Thursday, August 31, 2006

Islam versus Civilization

Islam vs. Civilization: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Written by Raymond Kraft

Friday, August 25, 2006

To those Muslims, the silent and invisible majority, who truly are peaceful, or moderate, or liberal, and tolerant of others unlike yourselves, who are opposed to the deadly militancy of Islamic Jihad and Islamic Imperialism, whoever you are, wherever you are, I wish to make a pre-emptive apology for the broad brush with which I shall paint Islam. But a religion is what its believers say it is. In any age the nature and substance of any religion is defined by those who are most strident and assertive in saying what it is. And in this age it is the Islamic Resistance Movement, the voices of Puritanical Islam, the Islam of Jihad against the Unbelievers and Infidels, all the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, the Liberal Democracies, and all the others, that define Islam for the world. Perhaps one day the silent and invisible majority of non-militant Muslims will become an outspoken and visible majority, and then the dialectic of Islam will change, the voice of Islam to the world will change, and Islam will become what it should be: a great religion. A religion of peace. I hope.

On December 10, 1948, with the devastation of World War II fresh in memory and many cities in Europe still in rubble, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (below) in the hope of spreading freedom, security, and peace, throughout the world. It was a most excellent hope. It is a most excellent aspiration, one that may never be perfectly realized anywhere, but one that is far better realized in some countries than others. It begins:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world . . . Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people . . . Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law . . ."

"Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

They should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. They should.

This document, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a useful blueprint for the description or definition of Civilization, the political, social, cultural, and religious congregation of people in a civilized, or civil, manner, which (according to Webster) is characterized by "courtesy, politeness," i.e., by respect for the rights, lives, safety, and liberties of others as memorialized in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "Civilization," summarized as succinctly as possible, is The Golden Rule: "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." - Jesus, Matthew 7:12. This is the distilled essence of the ideal we call Judeo-Christian Civilization, or Western Civilization.

Most of the laws of America, of England, of Europe, are elaborations on The Golden Rule. We prohibit murder and theft, because we would not want to be murdered or robbed. We require the payment of spousal and child support, because we would not want to be a wife or child left indigent by a departing husband or father. We punish speeders and stoplight runners because we do not want to be endangered by speeders and stoplight runners. Crimes and torts are acts of wilful injury, or careless injury, that the perpetrators would not like to have done to themselves. We do not want to be hurt or endangered or cheated, and so we adopt laws to punish those who hurt, or endanger, or cheat others. We have constructed an entire edifice of law and public philosophy on the foundation in this simple idea: Treat others as you would want them to treat you. And that is the foundational, essential concept, or principle, that defines Civilization. Not just "Western Civilization," but Civilization, period. No nation, and no person, achieves this ideal perfectly, but some nations and some people and some religions and cultures do a far better job of it than others.

And that is the standard by which the existence, or non-existence, or quality, of a civilization can be judged. Does the nation, the culture, the religion, the non-state actor, the non-governmental organization, the political movement, treat others as it would like to be treated, if the roles were reversed? And does it aspire to treat others as it would like to be treated?

If it does, or tries to, and to the extent that it does or tries to, it is, or aspires to be, a civilization. If it does not, then it may be a society, a culture, a nation, a religion, a political movement, but it is not a Civilization. It does not practice or aspire to Civility. It is not Civilized.

Today, the Islamic world, that part of the world defined or characterized or dominated by militant Islam, by the Puritanical Islam that stones women to death for adultery while punishing men convicted of murder with only six years in prison (Iran, Cybercast News Service, August 24, 2006) and tolerates the "honor killings" of daughters for seeing a boyfriend unchaperoned cannot be recognized by civilized people as Civilized. We can ask of the judges who passed the sentence and the men who will throw the stones, Would you like to be stoned to death for adultery? Should that offense justify that sentence, if you commit it? I rather doubt they would answer, Yes.

In the same article, U.S. Strategy Blocking Mideast Peace, Arab-American Group Says (Cybercast News Service, August 24, 2006) it is reported that the National Council of Arab Americans is one of several U.S.-based Arab and Muslim organizations demanding that the United States adopt what they call a "more even-handed stance toward Israel," which is, rather obviously, to abandon its support of Israel against deadly Arab-Muslim and Iranian attacks. "As long as the United States continues to throw up blind support for Israel, there will be no peace and justice in the Middle East," Mounzer Sleiman said at the Palestine Center in Washington, D.C., blaming Israel for a "systematic campaign of destruction" in Lebanon (and ignoring, of course, the "systematic campaign of destruction" that Arab Muslims have waged against Israel for 58 years and Ahmadinejad's popular threat, promise, and call for the destruction of Israel).

Rather obviously, the Arab-Muslim groups do not want Israel to damage or destroy any part of Lebanon, not even in self-defense. But they want America to abandon its support of Israel, so the Arabs and Iranians can destroy Israel without interference. They want to do to Israel what they do not want done to themselves. They declare their ambition to purge the Middle East of Israel and of Jews, which they say defile the lands of Islam, as clear a declaration of racism and religious bigotry as a matter of public policy, national policy, religious policy, as can be made. We are racists, and we are bigots, and we are proud of it, and we will kill and kill and kill and kill to spread our racism and bigotry throughout the Middle East, throughout the world. They memorialize their ambition in The Hamas Covenant, in The Palestinian National Covenant, in The Management of Savagery (all readily found via any search engine), but they do not want any harm done to themselves. They do not treat others as they want to be treated. One standard for us, another standard for you. We will kill you and eradicate your country, but you must not hurt us. They reject the Golden Rule, they repudiate the Golden Rule, and in doing so, the Islamic world in which militant Islam, Puritanical Islam, Jihadist Islam is politically, socially, culturally, and spiritually ascendant, where militant Islam is accomodated and accepted and supported, has placed itself outside the world of Civilization, in opposition to the world of Civilization, as defined by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Islam has made itself the antithesis of Civilization.

"Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Islam today kills Jews and dedicates itself to the abolition of Israel. It sponsors acts of terror in New York City, in London, in Madrid, in Bali, in Besla, in Baghdad, in many other cities and towns around the world, and wars of terror, racial slaughter, ethnic cleansing, now in Sudan, and Somalia. Islam sends missiles into Israel by the hundreds, thousands, to kill and wound and terrorize civilians at random, just as Hitler once sent missiles into London to kill and terrorize the civilian population of England. It rejects The Golden Rule. It repudiates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not Civilized.

"Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment."

Islam today is universally known for the barbarous treatment of its prisoners of war and victims of kidnapping, pictures of some of whom, their bodies burned almost beyond recognition and hanging from a bridge in Baghdad, are well known. Islam today kidnaps Westerners and cuts off their heads and broadcasts the videos on Al Jazeera television. Islam today accepts the mass murder of Iraqis by Saddam Hussein, some half million of whom have been found in mass graves, without criticism or objection from any Islamic state or nation or mullah. A Fatwah called for the death of Salman Rushdie for writing a book critical of Islam (The Satanic Verses), but no Fatwah called for the death of Saddam Hussein for murdering a half million Iraqis. A book, death. A half million murders, no problem. Islam repudiates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not Civilized.

"Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public, or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."

Islam today claims the right to manifest its religion and belief in terrorism and mass murder, in virulent anti-Jewish racism and virulent religious bigotry against Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and all others who are not Muslim. Religious freedom for us, but no religious freedom for you: our religion forbids it. Sunni Islam today claims the right to manifest its religion by killing Shias, and Shia Islam by killing Sunnis, as they have off and on for centuries, a blood feud that cannot ever be settled over who was the rightful successor to Muhammed 1400 years ago, his friend, or his son. Islam today punishes those who convert from Islam to any other religion with death, and those who do not convert to Islam from other religions with death or oppression. Islam today teaches and practices the exact opposite of "freedom of thought, conscience and religion." Islam today wants civil law throughout the world replaced with Sharia law, Islamic law, religious law. Islam today is diametrically opposed to religious freedom and intellectual freedom - it seeks religious hegemony, a theocratic Islamic empire, a region, first, and a world, later, of religious totalitarianism. It repudiates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not Civilized.

Islam today, as it is manifest in the "Islamic Resistance Movement," which is merely a transparent euphemism for its religious war, its Jihad against everything but itself and everyone who is not Muslim, is a culture, and it is a religion, but it is not a Civilization. It rejects the one core principle, the one irreducible principle, the one necessary element of Civilization, the one idea without which Civilization does not and cannot exist: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Respect their freedom, their lives, their right to be different from yourself, to think and believe differently and live differently. This, Civilization does. This, Islam does not do.

Islam today, as it is manifest in the Islamic Resistance Movement, in the Puritanical Islam of Jihad, is to Civilization as anti-matter is to matter. When anti-matter collides with matter, matter is annihilated. Today, when Islam collides with Civilization, Civilization is annihilated. More precisely, when anti-matter collides with matter, both are annihilated in a great burst of energy. I hope that we will not see the collision of Islam with Civilization annihilate both Islam and Civilization in a great burst of terror and war. I hope.

About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in that center of pro-dhimmitude, Northern California. Raymond receives e-mail at

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

The Great Dr. Danial and his bitch (Part 2 of 2)

Please read Part 1 HERE

“And please allow me also to quote from the holy book of the Jews, that is the Talmud. I suppose you know that the Talmud is Judaism's holiest book. Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism.”

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The Talmud is not the holy book of the Jews! It’s really just a sort of a commentary and interpretation of the Tanakh. “Tanakh” is a Hebrew acronym or name of their entire actual holy book (The Dr. doesn’t know but the Jews don’t call it the Old Testament—only Christians call it by that name). Nowhere does the Talmud contradict the Tanakh, and if it does (hypothetical) then the commandment in the Tanakh supersedes that found in the Talmud.

Dr. Danial: It is stated in Sanhedrin 58b, “If a heathen (i.e. non-Jew) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.” And In Sanhedrin 57a, “When a Jew murders a gentile (‘Cuthean’), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.” A. Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley recently did a thorough research on the contents of the Talmud and what they found surprised them. In their book, Judaism's Strange God, they said, 'On the surface, it seems that genocide is advocated by the Talmud. In the Minor Tractates, Soferim 15, Rule 10, there is a saying by Rabbi Simon ben Yohai, ‘Tob shebe goyyim harog,’ which means, ‘even the best of the gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) should all be killed.’

All that our nice Dr. needed to do was read the Talmud for himself and his hatred against the Jews might have faded a little but no, he didn’t want to commit the sin called ‘researching’. There is an explanation for all this, but it’s too lengthy to reproduce here. These two links explain what the passages actually mean—Theft and Murder under Jewish law.

Dr. Danial: “But, can't you do the same thing to the Quran? Can't you interprete (sic) verses of the Quran within its context?”

Sure we can and that’s what we do. For those looking for context, please read Sura 9:5-12 and 9:29-31. Sura 9:5-12 and 9:29 tells Muslims on how to kill the infidels, please do note that it only says that they be spared if “they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, - they are your brethren in Faith” (v. 11) and not on any other condition as many modern Islamic and leftist scholars say quoting v. 6.

Also read Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Sura 9:5. Ibn Kathir’s work is the most renowned and authoritative commentary of the Quran in the Sunni Islamic world (Sunnis makes up about 85% of the total world Muslim population).

It should be noted that, although there are violent passages to be found in other Holy books, never have the commentators took them as commands that will last forever but have always understood them to be binding for a specific time. Whereas, until recently, all of the Muslim scholars agreed that the violent verses, specifically the infamous ‘verse of the sword’ Sura 9:5 (and the likes) abrogate (i.e. cancel out) all the Quranic verses of peace and tolerance with the infidels. Some of the most renowned Islamic scholars that have backed the principle of abrogation are Ibn Ishak, Ibn Hisham, At Tabari, etc.

Dr. Danial: “What do you expect at my hands?" They answered, "Mercy O generous brother." And the prophet said, "Be it so, you are free.”

Dr. Danial forgot to mention that all of the Meccans converted to Islam, and also that Mohammed did kill 10 of the Meccans who had first converted to Islam and later reverted back to their religion. If someone who’d wronged me at some point in life later came to me and said that he will serve me forever, even I’d forgive him. Mohammed had the whole Mecca bending over in front of him—no wonder he forgave them.

“No Guantanamo-like prison for them (smile).”

Dr. Danial seems to be advocating that the terrorists should all be set free so they can continue going around blowing up malls and pizza parlors and bar mitzvahs and anything non-Muslim that they see. Well, at least our Dr. did create an analogy between the Meccans (whom Muslims see as the wrong-doers) and the Muslim terrorists. I will give the Dr. credit here that even though he was trying to prove all the Muslims innocent all along, he ended up saying the same thing we’ve been saying—they’re terrorists, not innocent.

“And you are telling me that Muhammad taught Muslims to become terrorists?”

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m telling you.

And to end the debate, Dr. Danial had poor John say this:

John: Yeah, I need to learn more about Muhammad…

I’m glad Dr. Danial didn’t end it with “The End, Credits…” or the Hollywood might have taken the debate as a script for a movie entitled “Dumberer and Dumbest”.

A note for Muslims: I am an ex-Muslim, and my information comes mainly from Islamic sources. So after reading this post, don’t start cursing the Zionists--they had nothing to do with this.

An open letter to Former President Carter

August 21, 2006
The Honorable Jimmy Carter
The Carter Center
453 Freedom Parkway
Atlanta, Georgia 30307

Dear Mr. President:

I just read the transcript of your interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel, in which you accuse Israel of launching an “unjustified attack on Lebanon.” Even after the interviewer reminded you that Israel was the first to get attacked, you charged Israel with lacking “any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.”

As someone who served in the White House as a spokesman for a President, I am reluctant to criticize another President, but in this instance my conscience compels me to do so. Mr. President, your words are music to Hezbollah’s ears and your message is a blow to long-term peace.

Just as you underestimated the threat of the Soviet Union in the 1970s, you underestimate the threat of radical Islam today. Your condemnation of Israel, the victim, only encourages Hezbollah, the attacker, to bide its time and attack again.

Ahmed Barakat, a member of Hezbollah’s central council, last week told the Qatari newspaper as-Watan that “Today Arab and Muslim society is reasonably certain that the defeat of Israel is possible and that the countdown to the disappearance of the Zionist entity in the region has begun. The triumph of the resistance is the beginning of the death of the Israeli enemy.”

I was raised a Democrat but I changed parties in 1982 because I believed your policies and the nuclear freeze movement invited increased Soviet militarism and adventurism. President Reagan’s military build-up and credible threat of the use of force helped bring about the demise of C ommunism and brought freedom and a better life to hundreds of millions in Central and Eastern Europe. It also secured a lasting peace.

I’m sorry to see you articulate about Hezbollah and its aggression the same weak world-view that encouraged Soviet aggression. As Ronald Reagan showed us, peace through strength is the only formulation understood by those bent on destruction.

I understand your longing for peace and your fond hope that Hezbollah can be reasoned with. However, when you call Israel’s defense “an attack”, when you call what is justified “unjustified”, and when you call morality immoral, I conclude that the pro-defense, strong foreign policy lessons of the 70s and 80s remain unacc eptable to you. Also, when you criticize Israel for targeting so-called “civilian” areas in Beirut and other areas where Hezbollah hides its operations, the result would be – if Israel listened to you – the creation of safe havens from which more violence and rocket attacks would be planned and launched.

Sadly, Hezbollah today is planning its next war. For the sake of peace, Israel deserves your praise, not your condemnation.

L. Ari Fleischer

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

The Great Dr. Danial and his bitch (Part 1 of 2)

Recently, I came across an article (mentioned in the comment thread to a post at PI titled Who are the Palestinians? and also over at a Malaysian Muslim blog) which is a very “interesting debate” between a Dr. Danial (Arabic for Daniel) and a seemingly fictional Christian character, John. Most of the “debate” is worthless, so I am going to discuss just a few important and misleading points from it. It is better that you follow the link provided above and read the “debate” in its whole to understand the points raised in this post. Here we go:

Dr. Danial: “Actually John, your concept about Islam and Muhammad is wrong. Completely wrong. Prophet Muhammad never taught his followers to be terrorists.”

I wonder how Dr. Danial would explain away the following hadith:

“Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)…” Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220.

Now if the dear Dr. wants to tell me that terror somehow mysteriously means love, well—I would like to disagree with him there.

Dr. Danial: “…For 13 years in Mecca, after being prophet of Islam, Muhammad and the Muslims were harassed and tortured by the Quraisyites.”

This is an assumption that our misinformed Dr. made here. As is written in the books of Islamic history and more specifically in Ibn Ishak’s biography of Mohammed, he was well protected by his uncle. Sigismund Wilhelm Koelle, quoting from the work of early Islamic historians and biographers, writes in his ‘Mohammed and Mohammedanism’:

“We read: ‘When the family of Hashim and Mottaleb, together with his uncle, prevented the Koreish from using violence against him, these latter maligned and ridiculed him; whereupon there appeared revelations in the Koran against the Koreish and all those who signalised themselves by their hostility to Mohammed.’” Book I, Ch. II, Mohammed and Mohammedanism (Online Edition).

Dr. Danial: “…And yet the Muslims at that time were asked to be patient and persevere. They were not allowed to fight and raise arms against the non Muslims.”

Muslims weren’t asked to be patient because Mohammed was a very powerful man, but because he didn’t have enough power to fight back. No matter how much his uncle and his tribe protected him, they were still infidels. Aw! He accepted the protection of infidels; maybe his Allah wasn’t able to dispatch a flight of 5000 angels to help his “messenger” at the time.

Dr. Danial: “Oh, you are quoting the verses from the Quran. If that's the case, you should allow me to quote a few verses from your Bible and Talmud. (Then he quotes a bunch of verses from the Bible). To me these verses are very dangerous. They can instigate people especially the Christians to do acts of terrorism!”

Dr. Danial is a very smart man. If someone gives him a bunch of verses from the Quran and says that they prove that Islam teaches terrorism, he answers that person by providing some verses from the Bible (or any other religious book) and says, ‘Oh my! Since those books say something like that too, Islam is doing no wrong, let’s continue with terrorism!’ What he can’t answer is, if the Bible teaches terrorism, why aren’t the Jews and the Christians killing the Muslims all around the world, why aren’t they burning mosques and thousands of copies of Quran? Why are Muslims the only people around the world who carry out violence in the name of their religion?

To be continued…

Monday, August 28, 2006

Et Tu, South Africa?

It's hard having any sympathy for South Africa's 'invasion' by Zimbabweans, but the parallels with the United States' own invasion are amazing. First of all you need a wall like Israel has to really stop them. Et tu America. Second, the northern part of South Africa is being overrun, and the Southern areas, not yet drowning and the government don't see the crisis. Et tu America. Of necessity we must close our borders and end the plague of immigration and asylum. It is jarring to say it, but the current chaos must cease. We are not the doormat to the world's parasites and those who are then educated in our own country to hate us and want to kill us. South Africa is always spitting at us. It would be sweet justice if only we did not have the same crisis.

Border region struggles with influx
Peter Biles,
BBC News, South Africa

The deserted road that runs parallel to the Limpopo offers a fine view of the river once described by Rudyard Kipling as "great, grey-green and greasy".

The fortified fence fails to deter those desperate to flee
The crocodile-infested Limpopo forms a natural barrier between South Africa and Zimbabwe, but the illegal migrants who try to cross the border on a daily basis, also face a man-made barrier.

A triple line of fencing and barbed wire is meant to prevent the influx of Zimbabweans into South Africa.

Heading eastwards, close to the Beitbridge border post, I see two young men scurrying across the road.

When they hear my car approaching, they disappear into the bush. But a third man, trailing behind his friends, is still trying to find a way through the fortified fence.

As I drive past, he quickly turns back down the slope towards the river bank to avoid being seen.

Thousands of Zimbabweans, including women and children, are now risking the perilous border crossing in a desperate bid to flee a country that has descended into political and economic chaos over the past six years.

"The border fence is no deterrent", says Annette Kennealy who speaks for the farmers' union in Limpopo Province.

"These Zimbabweans are hungry, destitute and driven to crime. We find a lot of them staying on local farms temporarily, but others move southwards, trying to reach the big cities; Johannesburg and Pretoria".

'Rights abuses'

Every Thursday, a train pulls into the station at Musina, South Africa's most northerly town. Several hundred illegal Zimbabwean migrants who have been arrested, and held at a detention centre near Johannesburg, are being deported from South Africa.

Under police escort in Musina, they wait in groups on the station platform, before being crammed into police trucks and driven to the border.

In Zimbabwe, we're dying of hunger. I used to drive taxis, but now there are no jobs and no money there

Enoch Mafuso

A recent report by Human Rights Watch claimed that migrants from Zimbabwe were vulnerable to human rights abuses in South Africa. It further alleged that police and immigration officials had violated the lawful procedures for arrest, detention and deportation.

However, Inspector Jacques du Buisson of the South African Police Service (SAPS) denies that police have maltreated Zimbabwean migrants:

"If they're arrested around here, they're brought to the police station in Musina, where they receive food and medical treatment if that's required.

"Then, on the same day, they'll be deported. We've never mishandled any illegal foreigner"

Support centre

According to new figures released by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the South African authorities have deported nearly 31,000 Zimbabweans since the beginning of June.

This would seem to represent a sharp increase in the number of deportations.

In response, the IOM, in collaboration with the Zimbabwean government, has opened a reception and support centre at Beitbridge, on the Zimbabwean side of the border.

This provides humanitarian assistance for the deportees on their return to Zimbabwe.

"We're counting 100,000 people a year in need of immediate help, on their arrival back in Zimbabwe", says Hans-Petter Boe, the IOM's Regional Representative.

The problem is that while some of the illegal migrants may go back to their homes in Zimbabwe, many make repeated efforts to re-enter South Africa in the hope of finding work.

Zimbabwe's economic collapse, with inflation in excess of 1,100% per annum, has led to increasing hardship.

Political will

Musina is a South African frontier town, but Zimbabwean rhythms fill the air at the main taxi rank and traders can be seen carrying bundles of near worthless Zimbabwean bank notes.

Musina's taxi rank is full of Zimbabweans

Enoch Mafuso, 21, who entered South Africa legally last month, describes his predicament:

"In Zimbabwe, we're dying of hunger. I used to drive taxis, but now there are no jobs and no money there. I want to stay here in South Africa, but it is very difficult to get a job".

No-one is sure how many Zimbabweans are in South Africa, but the estimates range between two and three million.

With no end in sight to Zimbabwe's woes, Ms Kennealy of the local farmers' union warns of an impending crisis in South Africa:

"We're on the frontline here in Limpopo Province. People living further south don't realise what we're facing.

"If our government had the political will, they would patrol the borders, introduce more regulations and stop these people from coming in. This problem is escalating and the long term effects for the rest of South Africa are going to be enormous."

A view from the Other Side

Well, it's taken awhile, but some bloggers from the Other Side have finally sat up and officially taken notice of our humble little website here.

A pro-Muslim, pro-Jihad blog here in Malaysia had this to say about Pedestrian Infidel last week. It was originally written and posted in Malay, so here's the English translation (the translation is of the red text at the top of the source page--the rest is unimportant):

…I am here to tell you that I have found one blog, Pedestrian Infidel, that has been created to promote the idea of destroying Islam on earth. The contents (of this blog) are tremendously outrageous. It’s full of racism and hatred.

There are columns (on this blog) talking about our country Malaysia, about controversial issues like Lina Joy.

These are people who I think we should seriously ignore. They have admitted that they are loyal Christians and Jews. They have said bad things about Nabi ('prophet') Muhammad and Allah, but they are not actually religious themselves. These are the same sort of people who have pre-marital sex and kill people all the time.

They use religion to spread their hatred to others. This blog is very dangerous because it will destroy the morals and beliefs of the Islamic people.

They are very intelligently questioning what is happening in the Islamic world today. They are questioning the call of jihad from Allah against the infidels and a lot of more problems which face the Islamic people.

I am begging to all of you to protect our lives against these people or whatever happens to Islam.

I am also wanted to introduce to you all one blog which was created by one of our own, a Malaysian who happens be Chinese. It will shock you and make you angry when you read it.
That last paragraph refers to one of our allies, Malaysian Chinese blogger Maobi. It's nice to know that we've been included in such good company.

Frankly, I find this hysteria about us hilarious and mind-numbing--but I usually feel that way when I read about the Muslims and their, um, unique viewpoints.

So, I have the following to say in response to our Muslim blogger counterparts:
  1. We're not racist, and furthermore, Islam is not a race. I dare anyone to find even one racist sentiment that has even been written by the PI team.
  2. Nobody on the PI team is actually Jewish. We are, of course, proud supporters of the State of Israel and the Jewish people in general. So, I guess to the cerebrally-challenged Muslim mind, this means we're Jews.
  3. Informing others as to the true nature of Islam isn't 'hatred', no matter how much Muslims may shriek otherwise. And our arguments against Islam have always been based primarily on sweet reason, not religion.

If you have the time, look at the comment threads at the end of this pro-Muslim post. Avenging Apostate and yours truly get into a little comment duel with these people. Mr. Apostate himself should have some more to say about that in the near future.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Words of wisdom

A Lebanese Student Speaks Out

**A Pedestrian Infidel exclusive **

As you may or may not know I am a regular chatter in Jewish chat rooms. In there, I am meeting friend and foe. The man who wrote the article below is a young friend of mine, and someone I met in one of those rooms. I hope you enjoy his interesting ideas as much as I do. The following is a question-and-answer paper written recently in the aftermath of the conflict in south Lebanon. The questions (in italics) have been posed by an American professor of international relations who is working in the US. The interviewee is my friend, an anti-Hezbollah Lebanese Druze, who is a student at a leading university in Beirut.

American Professor: What is your take on why the Palestinians won't behave? I would think that since Israel gave them Gaza back, they would hope to also get the West Bank. But their elected government, led by Hamas, is still so filled with hatred towards Israel. I'm surprised that they can't look at countries who have made peace with Israel as examples of security and prosperity.

Lebanese Student: Well there are two parties in the Palestinian community as you know. The militant religious radicals who believe that Israel has no right to exist and they wish to kick all the Israelis out of Israel and announce a Palestinian state in place of Israel. (They) benefit each time from war and what they call Intifadas (or uprisings) by getting more support from their people. This usually happens when the other party, the government, begins to have problems with the negotiations with Israel, and the Palestinian government doesn’t want to create a civil war. So it looks the other way at what the militants are doing and helps the militants sometimes too.

So you can say there’s a consensus between both the militants and the government that, when the negotiations are going well with Israel the militants wont attack Israel and when the negotiations go bad the government uses the militants to score more points with Israel during the next negotiation. Sometimes it’s a struggle behinds the scenes between both parties to gain power over each other and gain popularity in the Palestinian audience and this is done by taking a strong firm position with Israel either during peace talks or militarily.

Okay, I think (the above) paragraph provides an answer to your question on why Palestinians won't behave, and I believe this multi dimensional struggle among themselves and with Israel will continue until a final peace agreement is reached. Regarding Hamas, I’m sure you're aware that it is a radical Islamic Sunni (not Shiite like Hezbollah) whose goal is to destroy Israel and it doesn’t acknowledge the existence of Israel. That’s their goal and they don’t believe in compromise with Israel. That’s why they don’t look at other Arab countries that (have) made peace with Israel.

From Hamas’ point of view, the issue of honor, national pride which is fueled by their religious ideology, which they see as an obligation, is much more important to them than any personal security or prosperity. It is even more important than their lives and their children’s lives. Thus you will see that they will make (use) of their children soldiers to continue the battle for their cause, which is sad and which will lead to the endless circle of violence and death.

American Professor: Has there been any backlash from the people of Lebanon against Hezbollah or do the majority of people still blame Israel?

Lebanese Student: We in Lebanon, unlike any other Arab country, are a democracy. There have been a lot of disagreements with Hezbollah, and the vast majority of people--at least the majority of the Christians, the Sunni Muslims, and the Druze (which I am)—do not agree with Hezbollah.

I would like to include some relevant personal experiences I have had with people on the street. I have spoken with two doctors, one who is Christian and another who is Sunni. On two different separate occasions both of them have talked to me about their disagreement with what Hezbollah did, and of the existence of two different cultures in Lebanon. One seeks wants destruction, martyrdom, war, escalation, national pride and destruction of Israel, and another which yearns for peace, prosperity, security, and life. Even some of the Shiites have taken strong stands against what Hezbollah did against Israel, but we in Lebanon do not want a civil war. We have experienced that from 1975 till 1991 and nobody here wants to go through that again.

Many here have noticed here that Hezbollah has grown weak since the most recent fighting stopped. Weapons smuggling to Hezbollah has decreased radically and promised financial aid from Iran (needed to compensate the many in south Lebanon who lost homes or property) has not been forthcoming to Lebanon. This is because the borders are being watched more closely now by the Lebanese army and the UNIFIL troops as well. Every person who wishes to travel to Lebanon has to go through Amman (in Jordan) and there the people are being searched (Hezbollah complained against the searches in Amman last night on the news). In addition to this, the money cannot be wired (to Hezbollah) since it would have to go through New York before it gets here, and it will be stopped if Washington suspects it’s for Hezbollah.

So, I predict that without weapons and without financial support Hezbollah won’t be half as influential as it is now, and people from inside the Shiite community will begin to protest against Hezbollah for not compensating for what they lost. The argument in Lebanon against Hezbollah is, if Hezbollah knew Israel was mounting an attack against Lebanon, then why give it (Israel) a reason to (continue attacking)? Thus the Lebanese blame Hezbollah for bringing the fox and placing it in a chicken barn and then complaining about the fox eating the chicken.

American Professor: You mentioned that a civil war may be a possibility in Lebanon. Do you see any signs or are people generally getting along?

Lebanese Student: People are trying to get along, but I will quote an owner of a jewelry store here in Beirut, while he described how his business came to a complete stop for a month and how after that the business was running really slow. He described his feelings whenever a woman with a black veil (Shiite woman) entered the store. He said, I try to be nice to everyone, I really do, but it’s really hard to do so after what they’ve done to this country.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

MSM Begins Trashing John Esposito - Where Have They Been All These Years?

Better late than never is their only reprieve. At least The Washington Times gets it - John Esposito is Islam's favorite whore at their new whorehouse Center for Deceit and Conquest at their favorite madrassa/whore plaza Georgetown University. This man should be run out of town and into Mecca - they'll love him there. Throw sticks at him, I don't care. Just get out, you traitor.

Yeah, I've written a lot about this whore and her wiley ways. Truly a disgusting human being.

Wash Times - A professor's Islamic ties
By Joel Mowbray
August 25, 2006

Headline-grabbing stories about a British-based Muslim academic's public support for "martyrdom" last weekend missed a key detail: His mentor and frequent collaborator is a high-profile scholar who has been consulted repeatedly by the FBI, Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University.
Mr. Esposito has long courted controversy — most recently when the Georgetown-based center he founded in 1993 accepted $20 million last year from (and took the name of) a notorious Saudi prince. Yet, the professor has somehow been able to maintain a relatively high reputation in academic and government circles alike.
That Mr. Esposito is still largely respected owes to the subtlety of his apologism. He acknowledges that there is radicalism in Islam, and he generally avoids defending the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. Even as he argues for engaging Islamists, he does so without overtly endorsing their worldview. But Mr. Esposito skillfully downplays the threat posed by radical Islam, and as demonstrated by his close affiliation with Azzam Tamimi, who told a massive crowd in the UK on Sunday that "dying for your beliefs is just," he willingly associates with avowed cheerleaders of Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Esposito's defenders — and there are many — claim that his critics conflate his practical advice that Islamists cannot simply be ignored with apologism for radical Islam. While such an answer may be appealing for those who believe in giving the benefit of the doubt, it simply doesn't square with the facts.
Although Mr. Esposito is less transparent than most apologists for radical Islam, he is more than a mere apologist. He defends supporters of Islamic terrorism. He even mentors them.
Mr. Esposito has lavished praise on two prominent advocates of Islamic terrorism: former University of South Florida professor (and convicted terrorist) Sami al-Arian, and al Jazeera phenomenon Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. ...

Gotta read the rest.
And this vile man advises our government. Scary. How many idiots do we have in State? TOO MANY!

An Indictment against Islam

Reading our recent article about the laughably, unintentionally-ironically named “Islamic Human Rights Commission” and their legal jihad in the UK got me thinking. (Editor’s note-- Islam gives individuals only one ‘human right’, and that is to be an expendable slave of Allah. Some right, eh?)

Why can’t we infidels use the same tactics against the enemy that the Jihadists are currently using against us? Why must we ceaselessly endure a situation where our own legal system is used as yet another weapon of the Great Islamic Jihad? The jihadists’ use of our own courts in their Holy War on the infidels is deliberate, and is also known as “lawfare”, with groups like the ACLU as their willing and eager accomplices.

I say, let’s turn the tables and use the courts to defend ourselves for a change. And the best defense is usually a good offense.

We need lots of attorneys to start filing numerous lawsuits against Muslims. Muslim governments, Muslim “interest groups” like CAIR, Muslim “charities”, religious organizations, Muslim banks, Muslim-owned companies, and so on, are all legitimate targets for our proposed legal counter-jihad.

Now, what should our legal counter-jihad charge the enemy with? Well, the PI team has a few ideas about that. Although the PI blogging team has precious little, if any, actual legal experience, we feel that we do have some good ammo to offer the lawyers. Hence the following…

We at Pedestrian Infidel hereby indict Mohammed in absentia (AKA “the prophet”, AKA “the last messenger”), the ideological movement which this individual founded, hereby known as “Islam”, and his followers/descendents on the following charges:

The jihadists have taught us one thing—throw enough mud at something, for long enough, and some of it will stick. Well, Islam’s track record given us plenty of mud to throw back at their faces--and each of the charges on our list is absolutely true.

The Pedestrian Infidels rest their case.

Friday, August 25, 2006

PI's got mail

Pedestrian Infidel now at last finally has its own email, posted near the top of the right sidebar. It's pedestrianinfidel 'at' yahoo 'dot' com. We apologize to our Zionist overlords in Jerusalem, Washington, and London for taking so long to do this.

So, got a beef with PI? Are you a terrorist apologist? Are you a 'moderate Muslim'? Are you a card-carrying member of a certified Jihadist group like Al-Qaeda, CAIR, Hezbollah or the ACLU? Please email us; we would simply love to hear from you! Few things gives the PI team more pleasure than taking apart the Muzzies' pathetic arguments and talking points.

Comments, questions and feedback are also welcome from our friends in the counter-jihad movement, of course.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Who are the Palestinians?

Today, there are many people around the world who wonder who the Palestinians actually are. People who belong to the ‘dark’ Muslim world are certain that Palestinians are actually a ‘nation’ and that the Holy Land belongs to them. People in the west who’ve leaned towards the left just shut their eyes and follow the Muslims like a well-trained pet.

I found an article on the internet that concisely informs us about the history of the ‘Holy Land’—here’s an excerpt:

There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as ‘Palestine’ and the very notion of a ‘Palestinian Arab nation’ having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world! There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct ‘Palestinian’ culture or language. Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed by Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964…Even the so-called leader of the "Palestinian" people, Yasser Arafat, is EGYPTIAN!

Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam! Seven hundred and twenty-six years later in 586 B.C.E. These first ancient Jews in the Land of Israel [Judea] were overrun and Israel's First Jewish Temple (on Jerusalem's Old City Temple Mount) was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed or expelled; however many were allowed to remain. These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews, who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also a Second Temple in Jerusalem upon the Temple Mount. Thus the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago right after the Holocaust and drove out the Arabs is preposterous! Then in 70 C.E. (nearly 2000 years ago), it was the Roman Empire's turn to march through ancient Israel and destroy the second Jewish Temple, slaughtering or driving out much of its Jewish population.

No nation, other than the ancient nation of Israel and later again in 1948 with the rebirth of the 2nd Nation of Israel, has ever ruled as a sovereign national entity on this land. A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs and their Islam were even born. The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. Every time there is an archaeological dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that the Jewish People have had a presence there for well over 3,000 years.

Read the full article HERE.

Anti-dhimmitude in UK courtroom

A welcome development from the UK.

UK Court Rejects Muslim Group Bid Over Arms Flights To Israel

LONDON (AP)--The U.K.'s High Court Wednesday rejected a Muslim group's assertion that the government had breached international law by allowing U.S. military planes carrying weapons to Israel to land at U.K. airports.

Judge Duncan Ouseley said the Islamic Human Rights Commission had failed "by a very long way" to establish its case.

The commission had sought an injunction against the government, saying the U.K. had aided "acts of terrorism" by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Bravo, your honour.

Oh, and one more thing in this article--another howling contradiction in terms--"Islamic human rights".

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Robert Spencer's next book

If you enjoyed Mr. Spencer's previous book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam", then you need to get this author's next book, "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion", which is due out in October.

And just like all of Mr. Spencer's other books, I expect this newest title to be promptly banned by the Malaysian government. Have no fear, I will find a way to get my infidel hands on a copy somehow. Getting banned by the Malaysian government, in my view, is a sign that you're doing something right, a badge of high honor and esteem in my book.

This new book is a must-have addition to any counter-jihad library. It's scheduled for release on october 9th, 2006 and can be pre-ordered now. Reserve your copy today!

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Bosom Buddies

A Puff of the Huff, Then Exhale

If The Huffington Post represents the Democratic Party's opinion on Islam, the Republicans will be in for a landslide. Check out this post by Dave Johnson, an uberliberal multicultural activist. The best thing is all the great advertisement for the intelligent resources on the web, versus the naive and insane Dave Johnson club. Spencer, his books, LGF, etc are all linked. Maybe some of those moonbats who want to survive and those leftist ladies may not want to shop at Omar's Tents and Burqas will look at what is forbiddeen in the lalaland of The Huffington Post.

Terror Alerts Causing General Racist Reaction - Dave Johnson, The Huffington Post

Monday, August 21, 2006

Are Those Chips In The Wall of Denial?

That wall that seemed invincible is beginning the show the smallest of chipping? You see Rep. King being very blunt about profiling, there is more indepth MSM articles about Koranic verses, especially Ch. 9 (of 9.5 notoriety, although the references are fleeting compared to a complete absence of MSM print prior is welcome. America must become informed about the threat of Islam and begin to face the music - Islam is here to destroy us.

Unfortunately, Britain and the EU continue to stay in denial as there is now discussion of making a 'European Islam.' I know, it's hard to keep from laughing. They keep thinking that all the 'yute alienation' can be solved through more 'opportunities' and European indoctrinated imams. I just don't know how much longer Europe can be in denial.

At least in America the truth is getting much wider coverage than anywhere else. I'm sure it has CAIR running frantic, putting out those press releases attacking critics. They should hire more staff.

A letter for Mel Gibson

I really don't give a rat's ass about the Hollywood celebrity scandal of the week, month, etc. In this embattled day and age, there's many, many other things we should be more concerned about.

But, after having read the following about Mel and his antics, I've made an exception. A Steve Silberberg (NOT Spielberg), a Jewish-American residing in New Rochelle, NY has written the following, memorable letter about Mel Gibson's recent DUI arrest, and his anti-Semetic comments:

August 1st 2006

Dear Mr. Gibson,

I am one Jew who doesn't accept your apology today. I don't accept it, because you have spit on the graves of the Goldwyns, the Warners, the Mayers, the Cohns, the Foxes, the Thalbergs, the Selznicks, the Zukors and the thousands of other Jews both living and dead who have made your questionable career possible.

When you do get out of "rehab" and recount your millions, please consider how much of your fortune you would have if you had made your true feelings known, when you were starting out in the film industry.

You are a despicable human being, one that doesn't even have the sense to realize that he has repeatedly bitten the hand that fed him. Whatever you (or your publicity agents) say today, does not even begin to redress your long standing theories about the Jewish people. Apparently the apple does not fall far from the tree. If you aven't yet distanced yourself from your father's views of the Holocaust, why should the Jewish community meet with you, or believe anything you have to say now.

Your words are a thinly veiled attempt to admit that you really messed up this time, and you want to cover yourself, so that you can continue to be adored and further your revenue stream.

The truth is, you are an unreformed, unrepentant anti semite of the worst kind, and your hollow outreach is worth less than the price of your next drink, which will surely find itself in your hands before long. I'm buying.

Of course, if I am wrong, you could start by donating $1,000,000 today to the State of Israel in her time of need. Surely that is a small public relations price to pay for a man of your stature who "honors all of God's children".

Steven Silberberg
New Rochelle, NY

Bravo, Mr. Silberberg!

UPDATE: Added link to an article that provides details on Gibson's recent DUI arrest and anti-Semetic remarks

Sunday, August 20, 2006

It's in the Koran

In our days of glory now centuries past
The Kingdom of Islam stood mighty and vast
Then we failed our faith and watched your power grow
But soon our greatness will return
And this is how we know

Because it’s in the Koran
It’s written in the Koran
A world united under Allah is the future of man
How could it not be so most opposing us panic
And surrender once a few of them have bled

We’re happy to torture
We’re eager to rape
We savor your last screams on videotape
We massacre children
We ransack a shrine
And all our acts are sanctified by Suras 2 through 9

Because it’s in the Koran
It’s written in the Koran
That we should fight and slay the infidels however we can
We’ll blow ourselves to bits if that gives us an advantage
Or we’ll slit your throats while you’re asleep in bed

Those heathens who scold us are wasting their breath
Over the millions we’ve butchered and starved
We’re men who would let girls be trampled to death
Rather than see them in public unscarved

So don’t look for mercy when you’re at our feet
The justice we’ll give you is harsh and complete
We danced in delight when your Twin Towers fell
And you’ll weep with your slaughtered
As you burn with them in Hell

Because it’s written in the Koran
It’s written in the Koran
Your fate was settled long before this latest battle began
We’ve found our holy purpose and we’ll never abandon it
As long as there’s a sinner to behead
In other words we won’t rest
Till everyone in the West
Is a slave, a Muslim, or dead

-Lyrics from the (relatively) old Youtube hit video, "It's in the Koran", which I have transcribed here. I thought these memorable lyrics were worth posting. Feel free to spread these around to your family, friends, co-workers and complete strangers.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

I refuse to give up

When I started blogging, I did it because I wanted to show the world what Islam truly stands for, to show the darkness that it really is, and to show the evil that proceeds from it. But that isn't the only reason I started blogging. I wanted to make a difference. I thought that if someone, by reading my posts, decides to leave Islam or decides not to convert to Islam or someone who thought of Islam as a peaceful religion starts looking at it in the light of facts, my mission is fulfilled.

I have been blogging for a while now, and I still feel the same. I "know" that I can change people, I believe that firmly, and there is nothing that can change that. I am surrounded by Muslims, a lone (secret) infidel in a hostile Islamic sea, but I refuse to give up. I refuse to surrender because I know that even if one Muslim reads my article and changes his mind about Islam, that's a victory.

The world's leaders can choose to be as blind as they want, they can bend over for Muslims all over the world--it matters not to me. I will keep writing for as long as I can and I will keep on fighting against Islam, however possible, as long as Islam exists as one of the biggest religions in the world.

This task seems impossible, but I have hope. Some might call me foolish, but that doesn't sway me from my steadfast conviction that I can do what I came on here to do--and that is to fight Islam until "we" are victorious.

The terrorists are just looking for any sign of weakness in us infidels. It we show that we're weak, depressed and a bunch of hopeless losers, they count that as their victory. And I can't stand that.

They can tear down everything I love, they can burn American and Israeli flags, they can burn the churches in Indonesia and Pakistan and all over the Islamic world and they can set fire to a thousand Bibles--they will not be able to destroy me. If someday I am surrounded by a mob of Muslims, who give me a choice to convert to Islam or die, I will choose death, and I will die with my hopes still high. Because I know, they only option we have is to win, and we can't do that if we feel we are defeated.

The key to our survival is hope and vision. These are the values the West taught me. The world around us may go down the drain, but if we refuse to surrender our faith in ourselves, we will gain our victory.

Top 500 World Universities for 2006

A PRC Chinese think tank in Shanghai called the Institute of Higher Education has just released their findings for the top 500 universities in the world as of 2006. You can view and/or download their findings here.

Despite the origins of this think tank in a communist state, the findings seem to me to be very even handed. Let's look at this listing's top ten:

  1. Harvard (USA)
  2. Cambridge (UK)
  3. Stanford (USA)
  4. UC Berkeley (USA)
  5. MIT (USA)
  6. CalTech (USA)
  7. Columbia (USA)
  8. Princeton (USA)
  9. Univ. Chicago (USA)
  10. Oxford (UK)

The Anglosphere's domination of higher education is not just confined to the top ten. Here is a breakdown of the whole list by country:

  • USA: 167
  • UK: 43
  • Canada: 22
  • Australia: 19
  • New Zealand: 5

And the rest of the infidels do fairly well too, especially considering the small size of some the countries on the following list:

  • Europe (excl. UK): 164
  • Japan: 32
  • China (incl. HK): 15
  • South Korea: 11
  • Israel: 8
  • Singapore: 3

And the Islamic world? This one-sixth of humanity, over one billion people, manages to place only one university on the list (Cairo University, Egypt, ranks in at #414). Countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, etc. cannot manage to place any schools anywhere on this list.

Indeed, an average US State (Oregon, pop 3.4 million) has more academic achievement (three Oregon schools on the list) than all of Dar-al-Islam. Israel (pop. 7 million) in particular is a center of excellence, averaging one world-class university for every 875,000 people.

This proves what most of us already knew. Islam ('moderate' or otherwise) destroys critical, rational thought--Islam is in fact the very antithesis of progress.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Wretchard's Fable

Posted recently by top-notch blogger "Wretchard" over at Belmont Club.

Let me tell a fable. It is precisely two days after nuclear weapons have destroyed New York, London and Sydney. And it is 24 hours after the President of the United States, after consulting with the Prime Ministers of Britain and Australia, has ordered a ten thousand warhead strike on the entire Muslim world, followed a second strike using tailored biological weapons.

At that very moment a famous Washington law firm calls the White House with an important message. An attorney for Osama Bin Laden has been instructed to deliver a video tape to the media upon the event of his death, which now appears certain. The entire situation room staff turns on the television and watches the familiar face, greyer and more lined, deliver a prepared speech in curiously triumphant tones.

"Brothers," he begins. "If you are listening to this then I am already dead and what was formerly known as the Muslim world has been entirely destroyed. I had forseen this response when I put into motion the plan to use our only three atomic weapons."

"Only three?" he continued. "Three was all we could afford. Yet with these few devices we had to ensure not only the destruction of your infidel civilization but the perpetual triumph of the uncorrupted and essential Islam". Looking directly at the camera Osama continued. "You have killed more than a billion people. Some of them were fighters. But most of them were children. Up until your magnificent thermonuclear warheads blossomed above their heads they were going to the market, laughing at their silly entertainments, playing games in fields. And you killed them. Killed them in a moment of fear; a moment which became inevitable because you were not men enough to fight Jihadis with your hands; and who therefore you destroyed with your unearthly weapons."

"Never again can such a people as you enter your churches, recite your prayers, read your literature, or pretend to nobility without knowing that it is all a lie. And the more you pray to your Jesus, to your Buddha, to your Yahweh the more hypocritical you will feel, until you give it up altogether. No, that door is closed to your forever by your own fear, cowardice and evil. The first of my goals, which is the destruction of your infidel civilization at its roots, I have already accomplished."

"And you, my brothers, for I may you call you that, are now my true spiritual heirs. More magnificent than those illiterate fighters I gathered in Afghanistan, who knew nothing of science and technology. And yet as evil -- now -- as any of my pupils have ever been. I have shown you your true selves. I have gathered you to my fold. Your are the new Ummah and you know it. Come to prayer. Come to Islam."

Thursday, August 17, 2006

You 'interfaith' if you want to. This gentleman is not for 'interfaithing'!

Ex nihilo nihil fit

After the shocking news that “home grown” Muslim “terrorists” (more rightfully called jihadis) planned to blow up nine aircraft full of passengers mid-flight over US metropolitan areas which would have killed thousands of innocent people (mostly infidels in their eyes) – in other words, mass murder of enormous proportions – there have been renewed calls for more interfaith dialogue with “our Muslim brothers and sisters”. These calls for more interfaith dialogue are naïve at best, downright stupid, dangerous and appeasing at worst.

One engages in dialogue with people who are yielding enough, with people who are willing enough to shift their opinions somewhat, in order to be able to reach a compromise. Muslims are totally and utterly unyielding. There can be no compromise with them. None at all! They believe they are right. They believe they are God’s (more correctly Allah’s) chosen people, the people who have a monopoly on the truth. They believe that we are inferior beings to them simply because we do not belong to their faith group, because we have not accepted Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah. Further, they believe that we are unclean and unworthy. Their stated aim is to take over the world, to Islamize it. This is the aim of jihad. How can one engage successfully in dialogue with such people?

To engage in dialogue with Muslims is a futile exercise. Nothing will come out of it. Ex niliho nihil fit. This is not a defeatist attitude; rather, it is a realistic one. Islam is out to dominate the world, out to supersede Christianity as the only worthy faith, and out to annihilate Israel and the Jews. With such people, one does not engage in dialogue; rather, one fights them, one thwarts their ambitions, one vanquishes them.

In any case, what is there to discuss? Muslims deny all the basic tenets of Christianity: They deny that Jesus was the Son of God; they deny that Jesus was crucified (hence the cross is anathema to them); they deny that true Salvation can be found only when one accepts Jesus as one’s Redeemer; indeed, they deny that Jesus is the Christ.

If someone doesn’t believe in these basic tenets of our faith, then there is absolutely nothing to talk about.

In actual fact, Muslims believe that Islam is the perfection of religion for man for all time. They believe that Muhammad came to bring this perfection about. They believe that Muhammad was the ultimate prophet of Allah, and that Jesus was the penultimate one. Jesus is therefore a lesser ‘prophet’ in their eyes than Muhammad is. This should surely be anathema to Church leaders; but it apparently is not. So dilute has our faith become in the eyes of the Church elders!

It defies belief that our Church leaders are prepared and willing for Muslims to deny - absolutely - the raison d’être of the Church. What Church leaders should be urging their priests to do is evangelize, they should be bringing Muslims to task for their heinous crimes against humanity, and showing them the Way, the Truth and the Light. That, after all, is what they are paid to do; it’s their raison d’être. But they seem not to know it!

Do churchmen not know that every country in which Islam has put down roots it has eventually taken over and snuffed out Christianity almost for good. Egypt, Libya, Syria, and the Lebanon are good cases in point. Yes, there are still some Christians left in some of these countries – just – but these countries are now Islamic, and the indigenous populations are minorities in their own lands. Christianity never thrives where Islam takes hold. So what on earth are our Church leaders aiding this process of our own destruction for? Don’t they really believe that Jesus is the Christ? Don’t they really believe that Jesus was crucified for our sins? Don’t they really believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light?

Interfaith dialogue with Muslims is a waste of time and effort. So I do not believe in it; rather, I believe in thwarting the enemy within, and making them submit to our way of life. After all, if they don’t like it here, then they are free to leave and find other pastures. Nobody is keeping them here; and there is easy access to airports throughout the UK. This is true not only for the UK, but for other Western countries, too. In fact, I would hazard a guess and say that the vast majority of Westerners would be relieved if they did leave, since hell will freeze over before Muslims integrate!

To get to this point, we have made many, many mistakes. Here are some of them…

First of all, we shouldn’t have allowed so many Muslims into the West in the first place. We should have done our homework first. Successive political leaders should have read a few history books on the 1400-year struggle between Christendom and Islam. That would have set off some danger lights. Instead of this, nothing was learnt from history. People thought that the wheel could be reinvented. They were let in in their droves. And – astoundingly – they are still being let in! Moreover, if we truly live in a democracy, as our leaders keep telling us, then the people should have been consulted about allowing them in, and warned of the dangers of such a course of action.

Secondly, the ones that were let in should have been told – in no uncertain terms – that they can come here if they abide by our laws, and live according to our customs; otherwise they would not be welcome here. Instead of that, the West has gone down the politically-correct, multicultural route, thus forcing the indigenous population to make all the concessions. I always liken it to guests in my home: They are always welcome, as long as they abide by the rules of the house. I make the rules in my household. I am always the boss in my own home. Once someone starts to tell me how I should run my home, I politely show him/her the door. This should have been done with these immigrants from the start. They need to be placed on the defensive. They must be shown that they are not in the driving seat in our countries, no more than we are in the driving seat in theirs.

Thirdly, who gave our leaders the permission to try and turn our countries into pluralistic havens anyway, into utopias for all the peoples of the world. Were you ever asked to vote on this? I wasn’t; I know that. And had I been asked, I would have voted a firm ‘no’, without any hesitation.

The politicians have got themselves into a fix; and they don’t know how to get out of it. They haven’t got the courage to take the necessary Draconian measures to fix this problem, so they ask for dialogue instead. This goes for the Church, too. They no longer believe in the Scriptures as they should do; so they embark on a dilution of our faith instead, so that it doesn’t offend Muslims. Church leaders will never fill the empty pews that way. People are sick and tired of their prattling! That probably goes a long way to answer why the pews in Europe are pretty empty, and are continuing to empty still further, too.

We have embarked on a perilous journey: a journey of self-destruction. If people don’t wake up to the realities of what we are facing soon, then it will be too late. It is already five to midnight!

President Bush, for the first time in a long time, had the courage recently to state that we are engaged in a war with “Islamic fascists”. This is the most truthful thing he has stated in a very long time. I applaud him for having the courage to say it. He should say it again and again, until it sinks in with the general public. But if he really wants to hit the nail on the head, he should come out and say that this is not so much a “war on terror”, but a ‘war on the jihad’, the jihad which is out to annihilate us, and annihilate freedom and democracy, and annihilate all that the West stands for. This is indeed a battle between two civilizations. In such a battle, there is no room for dialogue, there is room only for victory. For, as Churchill so wisely stated during the Second World War, “without victory, there is no survival”. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I say: You ‘interfaith' if you want to. This gentleman is not for ‘interfaithing’!

©Mark Alexander

Dhimmi Bush Bows To His Saudi Masters - No More 'Islamic Fascists'

Can you believe how STUPID Bush is? What does he achieve by doing this? Scorn? What a pathetic excuse for a President? He is just beyond clueless about Islam? What other explanation is there? Saudis put that bitch in her place. Ann Coulter always defends Bush. Wonder how she is going to defend this? It it wasn't so pathetic and dangerous to us all, it would be laughable.

FROM AP VIA DhimmiWatch -

August 16, 2006
Bush declares war against "individuals"
"Islamic fascists"? Never mind. Oh, and in other news: to avoid offending Germans, President Roosevelt has announced that he is dropping all reference to the "National Socialist German Workers Party," and will henceforth refer not to our war against the Nazis, but to our war against "individuals that would like to kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives."

Archdhimmitude in Washington, as Bush bows to his Saudi masters: "Bush drops reference to 'Islamic fascists,'" from AP, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:

STATE DEPARTMENT President Bush has avoided repetition of a term that angered Muslims.
Responding last week to the foiling of an alleged plot to blow up flights between Britain and the United States, Bush said, "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists."

That triggered immediate objections from the Council of American-Islamic Relations, and another objection today from the government of Saudi Arabia.

In a statement after its weekly meeting, the Saudi Cabinet "warned against labeling Muslims with accusations of terrorism and fascism."

Bush didn't repeat the reference to "Islamic fascists" at the State Department today, referring instead to "individuals that would like to kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives."

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Hez v. Israel

The Hez v. Israel war has stopped, mostly, at least for now. Hez has managed to foist off a Hudna (courtesy of the usual idiots at the UN) and get a chance to regroup, rearm and reload for the next round.

Both sides can and are declaring 'victory'. Israel managed to kill off an unknown number of Hez operatives, and destroy Hez infrastructure, especially their weapons. It will take years for Hez (and lots of money from the Syria-Iran axis) to recover.

Meanwhile, Hez gets to declare victory because they 'stood up to the evil Zionist entity' and actually managed to somewhat survived the war, even in a diminished state. This is due more to Israel's bewildering reluctance to engage in a full-blown invasion of Hezbollahstan, rather than any tactical skill on Hez's behalf. In the perverted Arab-Islamic view of the world, this actually counts a victory, since the accomplishment of Arab armies is so pathetic. Especially against Israel.

Bottom line? The latest round of Jihad v. Israel is a draw. And the only thing a draw guarantees is another round of fighting in the future. Kinda like the way the ending of the First World War (a ceasefire) guaranteed an eventual, even worse Second War.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Europe, this is your future

Taken in July 2006 in Vienna, Austria, this photo shows the Eurabia that even now is becoming a reality. (hat tip European Kafir)

Cry, cry, for the beloved continent. Europe is in a state of unbecoming and will soon be no more.

Monday, August 14, 2006

French Army sniper tactics

With the mighty French Army enroute to Southern Lebanon to supposedly enforce the latest hudna, I thought a photo of French troops would be appropriate.

Here the mighty French army sniper corps is seen in training. The look on the face of the, ahem, 'sniper rest', is priceless.
UPDATE-- I have been informed that this photo may not actually depict French troops. PI regrets the error...and this photo is still as funny as hell.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

The Malaysian court case you need to know about

Malaysia braces for ruling on Islam conversion

(Reuters) - Malaysia is expecting a court ruling any day now that could shake society to its foundations: does a Muslim have the right to convert to another faith?

A Muslim by birth, Lina Joy decided to become a Christian, marry and raise a family. But in Malaysia, where Islam is the official religion, this is an affair of state, not conscience.

The 42-year-old has asked the Federal Court, the country's highest civil judicial authority, to acknowledge her decision to convert to Christianity and is now awaiting a verdict.

Constitutionally, freedom of religion is guaranteed (in Malaysia). But in reality, conversion out of Islam comes under the ambit of sharia or Islamic courts. And under sharia law, renouncing the Islamic faith is punishable by fines or jail. It isn't an option.

Renouncing Islam is also punishable by death under Sharia, but don't expect al-Reuters to tell you that little detail.

Now, listen to the hysterical Muslims as they argue against Lina Joy's case. They can't help themselves but to issue threats, veiled or otherwise.
A court victory for Joy could be explosive."It's political dynamite. It will create instability," Abdul Razak said. "For decades, the position of Malays and Muslims have been guaranteed.

"It will open the floodgates. Now you see Malays are going to convert and the government sanctions that. Definitely there will be a huge backlash and PAS is going to town with it."

Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS), the country's biggest Islamic opposition party, agrees."It will be a bad precedent," PAS deputy chief Nasharuddin Mat Isa told Reuters. "It will create some uneasiness in the Malay community. It could lead to demonstrations."

In other words, it WILL lead to demonstrations, and worse. Boycotts, riots, and violence are all cards in PAS's unsavory toolbox, and ones certainly to be played if the Federal Court doesn't go along. PAS, the party that best embodies the Malaysian wing of the Global Jihad, is guaranteeing it.
The influential Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia, the Muslim youth group once led by former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim, wrote a letter asking the Federal Court to dismiss the appeal. "Allowing Malays to leave Islam automatically will erode the status, the rights and the privileges of Malays," it said.

What rubbish. To Muslims, coercing people to stay within a religion they consciously reject is a 'right' and a 'privilege'. Total nonsense. But what else can we expect Muslims to say?

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Getting At "The Root Cause"

It's already started up again. The MSM, the politicians, the dhimmis, but they are all wrong, either through naivete, or deceit (taqiyya). Jason has an excellent brief and to the point article that would be an excellent article to print or forward to those you are trying to educate about Islam.

The Root Cause, Jason Pappas, Libert and Culture, July 11, 2006

What is the root cause of jihadist terrorism? In a word:


You’ve heard the other theories: failing to alleviate their poverty, supporting Israel, robbing their oil, invading their countries, insulting their religion, corrupting their young, supporting their dictators, installing a democracy, etc. Islamic propaganda is rife with grievances to explain or justify jihadist terrorism. These pap explanations are regurgitated by leftists and the paleo-isolationist-right. However, the overriding factor that trumps them all, the distinctive mindset that is uniquely at play, the essence of the problem that is a prerequisite for what the world has endured these past decades is not hidden or obscure – it is simply Islam.

Let’s take poverty and ignore the fact that the jihadist planners are educated and well financed. Why poverty? Poverty is nothing new. Nor is it unique to Islamic countries. Why poverty? This excuse is standard in leftist mythology. It was common, until a few years ago, to call poverty the root cause of domestic common crime. However, we all get hungry and need to eat. Some of us will chose crime others will chose productive work. The key to that choice is character. Your idea of right and wrong – influenced by the philosophy or the religion that you choose to accept – is the determining factor of the character you create as you go about your life. You’re responsible for choosing a life of crime or becoming a productive citizen.
What’s true about an individual’s character is also true about a culture. The philosophy – religious or secular – that permeates the culture determines how people respond to life’s choices. Philosophy results in distinctive societies; it determines how a country weathers challenges – both natural and man-made. Islam is the overriding religious philosophy for over one billion people. And in it lies the key to understanding their souls.

Founded by a political and military leader, Mohammad, Islam is a supremacist ideology of conquest and rule. In the first century of its existence it conquered most of the known world. To the devout Muslim, their lowly status today is contrary to their self-image rooted in Islamic mythology. It is seen as an injustice for which the world – non-Muslims – must pay. By Allah’s will, Mohammad triumphed and his people conquered the world – Jesus achieved no such feats neither did the Jews. For Muslims being the bottom feeders of the world puts their religion in doubt. If it is not Islam, others are to blame.

The Muslim, according to Islam, should rule the earth. Non-Muslims, if they are allowed to live, must serve and grovel before their Islamic superiors. They must be constantly humiliated to inculcate the subservient character required as a dhmmis or second class citizen of the world. This has been the practice of Islam for most of its 1400 years history. Not all Muslims today stress the original intent of the religion. But some do.

In the last forty years, fuelled by Saudi wealth, an Islamic revival has spread worldwide teaching Muslims the original (salafi) religion. Muslims have once again taken up arms. From every corner of the Islamic world and from new converts within other societies, Muslims fuelled by the rage of their religion have dedicated their lives to the cause of jihad or Holy War.

Is poverty part of the problem? Yes, but not because of the obvious materialistic needs – these, Muslims scoff at – but because of the insult to Allah’s favored people. Is Israel important? Yes, but not because that sliver of land intrinsically matters for the 1 billion Muslims spread from Morocco to Indonesia. For a Muslim, to lose control of any previously conquered areas – Israel, Spain, the Balkans – is to be mistaken about Islam’s destiny. Are we robbing their oil? Look how poor Muslims are worldwide and how rich America is – this is proof to those who see wealth as a gift from Allah instead of the result of productive human effort.

Islam is the determining factor that explains the plight of Muslims, their need to scapegoat, and their violent response. By definition, an essence of anything is that which is central and best organizes the rest. For jihadist violence, Islam is the essence and thus the root cause.

ACLU Loses Case To Stop Random Bag Searches in Subways

The ACLU, allies with CAIR in the plan to destroy America, lost their court case in New York to stop the government from searching bags. The ACLU is not a defender of individual rights, they are the enemy, just like CAIR.

Judges OK subway searches


Random bag searches in the subways are not only an effective tool in the city's anti-terror arsenal - they're constitutional, a federal appellate court ruled yesterday.
A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a city inspection program that began after last summer's terror attacks in the London subway system.

"In light of the thwarted plots to bomb New York City's subway system, its continued desirability as a target, and the recent bombings of public transportation systems in Madrid, Moscow and London, the risk to public safety is substantial and real," the panel wrote.

The New York Civil Liberties Union, which filed the case on behalf of subway riders opposed to the inspections, was weighing an appeal.

The panel upheld a lower court ruling by Manhattan Federal Judge Richard Berman in December. It found the program to be a minimally intrusive invasion of privacy because riders who don't want to undergo a search can simply walk to another station to enter the subways.

"Once again, at a fitting moment, the court upheld the constitutionality of the bag inspection program, one of our key strategies for deterring a subway attack," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.

And they dismissed suggestions that the sporadic nature of the inspections rendered the entire program ineffective. They noted that terrorists "prize predictability."

"An unexpected change of plans might well stymie the attack, disrupt the synchronicity of multiple bombings, or at least reduce casualties by forcing the terrorist to detonate in a less populated location," the judges wrote

Friday, August 11, 2006

Fulfilling the Will of Allah

A man gets up in the morning, takes a bath, combs his hair and beard, and puts clean clothes on. He walks down the road, enters a mall and then promptly self-detonates, taking an untold number of innocent lives with him. In the ensuing investigation, people who knew him tell the police that he was a normal guy--that he had a sense of humor, he was polite to his neighbors and that he wasn't violent. When the investigators can't find any apparent explanation as to why the man became a suicide bomber, all they can come up with is, 'He was suffering from a mental disorder'. Case closed.

What is it that makes a man so depressed that he ends up killing himself? What is it that gives someone so much hope about the afterlife that this life, to him, seems so worthless that he doesn't care if he ends it? Is that kind of a person really insane? He picks his target, he knows how to use bombs, he knows how to fire a gun and he knows who he has to kill. Is such a person insane? No, he's just fulfilling his duty.

We didn't call the Nazis insane--we instead put them on trial and punished them for the crimes they committed. We tried to uproot the evil! We didn't chant 'Nazism is peaceful; it has just been hijacked by Hitler and the gang'. We had our eyes opened, but only after many millions paid the price with their lives.

Today, it isn't the Nazis that are the aggressors. What we face today is far bigger and even more dangerous than the Nazi party of Germany some 60 years ago--it goes by the name 'Islam'. But today again, our leaders have been blinded; 'Islam is a religion of peace' they tell us. Some of the survivors of the Holocaust are still alive, but we have forgotten the price they paid the last time we chose to be blind to sheer evil. Now we're committing the same errors all over again.

The difference today though is that now the enemy is among us. If a Muslim is seemingly peaceful, normal, and jolly one day, but shoots six women (one of them pregnant) the next, what guarantee do you have that your next door Muslim neighbor won't do the same? I can tell you, as a former Muslim, that if it doesn’t happen today, there’s absolutely no guarantees that it won’t happen tomorrow. And then your supposedly ‘peaceful neighbor’ who just happens to follow a certain religion will be the one committing mass murder in the name of one and only one thing, Islam. Are they misguided? Yes. Do they misunderstand Islam? No. One or two people can misunderstand, but one billion?

To Muslims, nothing is as important as fulfilling the will of Allah. Mohammed gave two explicit orders on his deathbed--'the only religion on the Arabian peninsula should be Islam' and that 'the jihad will continue until the whole world is Muslim'. Muslims all over the world are still marching to those orders to this very day.