(The views expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
A religion which blesses and encourages the slaughter of those who offend it or its “prophet” should be condemned, not praised, unless and until it stops doing both.
I considered the cartoon offensive and hope that everyone else did too. It might depict Mohamed, or it might not. Beyond vague descriptions, likely of questionable value, we have little information about Mohamed’s physical appearance. The cartoon could depict any obese human male wearing a turban. The same is true of other cartoons purporting to depict Mohamed in various poses.
Had a similar cartoon shown instead a Roman Catholic priest or a rabbi on a roasting spit, with a giant pencil extending into his anus and thence through his body and mouth, present day Christians, Jews and those of most other world religions, as well as those of no religion, would quite likely be offended; far less because of the religious significance of the victim than because we do not do that sort of thing to people. We would not on either account murder the cartoonist. Many Muslims might well consider the cartoon funny and approve of what they consider an appropriate consequence of being Jewish or Christian.
As far as I am aware, no world religion other than Islam worships, and seeks to have its followers emulate, a “prophet” or saint who condoned and demanded the killing of those who mocked or otherwise offended him. Mohamed did. Neither Jesus nor Moses did. Nor, as far as I am aware, did any prophet or saint of any other current world religion.
Other Mohamed cartoons of which I am aware do not show him being killed or tortured. For example this cartoon, which inspired the vicious animosity of many Muslims, merely depicts him with a bomb in his turban and gazing with hatred at someone or some thing. It does not depict him being tortured or killed.
Rather than consider it offensive, I consider it a humorous way of depicting one (of the many) barbaric things done by Muslims in the name, and with the blessing, of their religion. Current day non-Muslims also use bombs and some of the same weapons. They use more advanced weapons as well. However, they do not generally do it in the name and with the blessings of their religions because of what they perceive as insults to those religions. That is a significant difference.
Modern cultures should not seek to prevent the publication of cartoons presenting Mohamed, or anyone else, in an unfavorable light. Nor should they seek to prevent cartoons of the objectionable type I posted on January 14th. They can also generate controversy and, hopefully, peaceful discussion. A cartoon of the sort suggested above, depicting a Roman Catholic priest or Jewish rabbi instead of Mohamed, probably would generate nothing more than peaceful controversy, aside from the pleasure of some Muslims.
If cartoons cause bad people to kill those who create or publish them, all of the subsequent adverse consequences should befall those who kill, not those who would create or publish more cartoons.Obama is intent upon imposing adverse consequences on the latter, while claiming that those who kill or attempt to kill in the name of Allah act on behalf of no religion. He would, and would have the rest of us, shield the murderers’ coreligionist supporters even from our displeasure. Obama is a disgrace to civilized humanity.
(I look forward to learning the substance of their proposal. — DM)
The Islamists are attacking all over the world. They are enslaving and killing innocents and the best the free world can come up with is more hashtags. I am glad to see some organizations standing up for freedom of speech and liberty, but it is maddening to watch the United States of America unwilling to even name the enemy facing us all. It is Islamist Extremists and they are proud to let us know.
President Obama has no strategy and is anything has shown a complete unwillingness and inability to deal with the reality we face. The Center for Security Policy has taken the ball and in the absence of leadership from the Commander in Chief, written a comprehensive strategy for dealing with and defeating the Global Jihad. We will release the document tomorrow Friday, January 16 at 12 Noon at the National Press Club in DC.
(The views expressed here are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or of its other editors. — DM)
Multiculturalism fosters and perpetuates myths that Islam is the religion of peace, not death; that it is benign like other world religions and improves Western civilization. In Obama’s world, such fantasies are reality. They are principal bases of His foreign policies.
Islam
I argued here and here that adherents to Islam, not to “radical” or “extremist” Islam, but to Islam, are the perpetrators and supporters of the Islamic slaughter of those with whose ideologies and actions they disagree. They demand submission and will tolerate nothing less.
America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[P]artnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. [Emphasis added.[
He continues to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” but who elected Him to do that? Despite massive evidence contrary to Obama’s perceptions of Islam as benign and slandered, He continues to base His perceptions and policies on what Islam is not, not on what it is. Bridget Gabriel, who also lived in Islamic countries, would disagree with many of Obama’s theses:
Here is Ms. Gabriel’s response to a Muslim-American citizen:
The OIC is comprised of the 57 Muslim-majority nations and the Palestinian Authority. They are the largest bloc at the UN, and when they meet on the head-of-state level, they literally speak for the Muslim world. [Emphasis added.]
Contemporaneously with the attack on Charlie Hedbo and a kosher supermarket in France, it sought
Such laws — similar to Sharia’s prohibition of “insulting” Islam — would criminalize our once free speech. Western nations, presumably, would jail rather than execute those who “insult” Islam. Although brute governmental force might largely displace Islamic slaughter of those who “insult” Islam, it would be more pervasive and hence probably more effective. It would also contravene what’s left of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Muslim leaders from around the Obama Nation recently assembled in Texas to stand with the murdering, antisemitic pedophile worshiped by billions of Muslims “Prophet”
in Honor and Respect conference, a weekend forum that is being billed as a “movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message,” according to event information.
. . . .
Organizers of the event place the blame for Islam’s bad reputation on the media and so-called American Islamophobes who have “invested at least $160 million dollars to attack our Prophet and Islam,” according to the conference web page.
. . . .
“This is not an event. It is the beginning of a movement,” organizers write on their website, which blames Americans for giving Islam a bad name. “A movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message.”
“All these accusations were invented by Islamophobes in America,” the group claims. “As we celebrate the Prophet in our now annual, nationwide event: Stand with the Prophet, we recommit ourselves to rectify his image, peace be upon him.” [Emphasis added.]
Hirsi Ali, an apostate from Islam and an indomitable (other than by her own eventual murder) voice for freedom, was recently interviewed by several media. Here are videos of three of her interviews:
The thrust of her remarks is that Islamic ideology, including reverence for all of the vile things that Mohamed did and encouraged, is the root of the problem. However, the Western tendency to absolve all other Mohamed worshipers of blame for the acts of their coreligionists — which they often support — is prevalent in multicultural societies. Similarly, it is the position of our “leaders” and “betters” that attacks such as those on Charlie Hedbo have nothing to do with Islam, or even “radical” Islam.
“We” are, therefore, not at war with Islam or “radical” Islam but with those who would “corrupt” it by committing acts of “senseless” terror. That’s comparable to saying that, in the 1940s, we were not at war with Nazism, but with those who corrupted the beautiful Nazi ideology.
Multiculturalism
While denigrating the Western culture of life, multiculturalism and its advocates promote ignorance and fallacies about the Islamic culture of death. Those who accept the fallacy that Islam is a benign religion thereby join a “cult” of cultural suicide which takes advantage of the ignorance, or worse, of many within Western cultures.
For the multiculturalist, the sins of the non-West are mostly ignored or attributed to Western influence, while those of the West are peculiar to Western civilization. In terms of the challenge of radical Islam, multiculturalism manifests itself in the abstract with the notion that Islamists are simply the fundamentalist counterparts to any other religion. Islamic extremists are no different from Christian extremists, as the isolated examples of David Koresh or the Rev. Jim Jones are cited ad nauseam as the morally and numerically equivalent bookends to thousands of radical Islamic terrorist acts that plague the world each month. We are not to assess other religions by any absolute standard, given that such judgmentalism would inevitably be prejudiced by endemic Western privilege. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that differs much from what is found in the Koran. And on and on and on. [Emphasis added.]
In the concrete, multiculturalism seeks to use language and politics to mask reality. The slaughter at Ford Hood becomes “workplace violence,” not a case of a radical Islamist, Major Nidal Hasan, screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he butchered the innocent. After the Paris violence, the administration envisions a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,”apparently in reaction to Buddhists who are filming beheadings, skinheads storming Paris media offices, and lone-wolf anti-abortionists who slaughtered the innocent in Australia, Canada, and France. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
If the Western establishment were truly moral, it would reject multiculturalism as a deductive, anti-empirical, and illiberal creed. It would demand that critics abroad first put their own house in order before blaming others for their own failures, and remind Western elites that their multicultural fantasies are cheap nostrums designed to deal with their own neuroses. [Emphasis added.]
Finally, it would also not welcome in newcomers who seek to destroy the very institutions that make the West so unlike the homelands they have voted with their feet to utterly abandon. [Emphasis added.]
Unfortunately, Islamists now resident in the United States or in other Western nations did not vote “with their feet to utterly abandon” the hellholes they left; they brought them with them and seek to impose their ideology wherever they go.
No Islamic nation is multicultural. None (with the possible exception of Egypt under President Sisi) welcome those who oppose their Islamic values or otherwise seek to change their ways. Were a Saudi citizen or visiting foreigner to blame the Islamic principles in which Saudi Arabia is grounded for the ills of the Middle East or the evils of Islam, his stay there, if not his life, would be abbreviated, promptly.
Islam is the principal enemy, but the multiculturalists who inflict it upon Western civilization aid and abet it. They attempt to dull our senses of right and wrong by sanitizing and promoting Islam as good.
Perhaps, and I hope that, the very substantial attention paid by the media to the recent Islamic slaughters in France will do as few other such incidents have done: bring about the rejection of Islam, multiculturalism and their advocates.
[T]he Islamists will have won on many accounts. The fact that leaders of the Western world have demurred to differentiate between Islam and Islamism (the implementation of Islam on a political level, including the instituting of sharia law) due to desire not to offend Muslims or be labelled racists means that they will not implement the measures needed to stamp out the Islamist ideology and its resulting violence.
**************
By refusing to censor themselves and bow to the requests of sharia law, the publishers of Charlie Hebdo refused to be part of this sabotage.The Western world needs to take up their gauntlet.
World leaders joined a march of one and a half million people today in Paris in a show of unity to the 17 slain in the Islamist terrorist attacks across France last week.
“Unity against extremism” was the theme in Paris’ Republique plaza, as reflected in the words of France Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who said Saturday, “We are all Charlie, we are all police, we are all Jews of France.”
The French prime minister was referring to the attacks on theCharlie Hebdo magazine on Wednesday that left 10 journalists and 2 policemen dead, another policewoman dead in a separate attack on Thursday and four hostages killed in a take-over of a kosher mini-market on Friday.
Two brothers armed with AK-47s along with another gunmen stormed the Charlie Hebdo magazine’s offices after deeming cartoons they had published offensive to Islam. The magazine’s headquarters had been firebombed in 2011 for the same “offense.” The magazine had police protection and its editor, who was killed in the attack, employed a policeman as a personal bodyguard.
In a video of the attack as it played out afterwards on the street taken by a Parisian who had escaped to the roof of a neighboring building, the attackers could be heard shouting “Allahu Akhbar” (“God is Great” in Arabic) as they shot a policeman on the street, then finishing him off at point blank while he lay wounded.
As explained by British Islamist Anjem Choudary – and as well understood by the French president as well as every other world leader who will be attending Sunday’s rally — insulting the prophet of Islam is a crime punishable by the death penalty according to sharia(Islamic) law.
Which make it even more surprising that, in one of Francois Hollande’ s first statements following the attack on the magazine, the French president said, “These madmen, fanatics, have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”
The White House press secretary Josh Earnest, took the obfuscation one step further when he kept referring to the attack as “violence,” prompting his CNN interviewer to pin him down saying, “Josh, when you talk about countering the message, you keep using the word violence. I mean, this is an act of terrorism, that’s what the president of France called it — an act of terrorism … Do you see this as an act of terrorism, and is this something that has to be condemned on that level?”
To which Earnest replied obscurely, “Based on what we know right now, it does seem that’s what we’re confronting here. And this is an act of violence that we certainly do condemn, and if based on this investigation it turns out to be an act of terrorism, then we would condemn that in the strongest possible terms, too.”
After the beheading of journalist James Foley, U.S. President Barack Obama declare that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.” Following this stance, Obama initially released a statement which read, “I strongly condemn the horrific shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris that has reportedly killed 12 people.”
Later, he managed to refer to the attack simply as “terrorism.”
For their part, many media outlets were busy scrubbing the frames of the video where “Allahu Akhbar” could be heard. The New York Times originally reported a quote from a survivor of the magazine attack, Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who was at the magazine’s office that morning and later spoke to French media.
Relating how she thought she would be killed when one of the attackers put a gun to her head, Vinson reported that the gunman said instead, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman. We don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself.”
The quote was short-lived on the Times, who later edited Vinson’s quote from the attacker to read, “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you. You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”
CNN, for their part, managed to question whether the kosher store was chosen by the Islamist attacker for anti-Semitic reasons since “many Muslims shopped there” and because there were a “variety of shops” in the non-Jewish neighborhood. The network chose to ignore a widely circulated report by a French reporter who spoke to the terrorist by phone. “He said he did it to defend oppressed Muslims, especially in Palestine, and he chose a kosher supermarket because it served Jews,” said the French reporter.
Amid the reporting was the recurring question asked by the media, “What can be done?” as well as the implied answer given by the French president when he said, “France has not seen the end of the threats it faces” – an answer unfortunately relevant to the rest of the Western world.
Hollande’s response will, regrettably, be the correct assessment if those in charge refuse to face the reality of the threat: Failure to address the “Islamist” component of the terrorism that is striking the West is not only disingenuous but erects an impenetrable barrier to overcoming it.
And so, the Islamists will have won on many accounts. The fact that leaders of the Western world have demurred to differentiate between Islam and Islamism (the implementation of Islam on a political level, including the instituting of sharia law) due to desire not to offend Muslims or be labelled racists means that they will not implement the measures needed to stamp out the Islamist ideology and its resulting violence.
“Everyone is focusing on the fact that that the jihadists went after cartoonists,“ said Clarion Project’s national security analyst Ryan Mauro in an interview on national news (see below for full interview). Yet, “there is always going to be a target [emanating] from this ideology that says that ‘Things like this are so illegal undersharia that they must be retaliated against violently in order to make societies conform to our belief system of sharia.’”
Our leaders must realize that speaking about terror motivated by Islamist ideology does not connote anti-Muslim sentiment.
“The issue we face is not, as Islamist groups falsely claim in the United States – ironically the very ones invited to the White House, Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and State Department — that using the term Islamic terrorism connotes a generalization that all Muslims are terrorists any more than using the term “Hispanic drug cartels” means that all Hispanics are druggies or that the term “Italian mafia” means that all Italians are mobsters or that the term “German Nazis” mean that all Germans were Nazis, “ writes Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
“The term Islamic terrorism means just that: terrorist attacks with an Islamic motivation — whether they attempts to silence critics of Islam, impose Sharia, punish Western ‘crusaders,’ commit genocide of non-Muslims, establish Islamic supremacy (or a Caliphate), or destroy any non Muslim peoples (e.g. the Jews and Christians) that are ‘occupying Muslim lands,’” says Emerson.
Failure to identify the Islamist ideology driving terrorism necessarily means we will not succeed in our battle against it. Moreover, we will be willingly complicit in our demise.
If we don’t want to be part of that, the events in France teach us, “Don’t censor yourself,” says Mauro. “Recognize that this attack is a means to an end. Victory for them isn’t the attack itself, the victory comes when we censor ourselves. Because they are not powerful enough to enforce their form of sharia governance upon us, what they can do is to intimidate us into implementing it on ourselves.”
In a document recovered from a 1991 meeting which outlines the Muslim Brotherhood‘s strategic goals for North America, the founders of the Islamist movement in America wrote, “The Ikhwan[Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”
By refusing to censor themselves and bow to the requests of sharialaw, the publishers of Charlie Hebdo refused to be part of this sabotage.
The Western world needs to take up their gauntlet.
(The opinions expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or any of its other editors. — DM)
They should welcome Islamic peace, including eternal bliss with their beautiful virgins.
Many more of us await you. Hurry up!
The attacks by adherents to the Religion of “Peace” in France were not the first, nor will they be the last, by “extremists” who live for nothing better than to demonstrate Islamic tolerance by slaughtering blasphemers who mock their “holy prophet” or otherwise insult Islam. We are told, ad nauseam, that they and their cohorts — like the Islamic State — are not Islamic: the Fort Hood massacre was mere “workplace violence” that had nothing to do with Islam, the Islamic Republic of Iran can be trusted with nukes and Saudi Arabia is our friend.
No matter that Major Hasan, a Muslim, yelled “Allah Akbar” while he slaughtered thirteen people and injured thirty more, and now wants to be a citizen of the Islamic State. No matter that there were many more Islamic jihad attacks during 2014.
No matter that Iran has long sought (and may already have) nukes and the death of Israel. Is Iran non-Islamic? No matter that our “ally,” Saudi Arabia, just applied to Raif Badaw the first fifty of the one thousand lashes imposed as part of his punishment for blasphemy for calling for religious freedom and thereby insulting Islam. Is Saudi Arabia non-Islamic?
taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until recently retiring. He is the author of numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book is Reasonable Pleasures: The Strange Coherences of Catholicism (Ignatius Press).
After highlighting only a few of many Islamic murders* and persecutions of Christians, Father Schall contends, quite persuasively, that
In the Quran, there is no mention of the Trinity or Incarnation, except explicitly to deny them. It is blasphemy to believe in them, as well as to question anything connected with the Quran. Allah intends the whole world to observe the Sharia, the Muslim legal code, observing its letter. As soon as it can, this law is imposed in every Muslim land or smaller community, even in democratic states. No distinction between Islam and the state exists. Everyone is born a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, it is because his parents or teachers corrupted him. It is impossible to convert from Islam to another religion, without grave, often lethal, consequences. [Emphasis added.]
It is not against the Quran to use violence to spread or enforce Islamic law. Those Islam conquers, even from its beginnings till now, it either kills, forces conversion, or imposes second class citizenship. The Islamic State, now so much to the forefront, seems to have the correct understanding of what the Quran intends and advocates. The voluntarist presuppositions of Islamic thought allow what is prohibited to become good. Allah is not bound by the distinction of good and evil. Whatever Allah wills, even if it was the opposite yesterday, is good. [Emphasis added.]
. . . . To most Muslims, the West is itself morally decadent. Many think that the decline of population in the West and the high birth rate of Muslims almost guarantee eventual control of many European countries by Islam. And no talk exists of “converting” Islam by Christians. With Fatima, Reagan and John Paul II could talk of ending the evil empire of the Soviet Union, but the question, “What is Islam?”, is seldom addressed. There is certainly nothing said about really changing Islam, only containing it. [Emphasis added.]
[I]t is possible that Islam will follow its pattern in the early modern world. Much of its recent success has depended on its good fortune with oil and other resources. But no Islamic state or group has been the origin of any properly modern inventions or developments. There seems to be theological reasons for this, as there is no reason to investigate a world that is based solely on the arbitrary will of Allah. Islam lacks any real notion of a natural law or a basis in reason that would allow it to criticize itself and recognize the extremism of many of its own practices, and especially the killings. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[N]o real basis for the much-appealed-to “dialogue” with Islam seems to exist. Almost all the initiative for dialogue has come from the Christian side. Islam has no central authority. It has no fixed theology except what is in the Quran and attempts to defend its consistency.
Dialogue is looked upon as a sign of weakness unless it can be used to further Muslim goals. In the case of the killings that Coren lists, if they are looked upon as legitimate means, there is no need either to talk about them or to cease their presumed effectiveness in spreading Islam. One cannot really appeal to the Quran to cease these killings, as there is ample reason within it to justify them as worthy means. Had it not been possible to justify these means in the Quran, the whole history of Islam would be different. Indeed, it probably never would have expanded at all. [Emphasis added.]
Speaking at the start of a three-day trip to Turkey, Pope Francis said “terrorist violence” showed no sign of abating in Turkey’s southern neighbours, where Islamist insurgents had declared a caliphate and persecuted Shiite Muslims, Christians and others who do not share their ultra-radical brand of Sunni Islam.
“It is licit, while always respecting international law, to stop an unjust aggressor,” the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics said in reference to the Islamic State militants after a meeting with Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan.
“What is required is a concerted commitment on the part of all … [to] enable resources to be directed, not to weaponry, but to the other noble battles worthy of man: the fight against hunger and sickness.”[Emphasis added.]
Sure. That should take care of the problem. In an Islamic pig’s eye.
Perhaps Obama and His devotees should read the article, even though it would not likely change their minds even a whit.
Why do many refer to Islamic terrorists as “extremists” or “radicals?” Aren’t they actually Islamists, dedicated to defending their religion against “slander?”
Are Christians and Jews, who actually practice their religions, “extremists” or “radicals?” Aren’t they practicing Christians and Jews? Or are Christians, in the eyes of Obama and His supporters, just bitter little people who cling to their religion or their guns and hate those who are not like them? (That’s a good characterization of Islamists.)
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. [Emphasis added.]
How about the Jews of Israel, who would much rather live in peace with their neighbors than kill or be killed by them? Are they also “bitter clingers?” They cling to life, so they must be, in Obama’s view.
President Obama finally remarked upon the attacks on our consulate in Libya — but was silent on the attack on our embassy in Egypt — and stressed the importance of not disrespecting religion in his speech, something he’s newly concerned about:
While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
It’s interesting that only when Islamists riot is Obama concerned for religious respect. I assume that Islam is excluded from what is called his ‘war on religion’ as he’s never before shown any concern for the denigration of other faiths. He’s demonstrated none of what he asks these past several years. Who could forget his demeaning characterization of middle America as ‘bitter clingers?’ [Emphasis added.”
Remember Obama’s October 3, 2014 Eid greeting to Muslims around the world?
As our Muslim neighbors and friends gather for Eid celebrations, Muslim Americans are among the millions of pilgrims joining one of the world’s largest and most diverse gatherings. Hajj brings together Muslims from around the world – Sunni and Shiite – to share in reverent prayer, side by side. It serves as a reminder that no matter one’s tribe or sect, race or religion, gender or age, we are equals in humanity.
On Eid, Muslims continue the tradition of donating to the poor and joining efforts with other faith communities in providing assistance to those suffering from hunger, sickness, oppression, and conflict. Their service is a powerful example of the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths and how our communities can come together in shared peace, with dignity and a sense of justice. [Emphasis added.]
Is there such a thing as “moderate” Islam of the type to which Obama may have referred? After searching high and low and finding none, Daniel Greenfield finally found an example:
There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.
You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.
You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.
Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe. [Emphasis in original]
The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all. [Emphasis added.]
Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim. [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps such secular Muslims are not “bitter clingers.”
Islam and the multicultural “blessings” of “shared peace, with dignity and a sense of justice” (from Obama’s Eid greeting) it brings are rampant in Europe. They could have been avoided but were not, on the apparent theories (a) that there is no evil in the world, (b) that all religions are equally evil, (c) that all religions are equally good and/or (d) that no other evil is even comparable in its insidiousness to Islamophobia.
Some in Europe are learning, but their principal leaders seem to be too dense, too devoted to their ideologies or both, to absorb the lessons of even recent history. French President Hollande decried “racism and anti-Semitism” and proclaimed that the Islamic attacks in France had “nothing to do with Islam.” Apparently, in his twisted view, “true” Islam rejects racism and “antisemitism.” This Islamic preacher must not be Islamic.
In similar vein, a Palestinian envoy to Iran recently “said that ‘Israel is a cancer’ that ‘will be destroyed.”
Islamists throughout the world are as antisemitic as they are anti-Christian and appear to be proud of it.
Here are five more short videos:
Appeasement (is that another name for multiculturalism?) is not a viable solution; it merely postpones evil until it become stronger and multitudes are slaughtered, unnecessarily. Unfortunately many of us, as well as many of our “leaders,” have yet to learn the lessons of history; hence appeasement continues to be the preferred, but most deadly, response to evil.
Meanwhile, Obama and all too many leading RINOs insist that massive immigration must continue in the United States and that amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the there is good. I have found no credible statistics suggesting the numbers of Islamists or other murderers among actual and potential illegal immigrants, but their numbers cannot rationally be assumed to be insignificant. Nor can it be assumed that the apparent hopes of our “leaders” that all will turn out just fine will be realized; it may all depend on their definitions of “just fine.” It can reasonably be assumed that the Obama Nation is galloping, and will continue to gallop, down a path similar to that trod by Europe and that the consequences will be comparable in lives and freedoms lost, to say nothing of the financial burdens incurred by Federal, State and local governments and, of course, their citizens.
– AFDI denounces the crippling rules of engagement under which our soldiers are forced to labor. They should be given the freedom to defend themselves and protect their comrades.
— AFDI calls for profiling of Muslims at airports and in hiring in professions in which national security and public safety could be compromised.
— AFDI calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal.
— AFDI calls for surveillance of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials. Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed.
— AFDI calls for curriculum and Islam-related materials in textbooks and museums to describe the Islamic doctrine and history accurately, including its violent doctrines and 1,400-year war against unbelievers.
— AFDI calls for a halt of foreign aid to Islamic nations with Sharia-based constitutions and/or governments.
– AFDI denounces the use of Sharia law in any Western court or nation.
– AFDI advocates deportation hearings against non-citizens who promote jihad in our nations.
– AFDI calls for an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim majority population.
— AFDI calls for laws providing that anyone seeking citizenship in the United States should be asked if he or she supports Sharia law, and investigated for ties to pro-Sharia groups. If so, citizenship should not be granted.
– AFDI calls for the cancellation of citizenship or permanent residency status for anyone who leaves the country of his residence to travel for the purpose of engaging in jihad activity, and for the refusal of reentry into his country of residence after that jihad activity.
— AFDI calls careful investigation of Muslims resident in non-Muslim country who have obtained naturalized citizenship or permanent residency status, to ensure that that status was not obtained under false pretenses.
— AFDI calls for the designation of the following as grounds for immediate deportation: fomenting, plotting, financing, attempting or carrying out jihad attacks; encouraging or threatening or attempting to carry out the punishments Islamic law mandates for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, fornication or theft; threatening or attempting or carrying out honor murders, forced marriage, underage marriage, female genital mutilation, or polygamy.
— AFDI calls for the U.S. and other free nations to have jihad, as it is traditionally understood in Islamic jurisprudence to involve warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, declared a crime against humanity at the U.N., or to withdraw from the U.N. and have its headquarters moved to a Muslim nation.
– AFDI calls for legislating making illegal the foreign funding of Islamic Studies departments and faculty positions in our universities.
– AFDI demands the repeal of U.N. resolution 16/18 and any other resolutions that might limit the freedom of speech.
– AFDI calls for all Muslim chaplains in prisons and the military to be thoroughly vetted, and dismissed if they have ties to any Islamic supremacist group, or if they advocate jihad.
– AFDI calls for the development of energy policies that will free us from dependence upon oil from Muslim countries.
Through SION, AFDI establishes a common American / European coalition of free people determined to stand for freedom and oppose the advance of Islamic law, Sharia. Islamic law is not simply a religious system, but a political system that encompasses every aspect of life; is authoritarian, discriminatory, and repressive; and contradicts Western laws and principles in numerous particulars. SION respects Muslims as fellow human beings and rejects Islamization as a comprehensive political, religious, cultural and social system of behavior and ideology.
AFDI and SION stand for:
— The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of “blasphemy” and “slander,” which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
— The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
— The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia’s institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.
Here’s a link to an essay by Allen West proposing much the same. It’s well worth reading.
The Obama Nation won’t take any of the suggested steps, of course, and no European nation seems likely to; they are too preoccupied with fighting Islamophobia and pursuing the “blessings” of multiculturalism. However, it’s worth pushing hard for. After all, it’s more humane than giving Islamists the “peace” they claim to want, wholesale, and sending them to their virgins.
In the meantime, let’s load up on neat gifts and get ready for a merry Christmas.
_________________
*An exhaustive list of Christians slaughtered during November of 2014 is available in an article titled Christians Burned Alive, published on January 10, 2015 by the Gatestone Institute.
Secretary of State Kerry’s “peace process” actually put Israelis and Palestinians on a new collision course.
Not a single Palestinian Authority official has denounced the wave of terror attacks on Israel. They, too, are afraid of being condemned by their people for denouncing “heroic operations” such as ramming a car into a three-month old infant.
Kerry and other Western leaders do not want to understand that Abbas is not authorized to make any concessions for peace with Israel. For Abbas, it is more convenient to be criticized by the U.S. and Israel than to be denounced by his own people. Ignoring these facts, Kerry tried to pressure Abbas into making concessions that would have turned the Palestinian Authority president into a “traitor” in the eyes of his people. Abbas knows that the people he has radicalized would turn against him if he dared to speak out against the killing of Jews.
The recent spate of terror attacks in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and the West Bank did not come as a surprise to those who have been following the ongoing incitement campaign waged by Palestinians against Israel.
This campaign escalated immediately after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s last failed “peace process” between Israel and the Palestinians. Kerry’s “peace process” actually put Israelis and Palestinians on a new collision course, which reached its peak with the recent terror attacks on Israelis.
Kerry failed to acknowledge that Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas does not have a mandate from his people to negotiate, let alone sign, any agreement with Israel. Abbas is now in the tenth year of his four-year term in office.
Nor did Kerry listen to the advice of those who warned him and his aides that Abbas would not be able to implement any agreement with Israel on the ground. Abbas cannot even visit his private house in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and he controls less than 40% of the West Bank. Where exactly did Kerry expect Abbas to implement any agreement with Israel? In the city-center of Ramallah or Nablus?
What Kerry and other Western leaders do not want to understand is that Abbas is not authorized to make any concessions for peace with Israel, and has even repeatedly promised his people that he would not make any concessions for the sake of peace with Israel.
In a speech in Ramallah on November 11, marking the tenth anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, Abbas declared: “He who surrenders one grain of the soil of Palestine and Jerusalem is not one of us.”
This statement alone should be enough for Kerry and Western leaders to realize that it would be impossible to ask Abbas to make any concessions. Like Arafat, Abbas has become hostage to his own rhetoric. How can Abbas be expected to accept any deal that does not include 100% of his demands — in this instance, all territory captured by Israel in 1967?
Abbas himself knows that if he comes back with 97% or 98% of his demands, his people will either spit in is face or kill him, after accusing him of being a “defeatist” and “relinquishing Palestinian rights.”
This is precisely why Abbas chose to walk out of Kerry’s nine-month “peace process.” Realizing that Israel was not going to offer him 100% of his demands, Abbas preferred to abandon the peace talks last summer.
For Abbas, it is more convenient to be criticized by the U.S. and Israel than to be denounced by his own people for achieving a bad deal with Israel.
Ignoring these facts, Kerry tried to pressure Abbas into making concessions that would have turned the Palestinian Authority president into a “traitor” in the eyes of his people.
Instead of being honest with his people and telling them that peace requires painful concessions also on the part of Palestinians, and not only Israel, Abbas has chosen — ever since the collapse of Kerry’s “peace process” — to incite Palestinians against Israel.
Abbas has since held Israel responsible for the collapse of Kerry’s effort. Abbas has used both the media and fiery rhetoric to tell his people that there is no peace partner in Israel. He has also been telling his people that Israel’s only goal is to seize lands and carry out “ethnic cleansing”and “genocide” against Palestinians.
Abbas’s recent charges that Jewish settlers and extremists are “contaminating” the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem need to be seen in the context of the massive incitement campaign that escalated in the aftermath of the failure of Kerry’s “peace process.”
During the past few months, Abbas, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have radicalized Palestinians to a point where it has become laughable even to talk about any peace process with Israel.
Abbas is well aware that his people will condemn him if he ever returns to the negotiating table with Israel. That is why he has now chosen a different strategy — to try to impose a solution with the help of the United Nations and the international community.
Abbas wants the international community and UN Security Council to give him what Israel cannot and will not offer him at the negotiating table.
The incitement campaign against Israel is reminiscent of the atmosphere that prevailed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip immediately after the botched Camp David summit in the summer of 2000. Then, Yasser Arafat also walked away from the table after realizing that Israel was not offering him all that he was asking for, namely a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.
Upon his return from Camp David, Arafat also unleashed a wave of incitement against Israel; eventually the incitement led to the eruption of the second intifada in September 2000.
Now Abbas is following in the footsteps of Arafat by stepping up his rhetorical attacks on Israel. This time, Hamas and other terror groups have joined Abbas’s incitement campaign by openly calling on Palestinians to use cars and knives to kill Jews in order to “defend” the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Abbas’s refusal to condemn the recent terror attacks on Israel may be attributed to two motives: fear of his people, and the belief that violence will force Israel to make far-reaching concessions. By refusing to denounce the attacks, and even praising the perpetrators as heroes and martyrs (as he did in the case of Mu’taz Hijazi, the east Jerusalem man who shot and wounded Jewish activist Rabbi Yehuda Glick), Abbas is indicating his tacit approval of the violence.
Not a single Palestinian Authority official, in fact, has denounced the wave of terror attacks on Israel. They, too, are afraid of being condemned by their people for denouncing “heroic operations” such as the stabbing murder of a 26-year-old woman or ramming a car into a three-month-old infant.
Victims of what official Palestinian Authority media organs call “heroic operations”: Left, Dalia Lamkus, 26, run over and then stabbed to death by a terrorist on Nov. 10. Right: Three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun, murdered on Oct. 23 when a terrorist rammed a car into her stroller. Several other victims were killed or injured in these attacks.
Abbas is hoping that the terror attacks will keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of the world’s agenda at a time when all eyes are turned toward the threat of the Islamic State terror group in Syria and Iraq. He also knows very well that the people he has radicalized would turn against him if he dared to speak out against the killing of Jews.
(Disregarding the obligatory kind words for the Obama Administration and the multicultural nation it has spawned, PM Netanyahu’s words ring true. — DM)
If we are really determined to eradicate Islamism, we should stop making deals with them and start supporting the people against the Islamist regimes.
It is believed that the reason for President Obama’s silence is the fear that it may cause the supreme leader Khamenei unhappy. He needs the top Islamist’s consent to give him a deal on their nuclear bomb no matter what the cost.
*******************
The war against Islamist terrorism has been going in the wrong direction, and the cancer has metastasized under the present administration. As we get rid of one Islamist tumor, more pop up.
But the most dangerous of all Islamists are ruling Iran and are determined to make themselves untouchable by possessing their own nuclear bomb.
We have wrongly chosen to ignore the majority moderate and secular Moslems in the Middle East and here at home. Those advising the White House and the State Department are lobbyists for the Islamist dictators, not secular Moderate Moslem Americans.
For reasons unknown, the Obama Administration had no qualms in removing and even bombing the secular Arab dictators, citing the human rights of their citizens, but when it comes to the human rights of the citizens living under the bloodiest Islamist dictators in Iran, this administration has gone out of its way to ignore the victims and empower the aggressors.
President Obama did not support the secular uprising in Iran but chose to stand by the Islamist clerics and their international terrorist Revolutionary Guards who are creating havoc across the Middle East, Africa, South America, and even here in the United States. Hizb’allah is the brainchild of Khomeini. Hamas is another gang of Islamists that Khamenei supports, leaving the people of Iran hungry. The Revolutionary Guards are operating in Africa, in every city in Europe, and in South America making deals with the drug cartels.
If we are really determined to eradicate Islamism, we should stop making deals with them and start supporting the people against the Islamist regimes.
America was the savior of the colonial world after the WWII. American foreign policy was based on human rights, but it is now based on policies that the old imperialists might well approve of.
94% of Iranian people are against the ruling Islamist regime that is anti-Iranian, anti-American, anti-civilization, and rules under barbaric Sharia laws.
Many Iranian clerics are against the rule of religion in government. The majority of the clerics do not dare to speak up — the ones who have spoken up have either disappeared or been arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and executed by the clerics in charge of Iran’s so- called Justice system, called Revolutionary Court.
The numbers of opposing clerics are high enough for the regime to create Cleric’s Wards in the prisons of Iran.
The most prominent cleric prisoner is Ayatollah Seyyed Hossein Kazemeini Boroujerdi, who has been held in the dreaded Evin prison since the supreme leader Khamenei ordered his arrest in 2006.
Not only he was arrested, his wife and children were harassed and their home and belongings were confiscated. By order of the supreme leader Khamenei, he was then defrocked and imprisoned. Since being in prison he has suffered two heart attacks as the result of mistreatment and torture.
Mr. Broudjerdy’s crimes have included urging the separation of the government of Iran from Islamic rule. He first went public with his support of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and protestations against the abuses of theocratic rule. He condemned Islamic fundamentalism, radicalism, and terror. He rejected anti-Semitism and advocating religious freedom. He has spoken for the equal rights of women and has called for abolishment of capital punishment, and cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishments such as torture, stoning and flogging.
On the day President Rohani was speaking in the United Nations, clergyman Mohammad Movahedi, was in the clerical ward of the Evin prison Threatening Mr. Boroujerdi, and all those who had proceeded to publish and disseminate his books will be sentenced for apostasy and executed.
Although there has been calls from the human rights organizations and Iranians in and outside Iran who have provided a Petition with more than 600,000 signatures asking the president of the United States to help his release, there has been no response from the most powerful man on earth.
It is believed that the reason for President Obama’s silence is the fear that it may cause the supreme leader Khamenei unhappy. He needs the top Islamist’s consent to give him a deal on their nuclear bomb no matter what the cost.
Instead of supporting the secular Moslems to rid the world of a gang of Islamist clerics and their revolutionary guards, United States is ignoring the security of Israel, the world at large, and the human rights issue and instead supports the Islamists.
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments