Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
|Register||FAQ||Pictures||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Islam & Islamic antisemitism
Bat Ye'or, the world's leading scholar of Islamic antisemitism -- full interview
Pamela Geller interviews Bat Ye'or, the world's leading scholar of dhimmitude, Eurabia, and Islamic antisemitism, last Sunday. This is the full 53-minute interview.
Last edited by Paparock; 06-01-2010 at 02:26 PM..
Pamela Geller interviews human rights activist David Littman
Pamela Geller interviews human rights activist David LittmanDavid Littman, whose writings and heroic battles against Islamic supremacists at the UN in Geneva we have featured here many times, is interviewed Sunday by Pamela Geller.
Raymond Ibrahim: "Americans must first and foremost understand Islam
Raymond Ibrahim: Raymond Ibrahim: "Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it--without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations", particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it--without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations"
Our old pal Raymond Ibrahim spells out what's wrong with John Brennan's policy toward Islam and terrorism. "Obama's Top Counterterror Adviser's Inability to Think Outside the Box Bodes Disaster," by Raymond Ibrahim for Pajamas Media (via RaymondIbrahim.com), May 29:
"The greatest hurdle Americans need to get over in order to properly respond to the growing threat of radical Islam is purely intellectual in nature; specifically, it is epistemological, and revolves around the abstract realm of 'knowledge.' Before attempting to formulate a long-term strategy to counter radical Islam, Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it--without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations. This is apparently not as simple as expected: all peoples of whatever civilizations and religions tend to assume that other peoples more or less share in their worldview, which they assume is objective, including notions of right and wrong, good and bad. .... [T]he secular, Western experience has been such that people respond with violence primarily when they feel they are politically, economically, or socially oppressed. While true that many non-Western peoples may fit into this paradigm, the fact is, the ideologies of radical Islam have the intrinsic capacity to prompt Muslims to violence and intolerance vis-à-vis the 'other,' irrespective of grievances.... Being able to understand all this, being able to appreciate it without any conceptual or intellectual constraints is paramount for Americans to truly understand the nature of the enemy and his ultimate goals."
Indeed. Read it all.
The World’s Oldest Sickness
The World’s Oldest Sickness
The Gaza flotilla incident reminds us that the destiny of the Jew is to be eternally unsafe in this world
by David Solway
The world is sick again with an old disease for which no cure has ever been found. It tends to go into remission here and there at various times but it invariably reappears, as virulent as ever, developing new strains as the bacillus adapts to the antibiotics of reason, shame or distraction. The disease is called anti-Semitism and it can afflict even those who would seem best prepared to resist it. Few are immune.
It can assume racial forms, the Jew regarded as a quasi-human deformity, as rodent, monkey or untermensch. International jurist Jacques Gautier, who finds it “shameful” that under the dispensation of the Human Rights community it is understood that Arabs will have legal and political rights in Israel while it is accepted that Arab countries can be judenrein, concludes that Jews do not enjoy human rights because they are not reckoned as human. Why extend the norms and principles that presumably govern human behavior and the relations between states to a people and a state tacitly considered as beyond the pale, as not quite “like us”? This is how double standards are implicitly justified. Judaism has also been condemned as a cultural and economic perversion that contorts the structure of society. This is a very old story. Indeed, whatever manifestation it assumes, anti-Semitism has been with us almost as far back as human memory goes. What historian Robert Wistrich has called the world’s longest hatred is also the world’s oldest sickness.
It is, in fact, best construed as a universal epidemic, the emotional and intellectual equivalent of the Black Death that decimated Europe in the fourteenth century. The difference is that those who have contracted this septicemia of the mind do not die, except inwardly. Ironically, their victims are precisely those who do not suffer from the plague that has contaminated its bearers—except, of course, for those apostate Jews who are sick with the same morbid distemper. The list of such despicables would fill the devil’s Rolodex. But they too must eventually succumb to the fury of the demented carriers of the pathology. Unfortunately, the Israeli pharmaceutical firm Teva, one of the world’s largest suppliers of antibiotic medicines, has no psychic or endocrinal equivalent to treat the malady.
In Anti-Semite and Jew, Jean-Paul Sartre argues that anti-Semitism is not an idea but “first of all a passion” that is akin to hysteria. This passion connects schematically with “the idea of the Jew” to which individual Jews are made to conform irrespective of their personal attributes. For Sartre, anti-Semitism is founded in the “fear of the human condition”—of solitude, responsibility for oneself, and the terror of contingency. The Jew is made responsible for the inescapable distress of being human along the entire spectrum from the empirical to the ontological—an excuse for failure, a means of false absolution and a convenient repository of all we are unwilling to acknowledge about ourselves. As such he has been zoned for apartheid, whether metaphysical or social. Sartre concludes that “If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him.”
For all his innovative phrasing, Sartre is really playing variations on the grizzled notion of the Jew as scapegoat, derived from Leviticus 16, which is true enough—witness the current U.S. administration’s treatment of Israel which, as historian Moshe Dann suggests, is a species of collective scapegoating to cover its own foreign policy failures. Philosopher René Girard adds a certain twist to the etiology of this recurrent sickness and proposes the concept of “ritual mimesis” or “mimetic victimage,” an ironic conflict-management elucidation of the scapegoat philosophy. In Girard’s thinking, the violence between groups in a given society is resolved by projecting it upon a third party—the Jew—who is then expelled.
In T.S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism, and Literary Form, Anthony Julius suggests an interesting comparison/contrast between Homeric mythology and anti-Semitism. They both “offer explanations intended to make sense of puzzling misfortunes in human life, the one by the intervention of the gods, the other by the intervention of the Jews.” The trouble is that “Jews are not malign Olympians who dispose of humankind by manipulative wizardry.” But tell that to the anti-Semite, who craves an easy explanation for what he does not comprehend in the larger world or cannot resolve in his own circumscribed life. By making the Jew responsible for all he cannot clarify, come to terms with or vanquish, the anti-Semite forfeits both courage and morality. What will he do when the Jew is no longer there? He would be like the parasite that has devoured its host and now faces starvation.
This suggests another definition of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a form of spiritual parasitism, the always tempting resort of the human leech who feeds his appetite for security, justification and self-acquittal from the life-blood of others—in this case, of course, from the body of the Jewish people. Put less offensively, anti-Semitism is blind ignorance, both of the world and the self. Psychologists like to call this psycho-reflex “projection” or “cathexis,” but these terms don’t even begin to cover the malice inherent in so invidious an emotional investment or to parry what Wistrich in his recent book, A Lethal Obsession, has identified as a “Judeophobic virus.”
Today, anti-Semitism has adopted a new expression, dubbed by Robin Shepherd in A State Beyond The Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel as “neo-anti-Semitism” which is “virulently anti-Israeli”. The Neurozone is gravely compromised, but the syndrome is making significant inroads on this side of the Atlantic as well. While not entirely ridding itself of its racial and socioeconomic baggage, neo-anti-Semitism converges on the Jew-as-Zionist, associated with the state of Israel as the modern embodiment of a discredited colonial enterprise. The purveyors of this claim affect not to be anti-Semitic, but their protestations are not convincing. It looks more like lying by ancillary focus.
The proof resides not only in the fact that Israel is unfairly and disproportionately singled out for opprobrium while flagrant and undoubted human rights offenders are generally given a free pass. It is also evident in the fact that Israel is conceived as no ordinary colonialist power. Israeli Jews are regarded as reviving the pestilence of Nazism, cleansing, or approving of the cleansing, of ethnic populations, aka the Palestinians—which is nothing short of a gross misreading of the historical archive and a wrenching misrepresentation of the present circumstance. For despite the fictions of a perjurious world, there can be no question that the Jewish people enjoy a religious, historical and legal right to their homeland, as Jacques Gautier, who spent twenty years studying the issue of ownership, as attorney and legal specialist Howard Grief in his The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, and as many others have established beyond the slightest doubt. The effort to deny what is the cadastral address of the Jewish people is a pattern of what Melanie Phillips has called, in her new book of that title, The World Turned Upside Down.
Interestingly, the accusation that Israel is the new SS is the contemporary distortion of the theme of Albert Camus’ The Plague, an obvious allegory of the Nazi invasion of Europe and North Africa. The wrinkle added to this fabric of defamation is that Jews have no right to any kind of power or authority. As Bernard Lewis writes in Semites & Anti-Semites, Jews have no business being anything other than, at best, “a tolerated subject minority.” Therefore, “by appearing as conquerors and rulers the Jews have subverted God’s order in the universe.” This calumny, says Lewis, is both the Muslim and “the fashionable leftist or progressive line.” But it is only a symptom or manifestation of the same old sickness. To paraphrase Stephen Toulmin in Cosmopolis, it is, in effect, “the narrative of a past episode reflected in a more recent mirror.”
And yet the mystery persists. But whatever theory we advance to decrypt what may be largely unfathomable or at least not wholly explicable, one thing is certain. Anti-Semitism is here to stay. Jessica may elope with Lorenzo but she or her children or grandchildren will one day be forced to accept the indelible fact of origins. Anti-Semitism is not a contagion that, like Daniel Defoe’s description in A Journal of the Plague Year of the catastrophe that visited London in the year 1665, will ever be “enervated and its malignity spent.” This is because anti-Semitism is unlike other forms of irrational hatred and operates under a different set of laws, which appear to be immutable.
Indeed, today once again, as we confront a new world-generation of venomous and commissurotomized anti-Semites, we might plausibly conclude that anti-Semitic sentiments and irruptions, in virtue of their millennial repeatability, have become entrenched in human consciousness as a natural inevitability. As I have written before, “It is something that it is perceived in the depths of the psyche to have moved from the dimension of history over into the structure of nature. It is as if anti-Semitism has now become part of our synaptic equipment.”
As a result, the destiny of the Jew is to be eternally unsafe in this world, despite the narcotic of assimilation or the illusion of self-rejection. The time seems invariably to come when the Jew is thrown back on his identity and regarded not as a human being or as an ordinary citizen but as, ab ovo, a Jew. After which, measures are adopted. Of no other people can this be said. And this is why the Jewish people cannot afford the luxury of historical amnesia, self-betrayal or the hallucination of ultimate security, but must remain vigilant, conscious and always prepared for the resurgence of the plague.
Muslim Infidels »
I look out the window and stare at the minarets of the Ahmadi mosque. There is a cool evening breeze as the calls to prayer are heard from its two towers, lit up in colors in the evening. The sea spreads below it off to the horizon. The mosque minarets have become something of a symbol of the city, the very first thing that greets the eyes of tourists as they enter town from the main highway.
The Ahmadis just across from my window go about their business, disturbed by no one and disturbing no one. There is a reason for this.
The reason is that this Ahmadi mosque is not in Pakistan. It is in Haifa, Israel. You know, that same Israel that is defamed as a discriminatory apartheid state by the members of the Islamofascist-leftist alliance, that 21st century Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Of course, the reality is that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is not an apartheid regime.
The minarets of the Haifa mosque are the most interesting thing one sees from my living room window. But I turn from the window to the television screen. There on the evening news are other Ahmadi mosques. They are filled with blood and flames. Those Ahmadis were not fortunate enough to live under Israeli “apartheid” rule. They were the victims of Pakistani barbarism and savagery.
On May 28, 2010 a group of Sunni Muslim terrorists attacked two mosques in Lahore, Pakistan, belonging to the Ahmadi sect. At least 98 people died in the carnage. The terrorists used bombs and automatic rifles. The massacres drew attention to a little discussed facet of modern Islamofascism, namely Islamist violence against other Muslims.
The Ahmadis are a heterodox sect, known collectively as the Ahmadiyya, founded in the late 19th century in Pakistan. It is estimated that they have four million followers just in Pakistan, and they claim to have tens of millions more worldwide. They have two million followers just in the African country of Benin.
Ahmadi followers believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) was sent by Allah as a prophet “to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace,” this according to an Ahmadi web site. The founder of the sect claimed to be a prophet and a sort of Islamic messiah or Mahdi. The sect even claims that Mohammed foresaw and foretold of the coming of Ahmad.
There is some disagreement even within the Ahmadi movement as to just what Ahmad’s position is in the religion. The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement broke away from the rest of the Ahmadis and tried to move closer to mainstream Islam. It affirmed the traditional Muslim interpretation that there can be no prophet after Muhammad, and instead, viewed Ahmadism as a reform movement within broader Islam. Curiously, one of the main theological differences between Ahmadis and other Muslims has to do with the role and position of Jesus, who is considered a prophet in Islam, although not of the same stature as Mohammed. Starting in the 1920s, large numbers of Pakistani Ahmadis arrived as missionaries in many countries around the world, trying to win converts. The movement claims to have followers today in 195 countries.
The first Ahmadi contacts with people living in Ottoman Palestine were made before the end of the nineteenth century. Concentrating their missionary efforts mainly on local Arabs, several converts were made. The most important was a local clan leader living on Mount Carmel in what is now a neighborhood of Haifa. He was Abdul Qadir Odeh, the first Arab leader to embrace Ahmadiyyat in what became Israel. In the Haifa neighborhood of Kababir just across the wadi from me today, the Israeli Ahmadans live.
Older Ahmadis can be spotted around town by their Pakistani haberdashery; they wear exactly the same style of hat that Afghan President Hamid Karzai wears. The “Centre for the Ahmadiyyan Delegation to Countries of the Middle East” is also situated in the village/neighborhood. I once went to one of its open houses in its mosque, where it was offering free Koran books in different languages to anyone for the asking. Hebrew Korans are easy to find. But that was the first and only time I ever saw the Koran translated into Yiddish. Ahmadis from Kababir also regularly set up information stands about their community on my campus.
The relations between the Haifa Ahmadis and Jews (and Christians and Moslems and Druse and Bahais) is warm and cordial. As far as I know there has never been a single instance of Haifa Ahmadis participating in anti-Israel terror or sedition. The worst complaint about them that I have heard has to do with their shooting off fireworks at their weddings.
Many mainstream Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims do not consider the Ahmadis to be true Muslims at all. There are many websites that demonize and defame the Ahmadis, run by radical Islamists. A law in Pakistan prohibits Ahmadis from proclaiming themselves Muslims. Anti-Ahmadi violence has broken out regularly in Pakistan, the first time in 1953, shortly after Pakistani independence.
According to one of Ahmadi official web site:
“Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the leading Islamic organization to categorically reject terrorism in any form. Over a century ago, Ahmad(as) emphatically declared that an aggressive “jihad by the sword” has no place in Islam. In its place, he taught his followers to wage a bloodless, intellectual “jihad of the pen” to defend Islam. To this end, Ahmad(as) penned over 80 books and tens of thousands of letters, delivered hundreds of lectures, and engaged in scores of public debates. His rigorous and rational defenses of Islam unsettled conventional Muslim thinking. As part of its effort to revive Islam, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community continues to spread Ahmad’s(as) teachings of moderation and restraint in the face of bitter opposition from parts of the Muslim world. Similarly, it is the only Islamic organization to endorse a separation of mosque and state.”One wonders whether the Ahmadi version of a quietist non-violent Islam is what really has the Islamofascists so upset. Because of the cordial relations between Jews and Ahmadis in Israel, numerous Islamofascist web sites denounce the Ahmadis as Zionist agents.
TURKISH AMBASSADOR to United States calls for a “Final Solution” to Israel problem
TURKISH AMBASSADOR to United States calls
for a “Final Solution” to the Israel problem
And we know what he means by a ‘final solution,’ just ask the Armenians who survived the Turkish genocide.
As the crisis over a deadly Israeli commando raid on a vessel carrying Turkish activists continued to command the attention of top officials in Washington, Jerusalem, and Istanbul, Namik Tan, the Turkish ambassador to the United States, called Friday for engaging Hamas in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But in an unfortunate turn of phrase, Tan twice said Friday that the militant Palestinian group, which the United States and Europe have designated a terrorist organization, is a necessary and important part of the "final solution" to the conflict.
"For a final solution, you cannot ignore Hamas. That's what we are saying," said Ambassador Namik Tan. "This is not the first time that we are trying to bring this into the discussion. We have told this to the Israelis, to our American friends, to our international interlocutors, everyone. How could you imagine a final solution without Hamas?"
Tan's choice of words aside, he was calling for Hamas to be included in final-status negotiations -- a prospect many Israelis would find even more objectionable than his language. The U.S. position is that Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, respect international agreements, and reject violence before it can be considered a legitimate player.
The ambassador's comments highlighted the yawning gap between the positions of the Turkish government and that of the American and Israeli administrations, as tensions linger following this week's Gaza flotilla incident.
Only yesterday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, "I do not think that Hamas is a terrorist organization. I said the same thing to the United States. I am still of the same opinion. They are Palestinians in resistance, fighting for their own land."
As the Obama administration continues to try to calm the situation and contain emotions following the Gaza flotilla incident, the Turkish government is doing exactly the opposite, raising the volume of its public calls for actions by both Washington and Jerusalem.
At his embassy Friday afternoon, Tan railed against Israel, made broad threats about the Turkish-Israel relationship, and professed deep disappointment with the Obama administration and its handling of the crisis.
"Israel is about to lose a friend ... This is going to be a historical mistake," he said, calling on Israel to make a public apology if its wishes to keep its ties with Turkey. "The future of our relationship will be determined by Israel's action."
Calling the Israelis "criminals," he reiterated Turkey's call for an international investigation. "It's all criminal ... Can you imagine a criminal investigating its own wrongdoing?"
The Obama administration has made clear it supports Israel conducting its own investigation, albeit with some unspecified international participation. "Can Israel, as a vibrant democracy, with strong institutions of government, conduct a fair, credible, transparent investigation?" State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Thursday. "The answer is yes. It is fully capable of doing that."
President Obama spoke with Erdogan by phone and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a two-and-a-half hour face-to-face meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister AhmetDavutoglu on Tuesday. But while the two long interactions were helpful in getting Israel to release Turkish citizens, they didn't produce any agreement on the overall issue, said Tan.
"There is no word of condemnation nowhere, at all levels. So we are disappointed," Tan said. "We want to encourage the United States to take certain decisions in that regard."....
Obama and Clinton refused to condemn or acknowledge the Armenian genocide
Read it all> http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/...srael-problem/
Israel’s Critics and Hollow Lies
In the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla incident, we have witnessed a tsunami of virulent, over-the-top criticism of the state of Israel for its actions in interdicting the so-called “peace activists” before they could dock at the port of Gaza.
Reasonable people can argue whether the decision on the methods used to stop the ships was the correct course for the Israeli government to take. Indeed, there is ahealthy debate within Israel itself over this very issue, including questions about intelligence, tactics, and whether the propaganda victory handed to pro-Palestinian activists could have been avoided while still maintaining the blockade.
Even the efficacy of the blockade itself is being discussed in Israel, as it has been since the quarantine was intensified nearly 3 years ago. For these internal critics, and those elsewhere who do not wish to see the state of Israel or its people destroyed, it is much too glib to ascribe their opposition as anti-Semitic or even anti-Israeli. But we can certainly put a reasonable question to these critics that never seems to get answered amidst the bombast and posturing from both the Jew haters and genuine “peace” seekers alike.
What is it you would have the Israeli government do to protect itself?
Indeed, what marks the critic of Israeli policy is a disconnect between the perilous reality of Israel’s exposed position vis-a-vis the Palestinians and those nations that support them. They hold a pie-in-the-sky belief that if Israel would only remove the irritants the Palestinians suffer on a daily basis, that the animosity felt by Israel’s enemies would magically disappear.
Consider what these critics have been harping on for years:
Israeljustifies its blockade of Gaza under recognized treaties regarding the Laws of the Sea. This includes interdiction of ships in international waters, as anyone who has read anything about the US blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis can attest.
But let’s ignore all of that and grant Israel’s critics their wish and raise the blockade. What would be the probable outcome?
Judging by what happened on Israel’s southern border following their war with Hezbollah, it would be a military calamity and a security nightmare. Without inspecting each and every ship that docked at the Port of Gaza (and if Egypt allowed the free flow of goods and people into Rafah), the likelihood that the Palestinians would be supplied by Iran and Syria with much more sophisticated and deadly arms would be assured.
Why? Because of the spectacular failure of the United Nations International Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) whose job after the war was to prevent the resupply of Hezbollah. Their mission was to guard the border with Syria to keep Iran’s puppet Bashar Assad from moving arms into Lebanon to replace (and as it turned out, augment) Hezballah’s ****nal of 40,000 rockets. Not only were the terrorists easily resupplied, but it appears that recent additions to Hezballah’s ****nal include medium range ballistic missiles capable of hitting every major city in Israel.
Given such incompetence on the part of the UN, are Israel’s critics seriously suggesting that, 1) lifting the blockade would not result in an avalanche of sophisticated weapons pouring into Gaza; and 2) any other party would do as good a job as the Israelis themselves in keeping these weapons out?
Israel controls the Port of Gaza as a result of the Oslo accords. They have a legal right to self defense, and a legal justification for the blockade, including the right to interdict shipping in international waters – as the Americans did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Israel’s overwrought critics could assure the Israeli government that lifting the blockade would not result in Hamas improving their capability of murdering a lot of innocent Israeli citizens, I am sure that Prime Minister Netanyahu would be interested in hearing how they would propose doing so.
It doesn’t matter to critics what Israel is trying to keep out by building a 450 mile fence largely along what was once known as the “Green Line” that separated the West Bank from Israel. Rarely does one come across criticism of the barrier that gives the Israeli rationale for constructing it in the first place. There have been all sorts of fantastical claims about why Israel is building the Fence, ignoring the most obvious reason; it will save the lives of Israeli citizens.
Again, there appears to be a disconnect on the part of critics who can safely catalog Israeli concerns and shuffle them off to the side somewhere, while railing against the purported effects of the fence on Palestinians.
Most observers would agree that the barrier imposes burdens on the Palestinians. The way the wall is being constructed creates enclaves of Palestinians who will be isolated from their neighbors and the rest of the West Bank. But for critics, military necessity and the security of innocent Israeli citizens just never seems to make much of an impression. Otherwise intelligent, discerning analysts bewail the plight of Palestinians – and, in some cases, it is indeed tragic that families are separated, commerce affected, and property expropriated.
But we come back to the question that critics of Israeli policy refuse to even consider; what is the government supposed to do to protect their citizens from such an implacable, deadly enemy? The fence is a far less draconian and brutal solution than other governments have chosen in the past in a similar situation – namely, mass slaughter of their enemies. If that is Israel’s goal, they are doing a horrible job of achieving it.
Instead, the fence inoculates Israel from most of the terrorist acts that would kill many of its citizens while advancing the least obnoxious alternative that places the smallest possible burden on the Palestinian people. In fact, building the Fence has resulted in far fewer terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis. The three years prior to building the fence saw 117 terrorist attacks resulting in the loss of 477 civilians while wounding thousands of others. In areas where the Fence has been completed, the number of attacks has dropped to near zero.
Critics also rarely mention that some Israeli citizens in the settlements oppose the fence because it separates them from the rest of Israel.
The “Proportionate Response” Canard
Perhaps no complaint of Israel’s critics reveals the massive disconnect between reality and sophistry as much as the idea that because the Palestinians are weak militarily, and fewer in number, that it is the responsibility of Israel to pull its punches and react “proportionately” to Palestinian provocations; or, in the case of the Gaza raid, provocations from anyone.
First, Michael Rubin writing at The Corner demolishes this nonsense:
But why should any democratic government empowered to defend its citizenry accept Europe’s idea of proportion? When attacked, why should not a stronger nation or its representatives try to both protects its own personnel at all costs and, in the wider scheme of things, defeat its adversaries?I have never heard of “proportionality” applied to any other nations except Israel and the United States. I don’t recall such arguments when Russia invaded Georgia, destroying several towns with massive artillery bombardments, ripping up rail centers, and killing wantonly. They may have been criticized for the invasion but the words “disproportionate response” were not used, as far as I can recall, to describe their action. Even if the phrase was used, there would be no comparison with the frequency with which that criticism is directed against Israel.
Neither am I aware of anyone criticizing Pakistan for using tanks and helicopters to engage Taliban fighters armed only with AK-47’s and a few outdated mortars.
But the idea of “proportionality” in war is very important to people like Andrew Sullivan:
Kudos to Michael Rubin for conceding that the Cheney-Netanyahu approach to terrorism is exactly a question of deliberate disproportion…Note the towering straw men set up by Sullivan. Is he accusing Israel of doing all of that? Or is he saying that Israel is capable of doing those things? Or is he positing the notion that commando raids using much restrained force until the “peace” activists put the lives of the soldiers at risk automatically escalates into “torture, mass murder, and an abandonment of basic principles of the rules of law?”
In fact, the reason there were not hundreds killed on that ship was because Israel did, indeed, engage in a proportional response to the violence directed against them. They didn’t have to. They could have rappelled down those ropes armed with automatic rifles instead of paint guns and at the first sign of trouble, blazed away, killing dozens. I daresay that most nations would have taken that route. It is much safer for the attacker, and success is more assured, if the IDF had gone Sullivan’s “mass murder” route.
But they didn’t. They couldn’t. Israel is a civilized nation engaged with barbarians whose blood-lust against the Jews is so profoundly ingrained that many of the activists fervently sang and chanted about martyrdom prior to their little cruise. Willing to give their lives for a propaganda stunt? What is “proportional” when engaging people like that?
Did Sullivan and his ilk expect the commandos to rappel down to the deck armed with knives, steel bars, and baseball bats? Would that have been a “proportional response?” Yes, it’s as silly as that.
It really doesn’t matter to Israel’s critics. Like the blockade and the Fence, the commando raid is beside the point. What matters is finding a way to place Israel in the weakest moral position possible in the eyes of the world. In order to do this, critics will go to astonishing lengths, twisting their arguments into pretzels of logic, salted with half truths, while ignoring the entire issue of Israel’s necessary self defense against those who wish to destroy her and her people. And through all of that virulent, off-balance criticism, not one word about alternatives that they would recommend the Jewish state employ except near total surrender to their enemies.
Perhaps we shouldn’t ask what critics want Israel to do. The answer might very well horrify all of us.
The Grand Jihad »
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a columnist for National Review. His book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008), has recently been released in paperback with a new preface. Check out a description from Encounter Books. His newly released book, which has just become a New York Times bestseller, is The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.FP: Andrew C. McCarthy, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Tell us about your new book and what inspired you to write it.
McCarthy: Jamie, as always, it’s a pleasure to be here.
My first book, Willful Blindness, which you kindly allude to in introducing me, was really focused on the terrorist aspect of the Islamist threat. Although I did argue that terrorism was the direct result of Islamist ideology, based undeniably on an accurate and mainstream construction of Islamic doctrine, my main purpose was to explain why prosecution in the criminal justice system, standing alone, was an inadequate response to a profound national-security challenge.
The Grand Jihad is an effort to dig deeper into what that national security challenge is, and in particular, to stress that terrorism is only a small subset of it. Islamists consider themselves to be in a “civilizational jihad” — their words, not mine — against the West. They use terrorism to great effect, but the battle proceeds on every conceivable front in our society: the media, the academy, and our politics, law and culture. And their aim is nothing less than the “destruction of the West” — as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide (and probably the most influential Sunni cleric in the world), puts it, “to conquer America” and “conquer Europe.”
FP: Why is a book like yours necessary?
McCarthy: The reason a book like this is necessary is that, in the U.S. and the West, we don’t seem to grasp — some of us expressly deny — the dimensions of the threat facing us. When they hear someone like me talking, they tend to dismiss these warnings as some sort of far-fetched theory: “He says they plan to destroy the West — how crazy that is!” So it’s important to be able to point out that I am not theorizing here. I am reporting to you what they are saying about what they are so obviously doing. You can ignore it, at your peril, but to deny it is happening is just preposterous.
FP: And the origins of your very title shows that denying it is just preposterous, right?
McCarthy: Exactly. The very title of the book, “The Grand Jihad” and the invocation of “sabotage” in the subtitle, is taken from a 1991 internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum in which the group’s leadership in the U.S. explains to its global leadership in Egypt that the Brothers (or the Ikhwan) consider their work in North America as a “grand jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.” They are telling us outright what they are about. And while this 1991 memo is quite blunt, it’s not materially different from what they’ve been saying outright for 80 years. The Brotherhood’s motto remains, to this day, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar!” It doesn’t get much less subtle than that.
FP: Why is emphasis on the Muslim Brotherhood so important?
McCarthy: The Brotherhood is the font of modern Islamist ideology, which is deeply rooted in Islamic doctrine and scripture and which is far more mainstream among the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims than we’d like to acknowledge. To hear the official government fairy tale, we are confronted by a fringe handful of “violent extremists” who just happen to be Muslims and are so unrepresentative of Muslims that we must not refer to them as “jihadists” or “Islamo-fascists” or “Islamic terrorists” or make any connection whatsoever between their atrocities and what we are incessantly told is one of the world’s great religions.
In point of fact, Islamist ideology is the dominant and dynamic belief system among the world’s Muslims. It is true that support for terrorism is a minority position in at least some (but by no means all) of its uses. But what we need to grasp is that this represents a disagreement among Muslims about tactics, not about the bottom line. The desire to convert free societies into sharia societies is a majority position, not a fringe position.
FP: Why is this fact so rejected in our media and culture?
McCarthy: It is sometimes difficult to decipher this because:
(a) the doctrine of taqqiya, or deception, encourages Islamists to lie about their aims in order to achieve their aims (obviously, you can’t use a sabotage strategy without that), and
(b) when Islamists and Westerners speak about “freedom,” they are not speaking about the same concept.
In Islam, “freedom” means perfect submission to Allah and His law (sharia). So an Islamist has no trouble looking you in the eye and saying he is all for freedom. It owes to our own ignorance that we don’t grasp that he really means the antithesis of the concept we think we are hearing.
Same thing with “terrorism”: Islamists do not accept that what they call “resistance” – which includes mass-murder attacks against people they have decided are threatening or insulting Islam, or “occupying” territories they have decided are Islamic – is “terrorism.”
So they have no trouble looking us in the eye and saying, in all apparent earnestness, and telling you they condemn “terrorism,” even though they know full well that they don’t believe suicide-bombings in Israel constitute terrorism.
As I relate in the book, this also explains how Qaradawi could “condemn” the 9/11 attacks but then issue a fatwa calling for the murder of American troops operating in Iraq. The former, a sneak attack targeting civilians – including Muslims – in a non-Muslim country is, for him, a tactical blunder because it provoked a forcible response that was a net loss for the Islamist project. The latter involves a Western military force “occupying” an Islamic country; Islamist ideology demands violent jihad to drive them out – and it doesn’t matter a wit that the Westerners view themselves as doing humanitarian work to make life better for Muslims; Islamists view the planting of Western ideas and Western institutions in Islamic lands as an act of war.
FP: You mention “violent jihad.” What do you think of the fact that John Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism advisor, just explained to us that jihad is an “internal struggle” and a noble calling?
McCarthy: Ah, yes, the internal struggle to “purify oneself or one’s community.” It is remarkable that we’ve been under jihadist siege for 17 years – and you could say it’s a lot longer than that, but I’ll count from the WTC bombing – and we still hear this blather.
At the highest levels of government, we don’t want to come to grips with what jihad is. It is a very simple concept. In Islam, jihad is always and everywhere the divinely ordained mission to establish, spread or defend sharia, the Muslim political and legal system. Sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition to Islamicizing societies – the central, supremacist imperative of Islam being to place all the world under the dominion of Allah and His law. Thus jihad can be, and often is, violent. But it can also be nonviolent, though not in the syrupy way Brennan and other apologists suggest. To hear them tell it, jihad is totally benign – the internal struggle to brush after every meal, or to rid one’s neighborhood of drug-dealing, etc. That’s not it at all. When Islam speaks of jihad as the command to “purify oneself or one’s community,” it does so in a very narrow sense. The idea is not to become a better person but a better Muslim – i.e., to be more faithful to sharia. And to “purify one’s community” does not mean to make it a better place in some objective sense; it means to rid one’s community of non-Muslim influences.
If we understand the elemental fact that jihad is, in fact, a bedrock tenet of Islam and that it is entirely about establishing sharia, then we are on road, finally, to understanding the civilizational threat we face.
FP: How is Sharia a threat to us and our way of life?
McCarthy: Sharia, in many salient particulars, is antithetical to Western culture and American constitutional republicanism. Sharia rejects our foundational premise that people have a right to make law for themselves, irrespective of any religious code (and sharia is not just a religious code but a full-scale socio-economic and political system that has spiritual elements). Sharia rejects freedom of conscience (apostasy from Islam is a capital offense). It denies equal protection before the law to women and non-Muslims. It denies private property (it claims to protect private property but it really doesn’t – all property is deemed to belong to Allah and its human “owner” is regarded merely as a custodian who is obliged to use it for the good of the umma). It abhors capitalism. It endorses violence as a means to settle political disputes. In short, it cannot tolerate individual liberty, which is the building block of our society.
FP: Sounds like something the Left would embrace. That’s why you argue that Islamists work together with the Left to sabotage America, right?
McCarthy: Correct, that is a huge part of it.
I should be clear about what I mean by “the Left.” I would have thought this obvious – a subtitle is always something of an overgeneralization – but I am not talking about all liberals or all progressive people any more than I am talking about all Muslims. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not subscribe to Islamist ideology (the problem, of course, is that there are hundreds of millions who do, and they appear to have the better case in terms of fidelity to Islamic doctrine). And not all of what might generally be called “the Left” is part of what I am homing in on: the hard Left – in America, the Obama Left or the Alinskyite Left – pushing to change our society radically. I think they are a minority, but they are a dynamic, effective minority – just as Islamist ideology (which I suspect is not a minority if you take the tactic of terrorism off the table) is the dynamic and assertive movement among the world’s Muslims.
Nor am I saying, as someone asked in one of my first interviews, that Barack Obama wants to impose sharia. This is an alliance, not a merger. Islamists and Leftists have significant points of departure – mostly on civil rights. If it were just the two of them, they would fight to the death. Indeed, that historically is what has happened: the two sides join in marriages of convenience that always end badly once they have achieved the goal that pushed them together in the first place. After taking help from the communists to topple the Shah, Khomeini repressed them. After Nasser’s socialists aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood to overrun the British-backed Egyptian monarchy (an entente in which Nasser personally solicited a skeptical Sayyid Qutb), Nasser declined to install sharia, the Brotherhood tried to kill him, and Nasser responded by brutally suppressing the Brotherhood – such that Qutb was ultimately executed and the Brotherhood was driven into the arms of the Saudis (the unintended deadly consequence we are still living with today).
I’ve been surprised, Jamie, that when I’m asked about this aspect of the book, people imply that I am concocting a theory. I would have thought that not only the historical instances of Islamist/Leftist collaboration but the innumerable examples all around us (e.g., the radical Center for Constitutional Rights jumping in to become al Qaeda’s lawyer after 9/11; the collaboration between the ACLU and CAIR against the post-9/11 national-security measures; the Muslim Public Affairs Council taking a lead role in the push for Obamacare; the Muslim Brotherhood’s very easily accessible economic and social program – you can glean it from their website, Ikhwan.net – which is plainly socialist; etc.) would have made the fact of the alliance undeniable. Yet I am constantly asked, “Doesn’t the Left have as much or more to lose than anyone if Islamists come to power?” Sure, as I’ve said, they’d have a lot to lose if there were a situation where all that was left were themselves and the Islamists. But we’re not in that situation. We are in the situation where, historically, they are most apt to confederate: namely, where they have a common obstacle that makes their differences seem less important. To me, the interesting question is why the two sides collaborate, not whether they collaborate. There’s no question that they’re collaborating.
FP: So, in your view, why exactly do they collaborate?
McCarthy: Well, it’s mostly about the common enemy. But I argue that, their significant differences notwithstanding, they are in harmony on a few big-picture matters. Both ideologies are authoritarian, in the sense that they want a powerful central government to impose their alternative utopias. Both are totalitarian, in the sense that each of those alternative utopias involves controlling life down to its granular details. And, again, neither can tolerate a freedom culture: if individuals are free, Leftists and Islamists must fail. As I demonstrate in the book, Rousseau, who is the father of all modern radical movements and despised the notion of individual liberty, was an admirer of Islam – especially its holding that the spiritual and secular realms are indivisible. And when one compares Rousseau’s thought with that of Qutb (who, along with Banna, is the most important Brotherhood thinker), the similarities are startling.
FP: In describing the Obama Left, you invoke David Horowitz’s notion of “neocommunism.” Tell us why.
McCarthy: I am obviously very influenced by David’s insights about the radical Left, and, with respect to the themes in this book, by his Unholy Alliance, which I think is one of the most important – and too often overlooked – books of the last several years. David’s description of neocommunism seems to me a perfect analysis of the phenomenon we’re seeing. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many on the Right heaved a sigh of relief and though, “Thank God that’s over.” But it wasn’t the end of communism at all. Indeed, it turned out, as David points out, to be a boon for Leftists. In arguing for their utopia, they no longer had to explain away a huge, execrable, concrete example of what happens when their lofty ideas get applied in the real world. Now it’s all “social justice” – and who doesn’t want social justice, right? – without the inconvenience of the gulags, the purges, the mass-murders, the collapsed economy, the resulting degradation and hopelessness....
Islamic antisemitism exposed yet again
The Jews "embody wickedness, which has brought God's eternal curse upon them"
Islamic antisemitism exposed yet again -- but Muhammad Sharki is not an "Islamophobe." He's just a Muslim reading the Qur'an. "Moroccan paper: 'The Noble Qur'an Stricty [sic] Defines the Position of Muslims in Regard to Jews--There Is No Room for Debate,'" from Translating Jihad, June 9:
From Moroccan online paper Oujda, comes this article by Muhammad Sharki about the Qur'an's decrees relative to the Jews. Mr. Sharki makes it clear that the Jews should not be known as a "nationality or race," but rather a "people who embody wickedness, which has brought God's eternal curse upon them." This curse, amply described in the Qur'an, came about because of their "disobedience, hostility, abomination, and loyalty to the infidels." Mr. Sharki then explains that, "A Muslim is not entitled to suppose that Jews are different than how they are described in the Qur'an." Is it any wonder that so many Muslims hate Jews today? It's hard not to if one understands and believes the Qur'an. Link to the original Arabic.The Noble Qur'an Stricty Defines the Position of Muslims in Regard to Jews--There Is No Room for Debate
"I've become an enemy of the people for speaking the truth about Islam"
"I've become an enemy of the people for speaking the truth about Islam"
So says Bruce Bawer. "When it comes to the right to speak one's mind about Islam, the record of the last few years makes it clear which direction the West is moving in." Indeed. The official fictions are ever more strictly enforced. It is only a matter of time. But...the truth will always remain the truth, and it will come out in other ways.
"I've Become an Enemy of the People for Speaking the Truth About Islam: I've now been singled out, in a report commissioned and funded by the government of Norway, as a perpetrator of Islamophobia. Am I about to be hauled into court?," by Bruce Bawer in Pajamas Media, June 15 (thanks to Aaron):
When it comes to the right to speak one's mind about Islam, the record of the last few years makes it clear which direction the West is moving in. In France and Italy, Oriana Fallaci is put on trial for disparaging Islam. In Canada, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are hauled before "human rights commission" tribunals for criticizing Islam in print. In Australia, an Islamic organization sues two pastors for "vilification of Muslims." In Britain, a Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested on charges of hate speech for having written negatively about Islam, and the Archbishop of Canterbury proposes that Parliament pass stronger laws against such speech acts. And in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, the head of the Freedom Party, which performed so well in the June 9 general elections that Wilders may end up in the governing coalition, still faces trial for having made a film about the Koranic foundations of terrorism.Or to silence those who speak about things they don't want you to know about, like the truth about Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism.
Ahmadinejad: The Jews Only Seem Human/We Will Act to Deliver the American People
Antisemitism Documentation Project
Ahmadinejad: The Jews Only Seem Human; We Are Advancing Step By Step Towards Implementing Our Plan to Change the World; From This Point Forward, We Will Act to Deliver the American People From Its Dictatorial Government
In a June 16, 2010 speech in the city of Shahre-Kord, in central Iran near Isfahan, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated his anti-Semitic world view, calling the Jews the worst of criminals and claiming that they only appear to be human. Ahmadinejad also hinted at his apocalyptic outlook, saying that whoever relies on God's might need fear no one. He added that his regime is consistently and successfully acting to change the world order and spelled out his government's new mission – to liberate the American nation from the "undemocratic and bullying" regime that oppresses it.
The speech, which marked a year since the first announcement of President Obama's call for support of the Green movement – which Ahmadinejad called interference in Iran's domestic affairs – reflected an apparent policy of retaliation for every Western action. This was evidenced in Iran's response to the fourth round of anti-Iran sanctions, which include searches of Iran-bound ships, in which Iranian officials announced that Iran would conduct its own searches of Western ships in the Persian Gulf. In the same vein, in response to U.S. support for Iran's Green movement, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran would act to deliver the American people from its dictatorial government by aiding opposition activities against the U.S. government.
Following are the main points of Ahmadinejad's statements:
Read it all> http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4386.htm
Questioning the Koran
At the Guantanamo Naval Base prison, American military personnel are required to wear gloves when touching the Koran. It’s the perfect metaphor for our official culture’s obsequious behavior toward Islam. Terrorists the world over cite the Koran as the motivation and justification for their terrorist acts, yet journalists and government officials reflexively jump to the Koran’s defense whenever it seems to be implicated in terror. Instead of thinking, “Hmm, let’s take a closer look at that book,” they assure us, on no evidence, that the terrorists have misunderstood the Koran.
Considering that large chunks of the world are sliding into the Islamic camp, it may be time to take off the gloves. We don’t have the luxury any longer of living by pre-9/11 niceties such as “we must respect religious differences”—a formula which has come to mean that we mustn’t even look into them. On the contrary, you respect differences by taking them seriously. And if the Koran is the motive force behind Islam’s militancy then the Koran deserves serious examination, not perfunctory gestures of esteem.
“Why bring religion into it?” you may ask. Well, because religion is what it’s all about. Sincere Muslims believe that God wants the whole world to be subject to Islam. They’re free to believe that, of course, but it would be very much in the interest of non-Muslims if they stopped believing it. If an unbeliever refuses to submit to Islam, Allah requires that his head be separated from his body. In light of this, it seems only reasonable that unbelievers should start thinking of ways to separate Muslims from their faith. We have a—shall we say, vital—interest in encouraging Muslims to reflect critically upon the facts of their faith. We can help them to do this, not by telling them we have deep respect for their religion, but by telling them we have deep misgivings about it.
So, the argument that the Koran is of divine origin, and therefore deserving of unquestioning obedience, ought to be challenged. And it ought to be challenged frequently and persuasively with the intention of forcing Muslims to at least entertain some doubts that God had anything to do with the composition of the Koran.
Let’s pass over the awkward fact that there were no witnesses to the revelation except Muhammad himself, and go on to look at what Muslim apologists say in defense of the Koran. The traditional belief is that the Koran, which was given to Muhammad in installments, is a perfect replica of a mother book which has existed eternally in heaven. According to apologists, the proof that God composed it is that it is a work of perfection, a literary masterpiece written in an inimitatable style. Thus, doubters are challenged to produce even one sura comparable to it (10:38). In a nutshell, only God could have said it so well.
Well, let’s see. Here is sura 81:20:
I swear by the turning planets, and by the stars that rise and set; by the night, when it descends, and the first breath of morning: this is the word of a gracious and mighty messenger…That’s pretty good. So is sura 51
By the dust-scattering winds and the heavily-laden clouds; by the swiftly-gliding ships and by the angels who deal out blessings to mankind; that which you are promised shall be fulfilled…If the whole Koran were written to this level you might have the makings of a case for its divine authorship. But for the most part—at least for the Western reader—it falls short of other great literature. Much of it is tedious, repetitive, and didactic. While it’s true that a lot is lost in translation, how much could have been lost from: “Prophet, we have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty: the daughters of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to take in marriage.” (sura 33:50). No matter how skillfully translated there is not much literary punch in such passages.
Of course, many readers also find parts of the Bible to be tedious, repetitive, and didactic. But this is less of a problem for Christians since they don’t claim that the Bible is a word-for-word dictation from God. For Christians, the literary merit of scripture is not a crucial issue. Still, the Bible does have considerable literary merit. Many passages in the Old Testament soar above the Koran—the Psalms, the scene of the dry bones come to life described in Ezekiel (Eze. 37), the Lord answering Job out of the whirlwind (Job 38), the temptation scene in the Garden of Eden, the vivid prophecies of Isaiah. And there is nothing in the Koran to compare with the moving scenes in the Gospels. So, if you hold to the God-dictated-it school of Koran defense, you have a problem. To put it bluntly, why can’t God write as well as human authors such as David, Solomon, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?—not to mention Homer, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy.
Muslim apologists do have an answer to such quibbles. They say that you can only appreciate the true beauty of the Koran by reading it in Arabic. Okay, then, maybe when you read, “We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” (2: 226) in the original Arabic it sounds like something out of “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyan.” But there is another problem which goes beyond the sound and sense of words. Whether or not the Koran is lacking in stylistic perfection, it is certainly lacking in coherence. And you don’t have to speak high Arabic to notice it.
When God wrote the “mother of a book,” He apparently forgot to outline. As a result, there is no beginning, middle, or end to the Koran. As N.J. Dawood, one of its translators, admits, “scholars are agreed that a strictly chronological arrangement is impossible…” Instead, the Koran is arbitrarily arranged according to the length of its chapters with the longest coming first and the shortest, last. Accordingly, the Koran skips back and forth between accounts of Jesus, Moses, Joseph, Abraham, and Noah as though all these figures lived in some kind of time proximity instead of being separated by hundreds, even thousands of years. Besides the strange juxtapositions of the stories and persons, you can add in the fact that, with a few exceptions, none of the stories are fully developed. They are more like story fragments. And the logical transitions between episodes are often missing. As the great Koran scholar Theodor Noldeke pointed out, the extended narratives of the Koran are lacking in “indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events…and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration.” One is reminded of Mark Twain’s joke that Fenimore Cooper broke all the rules of literary art, including Rule One, “That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere,” and Rule Two, “that the episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it.”
In response, Muslim apologists say you should think of the Koran more like a body of sermons than as an organized book. But even on this level the Koran lacks coherence. When you listen to a sermon you expect that the end of it will usually have something to do with the beginning of it. This is quite often not the case with the Koran. If you think there ought to be some logical connection between paragraph one and paragraph two or between paragraph two and paragraph three, you are obviously stuck in the linear mode of thought, and you’re not ready for the Koran. Better practice on some James Joyce first.
If you are the Lord of the Universe, apparently you are under no obligation to connect your thoughts. Thus the Koran often seems like a giant game of “Mad Libs” in which unrelated parts are arbitrarily dropped into the narrative. Or, if you prefer a more elegant explanation, here’s Professor Malcolm Clark, author of Islam for Dummies: “The Qur’an is like a montage of different images or a kaleidoscope in which different elements recur but in different arrangements.” That’s one way of putting it. Another way is this: “a confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite, insupportable stupidity in short.” That’s historian Thomas Carlyle’s description of the Koran—and he was fairly sympathetic to Islam.
However you try to explain it, you would think that God could make a better effort. If you believe that the Koran is dictated by God you have to account for the fact that the Author of Creation seems to lack the literary touch—that is, the knack for storytelling, sequence, composition, and drama that we expect in accomplished human authors. Yes, there are beautiful passages in the Koran, but as an exercise in composition it would not pass muster in most freshmen writing courses. Muslims rankle at perceived insults to Allah, but isn’t it a major insult to Allah to attribute to him such a “confused jumble” of a book?
Did God write the Koran? Considering what’s at stake, this is not a time to shy away from the question. The truth concerning the circumstances of the Koran’s birth is much more consequential for the world’s fate than any revelations about the circumstances surrounding the birth of President Obama. Is it provocative to ask the question? Yes, but then, nowadays, anything and everything short of a complete submission to Islam is considered provocative by many Muslims. Besides, contrary to the sensitivity watchdogs, tough questions aren’t usually asked simply for the purpose of provoking anger. Believe it or not, tough questions are often intended to provoke thought.
It’s not just Muslims who need to rethink the Koran, but all those non-Muslims who, without knowing anything about it, still believe the Koran ought to be accorded great respect. The Southern Command guidelines for military personnel not only mandate wearing clean gloves when touching the Koran, they also require that the Koran be handled in a “manner signaling respect and reverence.” “Handle the Koran,” state the guidelines, “as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.” “Fragile?” Yes. Maybe the Southern Command brass have it right, after all. Handle with care. And don’t drop it. It’s brittle.
Ignoring the fact that many Jews fought and died for blacks in the fight for civil ri
Ignoring the fact that many Jews fought and died for blacks in the fight for civil rights in America
Nation of Islam’s Screwy Louie Farrakhan blames Jews for financial ruin of blacks.
Farrakhanis a vulture, a vampire who drains the life out of the very people he claims to lead. He destroys and makes a meal of his own people. And he in no way represents decent, hardworking Black America.
Imagine if the American black community had the leadership of Martin Luther King instead of this devil who wants to keep his people uneducated, dependent, angry anti-individualists and anti-capitalists. He is the worst kind of demagogue, sacrificing his own to advance his own evil ambitions.
And Obama counts him as a friend. A White House in decay. Martin Luther King would spit in the face of Louis Farrakhan and kick him to the curb where he belongs with the rest of the filth. Perhaps this is the only way for a soulless, evil wannabee to get his sullied name into the papers.
Farrakhan claims Jews for centuries have worked to financially undermine Black people. Disgusting. Radical Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan sent a letter to Jewish leaders asking them to repair the damage they have caused blacks for centuries.
Washington Examiner reports: Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan has written the leaders of more than a dozen major U.S. Jewish groups and denominations seeking “repair of my people from the damage” he claims Jews have caused blacks for centuries.
Farrakhan sent the letter along with two books from the Nation of Islam Historical Research Team that the 77-year-old minister said prove “an undeniable record of Jewish Anti-Black behavior,” starting with the slave trade and Jim Crow laws.
“We could charge you with being the most deceitful so-called friend, while your history with us shows you have been our worst enemy,” he wrote.
Farrakhan has long accused Jews of wrongdoing in speeches, but he has rarely addressed Jewish groups so directly in writing.
The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group which distributed copies of the letter, said in a statement Tuesday that Farrakhan’s “anti-Semitism is obsessive, diabolical and unrestrained. He has opened a new chapter in his ministry where scapegoating Jews is not just part of a message, but the message.”
Terrorism starts in the mosque, the mosque that is in YOUR neighborhood
“Minarets are our bayonets. The domes are our helmets. The mosques are our barracks. And the believers our Army.”
–Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan
This is not the rhetoric of radical Islam. This is what is taught in the mosques that your Muslim neighbors attend. There is a growing pushback all over America against the spread of Islam via mosques, the one thing that ALL Muslim terrorists have in common. Allow enough mosques to proliferate, and we will become England, where the practice of repressive and oppressive shari’a law is allowed. Creating an Islamic state out of a democratic one is the ultimate goal of ALL Muslim believers, regardless of what they tell you. Don’t be fooled, there are no moderate Muslims. The only moderate Muslims are ex-Muslims.
Modern anti-semitism (Islamic, left-wing)
Modern anti-semitism (Islamic, left-wing)
The UN allows countries that are not democracies to vote in its decisions. By doing so it forfeits all credibility. No one should give a damn what the UN says about Israel (or indeed any issue).
The Arab world is openly anti-semitic, and is not ashamed of it. Europe hates Israel too, but claims that this is different.
Obviously, being prevented from killing Jews is the same kind of thing as being herded into a ghetto for extermination.
What kind of mind can regard the life-saving Israeli wall, which has led to a massive drop in suicide bombings, as similar to Nazi walls? I don't remember the Jews of 1940 suicide-bombing German civilians in coffee shops. I don't recall that the Germans herded them into ghettos in order to protect the German people.
What Israel is up against:
Islamists protesting about Gaza, 10 Jan 2009, in Canada (of all places!) call for the extermination of the Jews of Israel.
"Jewish child, you are gonna ****in' die!"
What are these people doing in the West? Why were they allowed in? Why are they not all deported?
Islamic Fascism is really a modern phenomenon.  It is basically a 20th century totalitarian movement - like fascism and communism. Islam existed before Islamic Fascism, and will exist after it. Islamic Fascism is designed - like fascism and communism - to appeal to idealistic young people with a utopian future where the world will be "cleansed". It really started with the Iranian revolution in 1979, and used to be called "Islamic fundamentalism". Other names for it are "Islamofascism" or "Islamism". I think "Islamic Fascism" is the clearest, most descriptive name,  showing that this is simply the same kind of thing that the democracies spent the 20th century fighting. Islamic Fascism is genuinely fascist. It has contempt for democracy, free speech and human rights. It is full of hatred for Jews, atheists, homosexuals, and liberated women. It is linked to racist hatred of blacks in Sudan, slave trading of black Africans, and racist hatred of other ethnic minorities in the Islamic world. And, like fascism and communism, the only solution is the total and utter destruction of this philosophy. This will take a long Cold War, lasting for perhaps the next two or three decades, punctuated by perhaps one or two more Hot Wars. But Islamic Fascism will lose. Democracy will win.
Nobody should support a war on Islam, but everybody should support a war on Islamism.
Islamism is not simply a religious philosophy that one is free not to follow. Islamism is a political movement that aims to impose itself by force on those who disagree. Islamism aims to impose religious Sharia Law on the whole world, ending human rights and civil liberties, ending freedom of religion, ending freedom of speech, and ending freedom of sexuality.
Islamism threatens us and everything we love, and will always threaten us, until it is defeated. A War on Islamism is something that every Christian, Jew, atheist, Hindu or other infidel should support. A War on Islamism is something that every freedom-loving Muslim should support. Islamism - or any other philosophy that imposes religion by force - should have no place in our world. A War on Islamism is a no-brainer, like a War on Fascism. Every liberal and every leftist should support a War on Islamism.
Left, the destruction of our prosperity, our science, our learning, our culture, our beautiful cities - everything we have worked for for a thousand years.
Right, the institution of a reign of primitive superstitious savagery.
September 11th, 2001
The World Trade Centre attack is the greatest attack on civilization and liberty since 1945. The West is not simply "another" culture. It is a set of values that represent the highest achievement of humanity. A set of values that the whole planet can - and should - adopt. Western values are worth dying - and killing - for. The West is the greatest, richest, freest, best part of planet Earth, the heart of science and all knowledge, the best hope for mankind. Anyone who seeks its destruction should be destroyed themselves.
The spoilt, wealthy butcher Mohamed Atta.
Could 9/11 have been prevented?
No, is the short answer. Because nobody would have tolerated the US government taking strong action to prevent it before 9/11.
The Clinton Administration had Bin Laden in its sights in 2000 (picture from drone over Afghanistan) but failed to kill him.
I was typical liberal-left
At the time of the September 11th attack, I still believed in the left-liberal universe, and I was still reading the Irish Times and the Guardian, as you can see from some of my early links:
So my first reaction to September 11th was in the liberal-left press, and I still tried to fit it into that universe. Then I started reading the American media online. And I found my political philosophy starting to change. This was big. This wasn't about Israel after all. This was something much bigger. These were beginning to look more like the Nazis, come back again in different uniforms, with different names, but with the same mission, to destroy our civilization. This was beginning to look like the absolutely just war that we had not seen since 1945.
Islamist nightmare scenarios (separate page)
In defence of the West
After September 11th, I thought I would go online and see what the much-reviled American right-wing hawks and conservatives were saying. I had never read their material before (it does not appear in the Irish media) and I was shocked to find that it appeared to be based on reason and evidence, and a strong sense of morality and belief in human freedom and dignity. These, I realised with a shock, are the people who defended us against the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.
The Irish Times liberals are not the people who defended us against the Third Reich. They would never have stood with the Allies (and never will, no matter what). Their arguments are much the same as de Valera's. Their anti-American, anti-British worldview is little different to de Valera's. They are the heirs of de Valera, not Churchill.
I felt my left-liberal faith slipping away with every article I read.
Emotion has its place. The anger and fear of 9/11 allowed many of us look at new ideas - such as conservative ideas - for the first time. The liberal-left meme complex is self-sustaining and hard to break out of. Anger and shock has its place in giving new memes a brief window to invade. As they say, "A Conservative is a Liberal Who's Been Mugged". Many of us were mugged on 9/11, and changed.
Ultimately, though, I look for new ideas based on reason and logic, rather than on emotion.
The root cause of Islamist terror
The solution - America and the West must assert themselves. The Islamic world must change.
"All Arabs shall arise and annihilate the Jews! We shall fill the sea with their corpses."
- Hassan al Banna, founder of the original Islamic fascist group the Muslim Brotherhood, calling for a genocide of the Jews when Israel was declared a state, 1947.
Luckily, the Islamic fascists failed to carry out their genocide.
The American jihadi Adam Gadahn demonstrates Islamism's low and debased morality, openly defending attacks on civilians.
"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."
- Omar Bakri Muhammad sums up the world of the Islamist savages. See more. "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. ... There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not."
- Hani Sibai makes clear what Islamism means.
Last edited by Paparock; 07-03-2010 at 05:35 PM..
Islamist nightmare scenarios
Islamist nightmare scenarios
Nightmare No.1: Nuclear attack on the West (possible)
Nightmare No.2: The Destruction of Israel (possible)
Nightmare No.3: The Destruction of the West (unlikely)
Nightmare No.4: Civil war in the West (unlikely)
9/11 showed that Islamism, long a festering problem, may be a serious threat to the free societies of the world. Exactly how serious that threat is remains to be seen. The communists killed 100 million people and threatened the entire world with nuclear holocaust. The fascists killed tens of millions, carried out large-scale genocide and destroyed much of Europe. So far the Islamists are not in that league, though their intentions clearly are.
But a worrying thing about the Islamists is that they may not be deterred as the communists were. They may just go ahead and nuke Israel or a western city, and welcome their martyrdom.
Another problem is the minority, but still depressingly large, number of jihadi sympathisers among Muslims in the West, and the potential this has for starting some kind of awful Bosnia-style, infidels versus Muslims, civil war in Europe, in which innocent Muslims could suffer ethnic cleansing or worse. Here are some nightmare, doomsday scenarios and how likely I think they are.
Never forget the thousands of men, women and children killed for no reason by Islamist religious fascism in New York.
Click on image for video. Image from here.
This is only a warning of what is in store for us if the modern fantasy utopian movement of Islamism is not utterly destroyed.
If Islamism is not confronted and utterly destroyed, a nuclear attack against a Western city will happen in the next few decades.
You can surrender all you like, appease all you like. Address supposed Islamist "grievances" all you like. Abandon Israel. Pull out of Iraq. Pull out of the entire Middle East. Stay at home. But nuclear jihad will come. The only way to stop it is to destroy Islamism.
Nightmare No.1: Nuclear attack on the West
Status: Could easily happen in 21st century.
Bad as 9/11 was, it made a previously unlikely nightmare scenario far more real: If the terrorists had a nuclear weapon, they would clearly use it immediately against a western city. As soon as they get such weapons, they will be used. Apocalyptic stateless terrorists cannot be deterred, as terror states like the Soviet Union were.
And nuclear weapons continue to spread. Now the butchers of North Korea have nuclear weapons. While their impoverished people starved to death in a state-caused famine, these butchers spent billions to construct nuclear weapons to threaten the free countries of South Korea and Japan. And the aggressive, Jew-hating, fascist state of Iran seems to be next. Who is going to stop every genocidal tyrant, Islamic fascist, and murderous armed group on the planet getting nukes?
Only America can stop this. Only America is trying to stop proliferation. The rest of the world will not take this issue seriously until a western city is destroyed.
The term "The Axis of Evil" was introduced in the State of the Union Address by Bush, January 29, 2002. See discussion of origins.
At that time, there were 3 unfree countries trying to develop nuclear weapons: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Hence the logical use of the term, the "Axis of Evil", focusing on these 3 as the most immediate threat to civilization.
Since then, Iraq has been stopped, Iran is still going full steam ahead, and North Korea has, tragically, succeeded, joining the previously existing 3 unfree countries with nuclear weapons: Russia, China and Pakistan.
The nightmare is that it may take a nuclear 9/11 before the West gets serious about Islamism. The West has fought a half-hearted war against Islamism so far, as if the threat isn't serious enough. As if 9/11 wasn't big enough.
The West right now looks weak and divided, waiting for its enemies to move.
Status: Could easily happen in 21st century.
Many, probably most, Palestinians and Arabs see the long-term plan as the destruction of Israel, involving either killing all the Jews or making them live under an Islamic totalitarian state. But Israel now has nuclear weapons, and nuclear attack on Israel, or the imminent defeat of Israel by Islamic armies, may lead to the nuclear destruction of Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Tehran, Qom, Baghdad, Najaf, Karbala, Damascus, Cairo, Khartoum and much of the Islamic Middle East.
Could the future be even worse? Could Islamism, like the Soviet Union, get armed with thousands of nuclear weapons in the 21st century, and then, unlike the Soviet Union, use them?
If the West was going to go down, if our very existence was under threat, if the barbarians threatened to destroy everything we have achieved over the last thousand years, would we use our nukes? I think we would have to, to survive, and the moral blame would lie with the aggressors.
One thing different between this war and World War 2 is the large number of enemies living in our home societies - the minority, but still depressingly large, number of jihadi sympathisers among Muslims in the West. Under the right circumstances - such as mass hysteria after some huge terrorist atrocity - this has the potential for ultimately starting some kind of awful Bosnia-style, infidels versus Muslims, civil war in Europe.
Such a war would likely: (a) lead to the defeat and ethnic cleansing (or worse) of Europe's innocent Muslims, and: (b) lead to the end of European democracy and the resurgence of old-fashioned ultra-nationalist European fascism. It would be a disaster both for Muslims and for infidels.
I'm not totally convinced (and I think some of their numbers are wrong).
Steyn makes a good case, but I don't think Europe is doomed just yet. Predicting the future by extrapolating from current trends has a long record of failure, a notable example being the global population crisis that was supposed to have happened by now. Global warming may turn out to be another. So what could prevent the end of freedom in Europe in the 21st century? Here's a few possibilities:
Scepticism about extrapolations
Let me remind you that I remain optimistic. The 21st century, I believe, will see the Islamic world change, not the West. The West will remain free, and will export its corrupting freedom everywhere. It is the Islamists whose world will be destroyed.
How Europe could easily swing (or already is) to the right of me.
Above shows support for political parties in Holland in opinion polls, Aug 2008 - Mar 2009. From here.
Geert Wilders is campaigning against Islam, not just Islamism. He has talked about banning the Koran, and preventing the building of Islamic mosques and schools.
I would not vote for his party, the PVV. Their opposition to the jihad is too extreme.
And yet polls, Mar 2009, have his party as now the no.1 party in Holland.
The infidels of Europe are highly unlikely to go gently into the dark night of sharia. They will stop it. I just hope it's peaceful and not violent.
These are real threats. But nothing is inevitable. It is still 1933. There is still time to stop all these nightmare scenarios from coming to pass. We still have time to destroy Islamism while it is new and weak, rather than wait until 1938 or 1939, when it is rampant and strong. There is still time to strangle Islamism in the cradle.
The above scenarios - Western nuclear assault on the Islamic world, resurgent Western ultra-nationalist fascism - show the danger for all of us, not least for the Islamic world, if we do not destroy Islamism now. Everyone who believes in freedom and tolerance, including liberal Muslims, must support the War on Islamism, or risk the above scenarios coming to pass.
Islam in the West
Islam in the West
Since the 1950s, Islam has been growing in the West, mainly by immigration. Most immigrants come to the West precisely because they support its freedoms and want to escape failed states ruled by clerics and Islamic dictators. We have a duty to let these freedom-loving Muslims in. There is an upside to doing so:
For me, Islamic fundamentalism is under siege in its home countries, and will eventually lose out to democracy and freedom. The idea that Islamic fundamentalist immigrants could come to the West and eventually threaten our freedoms I find a bit far-fetched.
My instinct is totally pro-immigration, for many reasons:
Will Muslim immigrants really threaten our liberties? I'm fairly relaxed so far, but that situation may of course change. West-hating immigrants have achieved little so far, though there are some worrying signs:
The comedy show "The Chaser's War on Everything" have a great, light-hearted, Australian response to the humourless Islamofascist freak Taj El-Din Hilaly.
Laugh at the Islamist with the "Mufti Muzzler".
Search for more: And here.
Even if freedom-hating immigrants never succeed in actually changing our laws, there is another threat, which is that of sporadic violence and terrorism. Importing Muslims means inevitably importing some jihadis. Even if you only let in freedom-loving, democracy-loving Muslims (as discussed above), their children may be jihadis. This seems to be the case with the London bombings. The simple act of letting in Muslims at all increases the number of jihadis who will try to kill you.
Tragically, it seems that the second London bombing attack was by refugees, on the country that took them in. They came to Britain as child refugees from war-torn Africa. And they repaid British generosity by trying to slaughter its people.
I have no answer for this. If the war against the jihad escalates, we may have to stop all Muslim immigration, including those fleeing persecution. I hope to god it never comes to this awful scenario.
As I said above, it is true that the west is the heartland of truly moderate Islam. Western Muslims are far more moderate than Muslims in the Islamic world. There are millions of Muslims and lapsed Muslims in the west who believe in democracy and freedom, and are in the west precisely because they do not wish to live under Islamic law.
At the same time, many Muslim leaders promoted by the media as "moderate" Muslims turn out to be anything but. Sometimes, hate-filled extremist jihadis, such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, are simply described as "moderate". More often, "moderates" turn out to be religious ultra-conservatives who have crackpot views on Israel and America, and who seem incapable of condemning Islamism. Certainly, nobody who believes in Islamic law, or subscribes in any way to Islamism, could possibly be described as a "moderate". Nobody who supports attacks on Israeli civilians could possibly be described as a "moderate". Any time I hear the left describe some Muslim, such as Tariq Ramadan, as a "moderate", I now assume they are lying.
And finally, it is also true that 10-20 percent of western Muslims do support the global jihad.
What I mean by actually moderate Muslims (as opposed to the fake "moderates" so often promoted) are Muslims who oppose Islamism.
Survey at Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Convention, Sept 2006 shows us the cold reality of western Muslims. It's not that they support the jihad. It's that they are of no use in stopping it:
5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:
a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
Just as the Irish in Britain were of little use against the IRA, and just as the "good Germans" were of little use in WW2, so western Muslims will be of little use in this war. They don't like the jihad, but will make no attempt to fight it, and have only criticism for those who do.
10 percent of western Muslims will help fight this war. 10 percent will fight for the enemy. 80 percent will sit on the fence, and then, when the war is over, will be perfectly happy with the allied victory.
Islam in Ireland (separate page)
Sharia law in the West (separate page)
Islamophobia (separate page)
I'd rather end on an optimistic note. I don't think Islamic fundamentalism is going to triumph in the west. I think democracy is going to triumph in the Islamic world.
I think Islamic fundamentalism is far more under threat than western ideas are. Which is not to say that Islamic fundamentalists won't cause a lot more death before they exit history. But exit they will, just as the entire, bloodthirsty Christian medieval world is gone. Just as the entire Soviet world is gone. Democracy is unstoppable.
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. The advance of freedom is the calling of our time" President George W. Bush, Nov 2003.
Bush understands the "root cause" of 9/11 - the lack of freedom in the Middle East.
1968 to 1992: