Saturday, July 30, 2011

From the Anti Jihadist: Online compendiums of my work

For anyone who's so inclined to keep up with my work at Jihad Watch (and elsewhere), I invite that handful of folks to cut and paste these two URLs into their browsers:

http://frontpagemag.com/author/the-anti-jihadist/

or

http://www.deathtoislam.org/author/the-anti-jihadist/

Both are updated continuously.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Has the time come to ban Islam in America?

2012 US presidential candidate Herman Cain made quite a splash over this past weekend, when he asserted that a community in Tennessee, and by extension, any community in the US, has the right to ban mosques. From "Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques" at FoxNews.com, 17 July 2011:

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is "hallowed ground" to Murfreesboro residents and that they're concerned about "the intentions of trying to get Shariah law" -- the code governing conduct in Islamic societies. 

"It's not just a mosque for religious purposes. This is what the people are objecting to," he said. 

Asked whether any community should be able to prohibit a mosque, Cain said they should. 

"They have the right to do that. That's not discriminating ... against that particular religion. That is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn't get talked about," he said. 

Cain again argued that residents were objecting to "the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions." 

"A set of laws, Shariah law." By that, Mr. Cain means that Islam is a political system, and not just a religion. It seems that such an idea, long considered heresy in the mainstream political establishment, is at last percolating up from the grassroots. This is probably in no small part due to the efforts of many indefatigable activists and advocates of freedom like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, both of whom have been arguing for many years that Islam is more akin to a political ideology, with a clear and present political agenda, than anything resembling a purely spiritual belief system.

Judging by the amount of hot air that was instantly created in the 24 hour news cycle, and the amount of faux outrage generated in the professional blathering classes and by the usual suspects, Cain must have really touched a nerve:

Cain is taking heat for his comments about Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which accused him of using "bigoted" language with his Cabinet comments, said Sunday that he should "apologize" for his latest remarks.

If the professional Hamas-linked taqiyya masters at CAIR have gotten their hackles up in such a hurry, then you know that Cain's on to something. But why stop with blocking construction of a single mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee?  Or with a mosque, I mean 'community center" in lower Manhattan, for that matter?

Should Cain's assertions be taken to heart and acted upon by any community in America, the defenders of Islam in CAIR and their progressive friends are likely to reach for the First Amendment in their defense quicker than you can say 'Jihad'. And to that end, these defenders would have a point. Islam has traditionally been accepted as a religion with First Amendment protections.

Is there a response? If the idea that Islam -- not 'extreme' or 'radical' or 'militant' Islam, but Islam as its founder created and intended it -- is a dangerous, totalitarian political ideology of conquest, then we as a country must be prepared to go beyond individual communities banning a mosque here or there. We must be prepared for a comprehensive national response that deals with Islam and its pernicious and inseparable counterpart, Shariah law. A patchwork system as proposed by Herman Cain, with individual communities acting on their own, while well intended, would surely fail. A national response is not only practical, but vitally necessary.

To that end, a proposed constitutional amendment has already been proposed, an amendment that would acknowledge and identify Islam not as merely a 'religion', but as an enemy ideology, an amendment that strips away Islam's heretofore First Amendment protections. Imagine the following change to the US Constitution:

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam's history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Like it or not, this would certainly address any Muslim appeal to the First Amendment. But while admittedly imperfect, and probably politically impossible at the present time, Amendment 28 does give us an idea of how far Americans will probably have to go to protect their freedom. Of course the leftists and Muslims will cry foul, and more. But what if we don't act and Islam is allowed to continue its ascendancy in America?  What if there's 10,000 mosques, 20 million Muslims and enclaves of shariah law slash 'no go areas' in most major U.S. cities, as is now the case in Europe?  Would it then be easier or more difficult to act in our self defense? What are the costs if we fail to act now, or soon?    

Herman Cain merely said what a whole lot of smart people have been thinking (and saying) for a very long time. Amendment 28 is an idea whose time has come.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Jihad mass murder in Mumbai redux

This week has seen another murderous attack in Mumbai, by Muslims, against non Muslims. The result is yet another pile of dead bodies.

Coordinated bombings in Mumbai, India murdered twenty-one people and wounded well over 100 Wednesday; Indian authorities suspect that Islamic jihadists have struck Mumbai once again. "We infer that this was a coordinated attack by terrorists," said Indian home minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, and other Indian officials reportedly believe that the Indian Mujahideen, which has close ties to the Pakistani jihadist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, was responsible.

So it appears that a terrorist organization, based in (where else) Pakistan, is responsible, again. Is it al Qaeda, or is it Pakistan's intelligence directorate ISI?  Is there a difference?

I wonder what India is prepared to do about yet another outrage springing from their western neighbor. My guess is "not much". 


Wednesday, July 13, 2011

At FrontPage Magazine- A Muslim's arguments rebutted on the persecution of Christians in Malaysia

Now at FrontPage:

Recently I had the unique opportunity to be interviewed by FrontPage Magazine's editor Jamie Glazov. In case you haven't yet read it, the main thrust of the interview was regarding the ongoing persecution of minority non-Muslims in Malaysia at the hands of the Muslim/Malay majority.  The lengthy track record of substandard treatment and discrimination of non-Muslims in general and Christians in particular should make it clear to everyone what's going on in Malaysia and why.

Most of the comments that I received at FrontPage were supportive, but a few comments, apparently from Muslims, were not so charitable. One in particular, from someone called 'Ibrahim', stood out. Namely, his comment stood out in its disingenuousness, its contempt of the truth, and flagrant twisting or outright omission of the facts. Given these characteristics (as well as the writer's occasionally mangled syntax), this writer is almost certainly not only a Muslim, but a fervent Muslim supporter of Malaysia's Muslim-controlled government. So in that regard, this comment stands as yet another useful peek into the cognitive dissonance that critics of Islam have to contend with.

So I've taken the liberty of reproducing most of 'Ibrahim's' comments here and showing just how many lies and distortions a taqiyya-spewing Muslim can pack into one (very long) paragraph...

Read it all.  And try to read the Muslim Ibrahim's 'rejoinder' in the comments. If anyone can make sense of it, feel free to leave a comment or let me know.

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Why call it 'Pakistan'?

Now up at Jihad Watch:

Over sixty years of ignominious history has not been kind to the decision to create Pakistan. Pakistan itself is a bleeding sore in South Asia, and its continued existence is a shame if not an ongoing crime against humanity. If the past 64 years have proven anything, they prove that, quite unlike South Sudan, Pakistan does not deserve sovereignty, nor does it deserve to be treated as a member of the family of nations.

Read it all.

Massive Malaysian Police Riot-- How well a Muslim government 'respects' civil liberties.

A Malaysian organization called 'Bersih' is calling for free and fair elections. The Muslim government won't stand for it and today's vicious crackdown in Kuala Lumpur proves it beyond any doubt. Peaceful protesters were met with mass arrests, tear gas, water cannon and the truncheon.

When it's Islam versus civil liberties, naked might wins every time. Read my updated coverage at Jihad Watch.

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Up at Jihad Watch: Malaysia's dhimmis fund Islamic da'wah

Consider the notion that Islam in Malaysia is paid for from the proceeds of non-muslim owned and operated businesses that trade in (among other things) alcohol, pork, rock music and sex. And why?  Because Islam would be bankrupt unless the dhimmis were compelled to bankroll the very entity that oppresses them.

So it should little surprise that the Muslim government in Malaysia has decided to step up its state-sponsored da'wah-related indoctrination and brainwashing efforts, as long as the infidels are around to foot the bill. Even if this eventually reduces the very source of all this money in the first place, by creating more Believers and reducing the number of dhimmis that can be excessively taxed.

Read it all.

Sunday, July 03, 2011

Now up at Jihad Watch- The Infidel's Guide to Malaysian Politics

It's probably worse than you think.

In Malaysia, the leftist-Islamist nexus is not just some hypothetical construct, but it is a political fact. (The leftist political party) DAP and the Pro-Shariah party in Malaysia called PAS are, in fact, united in a political alliance called (the) PKR (People's Justice Party). PKR gained significant power in several Malaysian states in the last Malaysian general election in 2008, but has unable to capitalize on those gains. It's been an uncomfortable alliance, with mutual suspicion on both sides, but is held together mainly by the charisma and force of personality of PKR's founder, Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar, for those unfamiliar with the man, is a rather interesting character, a nominal 'moderate' Muslim who emerged from a rather pious Muslim background. At the moment he has his hands full with the Malaysian government prosecuting him for alleged sexual crimes. 

Read it all.

Friday, July 01, 2011

'Justice' in Saudi Barbaria - A crime against humanity

From the Sharia Equals Depravity department. "Maid's beheading in Saudi Arabia halts Indonesian domestic workers scheme", from The Telegraph, 23 June:

Migrant worker Ruyati binti Sapubi, 54, was executed after she was convicted of murdering her Saudi employer, Khairiya bint Hamid Mijlid, with a meat cleaver.
The maid carried out the killing after she was denied permission to leave the kingdom and return to her family in Indonesia, according to officials in Jakarta. 

I won't pretend that I know much about this case, but there are probably extenuating circumstances in play. There are countless numbers of cases of domestic workers in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and other Muslim countries being abused or worse. Anyone want to bet that this woman wasn't somehow assaulted or otherwise victimized by the man she is said to have murdered?

Number of Muslims to protest the latest instance of barbaric Shariah law: zero.