Monday, October 31, 2005

Islam's 12 Steps to Destroy Dar al-Harb (Land of the Infidels)

This is so important I decided to post it here. I added the Dearborn take control of a city example. Originally from LGF, poster Dances with Dhimmis. You can look around and see all the Western countries at various stages of destruction. Much of the Western countries, including America, are well along, what with all the help our political elite, courts and the leftists are giving the Muslims.

Looks like the following Muslim stratagem for global conquest I once read & copied from the web a few years ago is finally taking shape:

Allah Knows How to Destroy Dar al-Harb

1. - Immigrate - by the millions.

2. - Procreation – This is Islam’s greatest weapon against the kafirs (non-Muslims). Currently most Western nations think so little of their respective civilizations that they are failing to reproduce themselves above subsistence levels. As their birthrates continue to decline, breed them out. They will become so dependant on Muslim labor and so old demographically they will not be able to resist what will follow.

3. - At 5 - 10% of the population, force the host governments to set up special laws favoring the Muslims. Use the courts to gain special rights under the guise of "anti-discrimination", as other groups have successfully done in Western countries before.

4. - At 20 -30% of the population, elect Muslims to government and legislate additional laws that favor Muslims.

5. - Never Assimilate

6. - Always setup small Muslim communities to hide in. Even better, concentrate in small cities and take complete control of their governments, example, Dearborn, Michigan

7. - Never accept the host’s customs; make them accept Muslim customs.

8.Use their liberal traditions against them whenever possible. Currently being labeled a “racist” is a fate that is worse than death in most Western countries. When they oppress Muslims and seek to stem their tide, use their fear of that word against them. They will never be able to convincingly assert that discrimination against one group is bad (e.g gays) while maintaining that discrimination against Muslims is good without appearing to be hypocritical and intellectually corrupt, thus they will lose the propaganda war. Recruit liberal academics and media outlets to assist in this campaign.

9. - Assassination - when the Muslim population exceeds 30 - 50% of the total population, start the terror killings & bombings as soon as possible. It will effectively weaken the host nation to the extent that it will no longer be able to function.

10. - If anyone is going to testify against a Muslim in court, kill them before the trial.

11. - At 50 -70% of the population, seek the total submission of the host society to Islamic Law by all means necessary (legal, military, terror, social coercion, etc)

12. - If step eleven fails initially, seek extensive international help from other Islamic states and the UN in order to create a separate Muslim Republic within the host country’s borders, using racial and religious discrimination against the Muslim population as a pretext. At a later date, when it is advantageous to do so, repeat step eleven until successful.

I guess we're next...

Sunday, October 30, 2005

How To Fix an Ailing Stock Market? Hang the Speculators, says Iran's Ahmadinejad

Hey, it's a new idea at least. Capital flight from the most perfect, most pure Islamic state? Say it isn't so! Mahmoud sure is a forward thinker, isn't he. Maybe the whole goddamn outhouse will fall in on itself and lessen the threat. Now the Iraq stock market is not that large since the government owns much of the economy, or should I say the mullahs.

On another site, it was noted that 60% of Iran's government revenue in oil sales is about 45 billion. Anyway, I did some calcs and the total revenue is 75 billion. This is how much money the government has to spend without running a deficit and needing international loans. Let's be conservative and say the total GNP revenue is $100 billion. If the population is 70 million, that is ONLY $1429 per capita. That is nothing for a welfare state, which is what all these Islamic states that have oil are. Those without oil are complete basketcases with zero welfare.

Iran’s President says “2 or 3 hangings” could end market woes Sun. 30 Oct 2005

Iran Focus news should be a bookmark in your Iran folder.

Iran Focus

Tehran, Oct. 30 – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the latest cabinet meeting in the Iranian capital that “if we were permitted to hang two or three persons, the problems with the stock exchange would be solved for ever”, according to a Tehran-based newspaper.

Ahmadinejad was addressing a cabinet meeting held to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation at the Tehran Stock Exchange, the daily Ruznet reported on Sunday.

Ministers and experts disagreed with all the different views and proposals raised at the meeting, which came to an end without any concrete results. Tempers flew high and participants shouted at each other during the discussion, according to the daily. Frustrated with the inability of his economic advisers and experts to come up with any solution, Ahmadinejad told them that the only way out of the current stock exchange and financial market problems was to “frighten” speculators by hanging two or three of them.

Iran’s ultra-Islamist President first sent jitters through the country’s markets when he said on the eve of the presidential elections in June that “stock exchange activities are a kind of gambling and we are against them”. Gambling is banned in Islam.

Nervous investors have been transferring their capital to other countries, and Dubai has benefited palpably from the flight of capital from Iran. The Tehran Stock Exchange has lost 20 percent of its value in the past four months.

“At the moment there are no buyers in this market, only sellers”, the newspaper Ruznet wrote. “Economists believe the situation is becoming more difficult to handle day by day”.

Incendiary statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian officials have contributed to the creation of an atmosphere of uncertainty and instability in the country’s financial markets, according to analysts.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Muslims Will Burn Paris to the Ground

France has a big problem. Way too many Muslims and they hate the French. Nothing new there. I continue to believe Paris will be burnt to the ground in 2006. Poor Sarkozy, he really doesn't know what to do. Just a couple of Muslim teenagers committing a crime and they die trying to escape. Now the Muslims riot. You just wait. It's only a dry run.

Youths riot for second night in Paris suburb
Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:41 PM BST

By Laure Bretton

PARIS (Reuters) - Hundreds of French youths [but what is their religion?] fought with police and set cars ablaze in a Paris suburb on Saturday in a second night of rioting which media said was triggered when two teenagers were electrocuted while fleeing police.

The teenagers were killed and a third seriously injured on Thursday night when they were electrocuted in an electricity sub station as they ran away from police investigating a break-in, media reported.

Firefighters intervened around 40 times on Friday night in the northeastern suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois where many of the 28,000 residents are immigrants, mainly from Africa, police and fire officers said.

Unidentified youths fired a shot at police but no one was hurt, police said.

"It's not normal that these two die like that," one teenage boy wearing a hooded sweatshirt told French television, referring to the two dead boys, which media identified as 15-year-old Banou and 17-year-old Ziad.

Television pictures showed youths lobbing stones at police officers while cars burnt on the streets of the suburb. Police in riot gear chased some youths down an alleyway.

Around 19 people were detained and 15 police officers and one journalist injured, police said. They were unable to give figures for the number of protesters hurt.

An officer from police trade union Action Police CFTC called for help from the army to support police officers.

"There's a civil war under way in Clichy-Sous-Bois [Clichy is one of the Muslim high rise areas that are basically a nogo area for police. I guess they went and got taught a lesson.] at the moment," Michel Thooris from Action Police CFTC, said. "My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical nor theoretical training for street fighting."

However, Joaquin Masanet from the UNSA-Police union, which represents the majority of riot police, did not agree.

"We're not at war," he said. "The police are capable of restoring order if we are given the material and human means."

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday the youths who fled the scene of the suspected break-in and climbed into an electricity sub station were not being pursued by police when they were electrocuted.

It was unclear whether the three youths at the electricity sub station were suspected of taking part in the break-in or where just nearby when it happened.


On Thursday night, youths [read: Muslims] set cars and garbage cans ablaze and attacked shops and a fire station. Officials said 23 vehicles, including some post office delivery trucks, were set ablaze and destroyed in the protests.
Several hundred people took part in a silent march to honour the two dead teenagers in Clichy-Sous-Bois on Saturday.

"Thanks to you, France will now respect us more than this morning, before this silent march," said Claude Dilain, mayor of Clichy-Sous-Bois, a suburb of high-rise social housing. [Is Claude Dilain the George Galloway of Paris? And I never hear about the gay mayor of Paris. What's he up to? It's his city.]

"We are showing our real face, that of united citizens, whatever our origin or religion or faith. Together, we have showed our pain and even anger, in calm, dignity and respect."

Sarkozy, whose law and order policies have been criticised by human rights groups, launched a new offensive against crime this month, ordering specially trained police to tackle 25 tough neighbourhoods in cities across France.

Sarkozy, who has clearly stated his ambition to run for president in 2007, said police mobile units would patrol districts instead of having police waiting around in coaches while trouble erupted elsewhere.

The tough talking Sarkozy made his name by cutting headline crime figures during his first stint as interior minister from 2002 to 2004.

Here's a rough translation from Google of a Socialist Party Statement:

The Socialist Party requires of Sarkozy "serious answers"

The socialist Party claimed Friday "of the serious answers of the Minister of Interior Department" Nicolas Sarkozy after the incidents violent one implying several tens of young people in the night of Thursday to Friday to Clichy-under-Wood (Seine-Saint-Denis).
"Day after day, the facts testify to the climate of tension which reigns and of the hardening of violence" in certain suburbs, belongs the national secretary and to the PS to safety, Delphine Batho, in an official statement.
For the socialist person in charge, "it rests to the Minister of Interior Department to bring serious answers to this situation by helping those which fight in first line, the elected officials, associations, the police officers, the teachers, the welfare officers".
Mrs. Batho warns Mr. Sarkozy against his "usual diversions at blow of peremptory formulas or hypermediatized displacements". The PS requires finally that "all the explanations necessary be brought as soon as possible on the circumstances which led to the dramatic death of two young people from Clichy", died electrocuted in a transformer EDF It is after these facts that incidental violent ones opposed young people to firemen and to police officers. In a separated official statement, Lang Jack, deputy of Pas-de-Calais, deplore that "urban violences progressed a giant step under the Sarkozy-Villepin reign", showing the two men "to make cinema".

It sounds like the Socialist Party is the party of the Muslims but I am not sure of that.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Trifkovic - Britain's March into Dhimmitude

Serge Trifkovic had an excellent article on England's stupid "Islam badmouthing ban" law now being considered. The more I know what Blair is doing in England, and how utterly ignorant he is (just like Bush!), the more dismayed I become. John Howard appears the only leader of the 3 who has any clue. I wish he would share it with Bush and Blair. How long can this pretense, this absurd denial be maintained? Well it has gone on a lot longer than I ever thought. It may have to wait for new leaders.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill: A Milestone on Britain’s Road to Dhimmitude Read the article as it covers a lot of ground if you have time.

The House of Lords is clashing with Tony Blair’s Labour government over its proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. This is an Orwellian piece of legislation. Its real purpose of preventing any meaningful discussion of Islam. If passed it would enable authorities to charge people with “inciting religious hatred” even if they speak or write the truth about the Kuran, the hadith, the historical practice of jihad, or the long-term aspirations of the Muslim diaspora in the West.

On down, Trifkovic recalls some of the insipid things Blair said shortly after 911. He sounds just like Bush.

Almost 17 years later, Prime Minister Tony Blair is a major source of that “western liberal support” and a leading character witness for Islam in the West. “What happened in America was not the work of Islamic terrorists, it was not the work of Muslim terrorists,” he declared after meeting with a group of Muslim “community leaders” at 10 Downing Street in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. “It was the work of terrorists, pure and simple” who must not be honored “with any misguided religious justification,” because they “contravened all the tenets of Islam”:

It is . . . explicitly contrary to Islamic law to kill innocent civilians, to murder women and children and non-combatants… Islam is a peace-loving, tolerant, religion. Many of the world’s religions, indeed including Christianity, draw from the same spiritual heritage. We share the same values, and the same respect for the sanctity of human life . . . [W]e know of no specific threat in relation to this country and it is important that we are not alarmist about it. And I mean frankly some of the reports have been alarmist.

Echoing the Prime Minnister, his Home Office Minister John Denham pledged to cut out the “cancer of Islamophobia” infecting Britain, and declared that “the real Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and understanding.” He called on the media to avoid promoting “a distorted or caricatured or prejudiced” view of Muslims or the Islamic faith. Dr. Richard Stone, chairman of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, criticized the Blair government for not addressing “in a deep way” the anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain: “There is now . . . mounting concern that the already fragile foothold gained by Muslim communities in Britain is threatened by ignorance and intolerance.” He added that the only area where there had been major improvement was “within Muslim communities themselves.” The key finding of his commission was that 9-11 had made life more difficult for Muslims.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Book Review: Mohammedanism by Hurgronje 1916

C Snouck Hurgronje (Hur-KHRON-yuh) (Dutch Islamic scholar - Leiden, born 1857, death after 1930 but no date located by Google search) published Mohammedanism in 1916 . It was part of a series of religious studies or lectures published as books by the Crown Theological Library. Hurgronje tends to be clinical in his analysis of Mohammedanism, and tries to avoid injecting personal opinion into his subject. It’s about 175 pages and a very quick read.

The initial chapter reviews the early Western publications about Mohammad and Islam. Many of these were wildly inaccurate, varying from praise to ‘damnation of the false prophet.’ Gee, that sounds just like today! Hurgronje believes Muir, Sprenger and Noldeke (Western Islamic ‘scholars’ of the late 19th century) published the first works that rapidly advanced understanding of Mohammedanism. In any case, by the turn of the century, there were a growing number of publications about Mohammadanism available but Snouck considered many of them incomplete since they did not consider in depth, if at all, the events and circumstances of Mohammed’s life.

Hurgronje also traveled to Mecca for an 8 month stay in 1906 and provides fascinating insight into the atmosphere of Mecca at that time. He mentions the interest in profiteering off the pilgrims but it was a relatively small enterprise at that time. Surely he would be in awe of the lucrative pilgrimage trade Mecca enjoys today and the enormous changes that Mecca, that sleepy town of Islamic scholars, has become. I don’t think it would be so easy today to be an infidel observer in Mecca. He also visited Al Azhar in Egypt which he was more impressed. At that time, Al Azhar was much more forward thinking than the Meccan scholars. We know that is no longer the case at all today.

It is important to understand where Islam stood in 1916. At that point, the West seemingly had triumphed. More Muslims were under colonial rule than independent. The Turkish Caliphate was collapsing, and oil was not the ‘manna from heaven’ it is today. It was clearly a time of ‘weak’ jihad.

Some Muslim websites today have actually referenced some of Hurgronje’s writings, which they consider positive towards Islam. One quote I have seen is “The league of nations founded by the Prophet of Islam put the principle of international unity and human brotherhood on such universal foundations as to show candle to other nations… The fact is that no nation of the world can show a parallel to what Islam has done towards the realization of the idea of the League of Nations.” This is not from Mohammedanism, and the Muslim webauthors or bloggers parading that verse would definitely, after reading Mohammedanism, not consider Hurgronje the John Esposito of his day, but more the Bernard Lewis. In fact, I think Bernard Lewis, in his approach and attitude to Islam, is very similar to Hurgronje. As with any redacted statement with a ‘…’ in the middle (like the taqiyya favorite 5:32), I am suspicious. I do not know it’s entirety or context. They probably don’t either. Then again, we all know what a basketcase the League of Nations turned out to be. I am sure at the time he wrote this, Hurgronje had great aspirations for the idea. LoN, UN, what’s the difference? My how the world has changed, or is that, stays the same?

Hurgronje describes the turmoil following Mohammed’s death and the split of the Shiites. You can gain the same understanding from Prophet of Doom, although harsher in its condemnation of Mohammed. He also explains the initial compilation of the Qur’an, which had remained oral only for over 150 years after Mohammed’s death, and how even at that time, there was a lot of pressure to include and exclude verses to serve certain Muslim elites. The same could be said about the Hadiths, since each of the Hadith scholars had to weed through over 600,000 sayings to keep only about 3,000 to 10,000 as ‘acceptable.’ (Note: the 3,000 is if you eliminate repetition, very common in the Qur’an and the Hadiths) By the year 1000 A.D., and after much turmoil (jihad, conquests, civil conflict, and establishment of ‘institutes’ to preserve and interpret Islamic doctrine), the Qur’an and the prinicples of Islam had become fixed. Hurgronje describes this ‘final agreement’ the Ijma of the Community. The Qur’an and the Hadiths were infallible and could not be altered.

“In our valuation of Mohammed’s sayings we cannot lay too much stress upon his incapability of looking far ahead. The final aims which Mohammed set himself were considered by sane persons as unattainable. His firm belief in the realization of the vague picture of the future which he had conceived, nay, which Allah held before him, drove him to the uttermost exertion of his mental power in order to surmount the innumberable unexpected obstacles which he encountered. Hence the variability of the practical directions contained in the Qur’an; they are constantly altered according to circumstances. Allah’s words during the last part of Mohammed’s life: “This day have I perfected your religion for you, and have I filled up the measure of my favours towards you, and chosen Islam for you as your religion,” have in no way the meaning of the exclamation : “It is finished,” of the dying Christ. They are only a cry of jubilation over the degradation of the heathern Arabs by the triumph of Allah’s weapons. At Mohammed’s death everything was still unstable; and the vital questions for Islam were subjects of contention between the leaders even before the Prophet had been buried.”

Hurgronje is very much aware that the Islam of his day is relatively subdued, but the jihad spirit is not dormant:

“The extensive political program of Islam, develped during the first centuries of astounding expansion, has yet not prevented millions of Mohammedans from resigning themselves to reversed condition in which at the present time many more Mohammedans live under foreign authority than under their own. The acceptance of this change was facilitated by the historical pessimism of Islam, which makes the mind prepared for every sort of decay, and by the true Moslim habit of resignation to painful experiences, not through fatalism, but through reverence for Allah's inscrutable will. At the same time, it would be a gross mistake to imagine that the idea of universal con-quest may be considered as obliterated. This is the case with the intellectuals and with many practical commercial or industrial men; but the canonists and the vulgar still live in the illusion of the days of Islam's greatness.

The legists continue to ground their apprecia-tion of every actual political condition on the law of the holy war, which war ought never to be allowed to cease entirely until all mankind is re-duced to the authority of Islam-the heathen by conversion, the adherents of acknowledged Scripture by submission. Even if they admit the improbability of this at present, they are comforted and encouraged by the recollection of the lengthy period of humiliation that the Prophet himself had to suffer before Allah bestowed victory upon his arms; and they fervently join with the Friday preacher, when he pronounces the prayer, taken from the Qur’an: “And lay not on us, O our Lord, that for which we have not strength, but blot out our signs and forgive us and have pity upon us. Thou are our Master; grant us then to conquest the unbelievers!” And the common people are willingly taught by the canonists and feed their hope of better days upon the innumerable legends of the olden time and the equally innumerable apocalyptic prophecies about the future. The political blows that fall upon Islam makes less impression upon their simple minds that the seneseless stories about the power of the Sultan of Stambul, that would instantly be revealed if he were not surrounded by treacherous servants, and the fantastic tidings of the miracles that Allah works in the Holy Cities of Arabia which are inaccessible to the unfaithful....”

Hurgronje then goes into a discussion of the ‘caliphate fantasy’ that persisted in his time (as well as ours) and how the early Caliphs are now the equivalent of saints in Islam. Since the Caliphate was the only ‘originally conceived within Islam’ government structure, there is this conviction by the Muslims that it is the only government structure for Islam. That sounds familiar too doesn’t it?

“The conception of the Khalifate still exercises a fascinating influence, regarded in the light of a central point of union against the unfaithful. Apart from the 'amils, Mohammed's agents amongst the Arabian tribes, the Khalifate was the only political institution which arose out of the necessity of the Moslim community, without foreign influence. It rescued Islam from threatening destruction, and it led the Faithful to conquest. No wonder that in historic legend the first four occupiers of that leadership, who, from Medina, accomplished such great things, have been glorified into saints, and are held up to all the following generations as examples to put them to shame. In the Omayyads the ancient aristocracy of Mecca came to the helm, and under them, the Mohammedan state was above all, as Wellhausen styled it, "the Arabian Empire." The best khalifs of this house had the political wisdom to give the governors of the provinces sufficient independence to prevent schism, and to secure to themselves the authority in important matters. The reaction of the non-Arabian converts against the suppression of their own culture by the Arabian conquerors found support in the opposition parties, above all with the Shi'ah. The Abbasids, cleverer politicians than the notoriously unskilful Alids, made use of the Alid propaganda to secure the booty to themselves at the right moment”

He discusses the current relation of Mohammedan to the government in the ‘native’ states heavily influenced by the Colonials: …[in] governed "native states" the relation of Mo-hammedan "Church and State" may much more resemble that in Turkey, and this is sometimes to the advantage of the sovereign ruler. Under the direct government of a modern state, the Mohammedan group is treated as a religious community, whose particular life has just the same claim to independence as that of other denominations. The only justifiable limitation is that the program of the forcible reduction of the world to Moham-medan authority be kept within the scholastic walls as a point of eschatology, and not considered as a body of prescriptions, the execution of which must be prepared." [and even that limitation is no longer mandated in the West today. What wussys we have become.]

The final Chapter IV, Islam and Modern Thought, discusses Islam’s current situation in a rapidly changing world.

“Among all conservative factors of human life religion must necessarily be the most conservative, were it only because its aim is precisely to store up and keep under its guardianship the treasures destined for eternity to which we have alluded. Now, every new period in the history of civilization obliges a religious community to undertake a general revision of the contents of its treasury. It is unavoidable that the guardians on such occa-sions should be in a certain measure disappointed, for they find that some of the goods under their care have given way to the wasting influence of time, whilst others are in a state which gives rise to serious doubt as to their right of being classified with lasting treasures. In reality the loss is only an apparent one; far from impoverishing the community, it enhances the solidity of its possessions. What remains after the sifting process may be less imposing to the inexperienced mind; gradually the consideration gains ground that what has been rejected was nothing but useless rubbish which had been wrongly valued. Sometimes it may happen that the general movement of spiritual progress goes almost too fast, so that another imme-diately follows one revision of the stores of religion. Then dissension is likely to arise among the adherents of a religion; some of them come to the conclusion that there must be an end of sifting and think it better to lock up the treasuries once for all and to stop the dangerous enquiries; whereas others begin to en-tertain doubt concerning the value even of such goods as do not yet show any trace of decay.

The treasuries of Islam are excessively full of rubbish that has become entirely useless; and for nine or ten centuries they have not been submitted to a revision deserving that name. If we wish to understand the whole or any important part of the system of Islam, we must always begin by trans-porting ourselves into the third or fourth century of the Hijrah, and we must constantly bear in mind that from the Medina period downwards Islam has always been considered by its adherents as bound to regulate all the details of their life by means of prescriptions emanating directly or indirectly, from God, and therefore incapable of being reformed. At the time when these prescriptions acquired their definite form, Islam ruled an important portion of the world. It considered the conquest of the rest as being only a question of time and, therefore, felt itself quite independent in the development of its law. There was little reason indeed for the Moslim canonists to take into serious account the interests of men not subject to Mo-hammedan authority or to care for the opinion of devotees of other religions. Islam might act, and did almost act, as if it were the only power in the world; it did so in the way of a grand seigneur, showing a great amount of generosity towards its subjugated enemies. The adherents of other religions were or would become subjects of the Com-mander of the Faithful; those subjects were given a full claim on Mohammedan protection and justice while the independent unbelievers were in general to be treated as enemies until in submission. Their spiritual life deserved not even so much attention as that of Islam received from Abbe Maracci or Doctor Prideaux. The false doc-trines of other peoples were of no interest whatever in themselves; and, since there was no fear of Mohammedans being tainted by them, polemics against the abrogated religions were more of a pastime than an indispensable part of theology. The Mohammedan community being in a sense Allah's army, with the conquest of the world as its object, apostasy deserved the punishment of death in no lesser degree than desertion in the holy war, nay more so; for the latter might be the effect of cowardice, whereas the former was an act of inexcusable treachery. [Clearly, Hurgronje did not have access to the works referenced in Andrew Bostom’s book The Legacy of Jihad or Bat Ye’or Dhimmitude or the The Decline of Christianity Under Islam as these statements regarding the dhimmis are dead wrong.]

In the attitude of Islam towards other religions there is hardly one feature that has not its counter-part in the practice of Christian states during the Middle Ages. The great difference is that the Mohammedan community erected this mediaeval custom into a system unalterable like all prescriptions based on its infallible" Agreement" (Ijma'). Here lay the great difficulty when the nineteenth and twentieth centuries placed the Moslim world face to face with a civilization that had sprung up outside its borders and without its collaboration, that was from a spiritual point of view by far its superior and at the same time possessed of sufficient material power to thrust the Mohammedans aside wherever they seemed to be an impediment in its way. [My comment: Boy, how times have changed. It is now the Western nations that are the impediment in its way. The weapons are immigration, demographics, taqiyya and the West’s naivety with some ‘sword’ thrown in to keep the West scared.]

Hurgronje is very critical of Islam’s treatment of women, the relentless need to pray five times a day, fast for long periods, and the cruelty of its punishments. Again, for those who have studied Islam, his descriptions are not shocking but certainly must have been pageturners in its day.

“The facility with which a man can divorce his wife at his pleasure, contrasted with her rights against him, is a still more serious impediment to the development of family life than the institution of polygamy; more serious, also, than veiling and seclusion of women. Where the general opinion is favourable to the improvement of the position of women in society, there is always found a way to secure it to them without conflicting with the divine law; but a radical reform will remain most difficult so long as that law which allows the man to repudiate his wife without any reason, whereas it delivers the woman almost unarmed into the power of her husband, is considered to be one of the permanent treasures of Islam.

It is a pity indeed that thus far women vigorously striving for liberation from those mediaeval institutions are rare exceptions in Mohammedan countries. Were Mohammedan women capable of the violent tactics of suffragettes, they would rather try to blow up the houses of feminists than those of the patrons of the old regime. The or-dinary Mohammedan woman looks upon the endeavour of her husband to induce her to partake freely in public life as a want of consideration; it makes on her about the same impression as that which a respectable woman in our society would receive from her husband encouraging her to visit places generally frequented by people of bad reputation.” [This seemingly contradictory viewpoint, for those who do not understand Islam, has been discussed at JihadWatch several times.]

While there are many other insights regarding Muslims in Mohammedanism, Horgronje attempts to close his ‘lecture’ on a positive note. I would call it ‘wimping out’, but that’s just me:

“There is no lack of pessimists, whose wisdom has found its poetic form in the words of Kipling:

East is East and West is West,
And never the twain shall meet.

To me, with regard to the Moslim world, these words seem almost a blasphemy. … To Kipling’s poetical despair I think we have a right to prefer the words of a broadminded modern Hindu writer [S.M. Mitra]; “The pity is that men, led astray by adventitious differences, miss the essential resemblances.”

It would be a great satisfaction to me if my lectures might cause some of my hearers to consider the problem of Islam as one of the most important of our time, and its solution worthy of their interest and of a claim on their exertion.”

Mohammedanism is an interesting read from a historical viewpoint. What is not surprising for those who have studied Islam is the relentlessness of Islam in its drive for a world for Islam, and only Islam. 1916, 2005, what’s the difference?

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Jesse Jackson Blackmails the Democratic Party

Tonight on Tim Gossert, Jesse Jackson announced he may consider running for President in 2008, at least in the 'south.' He had not decided 'yet' but issued a long list of demand$ for the Democratic Party. Is he jumping on the Louis Farakahn bandwagon? I didn't catch that. He danced around Hillary for 2008, he has gotten a lot better at that.

Now you know what this means to the Democrats. If Hillary tries to push the Democratic platform toward what she considers 'winning' positions that are anathema to him, you can bet he will turn up the threat of running.

Very timely. 2 years away. He doesn't have to say "I will" just "I may" if I don't get my way on positions.

Dare he might just say
"I will" "I may" if I don't
get this plank my way.

Little Haiku 575

Personally, he can run and run. It would be good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats.

Let them flail in the wind.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Mark Steyn Slams Dhimmi Britain

I wish I had the writing skills of Mark Steyn. He gets to the point so deliciously. I like Hugh Fitzgerald's writing style also although I have to keep a Google Search handy for his references to people, places and incidents I am completely ignorant about.

In any case, Mark Steyn points out the hypocrisy of the Britain elite and their absurd dhimmitude. Bush is so hated that they would ally with their assassins to dump on him. Hey, I got major problems with the man, myself, but I am not going to jump in bed with the moonbats and the Muslim Mafia. I'll do my skewering on my own thank you.

Speaking of hypocrites, lots of that going on. See my fence posting below.

Why is Bush's Christianity so risible . . .
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 11/10/2005)

Of all the total non-stories reported by the British media since 9/11 - the brutal Afghan winter, the non-existent Jenin massacre - has there ever been a bigger waste of space than the column inches devoted to "Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq"? That was the Independent's headline. The Guardian, like the Indy, led with a front-page picture of the President aglow in his own personal halo, but preferred the caption: "George Bush believes he is on a mission from God." And my old comrade Mark Lawson piled on with a full columnar sneer at the President's "Manichean convictions".

The source for this story was essentially a BBC press release for a forthcoming documentary. Nabil Shaath, the so-called Palestinian "foreign minister", told them (the BBC) that Bush told him (Shaath) that God told him (Bush) to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House said this was "absurd" and the only other Palestinian present at that meeting, Mahmoud Abbas, has denied Shaath's account of the conversation. As evidence of Bush's "Manichean convictions", the whole thing's a lot of Manichean piss, as the Belgians would say.

One suspects a few of those excitable British editors realised that, even as they stampeded to the picture desk to work up some shots of the President looking insanely beatific under the "It's Official: Bush 'Religious Nut' Says Respected Palestinian Intifada Apologist" headlines. One day, when they're sifting through the ruins of post-Christian Europe, archaeologists will marvel at the energy expended on the gleeful mockery of open religiosity.

Well, not all religiosity, of course. If there's anything worth jeering at or condescending to about a certain other big-time religion much in the news these days, the lads at the Guardian and Independent seem far less eager to lead the charge.

Now why would that be? In the Cold War, the elites at least felt obliged to genuflect toward the theory of "equivalence". This time round, who needs equivalence? "Bush is more religious than Saddam," pronounced Martin Amis two years ago. "Of the two presidents, he is, in this respect, the more psychologically primitive." Of course.

If Britain is under threat from anybody's "Manichean convictions", it's surely not evangelical Christians'. To recap from seven days ago: last year I made a joke about banning Porky Pig on the grounds that a porcine cartoon was grossly insensitive toward Muslims, only to discover the other week that Dudley council has banned Piglet as part of its pre-Ramadan crackdown on cultural insensitivity.

So last Tuesday, in the course of a column about Piglet, I made a joke that British Muslims ought to complain about having to put up with a grossly offensive head of state who is an uncovered woman. And lo and behold, in that very morning's Daily Telegraph, I find an item that the English flag - the cross of St George - has been banned from prisons because it might be "misinterpreted" as a racist symbol.

So, for the moment, I'm holding off on any gags about the first imam to be made Archbishop of Canterbury or the Queen demonstrating her commitment to multiculturalism by becoming the fourth wife of a Saudi prince. Official Britain seems to have lost all sense of proportion and one doesn't want to give them any more ideas.

The prohibition of England's flag in England's prisons was put in place by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, who is concerned about the "lack of cultural understanding" at Wakefield jail.

As far as I can tell, specific examples of "lack of cultural understanding" were confined to an insufficient range of hair products for black prisoners and the display of the offensive national emblem: "We were concerned to see a number of staff wearing a flag of St George tiepin," she wrote in a report on Wakefield jail. "While we were told that these had been bought in support of a cancer charity, there was clear scope for misinterpretation."

There always is, isn't there? The other day, a state-funded imam at Werribee Islamic College in Australia told his students that the Jews were putting poison in bananas and that Muslims shouldn't eat them. Allowing Aussie greengrocers to continue to display bananas offers "clear scope for misinterpretation", too. But misinterpretation is in the eye of the misinterpreter, and pandering to it ensures there will be a lot more.

We hear endlessly about "systemic racism" in British institutions, but the really rampant contagion seems to be systemic auto-racism, a psychologically unhealthy predisposition to believe the worst only about one's own culture. And the trouble with the Anne Owers school of pre-emptive misinterpretation is that the perpetually aggrieved interpret it all too accurately.

Thus, Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, already feels Ms Owers's ban is insufficient. The cross of St George, he explains, is offensive to Muslims because it was carried by English crusaders in the 11th century.

Hmm. Would that be the 11th century that ended nine and a bit centuries ago? When a fellow's got hang-ups about things that happened a millennium ago, there's no point trying to assuage them; he'll only unearth some earlier grievance, demanding the Natural History Museum be dismantled because some stegosaurus was disrespectful to Muslims back in the Jurassic era.

So Mr Doyle wants England to find a new flag which "is not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with". How about we simply swap with the Yanks? Give Crusader Bush the cross of St George and England can have the Stars and Stripes? The stars would be the 50 shards of a pork scratching crushed underfoot by a Dudley council official, with 13 horizontal yellow streaks representing the prostrate backbones of the nation.

Why is George W. Bush's utterly unremarkable evangelical Christianity so self-evidently risible but complaints from British Muslims hung up over the 11th century are perfectly reasonable and something we should seek to accommodate? Where is the secular Left's "insensitivity" when you need it? No doubt the bien pensants will still be hooting at born-again Texans on the day the House of Lords gives a second reading to the Sharia Bill.

It may be time to open a book on when precisely that will be. Any guesses? Whoever is closest wins a one-way, first-class air ticket out, with complimentary in-flight bacon butty and Zionist banana.

Egypt Builds Fence to Protect Infidels

The hypocrites just can't help themselves. First, you have Spain building fences to prevent invasion by unwanted Muslim immigrants. Now you have Egypt building a fence to keep the unwanted Muslim terrorists out of Sharm al-Sheikh. But wait a minute, aren't these the same countries that criticize Israel for building a fence to keep the unwanted Muslim terrorists out? Ah the hypocrisy. How sweet it is. Where's our fence on the Mexico border to keep the unwanted out? I think America should join the hypocrites and embrace the 'fence.'

Fence to protect Red Sea resort

Egypt has started to build a security fence around the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh to try to stop attacks on the town, security officials say.
The officials said the fence would stretch for 20km (12 miles) and force vehicles wanting to enter the town to pass through one of four checkpoints.

More than 60 people were killed in July when suicide bombers launched attacks outside two hotels and a market.

Forces have arrested or killed several people suspected of involvement.

Several groups have said they carried out the attacks, with at least one citing links to the al-Qaeda network.

Concern over access

Authorities have finished 2km (1.2 miles) of the 1.5m-high fence on the northern side of the resort and a smaller section on the southern side, Reuters news agency quoted an official as saying.

A town resident told Reuters that one portion would cut off a nearby Bedouin settlement where many workers live. [Maybe they can put in a gate, like say, I don't know, Israel. Oh the hypocrisy!]

A security official cited by AFP news agency said the fence was "not meant to stop any particular group of people but prevent terrorist attacks".

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Understanding Taqiyya By Example At MyIslam.Org

I was buying a book at, Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom, and there was a section for related advertisment links. One was to, a site run by ICNA. You know ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America), part of the Muslim Mafia propaganda organizations, CAIR, WMY, ISNA, the Armstrong/Esposito/David Forte/Norquist Dhimwit complex, etc. So I clicked on it.

There is a spiel about Muslims should not be blamed for terrorism - '..The frustrated employee who kills his colleagues in cold-blood or the oppressed citizen of an occupied land who vents his anger by blowing up a school bus are terrorists who provoke our anger and revulsion. Ironically however, the politician who uses age-old ethnic animosities between peoples to consolidate his position, the head of state who orders “carpet bombing” of entire cities, the exalted councils that choke millions of civilians to death by wielding the insidious weapon of sanctions, are rarely punished for their crimes against humanity. ..'.

This is then followed by a paragraph about how the Qur'an forbids suicide with this verse quote:
The Glorious Qur’an says:

“…take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.”
[Al-Qur’an 6:151]

This is then followed by a paragraph and then the verse 5:32 WITHOUT the redaction of the excuse for killing infidels for 'corrupting' the land.

Islam considers all life forms as sacred. However, the sanctity of human life is accorded a special place. The first and the foremost basic right of a human being is the right to live. The Glorious Qur’an says:

“…if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”
[Al-Qur’an 5:32]

Such is the value of a single human life, that the Qur’an equates the taking of even one human life unjustly, with killing all of humanity. Thus, the Qur’an prohibits homicide in clear terms. The taking of a criminal’s life by the state in order to administer justice is required to uphold the rule of law, and the peace and security of the society. Only a proper and competent court can decide whether an individual has forfeited his right to life by disregarding the right to life and peace of other human beings.

First, I am surprised that they did not redact the exception for killing infidels 'corrupting' the land, although they don't mention that in their explanation. I wonder if that is because so many critics have pointed out the taqiyya of the redaction.

So, let's return to Verse 6:151 - Muslims can't commit suicide.

This is the entire verse:

6.151 Say: Come I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you-- (remember) that you do not associate anything with Him and show kindness to your parents, and do not slay your children for (fear of) poverty-- We provide for you and for them-- and do not draw nigh to indecencies, those of them which are apparent and those which are concealed, and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice; this He has enjoined you with that you may understand.

Except for the requirements of justice? WhyIslam says "except by way of justice and law". We all know what that 'justice' really means. Dying in an act to kill the oppressors of Allah, i.e., the infidels is A-OK. Isn't it amazing at the deceit Muslims have? Everything is a fraud, a deception or a lie in Islam.

Of course, it goes on. Towards the end, they roll out that tired and abrogated religious freedom verse 2:256 - “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things.” We all know that verse was in the earliest revelations when Mo was starting out and only had his wife and a couple of dregs as Muslims. Mo was no fool. But when he got to Medina and the booty started rolling in and followers joined the 'winning team', he let the hate fly, and repeatedly called for killing all infidels, kaffir, Christians, Jews, polytheists, idolators and atheists. Did I leave anyone out? Mo didn't.

We are against a formidable enemy who excels at deceit. It's no surprise. All cults are built on deceit. and fear.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Bush's Delusions and Ramadan

Bush had another Ramadan dinner at the White House with the terrorists and their allies. What is disturbing is that he still believes all that nonsense Esposito and Armstrong and Norquist and all the other Muslim apologists surrounding him tell him. It is sad that President Bush does not read, except novellas or comic books.

THE PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Thank you. Welcome to the White House. This is the fifth year in a row that it's been my honor to host an Iftaar in the State Dining Room.

Our distinguished guests represent the millions of Muslims that we're proud to call Americans, and many Islamic nations are represented here that America is proud to call friend. We welcome the representatives from many countries with large Muslim populations. I want to thank you all for coming to celebrate an honored tradition of the Muslim faith, and wish you a, "Ramadan Mubarak."

I want to thank those in my administration who have joined us. I want to thank the Imam for joining us today, and thank you for leading us in prayer after these short remarks. I want to thank all the ambassadors from the Organization of the Islamic Conference. [the OIC? Oh yes, that is the OIC that stood and cheered for Mahathir at their annual conference in 2003 where he urged Muslims to wipe Joos off the face of the Earth. That OIC that hates infidels and loves jihad.] I welcome other members of the Diplomatic Corps. And I want to thank the Muslim -- American Muslim leaders who are with us today. Thanks for taking time out to celebrate this important dinner.

Ramadan is the holiest time of the Muslim year. According to Islamic teaching, this month commemorates the revelation of God's word to the Prophet Muhammad in the form of the Koran. For more than a billion Muslims, Ramadan is a time of heartfelt prayer and togetherness. It is a time of fasting and personal sacrifice. It's a time to give thanks for God's blessings through works of charity. [It's also the season for killing infidels. Haven't you noticed?]

One Muslim leader said: "It's a national and Islamic obligation to assist one's neighbors when they are in need." The American people saw that spirit as we recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The world sees that spirit, that compassion of Islam, through the countless acts of kindness following the recent earthquake in southeast -- in South Asia.

America is fortunate to count such good-hearted men and women among our fellow citizens. We have great respect for the commitment that all Muslims make to faith, family, and education. And Americans of many backgrounds seek to learn more about the rich tradition of Islam. To promote greater understanding between our cultures, I have encouraged American families to travel abroad, to visit with Muslim families. And I have encouraged American families to host exchange students from the Muslim world. I have asked young Americans to study the language and customs of the broader Middle East. And for the first time in our nation's history, we have added a Koran to the White House Library. (Applause.) [Good grief. He stands for everything I am against. Why did I vote for this man? Best choice of two bad apples. Now that you have a Koran George, better check that verse 5:32 and read Ch 9 - it's really sweet.]

All of us gathered tonight share a conviction that America must remain a welcoming and tolerant land, in which our people are free to practice any faith they choose. We reject every form of ethnic and religious discrimination. As I said in my second Inaugural Address, we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time. [Stop Muslim immigration to America NOW. What a loser.]

We also share a common hope for the future -- that our children and grandchildren will grow up in a safer and more peaceful world. Delivering on that promise to future generations requires action from our generation. We must stand confidently in the cause of freedom -- including the freedom of people everywhere to practice their faith in peace. We must also firmly oppose all who commit evil in God's name. I am grateful to the Muslim nations that have joined our coalition in the war on terror -- including many nations that have been victims of terror themselves.

As we work together to defeat the terrorists, we must be very clear about the enemies we face. The killers who take the lives of innocent men, women, and children are followers of a violent ideology very different from the religion of Islam. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against anyone who does not share their radical vision, including Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics. [No they don't. They are following the scriptures exactly. When oh when will Bush read a book?]

Their strategy will fail. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing chapter 5, verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. [Your writers still reading off an Esposito script I guess. The ignorance is unbelievable. Crack open that new Koran and read 5:32 without the taqiyya.] I appreciate those of you here who have joined these scholars in rejecting violent extremists. And I believe the time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to denounce an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles your noble faith. [The time has come? Four years and the time has come?]

I have great confidence in the future of this nation, and in the future of the Muslim world. I have been inspired by the courage of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, where Muslims are celebrating Ramadan in two of the world's newest democracies. I believe that people of every religious and ethnic background have the right and the desire to be free. And I believe that the spread of freedom and justice and tolerance in the broader Middle East will lead to the peace that we all seek.

As we celebrate this special Iftaar, we renew the ties of friendship that bind all those who trace their faith back to God's call on Abraham. We recognize the many hopeful works we have achieved together. We look forward to learning more from each other in the years ahead.

I'm so grateful that you joined us today. I wish you a blessed Ramadan, and may God bless you all. (Applause.)
END 7:08 P.M. EDT

Circumscribing Islam in the West

Today, Paul Cella at has an interview with Andrew Bostom about his new book The Legacy of Jihad. I highly recommend this interview. In it he is asked what the West can do to protect itself from jihad:

PC: Given the nature of Islam as laid out by the Islamic authorities you have quoted, what is a Western policy toward Islam, including the sensitive issue of Muslim immigration to the West, consistent with these Islamic realities?

AB: I agree with the thrust of what Dr. Raphael Israeli described in his seminal analysis of modern jihad terrorism published in 2003. He proposes the creation of an Alliance of Western and Democratic States (AWADS), consisting of a nucleus of the United States, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe (and these core nations can sponsor other countries proven to conform to its rules and standards, for example, India), with the following six avowed “rules of engagement”:

Strict control of immigration from Muslim countries without reliance on the "efforts" of the countries of origin, who have shown neither the will nor the means to stop this massive flow, much of it already illegal. This policy should include interception and routine unceremonious repatriation of the illegal immigrants themselves, and expulsion from AWADS nations of those who assist them.

Reciprocal arrangements for controlled immigration, tourism and educational exchanges between Muslim countries and AWADS nations to guarantee equivalent, unimpeded bilateral flow — Muslim nationals to AWADS, AWADS nationals to Muslim countries — devoid of characteristic Muslim discriminatory regulations towards other races, faiths, or nationalities.

Rendering various forms of economic, technical/infrastructural, health, agricultural, and educational assistance by AWADS to Muslim countries contingent upon basic conditions met by the applicants, including: accountability; progress in human rights; meaningful efforts at population control; renunciation of force/violence in dealing with other nations/communities; and monitoring and controlling incitement to hatred and violence in mosques and media outlets.

Terminating all military assistance and weapons sales by AWADS to non-member states, supplemented by a policy that any weapons-manufacturing third party which sells or transfers weapons to those regimes will itself forfeit the right to deal with AWADS members.

Mosque construction, as well as the building of other Muslim institutions in AWADS nations, particularly projects funded by Saudi Arabia, will be contingent upon reciprocal arrangements to construct religious institutions for other faiths in Muslim nations, including each country situated on the Arabian peninsula, and the binding commitment by all parties — AWADS and non-members of AWADS — that no incitement or hatred will be propagated in any of these religious institutions.

The importation into AWADS nations from Muslim countries of cultural commodities and assets — books, movies, art shows and exhibits, performing arts groups, clerics and missionaries, print media or audio/video tapes — must also be reciprocal, contingent upon the unrestricted flow of similar AWADS assets into Muslim countries- and all such assets will be required by law to be devoid of messages that disseminate hate.

Obviously this isn't going to happen anytime soon. I figure we need at least another mega terror attack with at least 100,000 dead for our government to remove the scales from their eyes. Some would argue that you cannot do this to a religion. But is Islam a relgion or a cult? You decide.

6th Column had an interesting article analyzing Islam as a cult

ISLAM IS A CULT, NOT A RELIGION [halfway down page]

Religions encourage a personal relationship with God and seek to increase understanding.

Islam insists only on absolute slavery.

Can children that repeat the Koran over and over and over again be really said to be getting wisdom?

No, they are simply being brainwashed to the point where they cannot think, dare to criticize, or simply to question many of the contentious issues. They have spent their lives learning a book that they are not then willing to reform or even question, but only simply parrot passages from it.

Think about the attributes of a cult:

1) A leader (dead or alive) who is considered absolutely infallible.

2) Proscribed food and dress. Everyone must adhere to the standard.

3) Repetitive and frequent sessions to reinforce behaviour.

4) Violent and often brutal treatment of backsliders or people who wish to leave.

5) A cult who tells you what God is like, but provides no individual contact with God.

6) Regulation of every aspect of the day, from dawn to dusk.

7) The leader often breaks his own rules set for the others.

8) Outsiders are demonized, and cult members are discouraged from contact or friendship with people outside the cult.

9) Cults are never tolerant.

10) Obsessive ways of doing things are a hallmark of a cult.

11) Emulation of the leader.

12) Absolute certainty that they are right; no doubt is allowed or encouraged.

Think about what a cult is; then apply these characteristics to any religion you wish.

How many out of these twelve match for Islam?

1) Muhammad was beyond criticism, even when he took a six year old girl as a wife and had sex with her at nine years old, as soon as he could.

2) Food and dress are rigorously regulated--a form of control, insisting that followers can only eat this or at certain times and must dress a certain way.

3) The daily regime of stopping work or whatever, to bow to Mecca five times and say repetitive prayers as reinforcing behaviour.

4) People who leave Islam are supposed to be killed. People who transgress Islamic rules about showing a female arm or ankle are whipped in the street as the Taliban did and Saudi religious police still do.

5) No Muslims are allowed to talk to God themselves. They are told how God is. Only the top guy is allowed to have had divine contact, and they then limit God’s ability to talk to anyone else.

6) The whole day is full of prayers, and all behaviour from eating to washing to going to the toilet has rules.

7) Muhammad frequently broke his own rules, saying it was okay for him. For instance, he said no man can have more than four wives, but he himself had eleven.

8) The Koran is full of exhortations like “show harshness to unbelievers” or to “take not Jews or Christians for friends”.

9) The barbarity of Islamic terrorists is obvious.

10) Saying “peace be upon him” every time they mention Muhammad’s name is an example of cultic obsession.

11) Emulation of Muhammad extends to dressing, defecating, and sleeping as they think he did. Muhammad didn’t use chairs, so many Muslims sit on the floor to eat. Of course, this is all selective snobbery. Muhammad didn’t read, didn’t drive a car, or use a mobile phone too, but no-one seems keen to copy this.

12) There is no encouragement of questioning or consideration in Islam. Religions usually have a path of learning, and being wrong leads to maturity. Even Jesus had doubts. However, Muslims aren’t allowed to entertain “what if” notions.

One of the worst things though about a cult is that it stifles original thinking. This is why the Islamists have never invented anything. ....

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Why No Outcry Over Islamist Attacks on Churches in Indonesia: Grant Swank Jr. Knows Why

Just browsing the blogs, and at FriskoDude, I saw this posting from a Christian newsletter about the recent attacks on churches. This guy asks some tough questions, and it is time to demand answers, instead of politically correctness.

Muslims Attack Catholics at Prayer: Indonesia
The American Daily
Oct 16, 2005
J. Grant Swank Jr.

They are praying. They have gathered for spiritual purposes in a private house. Then all of a sudden they are attacked by Muslims. These Islamic zealots are armed. They break through the door into the room where prayers are being offered heavenward.

They not only threaten the Catholics. They also say they are going to set fire to the house. If petitions continue toward God, the home will be burnt out cinders in short order.

This has sparked fears throughout Indonesia and among Catholic communities around the world. Even those in the United States who have heard of the break-in know of Muslim murderers global sleeper cells here. They can assume that what happens elsewhere on the planet could very well be transplanted anywhere, including America.

This is all in keeping with the Koran dictates from Allah that non-Muslims be annihilated. Only Islamics must remain alive in order to set up Islam as world rule. It is what their deity has demanded since the killing cult began. The paragraphs in the Koran are numerous. They are bloody. They detail how to torture and kill Christians and Jews in particular.

To mask the Koran slaughter dictates, there are other passages in that publication that endorse being kind to persons. Muslims are supposed to reach out. These are the passages confused Muslims point to when trying to defend their religion. But it is a mask attempt to cover up the real intent of the publication, that being to slay every "infidel" (non-Muslim).

The Indonesian armed males state that they are members of the Islamic Defender Front. In other words, they are not working at random. They are a part of a network to kill. They are programmed. They have a prescribed agenda. They know what their final goal is. Seeing it through may mean that they will be slain; but that is permissible for being slain equals an eternity of orgies in Allah’s paradise. There is no such guarantee for females involved in suicide cases.

According to AsiaNews, "The attack took place on 11 October in a private house. Armed men broke in and threatened to burn the place down if the prayer went ahead. Fears are rising about further violence against Indonesian believers."

Islamics entering the home, then ordered the persons involved in a spiritual exercise to halt such petitions immediately. If prayers continued, fires would be lighted. They particularly targeted the spiritual leader of the group. He had to put his name to a declaration stating that such prayers would never be held again in that house or anywhere in that area.

Indonesian Catholics are now living in such apprehension that house prayers are becoming scarce. If held, there is utmost vigilance maintained.

This same Islamic murdering front is responsible for closing down other house worshiping centers in western Java.

When will Islamic killers international move to other nations to threaten Catholics?

Why is it that Islamic mosque clerics worldwide don’t castigate the Indonesian attackers?

Why doesn’t the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) post discipline measures on its site and satellite offices throughout the United States? [hahaha, dream on and on]

Why don’t CAIR representatives send out news releases declaring their opposition to such threats as those in Indonesia? Why don’t CAIR leaders go to media microphones to speak out against their devotees who slaughter? [will you stop! you are cracking me up.]

Why don’t Muslim national leaders in other countries go to the global press stating their abhorrence of such activists in their own killing cult?

Why doesn’t the World Council of Churches expose the Islam religion as a killing cult and not a religion among world religions? [That is a good question indeed.]

Why doesn’t the National Council of Churches in the US do the same?

It is because Muslims, regardless of their station, all read the same Koran. They all read the killing passages. They are called to see through the establishment of Islam as world rule. They are all under Allah’s dictate to do away with every "infidel."

Further, the non-Muslim theological liberals within the World Council and National Council of Churches do not take courageous stands for they are so splintered themselves due to their theological heresies.

On the other hand, evangelicals expose the Islamic slayers for what they are—on their web sites, in their magazines and books, in public sermons from pulpits and in Bible classes in churches and parishioners’ homes. [and therefore, to the Leftists, that is irrefutable proof their alliance with the Islamists is right, which, of course, is terribly wrong. To even agree on this with the evangelists is anathema to them. Cut off your nose to spite your face, not believe your lying eyes? Even a few of their own have doubts about the Islamists. Sam Harris comes to mind. But it is only a few.]

Elena Chudinova - Russia's Orianna Fallaci

Window on Eurasia: Russian Novelist Does 'Not Want to Live in a Moscow Caliphate'

(September 22, 2005)
Paul Goble

Tartu, September 22 – Elena Chudinova, the author of the already notorious dystopian novel "The Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris," says that she would rather live in a Russia controlled and garrisoned by the Americans than in a Moscow where the Russian Federation's own Muslims have established a caliphate.

In an interview published in the current issue of "Politicheskiy zhurnal," Chudinova said that if Russia were occupied by the Americans – something which she does not like to contemplate -- she and other Russians "would again compose anecdotes, start up samizdat – and live just as we did under Soviet power" ( ).

But if the Muslims were to succeed in establishing their own rule in Moscow, she continued, then Russian culture, Russians as a people and Russia itself would cease to exist. And because that danger is not unthinkable, she said, she had written her novel calling for a struggle against what she says is the Islamic threat to the Christian world.

Challenged by her interviewer on the criticism her book has received since being released at the Moscow book fair earlier this month, Chudinova refused to back down on any point. She said she was "an enemy of all-human values," preferring instead national and religious ones and said she was struggling for her right not to know anything about Islam. [That's a right we lost a long time ago.]

The former children’s book writer insisted that recent events in Europe and elsewhere had proven once and for all that "a dialogue between our civilizations [Christian and Muslim] was impossible," and that all attempts to promote it, however well-intentioned, were doomed to complete and total failure.

Asked whether she did not think that her views might have the effect in the Russian Federation of driving the country's moderate Muslims into the hands of the fundamentalists and thus further dividing Russian society, Chudinova unapologetically said that such an outcome was "very possible."

Muslims, she insisted, even moderate ones like the Tatars and Bashkirs, increasingly are drawn to radicalism by the Internet, an institution that has undermined traditional Islam and give the radicals the chance to propagate their views and win over those Muslims who had opposed them.

She added that the Russian Empire had been much too tolerant of its Muslim subjects
and had allowed them "freedom" of religious belief, a tragic mistake for which the Russian writer said contemporary Russians are now "paying for and one she implied should be corrected by a much harsher policy now against the country's Muslim citizens.

Russians as a cultural community must defend themselves, she insisted, by defending their culture and, together with other Christian nations, fighting off the Islamic challenge that threatens the Russian world and the Christian West.

Doing so will not be easy, Chudinova said, because only a relatively tiny share of Russians are in fact committed Orthodox Christians. But at the same time, she indicated that a committed minority could make all the difference, winning over the country's intellectuals and thus putting Muslims on the defensive.

At the end of her interview, Chudinova ringingly asserted that for her "only one thing is important: I read Dostoyevskiy and listen to Rachmaninov and I want people living fifty years from now [to do the same]. I speak Russian and I want them to speak it too," something she said that could be guaranteed only by struggling against Muslims now.

Book comment from NOK: Author of the Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris hopes her book will help Christians come back to Christ

Moscow, September 9, Interfax - Author Elena Chudinova of the Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris book that caused a stir, does not think that her novel makes inter-religious strife.
Interfax correspondent reports that a journalist called the presentation of the book at the All-Union Exhibition Centre on Friday unconstitutional. She considers the book to be politically incorrect.
The author responded that ‘as the Muslims propagate their religion, Christians can do likewise’.
‘My novel does not make inter-religious strife, but rather invites Christians to come back to Christ’, Chudinova underscored.
Press secretary Olga Golosova of Lepta-Press publishing house said: ‘When people abandon Christ, their souls become empty. This emptiness is filled by Islam in Western Europe’.
Popular frontman Mikhail Leontiev said at the presentation that he liked the idea. Leontiev invited the readers not to be afraid of a possible negative reaction. ‘Brawlers do not mind how to interpret the book - they will make a row anyway’, he emphasized.
‘Notre Dame de Paris Mosque’ is an antiutopia, the action takes place in the mid-21st century. Islam becomes the EU state religion, while Christians and other Europeans are forced to live in ghetto. A small group of the Resistance movement refuses to live according to the Shariat laws and fight for their rights with the new masters of Europe.

The "Let Gaza Destroy Itself" Plan is Excellent, says Montgomery Burns

Isn't it great! As predicted, the Palestinians are killing each other. The chaos is epidemic! Excellent!

Seriously, the proof is in the pudding. There are more and more splinter groups growing in Gaza, and they all HATE each other. Isn't that great! Now if we could cut off that jizya that keeps the whole goddamn thing from ramping to full tilt annihilation. That would be sweet.

From Time Magazine | World
Gaza's New Strongmen
Now that Israel is gone, the Palestinian Authority faces a new foe: armed militias that want to clean house and take their piece of the pie. Meet the Sopranos of the Middle East

Posted Sunday, Oct. 09, 2005
Jamal Abu Samhadana meets visitors in a narrow first-floor room in the Gaza Strip town of Rafah, in a dwelling lit only by a small, battery-powered fluorescent strip. He proffers a misshapen right hand for a shake. Shrapnel from an Israeli tank shell broke Abu Samhadana's forearm in 2001. His hand looks caved in, his wrist bends grotesquely and his skin is unnaturally smooth and hairless, as though the limbs had been melted. For a tough guy like Abu Samhadana, such disfigurements are badges of authenticity. "Luckily," he says, "I shoot with my left hand."

Although rarely seen in public, Abu Samhadana is emerging as the most powerful figure in this flash-point town on the border between Gaza and Egypt, where the intifadeh was at its most murderous. As the founder of an armed militia called the Salah ed-Din Brigades, he commands 2,000 gunmen who since 2001 have fought deadly battles with Israeli forces patrolling the border. But now that Israel has pulled its troops and civilians out of Gaza and turned over responsibility for the area to the Palestinian Authority, Abu Samhadana and his troops have a new target: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his security services, who are struggling to impose order in Gaza, home to 1.5 million Palestinians. Abbas' predecessor, Yasser Arafat, used to send Abu Samhadana $10,000 a month, but Abbas ended those payments in February. Without such support, Abu Samhadana's army is filled with jobless (and armed) men who have been expressing their frustration by going on a spree of kidnappings and assassinations. "Gaza is in security chaos," says Abu Samhadana. "Every Palestinian citizen is in danger."

For Palestinians, the elation that accompanied Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has been replaced by fear that a bloody struggle will erupt between Abbas' security services and the myriad armed groups proliferating in the Palestinian territories. Abbas has had limited success in persuading the Islamist group Hamas to halt rocket attacks against Israel. But his more troublesome quandary is how to deal with militia leaders like Abu Samhadana, who nominally belong to Abbas' Fatah party but operate outside anyone's control. U.S. officials estimate that there are 3,000 Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank who consider themselves leaders of militias like the Salah ed-Din Brigades, although most are much less powerful than Abu Samhadana. The Palestinian Authority's 30,000 police and soldiers in the Gaza Strip say they lack the capacity to disarm such groups. In an open show of their frustration, 50 police officers fired guns in the air and interrupted a meeting of the Palestinian parliament in Gaza City last week to plead for more firepower. Some Palestinians fear that Gaza is descending into violent anarchy. "It's a Mafia situation," says Saeb al-Ajez, who resigned as chief of Palestinian police in February to protest the lawlessness. "Law is cast aside. Everyone wants to show his muscles." [YEAH!]

Among the brawniest is Abu Samhadana, whose shifting network of allegiances illustrates the difficulties Abbas faces in trying to restore order. During the intifadeh, the Salah ed-Din Brigades gained the respect of Gazans by confronting Israeli soldiers when the official Palestinian military fled. But the group ran its refugee camps, towns and villages as gangster fiefs. With the Israelis gone, locals say it has increasingly turned to racketeering and extortion. Despite Abbas' ban on the public display of weapons, members of the gang can still be seen on Gaza's streets, openly toting their M-16 and AK-47 assault rifles. And Abu Samhadana has become a strident critic of Abbas and his henchmen, whom he views as ineffectual. "The reason for the chaos is the weakness of the Palestinian Authority," he says. "It is weak because it is totally corrupt." [Thanks Sahmhadana helping to keep the chaos at a fever pitch. Go kill a lot of Palestinians! Muslims killing Muslims. It's what they do best, killing, and it is best for the infidels, that they kill their own kind.]

Abu Samhadana's men have become more brazen in going after their enemies. Early last month, gunmen besieged the house of Moussa Arafat, a top security adviser to Abbas, dragged him into the street and shot him 23 times. Members of the Salah ed-Din Brigades claimed responsibility for the killing in a statement released through a website, saying it killed Arafat because he was a "collaborator and corrupt." Senior Palestinian security officials say they believe the gunmen were persuaded to carry out the hit by Arafat's rivals within Fatah. Over the summer, branches of the Salah ed-Din Brigades also launched a series of kidnappings of foreign aid workers and journalists in what amounted to gangster-style extortion bids. Take the kidnapping of Muhammad Ouathi, a French-Algerian journalist. Members of the brigades swiped Ouathi in Gaza City on Aug. 14. Abu Samhadana stepped in to negotiate, persuading Palestinian officials to release, in return for the liberty of the journalist, 10 of his men held by the police for a raid on Gaza's central jail in January.

The violence seems likely to escalate. Arafat's family will no doubt eventually take revenge. And armed Fatah factions, including the Salah ed-Din Brigades, have compiled a hit list, according to senior Fatah officials, that includes party officials and cabinet ministers suspected of corruption. Fearing for their lives, several senior Fatah officials fled last month to Jordan. [with the US and EU jizya booty in tow, you can bet on that.] In Nablus, a former Interior Minister narrowly escaped being assassinated Sept. 20 by a group of masked men. Meanwhile, the leader of the Fatah militia in the West Bank town of Jenin said two weeks ago that he no longer considers himself bound by Abbas' "calmness" agreement with the various Palestinian factions. Nowhere among the Fatah men is there the trust that binds Hamas activists. "I don't exclude the possibility that the Authority will kill me," says Abu Samhadana.

Defusing groups like the Salah ed-Din Brigades won't be easy. Unlike Hamas, they have no political program that Abbas can negotiate over. Abu Samhadana says his "main priority" is to gain sinecures for his men in the Palestinian Authority's security forces. So far, he has been offered jobs for 500. That's not enough, he says, and complains that the remaining 1,500 "will be like the rest of the Palestinian people--unemployed." [Oh brave infidel, doesn't it warm your heart that your jizya will be given to these Gaza security forces?] The town of Rafah is particularly desperate: it has a 66% unemployment rate, compared with 25% among Palestinians in general, and 81% of its residents live in poverty. Israel demolished thousands of homes near the border to prevent militants from digging tunnels beneath them that could be used to smuggle weapons into Gaza. The meager refugee-camp blocks facing the border are a bullet-pocked mess of twisted rebar and shattered concrete.

Ultimately, Abbas' prospects for controlling the gunmen may depend on the health of Gaza's economy. [Uh oh, I feel a major jizya bloodsucking coming. Pucker up and bend over US!] Abbas has announced a few new infrastructure projects since the Israeli pullout, but they won't provide nearly enough jobs for the 20,000 gunmen operating in the Gaza Strip, according to Palestinian security officials. Abbas already has a bloated public payroll that eats up 62% of his budget, and World Bank officials are leaning on him to fire some of his nearly 60,000 security officers, not hire more. If economic opportunities stay bleak, the gunmen may well push Gaza deeper into lawlessness. Even Abu Samhadana is worried that his men, having realized their goal of ending the Israeli occupation of Gaza, may cause even more ruination to Palestinian society if their vigilantism remains unchecked. "We must all distinguish between weapons of resistance and weapons of chaos," he says. The question is whether it's already too late. [ Oh I get it. Weapons of resistance if killing the infidels, and weapons of chaos if killing fellow Muslims. As an infidel, I feel better already.]

Thousands More Rant, Gays Question Their 'Useful Idiot' Relationship with Farrahkahn and Nation of Islam

It's over. Farrakhan and his goons had their protest in DC. The press hardly mentions or glosses over that less than a 100,000 people attended the Millions More March. If it had been a conservative protest billed as a 'millions' man march and less than 100,000 showed up, it would get the top line 'Poor showing for Whitey's million man march', or 'Hardly any whities show up for million man march.' But almost all the press ignores the shortfall. In fact, they are stumbling over themselves trying to 'whitewash' the march.

Exactly what are they marching for anyway? Special preferences? Got that. Affirmative action, minority quotas. Got that too. They must want more. Oh yes reparations! It's only fair. They are just seeking justice. What a pathetic bunch of losers.

Watching parts of the Farrakahn folly on CSPAN, it reminded me of the antiwar protest only a few weeks ago. A motley crew of misfits and America haters in an orgy of hate.

While Farrakhan promotes himself as the Muslim spokesman for American Muslims, he is hated by the immigrant Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims in America? Why? To start, the Nation of Islam considers its founder a 'prophet'. Yes indeed. The 'seal' of the Prophet of Mo has been broken. Elijah is a prophet and that pisses off the Islamists to no end. And the Nation of Islam doesn't follow all the rituals that the Islamists insist upoon. It's heresy. The Nation of Islam, and Farrakhan, are 'useful idiots' to be used for now and plowed under once the Islamists have enough population mass in America. Through the glory of immigration and multiculturalism, America has brought these supremacists to America so they can be given a public venue to spew their hatred of America.

The MSM interview Farrakhan as a 'leader' not an idiot, hanging on every word, softly chastising Farrakhan for his 'the government blew up the levees to kill blacks' nutty accusation. A white man would never be respected and considered seriously if he had made the same statement. He would be attacked as a 'racist' and shunned. But not the great Farrakhan. But he's black, so it is ok for him to criticize the Crackers. That's the right of every minority you see and whitey should just get over it. And send money!

The MSM presented the protest as inclusive, including gays. But that is not how it turned out. At the last minute, Boykin, a gay leader, was denied a chance to speak. Haven't you heard? Muslims hate Gays and think they should be thrown off tall buildings. Why the gays think they would even want to be associated with a fascist gaybashing leader like Farrakhan is beyond me? The 'useful idiot' syndrome lives on among the gay rights groups with their foolish alliances with Muslims, but maybe they are having second thoughts...

Gays Protest Rejection Of Speaker at Gathering

Donna Payne, an organizer with the Human Rights Campaign who also attended the meeting, said Wilson told them he had to change his telephone number and was worried about his family. He then pulled out a book, "The New Joy of Gay Sex," and accused gay leaders of sending it to him.

Payne also said Wilson accused gay leaders of not knowing what is happening in the community.

Thousands of men, women and children gathered on the National Mall for the Millions More Movement. Although the crowd was not as large as the hundreds of thousands at the Million Man March a decade ago, leaders said the success of the day could not be measured by numbers.

Boykin and Payne said Wilson then grabbed a white plastic bag and pulled out a bottle of sleeping pills and a G-string made from Pez candies strung together. He said black girls use the items to try to turn other girls into lesbians. [I always knew those Pez dispensers were evil incarnate.]

"We were stunned into silence," said H. Alexander Robinson, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, who attended the meeting. "What do you say to that?" [Cuckoo?]

Wilson, interviewed after speaking about unity at the march, would not comment on the meeting.

Longtime Washington gay activist Phillip Pannell said he thought the offer of a speaking spot to a national gay representative was a ruse by march organizers to silence critics in the days leading up to the event. [You think?]

"Farrakhan gives us the sugary rhetoric, and Wilson serves up the vinegar," Pannell said. "I think it was by design."

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Expanding Dar al-Islam into Russia

As if Putin doesn't have enough problems, the Islamists are now pushing to take over more Russian territory. Russia has a problem. Not enough non-Muslims to populate the vast Russian territory, so the southern territories, specifically the Caucasus, are being devoured by Islamists. If Putin can't kill the leaders and most of the Islamists driving this land grad, the Caucasus territories will be lost. Dar Al-Islam grows, and Dar al-Harb shrinks.

Qur’an (21:44) Do they see Us advancing, gradually reducing the land (in their control), curtailing its borders on all sides? It is they who will be overcome.

Rebels Launch Attacks in Southern Russia

NALCHIK, Russia Oct 13, 2005 — Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings in this city in Russia's turbulent Caucasus region Thursday, sparking battles that killed at least 49 people.

Chechen rebels claimed responsibility for the attacks, which forced the evacuation of schools and left corpses littering the streets of Nalchik, the capital of the republic of Kabardino-Balkariya.

The Chechen rebels' decade-long struggle against Russia, originally a separatist movement, has melded increasingly with Islamic extremism in the past decade and spread far beyond Chechnya's borders to encompass the whole turbulent Russian Caucasus region.


Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Homogeneity and Diversity Contrasted with Nation Examples

Michael's Western World Politics has an interesting two part essay he wrote regarding nation state success and proves clearly that diversity is actually a disaster. This is something that is politically incorrect to state, but who cares, I've never been politically correct. In Part 1 of Homogeneity Works, Diversity Doesn't, he looks at Iceland, Japan and Israel. What is interesting is that Japan is always being warned by the immigration harpies of entering a population death spiral and decline of civilization due to their restrictive immigration policy. It's the same argument you hear in the West, "The population has to keep expanding to support the retiring population." This is not true. I believe a population can address the population decline by incentives. What must also be managed is the spending of the government to reflect a no population growth future. Why must we assume this cannot be managed? The leftists and the 'more immigration please' harpies, like the Islamists, say something (like without immigration, our civilization would die) that is accepted as fact verbatim. Everyone knows that! No questions!

Now in Part 2, Michael looks at Afghanistan, South Africa, and Brazil. All hyper multicultural and all hyper failures. While Afghanistan has Islam to blame as well and makes it the worst of the 3, South Africa and Brazil do not. South Africa is a mess because they have a huge ignorant black population that is tribal and primitive. The concept of a 'constructive society' and the sacrifice that requires just doesn't exist. Best to steal it. What is real gloomy about South Africa's future is the rapid expansion of Islam there. Can it get any worse, seriously?

Now what about America? Certainly the level of diversity in America has never been greeater in its history. Over 30 million Mexicans and Latin Americans, some assimilated, many others not assimilated at all. A second culture within. The same is true for Muslims. Most do not want to assimilate. They want to be Muslims living in infidel America, but their first alliance is to the ummah. They're just pretend citizens protecting Islam while Islam is weak.

Political correctness, multiculturalism, affirmative action, ethnic preferences - all claim to be a part of 'the strength of diversity.' Yet the proof of its failure is not just in far away countries, but right here in America.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

David Forte - TaqiyyaMaster and Advisor to President Bush

We always ask, "Who are the idiots advising the President about Islam?" We all moan when Bush says "Islam is a religion of peace", or "terrorists have distorted and twisted Islam." Who are the idiots telling Bush that is the 'smart' thing to say? Are Muslim agents inside the White House brainwashing the President and his administration? Or is it Infidel 'scholars' of religion who are fascinated, even 'in love' with Islam for whatever idiotic reason, who are advising the President so badly? We all know how the Middle East studies programs have been infiltrated by Muslim agents and apologists for Islam - protecting Islam and lieing when counseling this Administration. David Forte is one of those 'scholars' who has done great harm to America. David Forte is just another symbol of the sickness and corruption that has consumed American Middle East Studies programs in our Universities. See also Defining The Enemy at JihadWatch Oct. 8, 2005 and Fitzgerald: A brief MESA Nostra taxonomy Oct. 8, 2005

Here we have Islam, a cult of death and hate with its Qur'an and Hadiths that spew on almost every page hatred of infidels with endless verses urging death and subjugation of Infidels, being promoted as a 'great' religion by Muslim agents and their Infidel apologists. And Forte is at the forefront, defending Islam, legitimizing Islam and misleading our President and the masses with his lies.

David Forte's favorite adjective for Islam is 'great'. His favorite deceit is that "Islam was hijacked." Mr. Forte argues that "What drives bin Laden is not religious faith of any traditional kind; it is, rather, the all-too-familiar phenomenon of murderous revolutionary ideology politicizing religion for its own purposes." Forte goes even further in stating that "nothing this evil could be religious." Spare me. Is that not the stupidest thing you have ever heard?

That should tell you a lot about how Forte thinks. His main proposition is extremists like bin Laden do not represent historic or mainstream Islam. But this is a lie and he knows it. Taqiyya is not an exclusive to Muslims, but is used adeptly by Islam's apologists like Forte. He promotes his deceit by making ridiculous and false statements like Bin Laden, the Taliban, and their allies '... mocks any semblance of the toleration and peaceful coexistence that have marked much of Islamic history.' Like all 'closetmuslim' apologists, he makes these claims of Islam's historical 'toleration and peaceful coexisitence' knowing full well he is a liar, a taqiyyamaster, and the naive infidels eat it up. How could anyone who studies Islam make such a broad and false statement? Should we call Forte a traitor, a Benedict Arnold for his lies and deceit? I say indeed we should. David Forte is a 'closetmuslim' apologist who is doing grave harm to America by deceiving Bush and this administration with his 'Islam is not the problem' mantra. If Bush was smart, which he isn't, he would kick this taqiyyamaster to the gutter, and don't forget to kick that Muslim agent Grover Norquist to the gutter with him.

His argument that Bin Laden and his followers are a 'tiny minority' has been disproven, but he persists in his taqiyya. Daniel Pipes recognizes Forte's false statements in his article Bin Laden is a Fundamentalist, A reply to David F. Forte. by Daniel Pipes, National Review, October 22, 2001

Professor Forte draws the line differently from me. Whereas Professor Forte sees the problem as a small group of active terrorists in al Qaeda; I see the entire fundamentalist movement constituting the problem. I hold that Islamic fundamentalists stand outside of historic Islam and are already within bin Laden's extremist ranks.

To me, every fundamentalist Muslim, no matter how peaceable in his own behavior, is part of a murderous movement and is thus, in some fashion, a foot soldier in the war that bin Laden has launched against civilization. He mentions the Wahhabis approvingly but I wonder why. In the 1920s, the Wahhabi movement split and the somewhat less extremist elements of this movement defeated the yet more extreme of them. The Taliban regime is a rough approximation of what the more extreme group would have created in Saudi Arabia. Its funding and support comes in good part from Saudi Arabia. In other words, there is a direct line between the Wahhabis and Osama bin Laden.

For this reason, I have written about the fundamentalists, "Many of them are peaceable in appearance, but they all must be considered potential killers." By way of comparison, I would say precisely the same about Nazis and Leninists; however non-violently they might conduct their own lives, the fact that they back a barbaric force means they too are barbarians and must be treated as such.

Sadly, I must report that the sympathizers of Osama bin Laden are legion. Fully one quarter of the populations in Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority (survey research finds, in separate polls both overseen by U.S. organizations) consider the September 11 attacks acceptable according to the laws of Islam. To me, this suggests that a very substantial body of Muslim opinion is already in bin Laden's camp; more, that virtually the whole range of fundamentalist Islamic opinion agrees with his goals and his methods.

This difference between Professor Forte's and my views has immense policy implications. He can cheerfully advise Washington to work with the huge majority of Muslims to isolate a tiny fringe of violent ideologues. I grimly tell the policymakers that the problem is not just the miniscule element he points to but the much larger one of fundamentalists, which I estimate at 10 to 15 percent of the Muslim population. Professor Forte does not explicitly say so, but his argument suggests that the U.S. government can cooperate with regimes such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia in an effort to isolate the Taliban; I see all three as just different aspects of the same problem.

I wish I could subscribe to Professor Forte's sunny conclusion that "By recognizing bin Laden's evil for what it is, Americans can begin a process of engagement with the vast populations of the Muslim world." Instead, I must offer a more pessimistic formulation: "By recognizing the wide backing of bin Laden's evil for what it is, Americans must begin a process of confrontation with 10 to 15 percent of the vast populations of the Muslim world."

David Forte is a Professor of Law at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in Cleveland, Ohio and the author of Islamic Studies: Classical and Contemporary Applications (currently in position at 1,649,977 of best sellers at Amazon, 280 pages legitimizing Sharia for $78). He is an Adjunct Fellow of the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio. He busys himself with 'dialogue' conferences and spreading falsehoods about Islam as tolerant and free thinking.

Here is just a taste of Forte's taqiyya:

"They also mean to hijack Islam itself and to destroy 13 centuries of Islamic civilization. We are not in a war between two civilizations. We are fighting an enemy of two civilizations."

"Bin Laden and other Islamic radicals claim they represent ancient Islam. It is true that they do represent one tradition in Islam, but it is a tradition that Islam early on rejected as opposed to the universal message of its Prophet."[Right there! 'unversal message of its Prophet' Oh what could that message be? Islam must rule the world, the world belongs to Islam and only Islam. That there is no peace until there are only Muslims in the world. That message?]

"Today, radicals like bin Laden replicate that ancient sect that threatened to destroy Islamic civilization at its inception. They copy that sect that stood against what came to be a civilization known in its time for its learning, science, openness and toleration." These broad statements about Islam's openness and toleration and scientific learning are lies, and David Forte is their taqiyyamaster. Bostom's new book The Legacy of Jihad destroys David Forte's taqiyya, and that is a good thing.

In his latest book, Studies in Islamic Law: Classical and Contemporary Applications, (1999) (ISBN: 1572921285), Forte actually believes there is legitimacy in the grotesque Sharia laws. You know, the Sharia, that requires infidels to convert, become dhimmis or be killed. The Sharia that advocates amputation for theft and stoning for homosexuals and adulterers. He also says 'Free enterprise has always been a hallmark of Islamic law and Muslim economies.' Who is he kidding? Free enterprise a hallmark of Muslim economies? That's why Muslims lead the world in patents! Not. That's why the ummah has a 50% illiteracy rate! I could go on, but will stop, it's just too easy.

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome , Code: ZE05030923, Date: 2005-03-09, Islamic Law and Its Democratic Potential, Interview With David Forte, a Vatican Consultor and Bush Adviser

In his article Religion is Not the Enemy (NRO), Don’t look at bin Laden and see Islam, Forte asserts '..I have baldly asserted that bin Laden and his extremists are evil, pure and simple, and Islam is not.

In Islam, Past and Future, David F. Forte, Action Institute Religion and Liberty, Forte states "...Islam has in its history great traditions of tolerance, learning, and spirituality. We should all hope that Muslims can once again enjoy those marvelous fruits of their Abrahamic faith." That reminds me of the saying 'if you proclaim a lie often enough as truth, it can become true.' David Forte puts deceit into practice with aplomb.

Radical Islam vs. Islam, Editorial, September 2001

Robert Tracinski, in his article The Fundamentalist Threat, Monday, November 12, 2001,By: Robert Tracinski points out the fallacy of Forte and his cadre of Muslim agent scholars and Infidel apologists:

The role of the religious right in shaping this approach has been nicely documented by The New Republic's Franklin Foer, who has traced, for example, the influence of David Forte, a conservative law professor who has advised the administration on the nature of Islam and whose phrases are echoed in President Bush's speeches. Forte is responsible for convincing Bush that bin Laden's views reflect only a tiny radical fringe in the Muslim world, that Islam is a peaceful religion, and, in a bizarre twist, that Islamic terrorists "are not religious" because, he decrees, "nothing this evil could be religious."

Similarly, Grover Norquist [a Muslim agent doing great harm inside the White House] of Americans for Tax Reform has long campaigned to recruit American Muslims into the Republican party. Politically speaking, he says, "American Muslims look like members of the Christian coalition." In other words, the religious right views Islamic fundamentalists as potential allies in promoting its own fundamentalist agenda.

Forte and other religious conservatives have spent years complaining that American government is too secular, that it "discriminates" against religious fundamentalists. "Faith," Forte laments, "is an outlaw in the public square." The fundamentalist attempts to bring faith back into the public square have ranged from prayer in schools, to laws against abortion, to threatening Hollywood movies with government oversight, to quashing the teaching of evolution in favor of the superstitious humbug of "creationism."

Every evil perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalists is just one, or two--or 10--steps farther down the same road. Prayer in schools? In Saudi-funded religious schools, there is little else. Outlawing abortion? The Taliban have gone one better, effectively outlawing all medical care for women. Censorship of movies? Iran bans satellite dishes to protect its citizens from impious foreign influences. Evolution? A move in Pakistan sought to outlaw the law of cause and effect. Instead of teaching that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water, a Pakistani scientist recalls, "You were supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together, then by the will of Allah water was created."