Israel Military Forum

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
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-27-2013, 08:52 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation What is a picture worth?

Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2013, 07:36 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Bin Laden has more sanctity than any infidel

Saudi cleric: “Only Muslims and no one else has sanctity in Islam. Bin Laden has more sanctity than any infidel.”

Saudi cleric just saying it like it is. But don’t forget: in the West Islam has to be treated as equal, whether they treat you – ever – as anything close to equal even to a wild dog. Whether they respect your laws or not. Whether they violate your people or not. Whether they insult you or not. In their mind, they have the right to assault, rape, insult, desecrate, and even attack and kill you. It’s not a crime in Islam to do any of these things to an infidel, a non-Muslim.

You are an infidel, a kafir, not a human being. You have no value to their vaginal pagan moon good. In their interpretation you, the subhuman kafir, can be slained, detained, rejected, exploited, invaded as they please and your children can be degraded and groomed as sex slaves, your pets tortured and beheaded, your homes, cars and businesses burnt down, your benevolence and humanness exploited and laughed at, your economy intentionally exploited to destroy you. Kafir were the letters identified to al-Dajjal, the Islamic anti-Christ according to the interpretations of the cleric.

And this is the kind of people our governments allow to immigrate in millions, and then wonder and question why they don’t ‘integrate’. Do you wonder why they never will integrate?

Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 07:05 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Egyptian Islamist: Founders of America Would Eat the Flesh of the Indians

Egyptian Islamist Politician Hussam Abu Al-Bukhari:
The Founders of America Would Eat the Flesh of the Indians

Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 02:03 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation What Is Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and What Do Its Members Really Believe?

What Is Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and What Do Its Members Really Believe?

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a larger series about lesser-known religions called “Understanding Faith.” Today’s subject is the Nation of Islam. In the past, we’ve covered Chrislam and Sikhism, among other faith systems.

You’ve likely heard or read about the Minister Louis Farrakhan and his fiery sermons about race, politics and Allah’s impending wrath upon America (TheBlaze has covered Farrakhan extensively). But do you know much about the Nation of Islam (NOI) — the controversial faith system that the infamous preacher leads?

Patheos, a web portal that reveres itself as the WebMD of faith and religion, defines the NOI as a, “Religious and cultural community based on Islamic concepts that evolved in the 20th century in the United States out of various black nationalist organizations.”

Despite having the word “Islam” in its title, the faith system is not what one would think. Contrary to the centuries of Islamic history that have abounded, NOI is less than 100 years old. The religion’s roots date back to the 1930s, when Wali Fared (also known as W.D. Fard) set its foundations. At the time, Fard was going door-to-door in Detroit, Mich., selling goods and telling African Americans about his theological views.

After he disappeared in 1934 and was never heard of again (the church’s official web site refers to his disappearance as a “departure”), Fard passed leadership of the group to a man named Elijah Muhammad (real name: Elijah Robert Poole), who then led the denomination from 1934 until his death in 1975. Under Muhammad, Fard was revered as “the long-awaited ‘Messiah’ of the Christians and the ‘Mahdi’ of the Muslims” — a controversial claim to say the least.

Minister Louis Farrakhan speaks during the Saviours’ Day annual convention at the U.I.C. Pavilion in Chicago, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2013. Credit: AP

Under Muhammad, some of the denomination’s most controversial ideas were manifested. He maintained that he was Allah’s prophet. Additionally, contentious ideas about whites commenced during his decades in NOI leadership. Later, though, his son, Warith Deen Muhammad, attempted to de-radicalize the group, bringing it back to a more mainstream version of Islam. Discontented with this decision, Farrakhan broke away to create the fiery branch that continues to captivate headlines.

Beliefnet provides this contentious history in more detail:
Elijah Muhammad taught that American blacks, a group that includes all people of color, were descended from the ancient tribe of Shabazz that had originally settled the holy city of Mecca, and that blacks and whites can share no real community. Malcolm X was his closest collaborator until a quarrel between the two men in 1964. Malcolm X then went on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where he saw people of every race worshiping side by side, and he became convinced of the hopelessness of racism.

He returned to the United States and founded the Organization of Afro-American Unity, which preached black nationalism but not black separatism. He was shot and killed while speaking to a large gathering in New York City in 1965. After Elijah Muhammad’s death in 1975, his son Warith Deen Muhammad radically transformed the Black Muslim movement, opening it to whites and renaming it the American Muslim Mission. In 1979, Louis Farrakhan broke away from the Mission, establishing the more radical Nation of Islam, which restricts membership to blacks and advocates a separate black social structure.
As Beliefnet notes, NOI’s focus is on the advancement and sustainability of non-whites. Considering Farrakhan’s sermons, which range from curious to troubling, this notion of an ethnic or race-based theology is evident. The faith leader and others in the nation often demonize Caucasians, referring to them as “the enemy” and decrying their mere existence.

Members of the Nation Of Islam cheer as minister Louis Farrakhan speaks during the Saviours’ Day annual convention at the U.I.C. Pavilion in Chicago, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2013. Credit: AP

Farrakhan has repeatedly said that the human race was originally black and that whites are, as Beliefnet notes, an “aberration.” Rather than preaching a message of unification, NOI calls for segregation and separatism. On the group’s web site, the denomination is clear that it wishes for African Americans to live separately from whites.
“We want our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own — either on this continent or elsewhere. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to provide such land and that the area must be fertile and minerally rich. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated to maintain and supply our needs in this separate territory for the next 20 to 25 years–until we are able to produce and supply our own needs.

Since we cannot get along with them in peace and equality, after giving them 400 years of our sweat and blood and receiving in return some of the worst treatment human beings have ever experienced, we believe our contributions to this land and the suffering forced upon us by white America, justifies our demand for complete separation in a state or territory of our own.”
Farrakhan and other leaders have maintained that whites were created by a renegade black scientist known as Yacub (some claim he is known as Jacob in the Bible). The church’s message has essentially been rooted in the notion that blacks are superior to their white counterparts, while regularly condemning whites and placing a major focus upon the horrific treatment African Americans once received in the U.S.

When NOI began, its members were implored to follow strict rules. In addition to being prevented from eating pork, they could not smoke of drink. Their clothing was conservative in nature and they were also forbidden from marrying outside of the race (something that still seems to be a rule of sorts, based on the NOI web site).

Beliefnet also contends that leaders within the movement once told members to avoid the draft, as the military was seen as a tool of white oppression. The group, as seen by Farrakhan’s continued visibility, has been successful.

“By turning racist ideas around to oppose whites, the movement has attracted many adherents and has had particularly good success in converting prisoners, criminals, and drug users,” Beliefnet notes. “Black Muslims have financed the construction of mosques, schools, apartment complexes, stores, and farms.”

Beliefnet’s chart showing the differences between Nation of Islam and traditional Islamic belief. (Photo Credit: Beliefnet)

Widely seen by other Muslims as an outside movement, the NOI, headquartered in Chicago, Ill. (Mosque Maryam), has brought itself more in line with mainstream Islam of late. Fasting for Ramadan and Friday prayers (rather than Sunday) are just two of the changes that were purportedly made to sync the denomination up with Muslim tradition.

In addition to referencing the Koran during his sermons, NOI reveres a number of other texts. Fard’s “The Secret Ritual of the Nation of Islam” and “Teaching for the Lost Found Nation of Islam in a Mathematical Way” — two booklets that he wrote before his disappearance — serve as guidance for members, among other texts.

A media outlet called Final Call also serves as a newspaper and online web site, offering members news and information through an NOI lens. As far as the Bible goes, the church believes that it must be interpreted so that alleged falsehoods that are presented in it can be corrected.

“We believe in the truth of the Bible, but we believe that it has been tampered with and must be reinterpreted so that mankind will not be snared by the falsehoods that have been added to it,” the NOI web site proclaims.

Members of the Nation of Islam cheer as minister Louis Farrakhan speaks during the Saviours’ Day annual convention at the U.I.C. Pavilion in Chicago, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2013. Credit: AP

It’s difficult to pin down the number of adherents in NOI. A U.S.-centric faith, the majority of believers reside within the nation’s borders. While Beliefnet estimates that there are 100,000 people who embrace Farrakhan’s controversial theology, Patheos reports that the number is somewhere between 10,000 and 70,000, but calls that wide range “disputed.”

You can read all of the NOI’s “wants” and “beliefs” on the group’s web site. From a request that African Americans be exempt from taxes to a push for the release of Muslims held in federal prisons, the list is extensive.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 03:36 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer discuss Bernard Lewis and academic study of Islam

Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer discuss Bernard Lewis and academic study of Islam

On my ABN show, Dr. Andrew Bostom and I discuss the mixed legacy of the great scholar Bernard Lewis, and the general deficiencies of academic study of Islam.

Andrew Bostom has full and illuminating background information here.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 04:38 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Ten Key Points on Islamic Blasphemy Law and Non-Muslims

Ten Key Points on Islamic Blasphemy Law and Non-Muslims

by Andrew Bostom

Qadi Iyad (d. 1149), the great Almoravid jurist, from his seminal Ash-Shifa, which includes one of the most authoritative analyses of Islamic blasphemy law’s treatment of non-Muslims: “Once Islam was firmly established and Allah had given it victory over all other religions, any such detractor that the Muslims had power over and whose affair is well-known, was put to death.”
There is an intensifying global campaign to impose Islamic blasphemy law on non-Muslims, including those living outside Islamdom, in non-Muslim societies.

What follows are ten key points on the doctrinal origins and practical implications of this global campaign:

1) According to the Sunna (the traditions of Muhammad and the early Muslim community), by using foul language against the Muslim prophet Muhammad, Allah, or Islam, the non-Muslim transgressors put themselves on a war footing against Muslims, and their lives became licit (such as the poet Kaab b. al-Ashraf, who composed poems denigrating Muhammad, and was assassinated). [see 1.1, 1.2, 1.3]

2) This “offense” was then constructed and legitimated by Muslim jurists when Islam was politically, militarily and economically dominant, so that it was expected that the non-Muslims under Islamic rule would not denigrate the religion of Islam, nor cast aspersions on its major figures or institutions. [see 2.1, 2.2, 2.3]

3) The jurists saw any such denigration as an unacceptable hostile act, punishable by death, automatically, as per three of the main Sunni schools of Islamic Law (Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali), and the major Shiite schools. According to the fourth major school of Sunni Islamic law, the Hanafi, the punishment of a non-Muslim guilty of blasphemy is left to the discretion of a Muslim judge. The death penalty was in fact most often applied by the Hanafis. (see 3.1, 3.2)

4) On February 19, 1989, Iranian theocrat Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa condemning author Salman Rushdie to death (along with those involved in the publication of Rushdie’s book, The Satanic Verses), while promising eternal salvation to any Muslim “martyred” in this cause. As noted by Muhammad Hashim Kamali, who, since 1985, has taught Sharia and jurisprudence, as a professor of law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia, in his authoritative Freedom of Expression in Islam: “…no serious Muslim commentator has challenged the basic validity of the Ayatollah’s fatwa. Adjudication was generally viewed to be necessary if only to find out if Rushdie was willing to repent.” The fatwa wrought targeted murders in Europe and Japan, and a mass killing in Turkey.

5) This orthodox Islamic doctrine—incorporated, for example, into the “modern” Pakistani legal code (295C: “Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”)has wreaked havoc, in our era, particularly among Pakistan’s small Christian minority community.

6) “Rising Restrictions on Religion,” a report by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life issued August 9, 2011 found that application of the Sharia at present resulted in a disproportionate number of Muslim countries, twenty-one—registering the highest (i.e., worst) persecution scores on their scale. Furthermore, the Pew investigators observed, Eight-in-ten countries in the Middle East-North Africa region have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion, the highest share of any region. These penalties are enforced in 60% of the countries in the region.”

7) An Egyptian state security court, on November 28, 2012, issued a verdict, which sentenced to death seven expatriate Coptic Egyptians, as well as American pastor Terry Jones,for “blaspheming” Islam.

Egyptian Judge Saif al Nasr Soliman stated plainly when the ruling was issued, “The accused persons were convicted of insulting the Islamic religion through participating in producing and offering a movie that insults Islam and its prophet.”

8) Egypt’s extra-territorial application of the Sharia reflects a larger global campaign by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (subsequently renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC]). As the largest voting bloc in the UN, which represents mainstream, institutional Islam, and all the major Muslim countries, in addition to the Palestinian Authority — the OIC has lobbied continuously over the past two decades for a UN resolution insisting countries criminalize what it calls “defamation of religion.” Now the OIC, consistent with its Sharia-based “human rights” paradigm, the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which rejects freedom of conscience and speech as defined (and upheld) in the US Bill of Rights, and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is calling for a specific ban on speech allegedly impugning the character of Islam’s prophet, which the OIC terms “hate speech.”

9) The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), is well-accepted by the mainstream American Muslim community. The Islamic scholars affiliated with this group have attained influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States, and train American imams. Should the mainstream AMJA accomplish its goal of implementing Sharia in North America, the organization has already issued a ruling which sanctions the killing of non-Muslim “blasphemers”, courtesy of AMJA Secretary General Salah al-Sawy: (Dr. Salah Al-Sawy, 1/21/2009)—[F]or those scholars who say that repentance of a person who insults Allaah or His Messenger shall not accepted, [they] mean that repentance does not lift up the set punishment for cursing and insulting the Prophet, i.e., execution. Because the Prophet is the one who was actually wronged and insulted and he is no longer alive, therefore, he is not alive to practice his right to forgive him [the blasphemer] for what he did. Also, no Muslim is ever is entitled or authorized to forgive on the Prophet’s behalf.

10) Blasphemy committed by a Muslim is considered apostasy (see here, here, and here) from the Muslim creed, and therefore has been a so-called hadd offense (requiring severe, mandatory punishment), with a requisite death sentence since the advent of Islam. AMJA senior Fatwa Committee member Hatem al-Haj re-affirmed this classical, mainstream Islamic viewpoint for American Muslims in 2006: (Dr. Hatem al-Haj, 4/17/2006)—

As for the Sharia ruling, it is the punish­ment of killing for the man with the grand Four Fiqh Sharia scholars, and the same with the woman with the major Shari’ah scholars, and she is jailed with Al-Hanafiyyah scholars, as the prophet, prayers and peace of Allah be upon him, said: “Whoever a Muslim changes his/her religion, kill him/her,” and his saying: “A Muslim’s blood, who testifies that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not made permissible except by three reasons: the life for the life; the married adulterer and the that who abandons his/her religion.” Mirroring a shared communal understanding of their clerical leadership with regard to “blasphemy/apostasy,” the results of polling data collected by Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 US Muslims, indicate widespread support among American votaries of Islam for this fundamental rejection of the basic freedoms of expression and conscience, as guaranteed under the first amendment to the US Constitution. When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” and fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.”
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 11:48 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Senior Cleric for American Muslim Group: Islamic Punishment for Apostasy Is Death

Senior Cleric for American Muslim Group:
Islamic Punishment for Apostasy Is Death

(h/t Center for Security Policy) Dr. Hatem al-Haj, a senior committee member for the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), confirmed in the below fatwa from July 2011 that the Islamic punishment for apostasy is death. A couple of things stand out to me about this fatwa.

First, this fatwa was taken down from AMJA's website as far back as October 2011, along with other fatwas on the same topic, possibly in response to an article written by my colleague Andrew Bostom exposing the rulings in that same month. (See the fatwa on, while the link on AMJA's website is broken.) So either AMJA changed their minds about the penalty for apostasy; or, more likely, they just don't want non-Muslims seeing what they really think on controversial topics. If that's the case, then what else are they not telling us?

Second, the question that leads to the fatwa is tellingly not asking what the ruling is on apostasy, but rather how to explain this ruling to others, including non-Muslims. While Dr. al-Haj confirms that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death, he also recommends that when explaining this to others, you should start with the caveat that this is something which should only be carried out in a Muslim country through the court system.

AMJA likes to hide behind that caveat, but at the same time they encourage Muslims in the United States to use the American legal system in order to establish Islamic law (see here and here). So isn't it fair to assume that Dr. al-Haj and AMJA would like to eventually make death for apostates the law of the land here in the United States as well?

See my translation of Dr. al-Haj's fatwa below (see the original Arabic on his website):
The Ruling on the Apostate, and How We (Should) Explain It to Others
23 July 2011
Question: In view of the questions which we have been receiving in the Islamic centers these days, we ask you, sirs, to please explain how to respond to these questions, which are about the ruling on the apostate and his punishment.

Answer: Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon the Apostle of Allah.

I think you should begin by explaining that this is one of those things which is entrusted to the judicial systems in Islamic countries, and not to individuals in these countries or any others. Then make clear that the courts will examine these situations and decide them based on several factors.

But the ruling in the shari'a is death for men (who commit apostasy) according to all four (mainstream) schools (of Islamic jurisprudence). It is the same punishment for women according to most of the schools, but according to the Hanafis it is only imprisonment. This is according to the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH): "Whoever changed his religion, kill him"; and also, "It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah's apostle, except for one of the following three: a murderer, an adulterer, and one who leaves his religion and separates himself from the community."

This firm ruling is not the only option for the imam, for he can rule otherwise, if there is benefit (in doing so). The evidence for this is the apostasy of some in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), on whom the ruling was not carried out. For (the Prophet) said the following about those who apostatized from the Muslims and joined the Quraysh: "Whoever departed from us and went unto them, Allah has banished."

This is not something that was invented by Islam, but rather the ruling on the apostate is also in the Law of Moses (PBUH). The following is from the Book of Deuteronomy:
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again."

It is well-known that those who worshiped the calf were ordered to be killed. In the Book of Exodus 32:28, it mentioned the killing of 3,000 of the Levites for their apostasy: "And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

In explaining this issue to non-Muslims, you need to be wise and honest. May Allah help you.

Allah Almighty knows best.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:00 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Muslim Cleric Calls U.S. Aid to Egypt ‘Jizya’

Muslim Cleric Calls U.S. Aid to Egypt ‘Jizya’
Salafi sheikh exposes the true Islamic view of infidel dollars sent to Muslim nations.
by Raymond Ibrahim

As earlier suggested, the wonderful thing about Salafis—those extra “radical” Muslims who seek to emulate as literally as possible prophet Muhammad’s teachings and habits—is that they are so unabashed and frank about what they believe. Such is the degree of brainwashing that they have undergone. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded much earlier, doublespeak is not second nature to the Salafis.

The most recent example comes from Al Hafiz TV, an Egyptian Islamic station. During a roundtable discussion on the U.S. and foreign aid to Egypt, an Islamic cleric, clearly of the Salafi bent—he had their trademark mustache-less-beard—insisted that the U.S. must be treated contemptuously, like a downtrodden dhimmi, or conquered infidel; that Egypt must make the U.S. conform to its own demands; and that, then, all the money the U.S. offers to Egypt in foreign aid can be taken as rightfully earned jizya.

Historically, the jizya was money, or tribute, that conquered non-Muslims had to pay to their Muslim overlords to safeguard their existence, as indicated in Koran 9:29. As the spirit of Islam continues making a comeback, Muslims around the world continue calling for non-Muslims, especially Christian minorities under Islam, to resume paying the jizya, which was abolished in the 19th century thanks to European intervention.

According to the sheikh, Egypt must be less cooperative with the U.S. and at the same time insist for more monetary aid. If so, the sheikh believes that “America will accept; it will kiss our hands; and it will also increase its aid. And we will consider its aid as jizya, not as aid. But first we must make impositions on it.”

When the host asked the sheikh “Do the Americans owe us jizya?” he responded, “Yes,” adding that it is the price Americans have to pay “so we can leave them alone!” When the host asked the sheikh if he was proclaiming a fatwa, the latter exclaimed, “By Allah of course!” The sheikh added that, to become a truly Islamic state, Egypt must “impose on America to pay aid as jizya, before we allow it to realize its own interests, the ones which we agree to.”

While the Egyptian cleric was focused on “international jizya”—that is, money paid by one non-Muslim nation to a Muslim nation, U.S money to Egypt—other Muslims have been receiving and enjoying individual “jizya” from Western, infidel governments, in the form of welfare aid.

Just last February, for example, Anjem Choudary, an Islamic cleric and popular preacher in the United Kingdom, was secretly taped telling a Muslim audience to follow his example and get “Jihad Seeker’s Allowance” from the government—a pun on “Job Seeker’s Allowance.” The father of four, who receives more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits, referred to British taxpayers as “slaves,” adding, “We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for “right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [“Allah is Great”]. We take the money. Hopefully there’s no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this.”

Thus, the non-Muslim world should be grateful to the Salafis for always and ever exposing Islam’s teachings and beliefs. Immensely proud of and indoctrinated in their Islamic heritage, and like the earliest Muslim conquerors drunk with power and pride, convinced that Allah is on their side and they can do no wrong, today’s Salafis are unabashed when it comes to the things of Islam, from evoking them to upholding them.

But of course, all this honesty is for naught for those many in the West who, having eyes and ears, do not see or hear reality.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 03:29 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Shocking Video Shows Anti-Israel Protesters Assaulting Jewish Woman at Oakland Rally

Shocking Video Shows Anti-Israel Protesters Assaulting Jewish Woman at Oakland Rally

A pair of pro-Israel activists were assaulted both physically and verbally at an pro-Palestinian rally in Oakland, Calif. last week. The video was uploaded to YouTube on Friday, though the rally reportedly took place on March 13 at the Frank Ogawa Plaza on the fourth anniversary of the wounding of Tristan Anderson, an Oakland resident who was injured in the West Bank while protesting against the Israeli military.

The two pro-Israel activists staged their own counter-protest by drawing messages on the concrete in chalk. The female demonstrator, later identified as 22-year-old Hannah Larson, wrote a phrase in Hebrew meaning “the nation of Israel lives.” The other male pro-Israel activist wrote a more antagonizing phrase: “Hamas sucks pig sh*t.”

Once other anti-Israel protesters realized the duo were counter-protesting in support of Israel, one of the women at the rally went off. The woman, identified as Gabby Silverman, grabbed the chalk from Larson’s hand and began shoving and cursing at her furiously.

“You get the f**k out of here,” Silverman can be heard yelling. “Get the f**k out of here… You f**king whore. You get the f**k away from me, you f**king right-wing sh*thead.”

One of the anti-Israel protesters appears to inform them that one of their friends was “shot by the Israeli military.”

Hannah Larson (on her knees) attacked by pro-Palestinian activists in Oakland (photo credit: screen capture Alba5431/Youtube)

Even as Larson and her companion attempted to leave the scene, Silverman, along with a group of her fellow protesters, continued to follow and intimidate them into the street. She also continued to shove and verbally attack them.

One of the other anti-Israel protesters attempted to calm the woman down and hold her back, but let go after another woman told her, “no, no, let her do her thing.”

“You f**king right-wing piece of sh*t!” Silverman continued to scream.

Watch the shocking video below (Warning! Very strong language throughout):

Warning Graphic Language

The two pro-Israel activists, completely outnumbered, were driven all the way onto the street.

“You angered an entire crowd and you should get the f**k out of here,” another man chimed in. “You gonna stand up to 60 people or you gonna get the f**k out of here?”

The confrontation continued to rage until security showed up to diffuse to the situation.

Silverman later reportedly wrote of the incident on her Facebook page:
“We created a space at the plaza to chalk the names of our dead friends and imprisoned comrades and these zionist pieces of sh*t chalk ‘am yisrael chai’ over it. This is exactly the settler colonialist mindset that we are fighting against, putting their right wing bullsh*t over the space for our dead friends. ‘Am yisrael chai’ means ‘the people of Israel live’, which seems mellow enough but its the main slogan of the right wing. My only regret is calling her a whore. That was inappropriate and I’m sorry. Solidarity with whores everywhere!”
(H/T: Times of Israel)

Last edited by Paparock; 03-20-2013 at 03:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 03:48 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Counterterrorism experts starting to awaken to the reality of taqiyya

Counterterrorism experts starting to awaken to the reality of taqiyya

Counter-jihadists have known about taqiyya for years, but they've been dismissed as greasy Islamophobes with no credibility. Mainstream (i.e. politically correct, as you can see from the denials below that there is anything distinctively Islamic about taqiyya) counterterrorism experts, however, are now beginning to realize that the "Islamophobes" were on to something.

Qur'an 3:28 warns believers not to take unbelievers as "friends or helpers" (َأَوْلِيَا -- a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them." This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for "guard" in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan -- hence the increasingly familiar term taqiyya.

Ibn Kathir says that the phrase Pickthall renders as "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them" means that "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers" may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." Abu Ad-Darda' was a companion of Muhammad.

While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi'ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi'ites, "it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Qur'an 3:28." The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.

Also, there is Muhammad's statement, "war is deceit." He also allowed for lying in battle and between a husband and wife. And when he gave permission to one of his followers, Muhammad bin Maslama, to murder one of his critics, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, he also gave Muhammad bin Maslama permission to lie to Ka'b in order to lure him close enough to be killed.

And Muhammad is the "excellent example of conduct" for Muslims (Qur'an 33:21).

"Taqiyya, or the terrorist ‘art of deception,'" by Anne-Diandra Louarn for France 24, March 14:
A year after the Toulouse attacks by Mohamed Merah..., French counterterrorism experts are monitoring the practice of "taqiyya" - or deceiving society by concealing one’s faith – and its uses in jihadist circles.Nearly a year ago, as one of France’s longest-ever police sieges was about to end on the morning of March 22, 2012, Mohamed Merah – also known as “the Toulouse gunman” – uttered a cry that seemed enigmatic to the uninformed, but was weighted with meaning for counterterrorism experts.

It’s not the money, it’s the deception that’s critical,” said the 23-year-old French-Algerian shortly before he jumped off his Toulouse apartment window and was gunned down by an elite French anti-terror unit.

The somewhat cryptic cry was a likely reference to “taqiyya” – a form of religious dissimulation or legal dispensation in which believers deny their faith or even commit blasphemous acts as a deception if they are seriously threatened or at risk of persecution.

"Concealment is a technique as old as the world," explained French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trévidic in an interview with FRANCE 24. “It’s also an essential component of any war strategy, regardless of the people involved.”
Sure, but Islam is unique among religions in having a "war strategy."
In Islam, taqiyya dates back to the time when Shiite Muslims were hounded and persecuted by the Sunni caliphs following the 7th century schism between the followers of the Prophet’s son-in-law, Ali, and the Sunni caliphate.

For the traditionally persecuted Shiite minority, deception – or taqiyya – was considered a matter of survival. Although the term does not exist in Sunni jurisprudence, there have been rare cases of Sunnis practicing taqiyya in extraordinary circumstances.
Actually, because it is based on the Qur'an, many Sunnis practice it, even if they don't refer to it as such.
But it was not until the term was recovered by Sunni jihadists trained in the Afghan terror camps that it began to get the attention of counterterrorism experts as trained and radicalised young men began practising taqiyya as a means of integrating and disguising themselves in Western societies.“Taqiyya, as it’s understood today, is actually a radicalised version of concealment, in the sense that some religious extremists have found 'dalils' (or 'evidence') in the Koran that would justify their actions,” said Trévidic.
Actually, it isn't just "extremists" who have found evidence for taqiyya in the Qur'an, but venerable centuries-old and mainstream Muslim authorities, as explained above.
From Afghanistan to Europe and CanadaIn France, intelligence agencies have been aware of the radicalised adoption of taqiyya since the mid-1990s, when al Qaeda began to advocate this technique among recruits plotting attacks on Western targets. The message was also targeted at French citizens of North African origins.

“These people who took the path of taqiyya were called ‘sleepers’. This is when we began to discover that after their passage through the jihadist training camps in Afghanistan, the recruits were sent home and directed to make a show of their ordinary, integrated lives - sometimes even masquerading as unbelievers,” said Trévidic.

One of the best-known jihadist sleepers was the "Hamburg cell", the infamous group of radicalized students in that German city who went on to execute the September 11, 2001, attacks – including 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta.

Another example of a terrorist in disguise was Fateh Kamel, a handsome Algerian-Canadian who was sentenced to eight years in jail by a French court in 1999 for supporting a terrorist plot against targets in Paris.

Assessing the danger of Islamists
But while Merah’s behaviour may have been deceptive in keeping with taqiyya norms, his activities were well known to the French secret services, according to Trévidic.

According to the anti-terror judge, the challenge for French authorities is not so much to identify the followers of taqiyya, but to assess their threat levels. "That is the whole problem of the DCRI [Direction centrale du renseignement intérieur – or the French domestic intelligence agency] in the Merah case," noted Trévidic.

If Merah’s suspicious trips to places like Pakistan were being monitored and French intelligence agents were aware that he belonged to a small Toulouse-based Salafist group, they failed to distinguish between a low-level delinquent and a potentially dangerous Islamist militant – or at which point the former could become the latter.

Trévidic acknowledges that it’s a challenge for the DCRI to identify radicalised youth ready and capable of putting their plans into action. But that’s the strength of taqiyya followers: in the impoverished, immigrant-dominated French suburbs – or banlieues in French - they often behave like local gangsters or gang leaders. To escape the counterterrorism radar, it’s not uncommon for potential terrorists to engage in minor acts of delinquency.

‘Rediscovering what we already know’
"No country is truly equipped against concealment. What we know today is that practices such as taqiyya require a deep infiltration of our territory, an in-depth knowledge of groups and individuals, as well as an effective system of recovering and retrieving information in the field,” said Trévidic.

The dismantling of suspected sleeper cells, such as the March 7-8 arrests of three terror suspects in the southern French town of Marignane (a suburb of Marseille), has intensified in the wake of the Merah case. "In terrorism, we are constantly rediscovering what we already know," notes Trévidic.

It’s a view mirrored by Alain Gresh, deputy director of the left-wing monthly Le Monde Diplomatique. In an interview with FRANCE 24, Gresh noted that taqiyya is not a new phenomenon. "Who are the terrorists who shout their intentions from rooftops?" he asked.

In a blog post published on March 2, Gresh argued that the media treatment of taqiyya has sometimes been “racist” and inappropriate. "Some journalists have suggested that Arabs have a perverse way of thinking that is permitted by their religion. Concealment is not limited to radical Islam. It is found in all religious doctrines and even in political doctrines,” he noted.
Alain Gresh should know better. Taqiyya is a doctrine of Islam, not of Arabs. Does he think that all Muslims are Arabs? And no, there is nothing comparable to taqiyya in Christianity -- the Roman Catholic understanding of mental reservation probably comes closest, but is still miles away from the sophisticated and elaborate deception of unbelievers that taqiyya can involve. Christianity never encourages concealment of one's faith -- the stories of Christian martyrs frequently involve refusal to renounce one's faith even when under pressure of death. This is in sharp contrast to the Qur'an's excusing of people who deny their faith under pressure: "Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief -- except for one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith -- but those who open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment" (Qur'an 16:106).
Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 05:26 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation A Muslim ‘Reformer’s’ Idea of Free Speech

A Muslim ‘Reformer’s’ Idea of Free Speech
Islamic activists reveal their true contempt for the First Amendment.
by Andrew Harrod

KARAMAH is a self-proclaimed group of “Muslim women lawyers for human rights” that “contributes to the understanding and promotion of human rights worldwide, particularly the rights of Muslim women under Islamic and civil law.” On March 19, 2013, KARAMAH hosted at Howard University School of Law in Washington, DC, in conjunction with the local chapter of the Muslim Law Students Association (MLSA), the presentation “The Limits of Free Speech in a Global Era: Does America’s Free Speech Model Endanger Muslim Americans?” Strangely enough for a self-professed “human rights” organization, this presentation outlined precisely a legal understanding restricting freedom, namely with respect to speech. In all, the evening lecture called into question the commitment of Muslims to human rights and only highlighted the opposition worldwide to the unhindered debate and discussion protected in America.

The evening’s speaker was Qasim Rashid, described by KARAMAH as an “award winning member of the Muslim Writers Guild of America [MWGA] and emerging legal scholar.” Rashid spoke on the basis of his paper “In Harm’s Way: The Desperate Need to Update America’s Current Free Speech Model.” In introducing Rashid, KARAMAH’s assistant director of programs, Eugene Hummel, stated that this paper had received “very good reviews” from legal scholars.

Rashid set the lecture’s tone with a displayed Powerpoint paper abstract stating that the “American current free speech model is archaic.” This model had the effect of “leaving innocent third parties dangerously exposed to harm” while the “instigator has zero responsibility.” Thus a model change was “necessary” under which “free speech is not unjustly chilled.”

Rashid’s prime exhibit in his analysis is the March 20, 2011, burning of a Koran by the previously obscure Gainesville, Florida, pastor Terry Jones. Due to such “malicious speech,” Rashid explained, “innocent lives are lost and real harm is done” in a world in which no one is “isolated” given modern technology. Outraged rioting and killing Muslims in Afghanistan claimed 16 lives. Rashid argued that Jones “targeted” with “foreseeable” results people in Afghanistan with his Koran burning, including translations into local Afghan languages for his online video presentations.

On the basis of this example, Rashid argued that “vitriolic speech” should not destroy the “privilege of free speech.” Rashid, though, denied wanting an “anti-blasphemy law” that would punish “innocent or innocuous differences of opinion” concerning religion. In this context Rashid cited the “horribly restrictive” blasphemy laws of his ancestral Pakistan persecuting, among others, Ahmadiyya Muslims. Rather, quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s 1919 Schenk v. United States Supreme Court opinion, Rashid sees evaluation of speech as a “question of proximity and degree.” Rashid’s model would prohibit speech with a “violent proximate impact” in a “surgical decision” while leaving other discourse untouched.

Rashid analyzed American history and foreign law to support his general conclusion that “reasonable restriction” of speech is “not unwarranted.” Like his fellow Huffington Post blogger and friend Craig Considine (see the article comments section here), Rashid cited George Washington’s Rules of Civility (Rules 49 and 65, specifically) transcribed by him according to the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation “sometime before the age of 16.” Drawing upon Considine’s previous nonsensical comparison of George Washington with Islam’s prophet Muhammad critiqued by me, Rashid thus sought original intent constitutional interpretation in Washington’s adolescent writings.

Rashid also cited the common proverbial paraphrase of Holmes Schenk opinion against “shouting fire in crowded theater.” Yet as one analysis notes, Holmes reversed himself in a dissent the same year in Abrams v. United States, writing of the “free trade in ideas.” The 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, meanwhile, overruled Schenk with the standard that speech in opposition to a law was prohibited only when “inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” At any rate, Alan Dershowitz analyzed in 1989 that Holmes’ flawed “shouting fire” analogy was merely the legally unprotected verbal equivalent of a “kid who pulls a fire alarm in the absence of a fire.”

The rest of Rashid’s American legal analysis is equally off point. Quoting again Holmes’ Schenk opinion involving opposition to World War I conscription, Rashid stated that when a “nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace…will not be endured so long as men fight.” Rashid found the Koran burning unacceptable as speech that “inspires the enemy” in Afghanistan. Such a standard, though, would call into question any speech in America such as anti-war protests that could inspire any American enemy anywhere at any time.

Additionally, Koran burnings would not so much inspire hostile militant Muslims such as those in Al Qaeda but rather anger them or, alternatively, have no effect, given Rashid’s contradictory understanding that “terrorists are irrational.” Although dismissed by Rashid as an “apples to giraffes” comparison involving “extremists,” I indicated to Rashid that dangerous Muslims groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (whose motto declares the Koran “our law”) revere the Koran as their chief ideological document. Jones’ burning of the Koran is thus akin to Americans burning Mein Kampf during World War II.

What Rashid really meant by inspiration, however, was that Jones would anger previously non-hostile Muslims who would then give their “hearts and minds” to America’s enemies in a counterinsurgency campaign of global dimensions. As I have written before, this entails in Rashid’s analysis that Western military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, “rather than projecting freedom into these countries, is at times having precisely the opposite effect, holding the freedom of Western societies hostage to the well-being of individual citizens abroad.”

In the national defense context, Rashid also discussed dangerous leaks of intelligence to the media during World War II as well as the Obama Administration’s refusal to release photos of Osama bin Laden’s corpse. Yet such governmental control of sensitive information is distinct from the discussion of ideas presented by Jones.

Turning towards civilian analogies, Rashid discussed various illegal inflictions of “emotional distress” such as bullying and racist cross burnings. To quote Holmes in Schenk again, though, such intimidation involves “words that may have all the effect of force.” Alternatively, “fighting words” defined by the Supreme Court in the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision “by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” and “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” By contrast, any potential observers may choose to ignore Jones’ symbolism. Rashid’s reference to “hate speech,” meanwhile, something also curiously cited by the presiding judge in a recent Washington, DC, case involving anti-jihad subway advertisements, has no definition in American jurisprudence.

Citing various data, Rashid also argued that contemporary American liberal views on free speech were “recently developed.” Moreover, Rashid rightfully noted that the “unique” liberality of America’s free speech regime in comparison to other democracies. Yet Rashid did not explain how a policy’s uniqueness or novelty relates to its rightness.

Among the most troubling aspects of Rashid’s presentation was its vagueness beyond his solitary discussion of the Jones case. Multiple questions by me sought an application of his model to numerous free speech controversies such as Christian blasphemy (e.g. **** Christ, available for Internet viewing without any reported riots here), Nazi rallies, the “anti-Islam rants and tirades” (Rashid) of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, and burning of the American flag (in wartime or not). In response, Rashid evasively rejected any “verdict” in my “hypotheticals” inappropriately calling for “pinpoint” decisions. Rather, Rashid sought undefined “case by case,” not “broad brush,” decisions.

Rashid’s free speech analysis with its outdated legal precedents ultimately makes no more sense than that of his fellow Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA spokesman and Huffington Post blogger Harris Zafar, who, like Rashid, previously wrote of free speech as a “privilege” at the Washington Post’s website. As I previously analyzed, Zafar’s incoherent rambling condemned various critics of Islam as “enemies of peace,” yet still protested a respect for their speech rights. Building upon a similar attribution of crimes to the individuals whose ideas offended the perpetrators, Rashid has gone beyond the analysis of his colleague Zafar with the all-too logical step previously foreseen by me of prohibiting such speech. As the event title’s reference to “American Muslims” suggests, moreover, Rashid’s model will encompass not just the angry reactions of Muslims abroad in places like Afghanistan, but also domestically.

The end result in America would be little different from the Pakistani blasphemy laws decried by Rashid whose provisions punish any desecration of the Koran with life imprisonment. Surprisingly, the “human rights” organization KARAMAH has given a venue to a person who wants to “get the message out” about what he sees as existing and future limits on this divine right in the name of Islam. If the best such self-proclaimed Islamic human rights organizations can offer are Three Stooges of Islamic naiveté and domination like Considine, Rashid, and Zafar, the prospects for freedom coexisting with the faith of Islam are poor indeed.

Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2013, 04:43 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation “Islam’s flag will be raised above the White House”

“Islam’s flag will be raised above the White House”

A video recording from a recent Friday sermon in Egypt, where the imam swears to Allah several times that the flag of Islam will be raised above the White House of America, recently appeared on the Arabic Internet. According to the imam preaching, all Muslims need do is be patient and continue working towards this goal.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 06:00 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow U.S. "Palestinian" non-profit accuses Jews of using Christian blood in Passover

U.S. "Palestinian" non-profit accuses Jews of using Christian blood in Passover

But remember: to oppose these vicious and vile anti-Semites would be "hateful."

"This Blood Libel Brought to You by the West," by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, April 1:
Following a rash of criticism from U.S. Jewish groups, a Palestinian nonprofit funded by Western governments has apologized for accusing Jewish people of using “Christian blood” during the Passover holiday.

Miftah, a Palestinian nonprofit group founded by Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian lawmaker, said Monday it regrets publishing an article on its website accusing “the Jews [of using] the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover.”

Miftah had refused to apologize for the article last week, instead lashing out at pro-Israel bloggers who highlighted the offensive article.

The article, which has since been removed from Miftah’s website, sparked outrage among Jewish leaders and others who condemned the Western-backed nonprofit for perpetuating an anti-Semitic blood libel.

Miftah has largely received its funding from Western organizations and governments, including U.S. taxpayer-backed National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Ford Foundation, the United Nations, and several European governments.

The original article had criticized President Barack Obama for praising the Jewish holiday of Passover, which marks the Jewish people’s freedom from slavery in Egypt.

“Does Obama in fact know the relationship, for example, between ‘Passover’ and ‘Christian blood’..?!” said the article, which was first found and publicized by the pro-Israel Elder of Ziyon blog. “Or ‘Passover’ and ‘Jewish blood rituals?!’”

“Much of the chatter and gossip about historical Jewish blood rituals in Europe are real and not fake as they claim; the Jews used the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover,” the article continued.

Miftah at first defended its right to post the article in a statement titled, “MIFTAH denounces smear campaign against it.”

“The obscure pro-Israeli website ‘The Elder of Ziyon’ has wrongly accused MIFTAH and Dr. Ashrawi of promoting Jewish blood libel during Passover through its publication of an Arabic-language article that briefly addressed the subject,” the defense stated.
The article was about promoting dialogue, Miftah maintained.
Hah. "Dialogue." Indeed. How apt. "Dialogue" usually is supremacist denigration of the other masked with deception.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2013, 06:48 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation "There is no such thing as 'Islamophobia.' This is a term of propaganda designed to

Sam Harris vs. Glenn Greenwald: "There is no such thing as 'Islamophobia.' This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam."

Be sure to read this entire exchange between Sam Harris and Glenn Greenwald. It is extremely revealing of how the "Islamophobia" canard works: those who further this manipulative propaganda term tar anyone and everyone, no matter who he is or what else he has done or not done, with charges of "racism" and "bigotry" for making even the mildest observation about how the texts and teachings of Islam are used to justify violence and supremacism.

Note Greenwald's absolute refusal to engage Harris in any rational discussion of the issues involved. This is not limited to Greenwald, as ridiculous as he is. Regular Jihad Watch readers may have noticed that I have tried to engage Leftist and Islamic supremacist critics of my work in genuine discussion and debate many, many times over the years, and almost always have been met with arrogant and contemptuous refusal based on the prima facie and unexamined assumption that the ideas I put forward are manifestly false and not worth discussing.

And the defamation builds on itself: for example, Reza Aslan recently tweeted that he wouldn't debate me because my organizations have been classified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is only his latest excuse among many, and it is obvious that the real reason he won't debate me is because he knows that he would be defeated and publicly exposed -- but my point here is that the SPLC's designation is a propaganda tactic of its own, not based on any facts but on a desire to marginalize and stigmatize a whole category of thought, and rule it out of acceptable discourse. It is merely the end point of the process we see beginning with Harris here, in Greenwald's smearing and subsequent dismissal of him. If Sam Harris keeps criticizing Islam, he will find not just Greenwald but all his liberal friends ostracizing him, and the SPLC may well brand him as a hater as well.

The key takeaway from this exchange is that the purveyors of the "Islamophobia" and "bigotry" smears have nothing and are going on nothing: these charges are merely tactics designed to demonize and marginalize all who dare to criticize Islam, jihad and Islamic supremacism. I have no idea what Sam Harris thinks of me -- he may have bought the propaganda that his friends have been pumping out like sewage for years, but after this exchange with Greenwald I hope he realizes how exactly that process works. And after reading this I can say to him: Welcome to my world, Sam. Keep this up, and before too long you, too, will be a "far-right, racist, bigoted Islamophobe."

"Dear Fellow Liberal: An Exchange with Glenn Greenwald," by Sam Harris, April 2

I’m up against a book deadline and have had to step away from blogging for a few months. One of the benefits of this time, as well as one of its frustrations, is that I’ve had to ignore the usual ephemera that might have otherwise captured my attention. For instance, in recent days both Salon and Al Jazeera published outrageous attacks on me and my fellow “new atheists.” The charges? Racism and “Islamophobia” (again). Many readers have written to ask when I will set the record straight. In fact, I consider both articles unworthy of a response, and I was quite happy to have a reason to ignore them. But then I noticed that the columnist Glenn Greenwald had broadcast an approving Tweet about the Al Jazeera piece to his fans (above).

I’ve had pleasant exchanges with Greenwald in the past, so I wrote to him privately to express my concern. As you will see, I came right to the point. I was simply outraged that he would amplify this pernicious charge of racism so thoughtlessly. However, I am even more appalled by his response. The man actually has thought about it. And thinking hasn’t helped.

Here is our unedited exchange:
* * *
On 2 April 2013, Sam Harris wrote:

Before you retweet defamatory garbage about me to 125,000 people, it would nice if you looked at the article from which that joker had mined that “very revealing quote.” The whole point of my original article, written in 2006, was to bemoan the loss of liberal moral clarity in the war on terror—and to worry about the influence of the Christian conservatives in the U.S. and fascists in Europe.

Here is the very revealing quote in context:
Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

On Apr 2, 2013, Glenn Greenwald wrote:
Sam -

To be honest, I really don’t see how that full quote changes anything. You are indeed saying - for whatever reasons - that the fascists are the ones speaknig [sic] most sensibly about Islam, which is all that column claimed.

I know Murtaza’s writings really well and he’s always trustworthy and diligent, and I think he was here, too.

I’m not sure how you can blame me for tweeting an article published in Al Jazeera and written by a respectable commentator, but I’m happy to post your email to me - or some edited version of it as you wish - and tweet that, too.
Glenn Greenwald

On 2 April 2013, Sam Harris wrote:

You have got to be kidding…

A few points that it would be nice to get into your brain:

1. There is absolutely nothing racist about my criticism of Islam. I criticize white, western converts in precisely the same terms—in fact, I am even more critical of them, because they weren’t brainwashed into the faith from birth. And one of my main concerns—always ignored by “trustworthy and diligent” people like Murtaza—is for all the suffering of women, homosexuals, freethinkers, and intellectuals in indigenous Muslim societies. One of my friends (and heroes) is Ayaan Hirsi Ali—whom I’m constantly having to defend from similarly tendentious attacks from my fellow liberals. How you get “racism” out of these convictions, I’ll never know. (But you know how Murtaza would summarize this point: “Harris says, ‘Some of my best friends are black’!”) The truth is that the liberal (multicultural) position on Islam is racist. If a predominantly white community behaved this way—the Left would effortlessly perceive the depth of the problem. Imagine Mormons regularly practicing honor killing or burning embassies over cartoons…

2. I wasn’t making common cause with fascists—I was referring to the terrifying fact (again, back in 2006), that when you heard someone making sense on the subject of radical Islam in Europe—e.g. simply admitting that it really is a problem—a little digging often revealed that they had some very unsavory connections to Anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, neo-Nazi, etc. hate groups. The point of my article was to worry that the defense of civil society was being outsourced to extremists.

3. If you can’t see that Murtaza’s article is an unscrupulous exercise in quote-mining, you’re not paying attention. How can I blame you for retweeting it? The article is defamatory—indeed, it is beneath responding to—and it was destined to be buried in noise until you retweeted it. You endorsed it and amplified its effects—hence my annoyance. What part of that process don’t you understand?


On Apr 2, 2013, Glenn Greenwald wrote:
Sam -

You can sneer and hurl insults all you want, but I’ve long believed that the crowd of which you’re a part has been flirting with, and at times embracing, Islamophobia. I’m sure you saw the Salon article by Nathan Lean from a couple days ago, which I believe I also tweeted, that made the same point

( lamophobia/).

I understand “the process” perfectly fine. I think you’re embarrassed that people are now paying attention to some of the darker and uglier sentiments that have been creeping into this form of athesim advocacy, and are lashing out at anyone helping to shine a light on that. A bizarre and wholly irrational fixation on Islam, as opposed to the evils done by other religions, has been masquerdaing in the dark under the banner of rational atheism for way too long.

The fact that you intended to convey a more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone when praising fascists for their uniquely “sensible” view of Islam doesn’t change the fact that you did say exactly what Murtaza said you said.

My offer to publish our whole email exchange and then tweet it still stands so that anyone is able to decide for themselves. Let me know if you’d like me to do that.


On 2 April 2013, Sam Harris wrote:


Yes, I saw the Lean piece—also absurdly unfair. The idea that “new atheism” is a cover for a racist hatred of Muslims is ridiculous (and, again, crudely defamatory). I have written an entire book attacking Christianity. And do you know what happens when I or any of my “new atheist” colleagues criticize Christians for their irrational beliefs? They say, “Of course, you feel free to attack us, but you would never have the courage to criticize Islam.” As you can see, our Christian critics follow our work about as well as you do.

Needless to say, there are people who hate Arabs, Somalis, and other immigrants from predominantly Muslim societies for racist reasons. But if you can’t distinguish that sort of blind bigotry from a hatred and concern for dangerous, divisive, and irrational ideas—like a belief in martyrdom, or a notion of male “honor” that entails the virtual enslavement of women and girls—you are doing real harm to our public conversation. Everything I have ever said about Islam refers to the content and consequences of its doctrine. And, again, I have always emphasized that its primary victims are innocent Muslims—especially women and girls.

There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people like you have been taken in by it.

Did you happen to see The Book of Mormon? Do you know how the Mormons protested this attack upon their faith? They placed ads for Mormonism in the Playbill. Imagine staging a similar production about Islam: Would it be “bizarre and wholly irrational” for Trey Parker and Matt Stone to worry that the Muslim community might have a different response?

Your treatment of these issues, and of me in this email exchange, has been remarkably disingenuous. If I had endorsed a similarly libelous attack on you and broadcast it to all my readers, you would also be annoyed. Just imagine how you would view me if I then defended my actions in the way that you have here, claiming that you are just “embarrassed” to have been found out to be the racist that you are.

Yes, I think we should publish this. It might be useful for our readers to see how difficult it is to have an honest conversation about these things, even in private.


Last edited by Paparock; 04-04-2013 at 06:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 02:59 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Who is an ‘Islamist’ and Why it Matters

Who is an ‘Islamist’ and Why it Matters
Based on the Associated Press's definition, whom exactly can a reporter call an Islamist?
By: J. E. Dyer

April 7th, 2013

Egyptian President Mahmoud Morsi
Photo Credit: YY

The Associated Press has decided that the word “Islamist” may not be used to describe anything objectionable. The Jewish Press’s Lori Lowenthal Marcus calls out the relevant passage from the news service’s newly revised stylebook:
[An Islamist is] an advocate of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.
Hmmm. It’s an interesting question who will be called an Islamist by A.P. writers, given this definition.

Who is an Islamist?
Presumably, Mohammed Morsi could be called an Islamist by the A.P. – unless the second sentence above cancels out the first, making it impossible to call anyone an “Islamist.” And maybe that’s the case; if so, defining “Islamist” is an exercise in futility for the A.P.

But will Morsi be called an Islamist? By the letter of the A.P. definition, being labeled an Islamist would put Morsi in company with Hamas, the Iranian clerical council, and the Taliban. He belongs there, of course, but will that association be considered politically correct, given that the U.S. government is committed to Morsi’s success, and continues to deliver arms to him?

Hamas and the Taliban are terrorist organizations, but are or have been government authorities as well (the latter aspiring to be one again), reordering government and society precisely in accordance with laws they deem to be prescribed by Islam. Iran’s leaders sponsor terrorism, as well as doing the reordering thing in the name of Islam.

In fact, Hizballah fits the bill as well, being a terrorist organization which currently governs Lebanon. Among this terrorist-governing group, Hizballah may have made the least effort to reorder government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. But then, Hizballah governs a tiny, fractious, all-but-ungovernable nation with mostly porous borders, and in that role has been more concerned since January 2011 with holding power than with remaking society. Does that mean there is some meaningful sense in which Hezbollah is not “Islamist” – even though it proclaims sharia and holds its political goals in common with Hamas and Iran (and has considerable overlap with Morsi in Egypt)?

Perhaps the seemingly narrow A.P. definition of “Islamist” is meant to ensure that only those who advocate Islamism from the more consensual environment of Western liberal societies will meet it. This proposition will run into its own set of troubles, however, partly because radicals like Britain’s Anjem Choudary, who have been, so to speak, the face of Islamism in the West, might be considered ineligible for the title due to their explosively radical demeanor. If Choudary isn’t an Islamist, who is?

That remains a good question, considering that other, more mainstream Western organizations may have ties through their leadership, like CAIR’s, to the Muslim Brotherhood and even terrorist groups, but they do not overtly propose to reorder government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Does that mean they are not Islamist? And if not, what does that mean?

At present, CAIR’s efforts are not focused directly on reordering government and society, but rather on undermining one of the essential pillars of Western civilization: unfettered pursuit of the truth – about radical Islam as about anything else. Government agencies, with their top-down institutional pieties, are an easy target for outright censorship in this regard.

The A.P. Stylebook revision is something different, and perhaps more insidious. Presumably, an A.P. writer would not refer to CAIR’s involvement in redefining “Islamist” as a method of Islamism, although it is one. And, in fairness, there is a good case to be made that rewriting definitions for political reasons is something the Western left requires no prompting to do. Need it be “Islamist” to define categories prejudicially? It certainly doesn’t have to be “Islamist” to label anyone whose arguments you don’t like a “racist.” The Western left thought that one up all on its own.

The lack of firm ground to stand on in this analysis is quintessential in the propositions of radicals. Corruption and politicization of the language are common radical tactics. Whom, exactly, can an A.P. writer call an Islamist, given all these factors? The antiseptic definition of Islamism approved by CAIR might apply only to Islamic theoreticians who never actually engage in political advocacy – if there are any.

My guess is: it will effectively apply to no one. Although “Islamist” has been redefined to make it sound as if sharia advocates are moderates, the easily-unearthed associations of political sharia advocates with violent or Bolshevik-pattern radicals will tar all Islamists with the same brush – which, frankly, is ground truth anyway. But since it is inconvenient truth, A.P. writers won’t be able to find a use for “Islamist.”

Why we need the term “Islamist”
And that is a real problem. It’s not a problem because the distinction between political sharia advocates and violent cadre is strategically important; it’s a problem because distinguishing between radicalized/politicized advocacy groups and the non-radicalized/politicized mass of Muslims is important.

There are still millions of Muslims throughout the world who are not political advocates of sharia. This doesn’t mean that such people don’t have a hazy vision of there someday being a sharia caliphate; many of them probably have that vision. But they are no more energized to go out with heat-seeking missiles (or lawyers) and “immanentize the eschaton” than are Christians who foresee the day when Jesus will come again, or Jews who believe that they are still waiting for the Messiah.

There must remain a political space in which the non-radicalized can continue to be non-radicalized. The West is uniquely equipped to provide it, and it is in both our interests – the West’s and the non-radicalized Muslim world’s – that we do so. Modern Muslims have lived peacefully in the West for decades, because most of them have not been “Islamists”: advocates of reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Islamist leaders do not acknowledge the distinction between themselves and the non-radicalized Muslim citizens of Western nations – but the Western nations must. It is in our best interest not only to acknowledge it but to ensure that it is a basis for policy.

The broader basis for a winning Western approach
In my view, the use of the “Islamist” distinction, while it is important, should not be the main focus of Western dialogue on this matter. What must be most important to us is to enforce traditional Western beliefs about freedom, tolerance, the rule of law and the underpinnings of civilization. This doesn’t mean forcing them on others; it means protecting them within our borders, advocating them in international and cross-cultural discourse, and privileging them, alongside other considerations, in our decisions about foreign relations and trade.

Western freedom, including freedom of intellectual inquiry, freedom of speech, and freedom of public advocacy, has never been the norm around the world. It always requires commitment and positive protection, because it is always under attack. Remembering that fact is essential in considering our relations with the Islamic world, so that we will not get our feelings hurt or give in to fearful, unwary surprise when there is push-back against our level of freedom.

America’s Founders and our British forebears, believed that men have a natural right to these freedoms. They also believed that when this right is honored and protected, the freedom that results brings an unparalleled payoff in social goods. People are at their best when their freedoms are protected. They live in peace with their neighbors; they have a hopeful view of the future; they produce, trade, invent, enjoy, and give with unequaled fervor and success; and they exercise more tolerance than they do under more restrictive social and governmental organizations. The Founders did not prize rights and freedoms merely as negative injunctions against the overuse of state power. They prized them because of their unique positive results.

If we do not find in ourselves the same belief, we will lose our freedoms. We must believe in them, to such an extent that we advocate, enforce, and defend them even when some claim that they are offensive or racist.

We must have the confidence to affirm – and act as if – our freedoms are not offensive or racist. We must do this without caveat or exception. This means, for example, that it is not offensive or racist for the prevailing society to enforce safety for women walking the city streets unveiled, regardless of who is a majority in the neighborhood; nor to enforce safety for gays coming out of bars at night; or for Jews attending school (see here for a general summary of increasing attacks on Jews in Europe); or for Christians mounting a public protest; or for cartoonists who depict Mohammed in print.

Nor is it racist or offensive for Western governments to ensure that all their citizens have the same rights in divorce proceedings or domestic disputes, or that the laws on polygamy apply equally to all. It may be anti-libertarian, but it is not racist, for Western local governments to require that cab drivers accept passengers carrying dogs or bottles of liquor. Often, applying the law equally means that some end up dissatisfied, but the West has learned the benefits of having a government of laws and not of men.

Freedom of intellectual inquiry is a highly prized Western value; Islam, like all other religions or philosophical ideas, will have to live with criticism in the West. Period. Sometimes that criticism will take an annoying or deliberately provocative form. Too bad. Our rules work better than anyone else’s ever have to foster hope and prosperity for the people. There’s a reason we don’t get into blood feuds over verbal provocations: because it’s stupid and destructive. Governments owe it to their people, and individuals owe it to their families and friends, to refrain from such counterproductive pursuits.

Muslims versus “Islamists”
Millions of Muslims have lived successfully in the Western societies that honor these principles. The issue is not whether Islam is better at promoting some other idea of social harmony and value. The West must not be the battleground for settling that question. The issue for the West must be that what we believe in and have cultivated works well, and accords with our most basic beliefs about the rights and dignities of humanity. We find it to be a good, productive, and necessary way to live – we find it to be moral and honorable – and we will enforce it on our territory. Muslims who choose to live among us will have to respect our code.

Most of them have, over the years. Most of them will continue to do so, and be good citizens whom we are happy to have as neighbors – if we provide the safe space in which they can make the choice.

The predators seeking to void that space are the Islamists. To make policy decisions that safeguard the quiescent space of freedom, we must distinguish between Muslim people, many of whom are prepared to worship and proselytize in an atmosphere of freedom and non-compulsion, and Islamism as an ideological, political-authoritarian motivation. For the sake of the West – indeed, in my view, for the sake of all mankind – there has to be a method of making this distinction rhetorically.

The future of Islamism…
I call ideological advocacy for sharia “Islamism,” and associate it where justified with radical violence. But the most important trend today is what I call “state-Islamism,” which is the specific focus on taking over the governments of armed nations and imposing sharia from the halls of political power.

Iran effectively launched this trend in 1979 and the Taliban continued it after the Soviet troops left Afghanistan. In different ways, Erdogan has been putting his own stamp on this trend in Turkey; and Hizballah, Fatah, and Hamas have been maneuvering into more-or-less-governmental positions on the territories over which they hold sway. Algeria, Somalia, and Yemen have all dealt for decades with factions aspiring to impose sharia from the seat of national government; other African nations like Nigeria and Kenya are seeing such factions emerge. Now Morsi is busy imposing sharia on Egypt, and Tunisia looks virtually certain to become a sharia state as well. The fight for Syria is a fight over the imposition of sharia – and if the Islamists win there, Iraq and Jordan will be on borrowed time as non-sharia-subverted states.

The more established the state-Islamist trend becomes, the more important it will be for Western nations to have a well-defined policy for preserving, in our own social and civic arrangements, our Western heritage of freedom. Men live their lives on territory, and territory must be held for particular values if those values are to thrive and set an example. Sharia is antithetical to our heritage; Islamists, in their various methods, oppose and attack that heritage, meaning to exclude it, gradually, from territory around the earth. It will become only more important over time for us to have a way of talking about this.

… and the West
But we can take a cue from Ronald Reagan in maintaining our fundamental posture. Reagan knew that the biggest advantage America and the West had in the Cold War was not gained through properly defining the threat of communism – although that was important. The biggest advantage was the West’s own character and beliefs, which continued over the years to widen the divide between the failures of communism and the successes of freedom. This was the case even in the West’s deep political funk of the late 1960s and 1970s. The divide continued to grow, even then, and the flow of immigration was still all one direction, even when many in the West’s “elites” were claiming to despise Western freedom.

The most important thing the West can do today is recover our ideas about freedom and what it’s good for. If we do that, it will be glaringly obvious that freedom is better. The truth isthat freedom is stronger, when men and women are committed to it; if it were not, it could not have won out over all the forces arrayed against it throughout human history. It can do so again, if we are not faint of heart.

The great moral question for us today – the question that defines our hope for civilization and a future – is not what Islam is, but who we are, and whether we will embrace our heritage of freedom. The proximate political question is what we will cede to Islamists, whose patterns are very identifiable and whose demands are specific. The answer to that question must come, not from what we fear, but from what we believe to be right. If we look to our heritage of freedom, we will answer it well.

Originally published at the Optimistic Conservative, under the title, ““Islamism” and the West: How do you solve a problem like the AP Stylebook?”
Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 04:41 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation None Dare Call It Islamism

None Dare Call It Islamism
How the media’s control of language has sabotaged our ability to fight our enemy
by Daniel Greenfield

The Associated Press, after putting up a brief defense of the English language, ceded the term “gay marriage,” then “illegal immigrant” and finally “Islamist.” The left has a long history with political language and the media, so these latest triumphs were only a matter of time.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Obama once said, while insisting that they meant the opposite of what we thought they meant. The left believes that words matter because they allow people to communicate the wrong sort of ideas. Change the words and you change the ideas.

Islamism is one of those ideas. The idea is that people ought to live under Islam. This was thought to be a bad idea, back in those dark days before we learned that Islamism is as American as Mom, Other Mom and Apple Pie.
Now we know that Islamism is actually the best defense against Islamism so long as it’s the good kind of Islamism that involves terrorist groups winning elections and shooting their people in the streets instead of the bad kind of Islamism which involves terrorist groups shooting people in the streets without first running for office.

The Muslim Brotherhood used to be the bad kind of Islamists that set off bombs and shot people in the streets, but then they disavowed violence, ran for office, shredded what was left of the law and began torturing and killing their opponents who protested the shredding.

Opponents of Islamism, the word not the idea, warn that if we associate Islamism with Islamist terrorist groups, then Muslims will get the idea that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same thing. The only argument that they present in favor of them not being the same thing is that the media always calls the Muslim Brotherhood a moderate group. And if they’re a moderate group, they clearly can’t be torturing and killing their opponents, even if the same news stories that call them moderate also report that they are torturing and killing their opponents.

In Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda are fighting side by side as the Free Syrian Army and the Al Nusra Front. The Free Syrian Army is moderate and secular, which is to say that it’s now dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood which is neither moderate nor secular, but which we support, while the Al Nusra Front is an Islamist group we oppose. Unfortunately the moderate and secular Free Syrian Army refuses to disavow the Al Nusra Front and fights alongside them. The only possible conclusion that our media should draw from this is that Al Qaeda is the very model of a moderate secular organization.

Back when we were bombing moderate secular militants in the hills of Afghanistan, it was determined that we should delink Islam from terrorism by insisting that they have nothing in common. With this strategy it was thought that we would convince potential Al Qaeda supporters to go off and support a more proper Islamic cause like the International Islamic Relief Organization, the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation. Unfortunately all of those also turned out to be fronts for Al Qaeda.

Having done our best to avoid giving Muslims the impression that Islam has anything to do with terrorism on the theory that if we believe something stupid, they will believe it too, we are now working to deny any links between Islamism and Islamist terrorism on the theory that most Muslims are as stupid and illiterate as John Brennan and John Kerry think that they are.

Islamist refers to an organization which believes in imposing Islamic law on a society. This is also known as Islam. While such organizations can function non-violently, so can many Communist and Nazi parties until they come to power. The daily violence in Egypt reminds us that there is no such thing as the non-violent imposition of a system that disenfranchises a sizable portion of the population and destroys the civil rights of all the rest.

The AP’s linguistic attack is meant to distinguish between political Islamists and armed Islamists; but if Islamist refers to the goal of making Islam into the political and legal system of a country, what basis is there for distinguishing between the two?

The Muslim Brotherhood is political in Egypt, but in Syria it’s conducting a war to take over the country. If we use the AP’s labeling process, then the Muslim Brotherhood is Islamist when it is in Egypt, but stops being Islamist in Gaza where it’s Hamas or in Syria where it’s the Tawhid Brigade. When the Muslim Brotherhood set off bombs and carried out assassinations, then it was not Islamist, but when it ran for office then it became Islamist.

If the same organization can be Islamist or not be Islamist through the expedient of changing its tactics rather than its beliefs, then the AP is abusing Islamist to mean democratic or non-violent.

Islamism refers to the ends, rather than the means. By making the term conditional on the means, the AP is rendering the term meaningless. An Islamist can build bombs or run for office. Neither defines him. The Muslim Brotherhood’s diverse range of front groups and franchises show that a single movement with a common end can utilize different means.

A Communist was not defined by whether he chose to run for office or set off bombs. Either way he was a Communist. Would the AP say that a Neo-Nazi is less or more of a Neo-Nazi if he runs for his local council, rather than shooting up a house? Such is its redefinition of Islamist to mean someone who runs for office, after building bombs and with the caveat that if he doesn’t win the election, then it’s back to building bombs.

The AP’s redefinition of Islamism to exclude Islamist terrorists eliminates an entire category of terrorists. It doesn’t enhance meaning; instead it vandalizes it in another futile attempt to confuse the issue.

The new Stylebook definition insists that terrorist groups should be identified individually, and that’s true, but they should also be identified by contextualizing them within a larger trend. The redefinition eliminates the category and hopes thereby that no one will notice that the trend exists. Over a decade after September 11 this hope is badly misplaced.

Individual terrorist groups can be localized by two sets of coordinates; tactical and ideological. The tactical coordinate of Al Qaeda is terrorism. Its ideological coordinate is Islamism. Terrorism is a general category into which countless terrorist groups fit. It tells us nothing about why the group does what it does. It only tells us that it does it. It is the second ideological coordinate that gives it a more specific category and context.

By stripping away this second category, the AP Stylebook removes the context and the specific category akin to relabeling the Housewares aisle as “Objects”. It’s not false, but it removes the specific contextual information leaving a general category that is so vague as to be meaningless.

Vague and meaningless are the usual approaches that the United States has taken when talking about Islamic terrorism. Politicians do it with the unease of a father forced to discuss the birds and bees with his teenage son. The media take refuge in very vague generalities about extremism, a category that is even wider and more meaningless than terrorism.

Some of this vagueness is ignorance, but much of it is a deliberate strategy of self-censorship. The latest redefinition of Islamism is a typical example of self-censorship that trades vagueness for meaning and decontextualizes a story for political reasons.

The media has spent a great deal of time talking about Islamic terrorist groups as extremist and militant, but has avoided dealing with what they actually believe and what their goals are. Refusing to describe them as Islamist continues a hopeless propaganda strategy designed to fool Muslims and Americans while fooling absolutely no one.

Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 06:31 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?

Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?
The answer is plain to see, for those who have the courage to look
By Victor Sharpe

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted in his book, Gandhi: The Power of Pacifism, by Catherine Clement, as follows:
While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.
Gandhi was referring to the experience during his lifetime in the Indian sub-continent, but the growth of Wahhabism and the current resurgence in Islamic triumphalism since Gandhi's death in January 1948 now poses an increasingly existential threat to the West, to Judeo-Christian civilization, as well as to Hindus, Buddhists, and members other faiths.

The question repeatedly posed by the talking heads on the TV networks and cable television is how and why so many Muslims, young and old, are living in the West and enjoying all the material and educational benefits bestowed upon them -- and also committing hideous acts of terror and perpetrating atrocities upon innocent civilians, even against their very own neighbors.

The Times Square bombing attempt on May 1, 2010 by Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad and the 2009 Fort Hood massacre of unarmed members of the military by Major Nidal Hasan (still described by the problematic U.S. administration as "workplace violence") are well-known. So too is the attempt at terrorism by a Somali immigrant, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who had come to America at the age of five with his family as a refugee from the hell that is Somalia, and who attempted to kill thousands during a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. But until the Chechen Muslim brothers succeeded in their massacre at the Boston Marathon, most terror attacks had been thwarted since the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon by the 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers, in which 3,000 people were murdered. This time, however, the Muslim miscreants succeeded.

It was the baleful President Carter who undercut the shah of Iran, an autocrat who jailed and restricted the jihadists and Islamic groups but who was nevertheless a supporter and ally of America. Just like President Obama, who equally undercut Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the subsequent void was quickly and gleefully filled by Islamic fundamentalists and the Muslim Brotherhood who imposed sharia law and raised the banner of Islamic supremacy.

With the shah's fall came the Ayatollah Khomeini from his exile in France, and almost immediately Carter's foolish act resulted in a seemingly endless and most definitely humiliating imprisonment of American Embassy staff in Tehran. Since then Iran has fed the flames of Islamic terror around the globe, arming, and funding terror organizations such as Hamas and Hezb'allah. Ayatollah Khomeini preached violence to ultimately conquer "the land of the infidel." By that he meant Israel, Christian European states and Britain, the United States, and the entire non-Muslim world. His followers throughout the Muslim and Arab world have all endorsed the legitimacy of jihad against what they call the "enemies of Islam." Islamic martyrdom operations -- specifically blowing up soft targets like the spectators at sporting events -- are guarantees to paradise even if the victims are children.

So the answer to those talking heads in the media who endlessly ask why so many Muslims commit such atrocities can be seen both in Koranic passages and in, for instance, the sickening hate indoctrination found in the government-controlled Palestinian TV and radio broadcasts.

Here are some of the grisly passages from the Koran:

"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." Koran 2:191

"Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood." Koran 9:123

"When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them." Koran 9:5

"Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable." Koran 3:85

"The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them."... Koran 9:30

"Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam" Koran 5:33

"Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies." Koran 22:19

"The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them." Koran 8:65

"Muslims must not take the infidels as friends." Koran 3:28

"Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur'an." Koran 8:12

"Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels." Koran 8:60

And here are some examples of the Palestinian broadcasts that sow hate among children as young as three years of age, spawning yet another generation of terrorists and destroying hope of any true and lasting peace with the embattled State of Israel.

For example, the children's show, The Best Home,included a scene in which a young girl recited a poem filled with messages of hate and other libels demonizing Jews. The poem made the vile and fantastic assertion that Jews, "Allah's enemies, the sons of pigs," defiled the Quran and Jerusalem, "murdered children," "cut off their limbs," and "raped the women in the city squares."

This message of vitriol -- aimed at the future generation of Palestinians -- not only serves to foster hatred and violence, but undermines the very essence of coexistence and peace. It poisons the minds of innocent young children instead of promoting respect for one another, which is a cornerstone for true peace.

In our politically correct world, members of the media and commentators often seek to distance Islam from so many acts of horrific violence, using terms of alleged distinction such as "radical Islam" or "moderate Islam" and so on. But let us reflect on the words of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the close friend of Iran's genocidal president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In reply to the term "moderate Islam," which was apparently quoted to him by a Western journalist, Erdoğan said: "These descriptions are very ugly; it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that's it."

Certainly, attempting to constantly give, as liberals do, a free pass to Islamic abuses; to play down its violent ambitions of world conquest; to ignore the evident threat to Judeo-Christian civilization from sharia law and imposed dhimmitude merely encourages the violent tendencies of the followers of what has been called "an ideology wrapped in a religion."

The two Chechen brothers thus almost certainly succumbed to the hatred towards non-Muslims which proliferate in Islamic texts, on Islamic websites, and in Islamic social media. And they are not alone.

Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 01:02 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Al-Taqiya – The Art of Lying and Deceiving in Islam

Al-Taqiya – The Art of Lying and Deceiving in Islam
By M. A. Khan
Friday, 19 April 2013

Al-Taqiya – the Islamic art of lying and deceiving non-Muslims in the cause of Islam – is an age-old Islamic practice, used since the days of Prophet Muhammad. Despite being widely discussed Muslims continue to practice Taqiya even in explaining what Taqiya is. Here’s a sample of Islamic texts (Quran, Hadith and Sharia Law) that will make the concept of Al-Taqiya in Islam crystal clear once more:

Al-Taqiya in the Quran

1) Qurqn 2:225 permits taking false oath: “Allah does not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He imposes blame upon you for what your hearts have earned. And Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.

2) Quran 3:28 permits pretending friendship with infidels: “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.

3) Quran 9:3 permits oath-breaking under favorable situation: “And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans…

Also verse 66:2: “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and Allah is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

4) Quran 16:106 permits Muslims to lie about their faith (pretend to be non-Muslim) under difficult situation: “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” (also see 40:28)

Al-Taqiya in the Hadith
Allah’s apostle said, “…War is deceit.” (Abu Dawud 14:2629, 2631; Sahih Bukhari 4:52:26,267-268)
  • Allah’s apostle granted permission to lie in only in three cases: “in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)." (Sahih Muslim (32:6303)
  • Muhammad said: "Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people." (Ahmad, 6.459. H)
  • Prophet Muhammad sent his disciples for killing Jewish poet Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, who had criticized Muhammad, permitting them to lie and deceive so that they could draw him out of his house at night on friendly pretense. (Bukhari 50:369)
Al-Taqiya in Safi’i Law
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression.." [Reliance of the Traveler, p. 746/8.2 (Shaffi Fiqh)]
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 11:53 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Calling Islam “Islam”

Calling Islam “Islam”
I concede that it is an interpretation of Islam that we’re facing — Mohammad’s interpretation.
by Bosch Fawstin

I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology to identify this enemy, which is very important in taking on the enemy. I recall watching panel discussions after 9/11, with each panelist using a different term to describe the enemy we face. That annoyed the hell out of me as I think it’s incredibly important to identify the proper terms when speaking about our enemy, and to NEVER create terms, for whatever reason. To me, the only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters. Below I try my best to make the case why we should always call Islam “Islam.”

Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as:

“Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Totalitarian Islam,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism,” etc….

The enemy calls it “Islam.”

Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing. A term such as “Militant Islam” is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us “Islam is peace” — after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name. He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt:
“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
If only he felt that way about America. Washington’s defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.

Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic (“Sharia”) Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God.

From the Koran:

“Slay the idolators wherever you find them…” Chapter 9, verse 5

“When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them….” Ch. 47:4

Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life? This evil man is Islam’s ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It’s no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent.

For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity and with the help of a large gang of followers that he managed to gain power. But he wanted his moral pretense too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah’s conveniently timed “revelation” that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad. From then on, violence became Islam’s way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad’s words, “War is deceit” — in the sense that Muslims use earlier “peaceful” verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims. Those “peaceful” passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.

Note also that the only reason we’re talking about Islam is because we’ve been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam’s “conscientious objectors”? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn’t stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of “Moderate Islam.”

Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.

Islam is the enemy’s ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it’s up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can’t even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we’d be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy’s ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, “Jihadists,” and our response, “The War on Jihad.” But behind it all, it’s Islam that makes the enemy tick.

Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam “Islam,” I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it’s important that we acknowledge Islam’s place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying “Islam” helps Islam and hurts us. So let’s begin calling the enemy’s ideology by its name. Let’s start calling Islam “Islam.”

Last edited by Paparock; 04-23-2013 at 11:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 05:58 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Islamic jihad is the problem

Islamic jihad is the problem
by Christine Williams

A growing problem of Muslim youth engaging in jihad terror activity is getting brushed off as a Western problem of being racist toward Muslims and making them feel alienated and/or angry, when in fact the root of the problem resides within the Muslim community at large.

Canada’s RCMP thwarted a terrorism plot — one that enlisted the help of Al Qaeda in Iran -- to derail a VIA passenger train. A combined effort between the RCMP, Toronto and Montreal Police and the FBI lead to the arrest of two men on terrorism charges: 35-year-old Raed Jaser of Toronto and 30-year-old Chiheb Esseghaier of Montreal.

Just prior to the arrests, the RCMP saw it fit to send out an email to warn the Muslim community that one of their own was being arrested in connection with terrorism, consistent with their practice of “outreach” to the Muslim community. The Muslim leaders notified called it “unnerving,” since Muslim leaders were similarly summoned by the RCMP just prior to the arrest of the Toronto 18.

Police began the meeting by thanking the Muslim Community for their work, and then “soberly” proceeded to reveal the sad news that two Muslim men were arrested for plotting an attack on Via Rail. But this is not bizarre, not by RCMP standards. Back in August 2011, RCMP investigators conducted searches of homes, computers and seized the equipment of three terrorism suspects who were arrested. One day later, at an emergency meeting on cultural diversity, RCMP and Ottawa police apologized that the arrests were made during Ramadan. Prospective attendees were also assured that no food or drink would be served during this “most important meeting”; nor would it exceed an hour, so that Muslim attendees could get to prayers on time. Hiva Mohammad Alizadeh, Misbahuddin Ahmed and Khurram Syed Sher were charged in offences aimed at plotting to launch a terror attack in Canada and supporting terrorism abroad.

That one meeting was not enough. In the days following, more than a dozen meetings with Muslim groups took place in Ottawa. They included visits to mosques and Muslim community centres. No other cultural, ethnic, or religious group gets such consideration during their holy season when a criminal arrest is made, only Muslims -- which is insulting to every Canadian, including Muslims. It is insulting and condescending to Muslims because it indicates a fear of the community, and insulting to other Canadians, as it sends a message that they are of lesser worth.

News of the plot to derail the VIA Passenger train comes on the heels of a double bombing at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured more than 170. Among the dead was an 8-year-old boy. Meanwhile an international manhunt is underway for a fourth young man from London, Ontario who is wanted for questioning in the terrorist attack on an Algerian gas plant back in January. Libyan-born Mujahid Enderi, who goes by the name of Ryan, is being investigated by authorities, along with Aaron Yoon. Ali Medlej and Xristos Katsiroubas, both 24, were also Londoners implicated in the terror attack, but they were among the 29 militants killed in the four-day siege and hostage-taking in Algeria that claimed the lives of 37 hostages.
In yet another case, Somali and Canadian security forces are now probing whether a former York University student was part of a team of suicide bombers that stormed a courthouse in Somalia’s capital of Mogadishu on Sunday, killing and injuring dozens. A separate car bomb targeted Turkish aid workers. Mahad Ali Dhore grew up and studied in the greater Toronto area and is reportedly one of the nine Al Shabab militants involved in the well planned execution.

According to Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon: “The Internet is a prime example of how terrorists can behave in a truly transnational way; in response, states need to think and function in an equally transnational manner.” The internet is a powerful tool in promoting propaganda, financing, recruitment and indoctrination efforts, as well as the execution of strategies and attacks, including cyber-attacks. In addition, the fact that a dual Canadian citizen living in Lebanon was involved in a bus bombing involving Hezbollah in Bulgaria last year raises concern about Canadians traveling overseas to carry out terrorism acts. Last year The Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism reported that CSIS is aware of between 45 to 60 Canadians (most in their early twenties) having travelled or attempted to travel to countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia to join al Qaeda-affiliated organizations to execute terrorism-related activities. Some of them have returned to Canada after full terrorism training or even having executed terrorism acts abroad.

Infiltration strategies present another terrorist front. According to Iranian activist and translator Shabnam Assadollahi, Iran has been engaged in infiltration strategies that began in the early 90’s when Ayatollah Rafsanjani came into power with a goal of spreading terrorism abroad.

Despite the recent acts of terrorism against innocent citizens and the ongoing jihad in all its forms, excuses were made which blamed the victims and exonerated the perpetrators:

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw strongly suggested that America is partly to blame for the Boston bombings, because the young, Muslim men involved may have felt “alienated” and angry over U.S. drone strikes on “innocent civilians” in Muslim countries abroad.

New Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said “there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

Geraldo Rivera tweeted “regrets to my Muslim brothers/sisters. We know how Boston will aggravate life’s friction—Now’s the time for patience pride & understanding.”

The West is falling short in understanding the layers and complexity of the Muslim radicalization problem. Yet according to a Government of Canada report on Radicalization of Homegrown Violent Extremists, Sunni Islamist extremism poses the “leading threat to Canada’s national security,” which has proven to be “adaptable and resilient” and pinpoints Canada as a target for attacks. The report discusses the homegrown Toronto 18 and goes on to explain the jihadi propaganda drives, fundraising and establishing of connections between jihadists in Canada and elsewhere in the world, as well as the help that Canadian jihadis have received to enable them to travel to foreign conflict zones.

Blaming America, kowtowing to the Muslim community at large and appealing to a presumed guilt will not solve the problem of Islamic jihadists. Those jihadists are working to infiltrate, dominate, Islamize and kill Western citizens, justifying it all by their destructive ideology that is influencing Muslim youth in the West, who are being taught to hate and wage jihad on Western soil. Such messages are being promulgated through a high percentage of mosques, training manuals and radical mentors online and through al Qaeda camps overseas.

Racism is a separate phenomenon. Both Canada and the U.S. would do well to abandon the self-guilt rhetoric and pay attention to the reality at hand, recognizing that the problem is not with Western citizens making Muslims feel unwelcome or angering them through foreign policy. We need to accept that the problem arises out of an Islamic ideology that fuels victimology while teaching a vitriolic hatred of Jews, Christians, the West and infidels.

We continue to be played for fools and neglect the real issues in our responses to Islamic terrorism. Former Republican Representative Allen West gets it right when he commented that “the terrorist attack in Boston and evolving events indicate we have a domestic radical Islamic terror problem in America.” He went on to advise: “No more excuses. No more apologies. We are in a war of ideological wills and we shall prevail.”
Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum