is safe, and that includes all of us.

Perhaps it is best to finish on a note inspired from the work of Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), a prominent Lutheran pastor and scathing critic of Adolf Hitler. Consequently, Niemöller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, but had the fortune to survive.

His timeless poem does not need much transposing:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Categories: France, Islam - submission, Islam and Jews, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation of France
Tags: France, Islam - submission, Islam and Jews, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation o France

Comments: Be the first to comment

Saudi women revolt: #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen

September 7, 2016

Saudi women revolt: #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen, Counter Jihad, Christine Williams, September 7, 2016

(Lot of luck with that. — DM)

Female oppression and subjugation are integral elements of Islamic supremacism, exhibited by Saudi Arabia (among other Islamic states), which exports and funds Wahhabism globally. Saudi Arabia is now experiencing a kind of social media revolt by its women against its guardianship laws. Hurray for social media in allowing these women some dissenting expression; they are otherwise buried and gagged under the niqab.

“The hashtag, #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen, has taken the Twitter social networking world by storm, calling for an end to these oppressive laws” of male guardianship.

Females in Saudi Arabia are permanently under male guardians from birth. They can’t be educated, travel, marry, “or even have surgery” without male guardian approval. In fact, if a woman so much as leaves the house against the wishes of her male guardian, he can “go to the police and file a complaint that you are a fugitive and the police will come after you and take you home.”These are elements of Islamic law, but nowhere else are they so strictly enforced as in Saudi Arabia.

Western leftist feminists who turn a blind eye to the tortures of the sisterhood by Islamic supremacists and jihadists, meanwhile, are perhaps too busy with the chorus of celebratory jeering over the death of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly (who spoke out boldly against Muslim immigration in Europe and the erosion of democratic principles) to take note of this new development about women in Saudi Arabia.

stopenslavingsaudiwomen

“Calls to end Saudi male guardianship sweeping social media”, by Katie Beiter, The JPost , September 7, 2016:

Reem, a 37-year-old Saudi nurse, who asked that her last name be withheld, recalled when her family arranged her marriage. After graduating from nursing school, she worked for 10 years until her cousin approached her father asking for her hand in marriage.

“All of a sudden my father said to me, this is my nephew and you will marry him,” Reem said. “We were complete opposites in character and I didn’t like him, he wasn’t handsome. So, I refused, I cried, I did everything a Saudi girl can do, but sadly, they forced me.”

“It broke my soul,” she added. After a year of being engaged, Reem broke it off. Her parents then forced her to marry a man, who, according to Reem, was a drug addict; so she divorced him.

“Now, I am divorced with one son. I am a nurse, but I stay with my family. I have a good salary, but they refuse to let me live independently. I am 37 years old and I still live with my parents,” Reem said.

Stories like these are not uncommon in Saudi Arabia, a conservative, Muslim country, where male guardianship laws still reign. These laws require Saudi women, regardless of age, to have a male guardian, usually a husband or a father, who makes all legal decisions for them.

The hashtag, #StopEnslavingSaudiWomen, has taken the Twitter social networking world by storm, calling for an end to these oppressive laws.

“Basically, from when they are born to when they die, Saudi women require male guardians, who are given legal control over their lives,” Kristine Beckerle, a Human Rights Watch researcher recently reported. According to Beckerle, the New York-based human rights organization “has concluded that male guardianship is the most significant impediment to women’s rights in Saudi Arabia today.”

Saudi women are not allowed to travel, marry, study, or even have surgery without permission from their guardians. “If you go out against your guardian’s will, he can go to the police and file a complaint that you are a fugitive and the police will come after you and take you home,” Reem added.

There is a Twitter hashtag in Arabic (#سعوديات_نطالب_باسقاط_الولاية51), which updates the number of days the hashtag has been circulating. It has reached 51.

“It’s a unified effort by Saudi Women in attempt to voice their struggle in the only legal way that they can in Saudi Arabia,” Isaac Cohen, Director of the S.A.F.E. Movement, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping Saudi women fight male guardianship, told The Media Line.

Women have chosen the social media platform to raise awareness because protest rallies are illegal and can even carry prison sentences in Saudi Arabia. In the past, Saudi women have feared publicizing their beliefs; however, women have now become more willing to take a stand in the anti-guardianship campaign, according to Beckerle.

These women have gone so far as to record videos of themselves to post on social media, articulating the horrors of the repressive laws. Aside from the hashtags, there have been many other instances of solidarity amongst Saudi women.

Some of which include the distribution of “I am my own guardian” bracelets and stickers; a petition to the king, which gathered over 3,000 signatures in 24 hours; and a wall in Riyadh with the hashtag written in graffiti.

“I am flabbergasted. The media is not free and Saudi women themselves face many levels of difficulty. To see women take up the call and demand their rights has been incredible,” Beckerle said.

There have been movements in the past to change laws in Saudi Arabia. In October 2013, there was a campaign to allow women the right to drive; however, that was unsuccessful.

However, activists hope that this campaign may be different. Because the guardianship laws affect a number of different aspects of women’s lives, Beckerle believes that this gives the government room to initiate changes….

Categories: Islam - submission, Islam and females, Saudi Arabia - Human rights, social media
Tags: Islam - submission, Islam and females, Saudi Arabia and human rights, social media

Comments: Be the first to comment

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers”

September 7, 2016

London Builds Intelligence Unit to Target Cyber “Hate Speakers” Counter Jihad, September 7, 2016

The office of the Mayor of London has issued a grant for an online “hub” designed to identify so-called ‘hate speakers’ for police. The grant promises to “improve the police response” as well as develop the “intelligence to facilitate counter measures that can reduce and prevent further criminal activity.” British and European law do not contain the robust protections for freedom of speech that America’s First Amendment provides.

Saying anything that falls under the poorly-defined rubric of ‘hate speech’ is already criminal in London: they just want to improve their capacity to send the police to your house. The penalty can be six months in prison per offense.

Well, actually, they want to do a little more than that. The grant also promises to “build community capacity to respond collectively to online hate.” So it isn’t just a rule-of-law response that they are looking for here. They want to organize online mobs to go after you for expressing disapproved thoughts.

Breitbart news points out that this is the brainchild of London’s first Muslim mayor.

The office of London’s first Muslim mayor has secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.” … In May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Naturally, the law will also be used to criminalize political opposition to the establishment — one of the first uses was to target what the UK Standard refers to as “Brexit hate crime.” But it seems from the grant application that speech critical of Islam is the real target. The announcement of the grant states that a recent report “identified 45% of anti-Muslim hate crime took place online, and the organisation is seeing up to 80% of its resources used in monitoring online hate and supporting the victims.”

The claim is that seeing online ‘hate crime’ results in “higher levels of depression, stress and anger,” and can cause changes in “which streets they walk down, how they answer the phone, reactions to strangers, and suspicion of co-workers.” That last element sounds particularly ominous given Islamist workplace attacks such as the San Bernardino shooting. The London police appear to be suggesting that seeing criticism of Islam on-line leads to murders of this sort. Indeed, the criminalization of critical speech even seems to suggest that these psychological effects to some degree justifyIslamist violence against society.

Breitbart points out that convictions under the law banning speech of this kind have increased ten-fold in the last decade. They quote Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent. [T]he police [are] becoming more and more involved in controlling our morality,” he told the BBC. “[They are] almost playing the role of a moral police. And instead of dealing with real crime in the offline world, [the police] find its very convenient to ‘send the message’ in the online world because it’s a relatively easy thing to do.”

Doubtless it is a lot safer than targeting Islamist militants. The only cost is a little liberty. Well, maybe more than a little.

Categories: Britain, Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, London
Tags: Britain, freedom of speech, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, London

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why it’s Mostly Quiet on the Eastern Front

September 6, 2016

Why it’s Mostly Quiet on the Eastern Front, Front Page Magazine, Hugh Fitzgerald, September 6, 2016

czech-klc3a1ra-samkovc3a1-1

Almost no one in Eastern Europe is taken in by apologists for Islam, because they have within living memory experienced other enormous curtailments to their freedom.

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

Sometimes life sends along something to cheer us up. It did so for me, when I came across a stemwinder of a speech made in the Czech Parliament a few months ago by one of its members, Klara Samkova. Samkova is a left-of-center — not “far-right,” even if the Western press would like to label her as such — politician mainly known as a defender of minorities, especially the Roma. In the past, she was even prepared to collaborate with the Union of Czech Muslims, though after being mugged by Muslim reality, that collaboration has stopped. Her speech was part of a parliamentary hearing on the topic “Should We Be Afraid Of Islam?” (Imagine any Congressman in Washington daring to frame a debate in that way, given that in this country, whatever explanation we give for terrorist acts committed by Muslims, It Has Nothing To Do With Islam).

There are two alternative answers to that parliamentary question.

Either:

1) No, Islam is being maligned by Islamophobes using scare tactics, so don’t be worried.

2) Yes, Islam is definitely a danger wherever it spreads – be worried!

The first is what we keep being told by political and media elites all over Western Europe and North America, who are willing to mislead because they don’t know how, at this point, to handle the truth about the ideology of Islam. The second is what you are more likely find in countries whose recent history has taught their people, and governments, some tough lessons; in Europe, those countries were formerly under Communist rule.

After the Brussels attack, the head of Poland’s largest party announced that “after recent events connected with acts of terror, [Poland] will not accept refugees, because there is no mechanism that would ensure security.” Victor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, declared that “we do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see….” Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia, announced that “Islam has no place in Slovakia.” The Czech Republic, which had in the past taken in a few thousand Muslim migrants, regrets even that, to judge by the remark of its President, Milos Zeman, this January, that “it is practically impossible to integrate Islam into Europe,” and made clear that the Czechs will not be taking any more.

On the Eastern Front of the war of self-defense against Islam, experience has taught people to recognize Islam as what Klara Samkova describes, as not so much a religion as a “totalitarian ideology,” akin to Nazism and Fascism and Communism, that attempts to regulate every facet of a Muslim’s life through the Sharia, or Holy Law of Islam:

“The law [Sharia] is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the Islamic ideology. It constitutes the core of the content of Islam while the rules claimed to be religious or ethical are just secondary and marginal components of the ideology. From the viewpoint of Islam, the concept of religion as a private, intimate matter of an individual is absolutely unacceptable.”

Islam is a collectivist faith (Samkova: “the concept of religion as a private, intimate matter of an individual is absolutely unacceptable”). For those, like the Czechs, whose history includes enduring the collectivism of Nazism and Communism, this aspect of Islam must be particularly troubling. Muslims often pray together in very large numbers, in serried ranks of zebibah-thickening submission, and receive their understanding of Islam together in the madrasa and the mosque. They are taught to defend the Umma, the world-wide community of Believers, and as a community to spread the message of Islam, employing the many instruments of Jihad, from combat [qitaal] to demography.

As for the morality of Islam, Samkova says that this “is not a matter for individual judgment,” but consists in following the rules derived from what was set out long ago in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, and codified in the Sharia. Another source of Islamic morality – if it can be called that – is the behavior of Muhammad, as both the exemplary model of conduct, uswa hasana, and the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil. Few non-Muslims would agree that the Muslim Prophet’s life – including the murders of those who mocked him, his raid on the Khaybar Oasis, his marriage to little Aisha, the decapitation of bound prisoners – corresponds to their moral code.

According to Samkova, in Islam, the period of the Prophet Muhammad and of the earliest Muslims is that to which devout Muslims must always strive to return:

Islam doesn’t share the Enlightenment’s idea of the social progress associated with the future. According to Islam, the good times have already taken place – in the era of Prophet Mohammed. The best things that could have been done have already been done, the best thing that could have been written has already been written, namely the Quran.

Muslims such as the Wahhabis look not to some imagined future, but back to the Golden Age of Islam – and their mission as Believers is to bring back an Islam that resembles that of its earliest period, to strip Islam of its later, illegitimate excrescences. And for non-Muslims, that “pure” Islam of the early period is even more dangerous than the Islam that, in the centuries since, through accommodation with custom, had its hard edges softened. That belief in a Golden Age of Islam helps explain why, in a recent poll, fully a third of Muslims, though living comfortable and well-subsidized lives in today’s Germany, expressed a desire to live as they did in the earliest days of Islam, the time of the Prophet and the Companions.

Samkova keeps blasting away:

Unfortunately, Islam doesn’t want to be miserable on its own. It wants to take the rest of the world down with it.

Islam doesn’t respect development, progress, and humanity. In its despair, it is attempting to take the rest of the mankind with it because from the Islamic viewpoint, the rest of the world is futile, useless, and unclean.

Islam is a static faith; there is no “progress” in Islam. For the True Believer (and we should, to be fair, recognize that not all Muslims are such True Believers), the just society will attempt to conform to the earliest, truest Islam of Muhammad. Its “morality” is derived not from the workings of the individual conscience, but from taking the Qur’an literally, solving internal contradictions in that book by applying where necessary the interpretative doctrine of naskh (or “abrogation”) and, especially, following as closely as possible the moral example of the Prophet Muhammad as he is depicted, in word and deed, in the Hadith. As for the “rest of the world” – that is, all non-Muslims – they indeed lead “futile, useless, and unclean” lives, in the view of devout Muslims, unless and until they embrace Islam. According to the Qur’an, it is the Muslims who are the “best of peoples,” the non-Muslims who are the “vilest of creatures,” and it is the solemn duty of Muslims to spread Islam until it everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule everywhere. This has nothing to do with naive Western hopes placed on “coexistence” with Muslims; “coexistence” is what Muslims in the West will give lip service to, until such time as they are strong enough to drop even the pretense of wanting to continue that state of affairs.

Samkova is not fooled by the “Muslim” version of the International Declaration of Human Rights — the so-called “Cairo Declaration” – which is presented by Muslims as almost the equivalent of the original, but in its 22nd Article severely limits the free speech rights to that speech which does not violate the principles of the Sharia, or otherwise “violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets”: “Islam and its Sharia law is incompatible with the principles of the European law, especially with the rights enumerated in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (and Freedoms) [or with the International Declaration of Human Rights]:

One has only to compare the International Declaration of Human Rights with its so-called “Islamic” version, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, to see how widely they differ on freedom of expression: the latter is based firmly on the Sharia and does not protect freedom of speech and the press as we in the West define it:

“Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.” (Cairo Declaration, Art. 22.a)

“(Information) may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.” (Cairo Declaration, Art. 22c)

Samkova observes that Muslims are well-versed at exploiting the much greater freedoms the West offers them than the countries they came from, to undo that very West:

Islam likes to hide behind the religious mask [for] its permanent, deliberate, and purposeful abuse of the Euro-American legal system and values that the civilizations built upon the Judeo-Christian foundations have converged to. There’s nothing better or more efficient than to abuse the value system of one’s enemy, especially when I don’t share that system. And that’s exactly how Islam behaves. It wants to be protected according to our [Western] tradition which it exploits in this way, while it is not willing to behave reciprocally. It relies on our traditions, it claims that the traditions are important, while behind the scenes, it is laughing at us and our system of values.

Muslims in Europe want to have their own relentless assault on Western religions protected by freedom of speech guarantees, but are determined to try to censor, as undeserving of such guarantees, any criticism of Islam, which they are quick to describe as “hate speech” directed at Muslims. The freedom of conscience they have in mind is aimed at non-Muslims only, and only for one thing: they should be “free” to revert to Islam; Muslims, on the other hand, have no freedom to leave Islam. That kind of apostasy is punishable by death. Thus, this “freedom” is distinctly one-sided.

And Samkova is keenly aware that Muslims present themselves as constant “victims” because, having been allowed to settle within the West, they are sometimes thwarted in their multifarious attempts to transform, steadily and systematically, that very West, so that it becomes, ultimately, part of Dar al-Islam. Samkova suggests that we need a lot more of such thwarting, but she believes that the West won’t muster the energy and courage to do what needs to be done, and that force will ultimately be necessary. In that respect, she’s a pessimist. But she thinks the West will in the end rise to the occasion, and ultimately “crush” Islam, the way it crushed, she says, Nazism and Communism. This, I suppose, is a kind of ultimate optimism.

Islam is, Samkova continues, a belief system based on a regressive view of the world. The idea of progress does not exist; in Islam, nothing supersedes the time of the Prophet.

Rather than working with the world – as Judaism and Christianity, or at least the civilizations that have arisen from them do – Islam is filled with hatred for it.

Judaism, Christianity, and the civilization that arose from them have surpassed this unjustifiable skepticism, this contempt of people for themselves. At the same moment, Islam remained a stillborn infant of gnosis, deformed into a monstrously mutated desire to blend with the Universe again, into a retarded obsessively psychopathic paranoiac vision about the exceptional nature of one’s own path towards the reunification of the essence of one’s devotee with God.

Samkova delivered much more in this relentless and ferociously anti-Islamic vein before the Czech Parliament. And it was not only her speech that gave me hope, but even more, the overwhelmingly positive reaction to it by her audience. Instead of denouncing her, as would have happened in Western Europe, and in the United States, too, virtually the entire Czech political establishment and the Czech media endorsed her views. One commentator noted: “The speech was generally applauded by almost all Czech commenters at Internet newspapers of all political colors. But she’s not really exceptional, if you get the logic. It’s a speech that she gave, it was tough …But the underlying ideas are absolutely generically accepted by the Czech society…. what she said simply isn’t taboo in our society.”

No doubt a history of having been betrayed at Munich has made Czechs acutely wary of entrusting their security to others (such as attempts by the E.U. to dictate policy on migrants), and having had to endure both the Nazi occupation and Communist rule has made Czechs aware that all-embracing ideologies must be taken seriously, whatever the post-Christian nullifidians of Western Europe may think. And when you do not take your freedoms for granted, as they do not in the Czech Republic, or in Hungary, or in Poland, or in Slovakia, with their defensive steel tempered in the fires of both Nazism and Communism, you become keenly aware of threats to them early on. And while in Western Europe there are such outstanding personages as Marine Le Pen in France, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Thilo Sarrazin in Germany, and Magdi Allam in Italy, all of whom have been warning about Islam, these are still regarded as political figures out of the mainstream, who stand out precisely because they still are assumed to speak only for a minority. That is changing, of course, as every day brings fresh news of people becoming firmer in their opposition to Islam, with the general run of politicians far behind those in whose name they claim to govern.

In Western Europe, even as many of the politicians dither, the people seem to have had their fill of aggressive Islam. At the end of August, 67% of the British, and 80% of Germans declared themselves in favor of a burqa ban. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ party, the PVV, is now predicted to come out first in the next elections. In France, despite being struck down by the Conseil d’Etat, the burkini ban remains so popular that many of the mayors continue to flout the court’s finding. But despite these welcome developments, eastern Europe is still far ahead of western Europe in its grasp of the meaning and menace of Islam.

When Klara Samkova speaks in the Czech Parliament on Islam, she speaks for practically everybody in the Czech Republic (“her underlying ideas are absolutely generically accepted by the Czech society”). Almost no one in Eastern Europe is taken in by apologists for Islam, because they have within living memory experienced other enormous curtailments to their freedom. Right now, in Europe, the threat to human freedom comes not from Communists or Nazis, but from the Total Belief-System of Islam. Whatever one makes of Klara Samkova’s own prediction of unavoidable violence in Europe, followed by inevitable for the indigenous non-Muslims – her pessimism morphing into optimism — we should all be grateful to her for stating forthrightly about Islam home-truths that politicians, and not only in Prague, can’t restate often enough.

Categories: Eastern Europe, Islam - submission, Islam in Europe, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamist moral values, Sharia law, Totalitarian regimes
Tags: Eastern Europe, Islam - submission, Islam in Europe, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Sharia law, Totalitarian regimes

Comments: 1 Comment

Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists

September 5, 2016

Homeland Security Head Praises Islamic Supremacists, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 5, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, addressed the ~~Islamist~~ Islamic Society of North America on September 3d. He told the assembled “American Patriots” — and reminded the rest of us — of the glories of Islam and how greatly it influences and therefore benefits Obama’s America. He did not suggest that only by the further recognition of Islamic supremacy and the further Islamisation of America will they achieve their goals. Today is Labor Day; the rest of us have much work to do to prevent it.

Here is the text of Secretary Johnson’s speech, with indented comments by ignorant Islamophobes Robert Spencer (RS) and your’s truly (DM).

[I]t’s a great privilege for me to be present in person here today, to speak to this full convention of the Islamic Society of North America. I’m told I am the highest ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting cabinet officer to ever speak in person before this convention. I welcome that, as you have welcomed me. I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.

President Obama has made it a priority for his administration to build bridges to American Muslim communities.

DM: Obama has “built bridges” to “moderate” Islamist organizations such as the ~~Islamist~~ Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-affiliated organizations. He has rejected organizations such as The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), which seek the reformation of Islam to respect and adhere to American values. AIFD and similar organizations are considered “Islamophobic” by CAIR, et al, who consider Islam perfect as it became when Mohammad left Mecca.

In 33 months as your Secretary of Homeland Security, I have personally visited American Muslim communities in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, rural Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Detroit, Dearborn, Chicago, Columbus, Houston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles. I have come to know many of you, and I hope you know me.

DM: Indeed. They know him very well and like him. He and Obama have made great strides in furthering their notions of Islamic supremacy.

You have heard President Obama and me call out the discrimination and vilification you face in this current climate.

You have heard us say that the self-proclaimed Islamic State is neither Islam nor a state; that it is a group of terrorist[s] attempting to hijack your religion.

You have heard us, before multiple audiences of different political stripes, refuse to bend to the political pressure to call terrorism “Islamic” extremism. We know that ISIL, though it claims the banner of Islam, occupies no part of your religion, which is founded on peace.

DM: Do Secretary Johnson and Obama consider The Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost sponsor of Islamic terrorism, not to be Islamic? They should spend a bit of time reading the post-Mecca parts of the Quran, the Hadith and other Islamist texts. Indeed, they should watch this video which explains them:

After I am gone as Secretary, I hope you will always regard us as your Department of Homeland Security, aligned in interest with you for peace, the safety of your family, and the protection of your homeland. I hope you will always regard our new Office of Community Partnerships as your partner. [Emphasis added.]

DM: for that to happen, Hillary Clinton must become our next President and Donald Trump must not. Mr. Johnson despises Trump’s views on Islamist terrorists and on keeping them out of the country. Johnson seeks to have our elections considered critical infrastructure for DHS to “monitor.”

Tonight, in this last and biggest opportunity I will have as your Secretary of Homeland Security to address an audience of some 10,000 Muslim Americans all at once, I want to take our conversation to a new level. [Emphasis added.]

DM: Under Obama, DHS — founded shortly after the September 11, 2001 Islamist attack on America — has indeed become the Islamists’ DHS. Hopefully, that will change after the November elections.

A leader of this organization reminded me that, we spend a lot of time telling young Muslims in this country what you should not become. A more effective message is to tell you what, in this great country, you can become. We must not simply curse the darkness, but offer a candle.

Tonight I will not look at the large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens. Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism. Tonight I will simply address you as who you are, “my fellow Americans.”

Tonight I speak especially to the young people in this audience, and to your parents worried about your future.

Many of the young people in this room worry that, because of the current climate, your religion, your skin color, and your attire, you will never win full acceptance in this country.

I come before you tonight to assure you this is not true. Your struggle for full acceptance in this country is one you will win.

DM: Wouldn’t they have a better chance of being accepted as Americans by Americans if they accepted America — her Constitution and her laws, for example — and rejected Sharia Law and all that comes with it? Mr. Johnson did not suggest that.

How do I know this? Because my African American ancestors and I have traveled a similar road.

I hear your stories of discrimination, vilification, and of the efforts to tar you with the broad brush of suspicion.

I hear about the bullying and physical attacks that Muslims (and those perceived as Muslim) are experiencing nationwide.

DM: Many of those stories are fabricated by Islamists to support their notions about the pervasive nature of “Islamophic” hate crimes.

They are familiar to me. I recognize them. I look out on this room of American Muslims and I see myself. I see a similar struggle that my African American ancestors have fought to win acceptance in this country.

Realize it or not, your story is the quintessential American story.

Your story is an American story, told over and over again, generation after generation, of waves of people who struggle for, seek, and will eventually win your share of the American dream. Know the history of this country and you will know that — whether it’s Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Muslim Americans — this will be true.

RS: Yes, you remember when Catholic Americans, Jewish Americans, Mormon Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americas, African Americans, Hispanic Americans flew those planes into the towers, and bombed the Boston Marathon, and murdered 13 Americans in cold blood at Fort Hood, and four in Chattanooga, 15 in San Bernardino, and 49 in Orlando, and tried to commit mass murder at Garland and so many other places. You remember those global terror organizations made up of Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Irish, etc. committing acts of violence around the world, and threatening the imminent conquest of the U.S. and the rest of the free world.

RS: The Obama administration’s solicitude is entirely one-way, toward Muslims as victims of discrimination, which is false and inaccurate in the U.S. anyway. Meanwhile, the jihad advances, as do Islamic supremacist attempts to assert Sharia norms over American norms. Johnson had nothing to say about such things, or about the unaccountable phenomenon of so many Muslims in the U.S. adhering to the version of Islam that he assures us is un-Islamic. [Emphasis added.]

DM: Please see also, The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric.

The arc of the American story is long, it is bumpy and uncertain, but it always bends toward a more perfect union.

DM: The Obama administration has sought a “more perfect union” with Blacks by supporting Black Lives Matter. It has thereby helped to kill many Blacks.

Some of you are frustrated that you have been publicly denouncing violent extremism for years, sometimes at your own peril, and have not been recognized for it.

DM: But not Islamist terrorism.

Some of you are discouraged that you must continually point to the patriotism of American Muslims, by pointing to your military service, and to those American Muslims who have died in combat for our country….

DM: Only if Obama, as I suggested here in jest that He had just done, recognizes Sharia Law as supreme in His America, will ISNA, CAIR, as well as similar Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated Islamist groups be proud, patriotic “Americans.” It will take ~~a village~~ the total Islamisation of America. The rest of us? We don’t want it.

Conclusions

The notion of Islamic supremacy permeates the post-Mecca Quran and other Islamist writings, as explained in Dr. Warner’s Hijrah video provided above. When non-Muslim westerners go to Muslim countries, we are expected and required to adhere to their “superior” Islamic conventions: no booze, no “immodest” garb for females, and the like. If we don’t comply, we are jailed and/or expelled. We claim no superiority for western civilization and make no effort to demand that its norms be accepted or even to require their recognition. Perhaps we should.

Categories: 2016 elections, American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, CAIR, Clash of civilizations, Contempt for America, Department of Homeland Security, Donald Trump, Hijra, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic myths, Islamic reformation, Islamic refugees, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America 2016, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, CAIR, Clash of civilizations, Contempt for America, Department of Homeland Security, Donald Trump, Hijra, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic myths, Islamic reformation, Islamic refugees, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Islamopohobia, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America 2016, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser

Comments: 1 Comment

The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric

September 3, 2016

The West Needs Sharia Law – Pakistani cleric, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 3, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

According to a leading Pakistani imam, Islamists need to convince western civilizations that Sharia law is good and that we need it to root our the evils which possess us. His wise words must be music to Obama’s ears.

In a recent article, leading Pakistani cleric Maulana Zahidur Rashdi noted that Islam and the West are indeed in a clash of civilizations, as argued by U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

The article, titled “The Cultural and Civilizational Struggle Between Islam and the West,” was published by Roznama Islam, an Urdu-language daily published from Karachi and Lahore, which is known for advocating Islamist causes and pro-jihad arguments.

Maulana Zahidur Rashdi is a leading Islamic scholar who frequently writes in newspapers and has visited several countries to preach Islam, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bangladesh, Iran, Kenya, Iran, Uzbekistan, India, the U.K., Canada, the U.S., and others.

. . . .

“[Our Intellectuals See It Not As A War Of Civilization But As] A War Of Interests … Between The Developed And The Developing Countries, In Which Muslim Countries And Nations Are The Underdogs Due To Lack Of Progress”

“‘Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has said that those Muslims who believe in shari’a should be expelled from America. Before this, U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump had too demanded a ban on the entry of Muslims into America. Newt Gingrich… has said in an interview: Western civilization is in a state of war. Shari’a is not compatible with the Western civilization, and we will gladly accept those Muslims who do not believe in shari’a. Newt Gingrich has also proposed monitoring mosques in America along with imprisoning individuals who visit websites of extremist organizations.

Accordingly,

“The West’s standpoint is very clear in that it is not ready to accept the enforcement of shari’a. In response to this, it is our responsibility to point out the errors of the Western civilization based on the common collective interests of human society and revealed [Islamic] teachings, to clarify the damages caused to human society by it [the Western civilization], and to bring forth benefits and necessities of Islamic Shari’a through reason and logic…”

President Obama has contended that America should not bar immigrants or refugee seekers who favor the imposition of Sharia law; that’s not who we are. Perhaps He does not want to stop His thus far successful efforts to end our terrorist shortage. In July of last year, Obama

condemned the terrorist attack in France that killed 84 people and denounced politicians who have suggested that Muslims be subjected to extra scrutiny in the United States because of their religion.

“In the wake of last night’s attacks, we’ve heard more suggestions that all Muslims in America be targeted or tested for their beliefs,” Obama said. The president appeared to be referring to former House speaker Newt Gingrich’s call on Fox News to deport all Muslims who follow sharia law.

Without mentioning Gingrich by name, Obama called his suggestion of a religious test “repugnant and an affront to everything we stand for as Americans.” [Emphasis added.]

“We cannot give in to fear or turn on each other or sacrifice our way of life,” Obama said. “We cannot let ourselves be divided by religion, because that is exactly what the terrorists want.”

Alas, some Muslims reject governmental adoption of Sharia law. Raheel Raza recently took issue with CNN commentator Sally Kohn, who had tried to defend Sharia law.

Raza’s response came after Kohn recently pretended to be an Islamic theologian and lectured the public on how “progressive” sharia law allegedly is:

“There is a difference between personal, spiritual Sharia and the political incorporation of Sharia into law,” Kohn stated. “And within both, there are progressive interpretations as well as more fundamentalist conservative interpretations. So the word Sharia doesn’t mean one thing.” [Emphasis added.]

Kohn then blasted Donald Trump for “not knowing” what sharia law really stands for. This is likely when Raza’s radar went up, considering that the Muslim activist has first-hand knowledge about sharia law and the threat it poses.

Raza, who at great personal risk travels the world to educate people on the dangers of sharia law and who has worked for decades to wrestle her faith from the hands of extremists, thinks it odd that a progressive would defend the very Islamic tenets that promote homophobia, anti-Semitism, and the subjugation of women.

In an open letter to Kohn published on the Huffington Post, Raza writes:

Political commentator Sally Kohn has made several statements regarding sharia law, which were not only offensive but dangerous. In using her voice to propagate this liberal apologist position, she is doing a great disservice to progressive reform-minded Muslims like myself. Her words are an affront to me, a female Muslim activist, as I have made it my life’s mission to educate others on this topic and to wrestle back my religion from the clutches of extremists who wish to make sharia the law of the land. And I would be happy to debate her on this topic. [Emphasis added.]

As an openly gay woman, Ms. Kohn would be killed, jailed or persecuted under sharia law. As a devout Muslim woman, I – along with many true progressive Muslims – rightly view sharia, as it is practiced today, as an archaic distortion of Islamic law.

In a very diplomatic way, Raza suggests that perhaps Kohn doesn’t know as much about Islamic law as she thinks she does, and then offered up the following “brief lesson in sharia”:

What many sharia laws and statutes have in common are the following. They are:

· Homophobic
· Anti-semitic
· Anti-women
· Advocate amputations and stoning
· Preach killing of apostates
· Uphold the Blasphemy Law (which could get me killed)

“This homophobic, anti-woman, repressive sharia is no longer confined to the mosque or to majority Muslim nations,” Raza writes before providing the example of England’s 100 sharia councils that have been allowed to harm women in the West.

“As a woman, and as someone who enjoys the freedoms and liberties that are systematically assaulted by sharia law, Sally Kohn needs to think twice before defending this oppressive, perverse practice.”

“Words are powerful — so Sally, I beg you and others to stop defending the indefensible and to stand with us, not them,” the Muslim activists concluded.

It is typical of progressives, so willfully blind, that they hurt the very people they claim to champion. Sadly, progressives like Kohn would rather propagate left-wing lies about Islam without regard to how many people get hurt in the process, than actually learn from the people who know best.

Obama may think that Sharia law is good and that we need it, but rejects any “honest discussion” about it.

Would Iman Obama agree with Sally Kohn and Pakistani imam Rashdi that western cultures need the enlightenment that Sharia law brings? Then, perhaps we could become enlightened and progressive (but I repeat myself) like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. Saudi Arabia recently sentenced a man to ten years in jail and two thousand lashes for “tweeting” about being an atheist.

The hardline Islamic state’s religious police in charge of monitoring social networks found more than 600 tweets denying the existence of God, ridiculing Koranic verses, accusing all prophets of lies and saying their teaching fuelled hostilities…

Turkey is enjoying an epidemic of child rape. The Islamic Republic of Iran likes to have mass executions and, when convenient, throws homosexuals off tall buildings.

Stoning, pursuant to Sharia law, is also popular in Iran.

Of course, it has to be done only in conformity with Iran’s Sharia law, generally after a “confession.”

And on and on and on. Never mind, though, Iran is very technologically advanced, doubtless due to scientific guidance provided by its ayatollahs based on the teachings of Mohammad. Indeed, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi recently promised that the “Hidden Imam” will arrive soon, and in “a vessel like a space ship.”

Islamic Hijrah, migrating from Islamic countries to non-Islamic countries, is a way of conquest by political Islam — by Islamists. With it, comes Sharia law. If you haven’t the time or inclination to watch any of the other videos, please watch this one. Yes, it’s thirty minutes long, but well is worth the time.

Perhaps, by extending hands of welcome to more Islamist immigrants and refugees who seek to conquer us and “help” us by bringing Sharia law with them, we will accept that only based on Islamist teachings can we

clarify the damages caused to human society by it [the Western civilization], and . . . bring forth benefits and necessities of Islamic Shari’a through reason and logic…”

Obama would be very proud of them, and of us for imposing no ~~religious~~ ideological tests.

Categories: Civilization jihad, Clash of civilizations, Combatting violent extremism, Contempt for America, Department of Homeland Security, Donald Trump, Freedom of religion, Freedom of speech, Hijrah, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic conquests in Europe, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic history, Islamic immigration, Islamic perversions, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamist moral values, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Koran, Mecca Islam, Medina Islam, Newt Gingrich, Obama and Islamists, Political Islam, Sharia law
Tags: Civilization jihad, Clash of civilizations, Combatting violent extremism, Contempt for America, Department of Homeland Security, Donald Trump, Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, Hijrah, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamc perversions, Islamic conquest of Europe, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic history, Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamist moral values, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America, Koran, Mecca Islam, Medina Islam, Newt Gingrich, Obama and Islamists, Political Islam, Sharia law

Comments: 2 Comments

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration

August 20, 2016

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration, National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy, August 20, 2016

Please see also, Will National Security Finally Bring Warring Republicans Together? — DM)

Imagine an American government official, interviewing an alien seeking admission to our country from, say, Syria: U.S. official:

“Will you support the United States Constitution?”

Syrian alien: “Well, sure, except that I believe the government should be overseen by a caliph, who must be Muslim and male, and who must rule in accordance with Islamic law, which no man-made law may contradict. None of this ‘We the People’ stuff; Allah is the sovereign. Non-Muslims should not be required to convert to Islam, of course, but they must submit to the authority of Islamic law — which requires them to live in the second-class status of dhimmitude and to pay a poll tax for that privilege.”

“I also believe women must be subservient to men, and that men are permitted to beat their wives if they are disobedient — especially if they refuse sex, in which they must engage on demand. There is no such thing as marital rape, and proving non-marital rape requires testimony from four male witnesses. Outside the home, a woman should cover herself in drab from head to toe. A woman’s testimony in court should be worth only half of a man’s, and her inheritance rights similarly discounted. Men should be able to marry up to four women — women, however, are limited to marrying one man.” “

Oh, and Muslims who renounce Islam should be put to death . . . as should homosexuals . . . and blasphemers . . . and adulterers — at least the ones we don’t let off with a mere scourging. The penalty for theft should be amputation of the right hand (for highway robbery, the left foot is also amputated); and for drinking alcohol, the offender is to be scourged with 40 stripes.”

“There are a few other odds and ends — you know, jihad and whatnot. But other than that, will I support the Constitution? Sure thing.”

U.S. official: “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That would be destroying the Constitution.”

Syrian alien: “Yeah, maybe so. But it’s my religion.” U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

This conversation is impossible to imagine because . . . it would be honest. In the decades-long onslaught of radical Islam against the United States, honesty went out with the benighted notions that we should “know thine enemy” and, God forbid, train our national-security agents in that enemy’s ideology, methods, and objectives.

In our alternative universe, you are not supposed to remember that there is an American constitutional framework of liberty, popular sovereignty, and equality before the law.

You are not supposed to realize that aliens are expected to exhibit fidelity to this constitutional framework as a precondition to joining our society.

You are not supposed to know that there is an Islamic law, sharia, that has far more to do with governance, economics, warfare, civil rights, domestic relations, criminal prosecution, and fashion than it does with spiritual life.

And you are absolutely not supposed to grasp that sharia is antithetical to the Constitution, to the very foundational American principle that the people may make law for themselves, live as they see fit, and chart their own destiny.

You are not supposed to connect the dots and ask, “Well, how is it conceivable that any sharia-adherent alien could faithfully pledge allegiance to our Constitution?”

So, instead, we shrug our shoulders, mumble something about “freedom of religion,” and bury our heads back in the sand — as if the structure of government and the decision of which limb to smite for which larceny had anything to do with religion in a free society that rejects the establishment of any state religion and separates spiritual from political life. Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and

Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and legal corpus that anti-American radicals seek to impose. Yes, their motivation for doing so is their interpretation of their religion — the fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islam. But that does not make sharia itself a matter of “religion” in the Western sense, even if vast numbers of Arab Muslims — for whom there is no cognizable separation of mosque and state — say otherwise. If Karl Marx had said, “The workers must control the means of production because God says so,” that would not have transmogrified the tyranny of Communism into the “freedom of religion.”

Two things flow from this.

The first involves immigration. As we’ve previously demonstrated, there is no constitutional prohibition against considering religion in deciding which aliens to allow into the United States — immigration is a privilege, not a right; and our Constitution is security for Americans, not a weapon for aliens to use against Americans.

Nevertheless, even if there were a constitutional bar against “religious tests,” sharia is not religion. There are no constitutional constraints against excluding aliens on grounds of anti-American political ideology. Excluding anti-Americans from America is common sense and was regarded as such for much of our history. In a time of radical Islamic threat to our national security, Donald Trump is right to propose that aliens from sharia-supremacist areas be carefully vetted for adherence to anti-constitutional principles.

Leftists — those notorious disciples of the Framers — claim this is unconstitutional. When shown it is not, they claim that it is against our “tradition” — being, you know, big fans of American tradition. When shown that this is not the case either, when shown that our history supports ideological exclusion of anti-Americans, leftists are down to claiming, “It is not who we are” — by which they always mean it is not who they are, and who they would force the rest of us to be.

A short lesson in how we got to be who “we” are. In the last decades of the Cold War, it became progressive dogma that the Soviet Union was forever, that it was an empire we could do business with, arrive at a modus vivendi with. The real evil, the Left decided, were the anti-Communists — it was their provocations against the Soviets, not the Soviets themselves, that could trigger Armageddon. Therefore, they reckoned, we needed to do away with all this overheated nonsense about how Communists seek the violent overthrow of the United States. That, to the Left, was just a bunch of ideological mumbo-jumbo that nobody ever really took seriously (even if Bill Ayers hadn’t gotten the memo). One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to

One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to violent action, should not bar radicals from entering our country. Thus, the “principle” that America must not vet would-be immigrants for anti-Americanism is not derived from the U.S. Constitution, from our traditions, or from who “we” supposedly are. It stems from the Left’s conviction that Communist ideology was not a real threat to America. Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See,

Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See, however you come out on the question of whether Communists really posed a violent threat to our national security, there cannot be such a question with respect to radical Islam. The front line of that movement is the mass murderers, not the professors. With radical Islam, the threat of violence is not an abstract academic proposition. It is our reality. What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have

What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have safe haven. Our legitimate worries are not limited to the trained jihadist who infiltrates today; they include the sharia supremacist who will get his hooks into young Muslims and turn them into the trained jihadists of tomorrow.

The second thing to consider is Islam. As Robert R. Reilly unfolded in his essential book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, there is an Islamic tradition of rational inquiry, deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, that has been overwhelmed for nearly a millennium by the fundamentalist tradition. The rationalists may be out-muscled, but they are not dormant. They are Muslims who embrace Western culture, reject the imposition of antiquated sharia as a system of law and governance, and challenge the premises and the aggression of the fundamentalists. They are Muslims who, I can attest, help us infiltrate terror cells and prevent attacks. They are Muslims who fight in our armed forces, work in our intelligence services, serve in our police departments, and thrive in our economy.

We do not have to exaggerate their numbers to recognize that these Muslims exist and that they are our allies — that they are part of us. To appreciate their value and their contributions to our society, we do not need to pretend that they typify Islam as it is lived in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or the no-go zones of Paris.

If we want to win the crucial ideological component of radical Islam’s war against us, we should be empowering these pro-Western Muslims rather than inviting the sharia-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood into our policy-making councils. Like protecting our nation, empowering pro-Western Muslims requires an immigration system that welcomes those who will support our Constitution, and turns away those who would sweep it aside.

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Islam - submission, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamisation, Islamists, Islamists vs Islam, Sharia law
Tags: Countering violent extremism, Islam - submission, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamisation, Islamists, Islamists vs Islam, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives