Voice of the Vanquished: a Warning from History

imagesCAHPKOZNIslam Versus Europe:

by Cheradenine Zakalwe  h/t BNI

This is a very interesting essay that was posted in French on the website kabyles.net. It is written by a Kabyle, one of the indigenous peoples of Algeria who were subjugated by Muslims. In the essay, the author reflects on the similarities of his own people’s historical experience of being islamised and what is happening to contemporary Europe, especially France. I’ve translated most of it but not all of it. If you can read French, I suggest you read all of it at the link provided.

When I was a teenager I thought that my ancestors were idiots, useless imbeciles for having accepted this miserable religion 15 centuries ago. I was ashamed of my people of origin. I forgot that they had simply been beaten in war and submitted to their conquerors who hurried to rewrite their history.

That twisted history that I learned myself at school and had to unlearn on my own, through effort and perseverance. Looking at France, Belgium, Germany, England, Spain and lots of other countries too, I realise that even people who have been warned can be islamised by stealth, by small innocent touches. In truth, it’s their political, cultural and economic environment that is being islamised under the attacks of new unassimilable North African populations.

As usual, the jihadists islamise the “continent” and the leaders first, then the “human content” adapts bit by bit after one or two generations. It’s a quiet colonisation of spirits and space. Of course the leaders of France deny it. It’s as if you’re looking at the big hand on a watch: fix your eyes on it and you would swear that it doesn’t move, but after a while it’s in a different place all the same. They fell for it!

French men, French women, don’t be surprised if one day the islamists force you to rewrite your own history. I say to you: don’t be surprised if you happen to notice it. They already forbid you, just by being there, from mentioning the battle of Poitiers and Charles Martel. In expecting you to teach in your schools that Charles Martel did not fight Islam, but only some undisciplined Muslim soldiers who took to pillaging.

They are already obliging you to revise your national identity by making you say publicly that Islam is one of the roots of France, waiting till it becomes the only root.

They already claim Victor Hugo was a Muslim, Commander Cousteau was a religious fanatic 5 times a day and that Bonaparte admired the genius of Islamic civilisation.

You liste soberly to Malek Chebel telling you about the Golden Age of Islam and to a “really nice” reading of the Koran without anyone laughing at it openly.

You already let Bouteldja insulte you with impunity on all the television panels and MRAP drags you in front of the courts with the first breath that isn’t halal.

You already hear Tariq Ramadan keep trotting out to you that jihad is a defensive combat, without anyone asking what the Muslims were defending themselves from in North Africa, Spain, the Balkans, India, Vienna and Poitiers.

You are already eating halal without knowing it and if this goes on, soon you will close your butcher’s shops and your bar terraces, without knowing it either. They have already put you on your knees byu forcing you to acknowledge the greatest lie in history, namely that the West discovered philosophy, mathematics, science, astronomy and technology thanksw to Islam which generously passed them on to you (all the same forgetting to pass them on to Muslims).

Soon, you will be ashamed in bulk of Pierre and Marie Curie, Voltaire, Pasteur, Flaubert, Claude Levis Strauss, Molière, Louis IV and Jean Moulin. These renegades betrayed the Islamic roots of France!

Islam doesn’t give a damn about the truth, history and the identity of peoples. The only thing that counts for it is that these people submit to its law. It demands therefore as a sign of submission that these peoples themselves revise their own history, making a travesty of the truth, deny their collective identity, change their cultural references, profane their ancient religious places and discredit their own symbols. This is what all the people conquered by Arabo-Islamism have done. This is what the majority of elite intellectuals, almost all elected representatives, the majority of artists and almost all the French media. Only the ordinary people remain, silently enraged. And even the ordinary people are infested with the suicidally naive.

I say to the French people who are collaborating and the French people who are sleeping: France, and beyond that all of Europe, is at an advanced stage of its islamisation from on high. You have already accepted Islam from the moment where the you complain about radical Islamand Salafists. That implies that you don’t have a problem with living under the yoke of an Islam that is temporarily more soft. ¬Don’t delude yourself: even the softest Islam will never renounce Sharia. Even if the islamist leaders in France promulgated a 100 year moratorium on everything that bothers the French, Sharia will remain a sword of Damocles that will fall fatally on your heads one day, unless you oppose Islam firmly and at the official level, without appeal.

You have already made Islam a religion of state when your leaders deal with the UOIF and CFCM, and trasnfer part of the authority of the state to them in a sign of allegiance. Islam is a religion of state in France from the moment where your leaders celebrate it, cajole it, subsidise it, protect it, it and it alone. In a good Islamic state, France manages the questions of hijab, burka, street prayers, halal, lamb sacrifice, breaking the fast during Ramadan and “Islamic events” with supposedly moderate Muslim dignitaries. These dignitaries treat the elected representatives of the people like veritable tribal chiefs from whom they need allegiance and loyalty. And they get it!

When Dalil Boubekeur [head of Islamic association] speaks, he presents himself as as a second head of state, head high, wth a facile tongue and an assurance ready for any test. Islam is now at home in France, A mini-Islamic republic in the Republic. The cuckoo has laid its egg. Just a few more recalcitrant “tribal chiefs” to be reduced and the country will be declared “Dar al Islam”. Then they’ll just have to learn the technical modalities for practising Islam through the assimilation method. Morocco and Algeria will supply (are already supplying) teachers paid for with the taxes – I mean the zakat – of the French taxpayer.

Ordinary French people aren’t blind. They see the pressures their politicians are subjected to from the communitarian Muslim population organised in strata:
The mass of practising Muslims brandished as a threat to public order, Moderately radical Muslims whom their leaders think of as reservists, The militants Islamists who deal with propaganda, lobbying and legal jihad, the Salafists who create a diversion and the terrorists who terrorise.

They form an ensemble of players who work in concert with only one objective: forcing the Republic to bend to their will by forcing the politicians and institutions to bend to their will. All are hammering on the same nail : sharia, the ultimate goal of Islamic doctrine. Do you think all the North Africans were islamised one by one the day after the landing at Oqba? No. It was necessary to islamise the chiefs of the tribes first of all, then mark the physical, political, cultural environment with Islamic markers. Once this environment has become familiar to the natives, the leaders have no trouble islamising their small tribes “en masse”. Sharia follows later to ensure that the process remains irreversible. That’s what the conquering Muslims in France are trying to do. Tariq Ramadan is the first to swear that there is no question of sharia in France. But inside he adds: “for now”. What Muslim, however moderate, would be ready to definitively and publicly renounce sharia? At best, they will defer it till later. The more cheeky claim that it is these others who are deficient in intellect and don’t properly understand sharia.

Not have weapons to match the West, the islamist conquerors don’t lower their arms for all that. They fight, conduct their jihad openly, mobilise more and more troops, form alliances with NGOs, infiltrate the political world, literally buy the conscience of elected officials and use the slightest flaw in the law to turn it to their advantage. As the icing on the cake, they authorise here and there some attacks and murders, to show the capacity of this foul ideology to do harm and thus paralyse any vague desire to resist. Ils montent haut la barre pour amener les Français à accepter un SMIG islamique dans un premier temps. The French leftists don’t understand that what they call Salafists are to the moderates (Moussaoui, Boubekeur, Ramadan and other preachers) what air power is to infantry. Air power smashes all serious defences, which allows the infantry to advance by stealth until it has encircled the enemy HQ and forced the generals to surrender. The French “generals” here are the elected representatives of the people and the government. They are surrendering one by one.

In the end, in France, the Islamist conquerors are doing their job of conquerors, but those who are supposed to defend the homeland – that is to say the politicians, the ministers, civil society, the intellectuals…- are not doing the job of patriots. That’s why Islam is penetrating into France like butter. Without the slightest resistance. Those who try to resist are just ordinary citizens who end up neutralised by the law, discredited by the politically correct or intimidated by the readymade thoughts beaten in day and night by the media. At the slightest misdemeanour, they are hauled in front of the tribunals under the ironic eye of the burka and kamis wearers, more arrogant than ever. This isn’t meant to discourage you, but I doubt very much that those who are Islam-aware in the virtual world are going to succeed in dissolving the UOIF, or the CFCM, or in getting an event of the pyromaniac Tariq Ramadan banned, or even closing the site oumma.com, this giant mosque filled with islamist propagande, brainwashing material and smears of French patriots. It’s no longer that the worm is inside the fruit, but the fruit is enmeshed in a tangle of slimy worms. In France, those who present themselves as saviours of Marianne [symbol of France] engage in navel-gazing, cry cock-a-doodle-doo, make fun of the islamists instead of combating them on the ground, get caught up in moaning and remain on the defensive against MRAP, LICRA, SOS Racisme [all “anti-racist” multicult associations] and other French “intellectuals”, notorious and well-established collaborators. These terrific online resistance fighters end up disappearing, like Bivouac ID and Liberty vox [French anti-Islam websites] or reduced to defending their skin like Riposte laïque.

In France, it is now fascist to fight against fascism. We’re right in 1984! Madness! It seems that fascism shouldn’t be fought against when it is hungry, when it is unemployed and when it is brought by hundreds of millions of people without resources, without culture, without education and, above all, without shame.

Source: Kabyles.net

 

Gaffney at Dallas Eagle Forum: Shariah and Civilization Jihad in America

Frank Gaffney spoke to the Dallas Eagle Forum on September 27, 2012, giving a short course on Shariah Law and Civilization Jihad in America.

 

 

Europe Bows to Muslim Demands to Limit Free Speech

By Soeren Kern:

Protests over an American-made anti-Islamic YouTube film, Innocence of Muslims, have spread to Europe. Muslim rioters have clashed with police in several European cities, and more demonstrations are being planned. The protests are part of widespread anger across the Muslim world about the amateur film, which ridicules Islam and depicts the Muslim Prophet Mohammed as a fraud, a madman and a sexual deviant.

Muslims in many European countries are calling on governments to outlaw the controversial film. They are also pressing elected officials to enact anti-blasphemy laws that would criminalize the criticism of Islam. As most European countries lack American-like First Amendment protections, the momentum is building for the imposition of legal curbs on free speech when such speech is perceived to be offensive to Islam.

Police clash with protesters in Belgium

In Belgium, police using pepper spray and batons arrested more than 200 Muslims in the northern city of Antwerp after clashes at a demonstration against the film. The protest in the Borgerhout district of the city was organized by an Islamic fundamentalist group called Sharia4Belgium. The protest was organized via a text message which read: “We are ready to work with our souls and hearts to fight for our beloved prophet, even if death comes to meet us. Whoever has love for the Prophet must be present.” In Brussels, police arrested more than 30 individuals who participated in two separate protests — one in the Sint-Joost-ten-Node district, and another one in downtown Brussels near the American embassy.

In Britain, some 300 Muslims protested in central London outside the American Embassy. The crowd included many radical Muslims associated with the hardline group, Hizb ut-Tahrir; they shouted slogans and held placards, saying, “America — Get Out of Muslim Lands.” The gathering, which consisted mostly of men but also some women and children, listened to speakers who condemned the film, U.S. foreign policy and the “oppression” of Muslims.

In France, police in Paris arrested 152 Muslims for taking part in an unauthorized, impromptu protest on September 15 at the Place de la Concorde near the American Embassy; there were a number of clashes, with four police officers hurt.

French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said he would prevent any further anti-American demonstrations sparked by the anti-Islam film. “I have issued instructions so that this does not happen again,” Valls told France 2 television. “These protests are forbidden. Any incitement to hatred must be fought with the greatest firmness.” Valls also said that among the roughly 250 protesters, there were some groups that “advocate radical Islam.”

Nevertheless, Muslims have now issued a call via text messages and social media for new protests to be held on Saturday, September 22, at 2pm at the Trocadero district in Paris. The President of the anti-immigrant National Front party, Marine Le Pen, said the protests mark the beginning of a process of “intimidation” by Muslims.

In Germany, major Muslim umbrella organizations have warned that the movie could “endanger the public peace” and lead to “street massacres” in German cities. The chairman of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims, Aiman ​​Mazyek, has also called for a legal ban on the film within the Federal Republic. “I do think that we must use all legal means to ban the film,” Mazyek said in an interview with ARD television. Mazyek continued that the video had the goal of “sowing discord and hatred,” and therefore “I would use all means possible to outlaw the film.”

German political leaders are now equivocating about their commitment to free speech. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, commenting on the anti-Islam movie, said, “I can imagine there would be good reasons to outlaw the film” – a reversal of her statement of just two years ago, when, commenting on the Danish cartoon controversy, she declared: “Free speech is one of the greatest treasures of our society.”

Separately, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said he would consider all legal options to ban public showings of the anti-Islamic film. He said Islamic extremists such as the Salafists are likely to incite violent protests within Germany, which Friedrich called a “highly dangerous” situation.

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has also pleaded for a ban on the movie, arguing that freedom of expression has its limits. “The abuse of a religion that is likely to disturb the public peace is forbidden to us,” he said in an interview on Deutschlandfunk German radio. He also argued that a ban on the film would send the message that “Germany does not stand behind right-wing radicals who insult other religions.”

Section 166 of the German Penal Code already restricts free speech when it involves “insulting religion or belief.” In a landmark Section 166 case in 2006, for example, a German retiree in Lüdinghausen was sentenced to 12 months in prison for writing the words “Koran, the holy Koran” on toilet paper and mailing it local mosques.

Read more at Radical Islam

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

2012 Tipping Point?

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures. William Shakespeare

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

History is replete with examples of strategic miscalculations in which an over-reach – usually born of contemptuous disdain for a foe – led to disaster for the aggressor.  Think Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812.  Or Hitler’s of the Soviet Union 131 years later. We may look back at September 11, 2012 as the kick-off date for such a tipping point in our time.

To be sure, the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists – notably, al Qaeda franchises throughout the Middle East and beyond, other so-called “Salafists,” Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the mullahs of Iran – were becoming increasingly aggressive towards us even before last week’s mayhem in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc.  Team Obama (notably in the person of its hapless and overexposed UN Ambassador, Susan Rice) and its running dogs in the elite media would nonetheless have us believe that the upset is the by-product of an amateurish short video that disparages Mohamed.

In fact, as most sentient beings have realized by now, that film is but the latest pretext for Islamists to demand our adherence to what they call shariah blasphemy laws.  [Such laws are but a part of the larger, brutally repressive Islamic political, military and legal doctrine that prohibits any expression that offends, or otherwise is unhelpful to, their faith.]

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has repeatedly conveyed a willingness to accommodate – or at least tolerate – this threat to one of our most fundamental constitutional liberties: freedom of speech.  That willingness is part of a pattern of submissive behavior that has encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to believe that America is in retreat and that shariah’s inevitable, divinely-directed and global triumph is at hand.  Their response, predictably, is to redouble efforts to make us, in the Quran’s words, “feel subdued.”

Examples of such behavior abound.  Consider just a few of the more telling cases-in-point (for more, visit www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com):

  • In May 2009, President Obama insisted that Muslim Brotherhood representatives be in the audience for his first speech directed at the Islamic world.  It was delivered at Cairo University and freighted with apologies for past U.S. policies and efforts to associate himself with the beliefs and priorities of his audience.
  • Interestingly, Mr. Obama had already operationalized that policy approach two months before, by having the U.S. delegation to the UN Human Rights Council co-sponsor with Egypt a resolution drafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  The object of the exercise was to further the OIC’s longstanding objective of forcing UN member nations to prohibit and criminalize expression that offends Islam.
  • In July 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a formal effort with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation dubbed the “Istanbul Process” to explore ways in which our First Amendment rights could accommodate shariah blasphemy laws.  (Some of those playing an influential role in this exercise are discussed in a booklet about “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration” I just published with the David Horowitz Freedom Center: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-obama-administration/.)
  • In December 2011, the Istanbul Process achieved an ominous milestone:  The odious UN Human Rights Council adopted, with strong U.S. support, Resolution 16/18 committing member nations to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.“  Lest anyone think this a clever finesse, more or less in alignment with current U.S. law, the OIC’s secretary general made clear that his organization did not view it as “the end of the road.”  And, indeed, developments of the past week – both here and abroad, official and non-governmental – suggest that Team Obama is prepared to go farther, too.

Given such encouragement, it is not surprising that the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies would respond by demanding further accommodations to them and their shariah agenda.  What is a surprise, though, is that they are acting out their ambitions at this juncture – not after November 6th, when President Obama will, in his words, “have more flexibility.”  It suggests that the Islamists have reached their tipping point, propelled to seek decisive domination by President Obama’s perceived weakness, irresolution and submissiveness.

In the face of our enemies’ overreaching aggressiveness, however, the American people now face a tipping point of their own.  If they arrive at the only sensible conclusion – namely, that four more years of the Obama administration’s malfeasance with respect to jihadism of both the violent and the stealthy, pre-violent kind – they may just respond by refusing to re-up a presidency that enables and emboldens our foes and undermines our liberties and friends.  And should such a tipping point be realized, it will be one of truly epic historic proportions and prized by freedom-loving peoples forever.

Islamic Murder, Western Submission

by Paul Weston

The word “Islam” when translated into English means “submission”. The general idea is that Muslims submit to Allah and all non-Muslims around the world submit to Muslims. The Islamic murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens earlier this week provides a frightening looking glass through which the sheer scale of Western submission to Muslim violence and terror can be viewed.

The murder of a U.S. Ambassador is effectively an act of war. It shouldn’t matter that the murderers attempted to dress this up as a natural (in the Muslim world) reaction to some obscure YouTube video negatively portraying Mohammed. The only thing that matters is the cold blooded murder of a human being.

The immediate reaction of the Western political and media class was horrifying. Barack Obama issued a statement which included the following: “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

Not wishing to be outdone in abject cowardice and evasion, the American Embassy in Cairo went out of its way to excuse the Muslim murderers: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims. … We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” [Note: the linked press release has since been pulled – ed.]

Obama and his representatives are essentially siding with the murderers here. The attacks had nothing to do with the denigration of Mohammed. Spontaneous gatherings of protestors tend not to come armed with rocket propelled grenades. To regurgitate the lie of yet more contrived Muslim displeasure is to actively excuse their murderous behaviour.

A well planned series of attacks, carried out on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 against American Embassies in various parts of the middle-east simply did not happen because some unknown Joe posted a video on YouTube. What they really represent is yet another small part of Islam’s ongoing war against the West.

And why does Obama call it “senseless violence?” There is nothing senseless about it in the eyes of the perpetrators. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they also knew that if they provided a wholly contrived pretext for it, the Dhimmis in the West would dutifully parrot their lies.

Have you noticed there is no reference to murder in Obama’s statement? Despite the fact they were clearly murdered (and possibly sodomised and tortured) Obama would rather not acknowledge this stark reality. Their lives were “taken” you see, by some ambiguous people with no apparent
motive other than being angry.

This cowardly use of deceptive wording is shocking. Hard-line Islamists carried out the barbaric murders in the name of Islam against non-Muslims. Period. There is no other honest way of describing it.

And why is it an abuse of free speech to criticise, or to tell the truth about Mohammed?

Is it not a fact that he was himself a murderer and a warlord?

Is it not a fact that political Islam and religious Islam cannot be separated in the eyes of Muslims?

Is it therefore not a fact that to refer to the criticism of a political/religious
ideology as an “abuse” of free speech is tantamount to elevating political Islam
to a height beyond democratic discourse?

Read more at Gates of Vienna

 

The GOP’s ‘No Foreign Law’ Platform

by: Karen Lugo:

Republican convention delegates voted last week to adopt a platform plank, cautioning against the use of foreign law in U.S. courts. While jurists such as Supreme Court Justice Scalia have said that “foreign legal materials can never be relevant to an interpretation of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution,” and Justice Thomas has written that the Court should not “impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans,” other jurists have searched foreign legal sources to locate “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

This GOP platform provision, however, represents something beyond concern over the practice of buttressing sketchy legal reasoning with extra-American sources; the GOP statement also objects to Sharia law or any other foreign legal code that threatens to creep into judicial decisions disguised as validated ethnic customs. As suggested, this admonition would apply when claims in a legal dispute are based upon cultural codes with deficient individual and civil right protections compared to American constitutional standards.

The publicized New Jersey spousal abuse case first raised widespread alarm when a trial court judge refused to issue a restraining order against a husband despite the established record of domestic violence and assault (reversed on appeal). The judge ruled that the husband did not demonstrate sufficient legal criminal intent in light of an imam’s testimony that wives are required to comply with husbands’ sexual demands. The man’s wife, known in the opinion as S.D., was 17 on the day of her wedding and did not know the bridegroom before the marriage ceremony in Morocco.

Another case that presented the Sharia terms of a foreign marriage in an American court is that of Joohi Hosain. When Joohi left her marriage (under strict Sharia rules, wives are not generally allowed to sue for divorce), her husband in Pakistan sued for custody of their daughter, Joohi fled to America on a student visa with her daughter, and eventually presented her custody case in U.S. courts after her by-then-ex-husband pursued her to Maryland. Although Joohi explained that making an appearance in a Pakistani court would likely result in accusations of adultery and the possible punishment of whipping or stoning, the Maryland appellate court determined that even so, the mother had the notice and opportunity to be heard and was thus afforded proper due process. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals then deferred to the Pakistani ruling that it was in the best interest of the child for the father to have primary custody.

About half of the cases involving Sharia family customs which have been presented for adjudication by American judges involve marriages solemnized in other countries, but many Islamic domestic marriages are also based on Sharia norms. These domestic unions present unique challenges: they often begin with disregard for the state law regarding the registration of officiants and the licensing of marriages. Even worse is the disregard for due process and informed contract formation when marriages and property distributions are arranged without the bride’s participation.

After a review of both foreign and domestic Islamic marriages, I recently presented a survey to the Federalist Society that considered both published and unpublished family court cases that adjudicated Sharia terms. To date, about 25 U.S. family law cases reflect the U.S. approval of the Sharia-based marital terms in the family court or the court of appeal.

Read more at Radical Islam

Karen Lugo is the Founder of the Libertas-West Project and a co-director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

The New Islamic Vigilantes of Speech

by EDWARD  CLINE:

David J. Rusin of the Middle East Forum recently published an article on Islamist  Watch about the vandalizing of “anti-Islamic” ads. He reveals just how  pervasive the phenomenon is worldwide.

When Cyrus McGoldrick, advocacy director for the New York office of the  Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),  logged into Facebook  on August 12 to hint at his desire to vandalize anti-jihad ads that may soon run  on city buses, he did not simply underline CAIR’s troubling attitude toward free  expression. McGoldrick’s words – and the subsequent actions of others – have  illuminated an overlooked aspect of the Islamist assault on Western speech: the  defacement, if not obliteration, of political and commercial messages.

Of particular interest is the destruction of print or commercial ads of  scantily clad women. I find this interesting because of the near psychotic or  pathological mindset about women that Islam inculcates in Muslim men.

This phenomenon has been especially prevalent in the UK. A Times of  London article revealed in 2005 that Muslims Against Advertising (MAAD) had  launched a website with instructions on how to vandalize ads and which ones to  select. “There is no longer any need to cringe as you walk past a sleazy  poster,” the group declared. “We’ll improve it.” Many answered the call, as ads  pitching bras, beauty products, and even television programs were trashed.  “Photographs of semi-dressed women are the most frequently targeted, with the  offending body parts painted over or ripped off,” the Times observed. In a  telling example, thugs destroyed images of scantily clad women on an East London  billboard promoting the series Desperate Housewives, but fully clothed  characters were untouched. Responding to the controversy, leading British  Islamist Ahmed Sheikh argued that “freedom of speech should end when you offend  others.”

Cultural jihad, or the de facto imposition of Sharia  law on Western non-Muslims, is insidiously accumulative. In Britain it begins  with such things as complaining about images or figures of pigs that Muslims  might see in a bank or a shop. They are removed so that Muslims are not  offended. Next will come a complaint about halal food not being served in  restaurants and schools. Non-Muslims will be served it, as well, with or without  their knowledge. Next will be a complaint that one must have some place to pray  five times a day, and if an employer does not provide such a space, the street  outside will do just as well, and damn the traffic jam caused by hundreds of  Muslims mooning non-Muslims as they express their obeisance to a rock thousands  of miles away. Language must also be altered to preempt potential  offense. Muslim criminal suspects are called “Asians.” Polygamy is taboo among  non-Muslims, but Muslim men collecting welfare and enjoying subsidized housing  may have several dependent wives and a dozen dependent children. The taxes  collected to pay for their special welfare is a form of jizya, or a tax  levied on conquered infidels. Muslims may demonstrate en masse, displaying signs  that damn freedom of speech, sneer at British culture, warn of violence if  non-Muslims resist, and predict the Islamization of Britain, and not be charged  with hate speech. Any other group behaving in such an obnoxious manner would see  its members hauled into court. Criticism of Islam is forbidden and  regarded as “defamation,” “bigotry,” or “racism.” Muslim activists are  aggressive in this respect, going after not only titillating ads but serious  discussions of Islam. Rusin writes:

Islamists also have adapted to the information age, recognizing that much of  the Western speech they despise now exists online. Al-Azhar University scholars,  representatives of the highest religious authority in the Sunni Muslim world,  even crafted a fatwa in 2008 that sanctions hacking for the purposes of jihad.  Therefore, those who criticize Islam or otherwise offend its followers often  find that their freedom of expression is no safer on the internet than it is on  a Tower Hamlets billboard. Arab News sympathetically profiled one such  hacker, a Saudi native, in 2011. “An Alkhobar woman studying in the United    States is taking credit for destroying 23 Danish websites that denigrated the  Prophet Muhammad,” the piece begins, relaying material originally published by  an Arabic-language source. “Nouf Rashid told the Arabic newspaper she was  hacking into Danish websites having references to cartoons of the Prophet along  with other sites that had questionable content in her view,” including  pornographic ones.

The focus here, however, is the pseudo-ironic and psychotic symbiosis  between a creed/ideology that finds bare female anatomy offensive, yet is lured  to it in spite of the proscriptions against it. There is a link  between such vandalizing and the rape and often disfigurement of non-Muslim  women in Europe by Muslims, the “sex slave” rings recently exposed in Britain,  and the honor-killings of Muslim-born women and girls who break Islamic rules  and “go Western.” This has everything to do with the Muslim dictum compelling  women to cover themselves up as much as possible in burqas, veils or some other  form of self-effacing garb, depending on the Islamic sect. The  phenomenon swings wildly, like bipolar dysfunction, between the vigilante  censorship described by Rusin and incidents such as the rape of Lara Logan in  Cairo, in which her clothes were ripped from her and even part of her hair torn  out during the assault. That was not the only such incident endured by Western  women in Cairo, but it is the most notorious. Her attackers wished to extinguish  Logan, to wipe her out of existence.

This is the behavior of  nihilists.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in  England  and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and  suspense  novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all  available on  Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have  appeared in The  Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other  publications.  He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security  Matters,  Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications. 

No Common Ground

by Justin O Smith:

Genesis 16:12 “And he will be a wild ass of a man; his hand will be against every man…” -Hebrew Bible

The barbaric ideology of Islam can no longer be tolerated in America, and we must facilitate its change or its self-destruction through direct ideological and philisophical confrontations. This must be done, because Islam represents an ideology that declared war on the West, and specifically America decades ago. And contrary to current U.S. policies and some positions asserted by misguided segments of the Church, there exists no common ground to be found with Islamic religious leaders.

The battle to halt the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro is far from over, since
attorney Joe Brandon petitioned federal Judge Kevin Sharp to let him intervene
in the Dept of Justice case, that resulted in the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the ICM. Brandon rightfully stated, “It doesn’t follow the law.”
And on August 29, Judge Sharp ruled that the ICM opponents can
intervene.

DOJ attorney Eric W. Treene made an asinine comparison of ICM opponents to “people not wanting the desegregation of schools.” Black people were only seeking rights that were long overdue to them, not the destruction of the U.S. government or the U.S. Constitution in the manner of many Muslims, who also use our system to demand rights above and beyond those guaranteed by law.

For anyone still in doubt about the intent or the forces behind the ICM, one should view the picture of CAIR Chairman Awad Nihad standing just to the side of Essam Fathy as the opening of the ICM was announced on July 19. Yes… Nihad… the man who has continually reiterated Ibrahim Hooper’s statement that “Islam is not here to be one of many religions. Islam is here to dominate.” This perfectly illustrates that Islam on the whole…the “ummah”… cannot and will not ever fully assimilate with American culture or truly abide by the U.S. Constitution; their purpose is the conquest of America!

In Russia last month, a suicide bomber killed seven police officers attending a
funeral, wounding fifteen others; a week later in Tatarstan, 500 miles east of
Moscow, another attack occurred in an area where they thought “peaceful
coexistence” had been achieved between Muslims and Christians. Why am I telling you this in relation to America’s Islamic problem? Because this is what can be expected eventually, wherever Islam sets up shop.

Muslims have trouble living peacefully with their neighbors. In Lebanon, Maronite Christians have fought a losing battle with Muslim invaders from Iran, Syria and Jordan. The Muslim Fulani-Hausa of Nigeria has callously attempted to systematically destroy the Christian Igboo tribes, and in the same manner, Sudan’s Muslims have engaged in genocide against South Sudan’s Christians and Animists. In southern Thailand, Muslims have raised insurgencies against a Buddhist government, while in the southern Phillipines, a Muslim insurgency fights for “independence” from a Catholic country and government. Out of fifty-nine conflicts occurring in the 1990s, sixty-six percent were Muslims attacking other Muslims or non-Muslims, and today that figure hovers near 90%.

Michael Powell, New York Times columnist, recalls his conversation in a mosque with a Muslim cleric in upstate New York, Lackawanna, in 2002: “I was trying to figure out why this seemingly gentle man had allowed a stern young man from Saudi Arabia to counsel impressionable Yemeni-American teenagers. That stern sort turned out to be an Al Qaeda recruiter. And those impressionable young men ended up in training camps in Pakistan and are now doing long stretches in penitentiaries in the United States.”

During this recent respite from terrorist acts (don’t hold your breath), the Islamists from Tulsa to Chicago to Garden City and home to Murfreesboro have accelerated their political agendas…their political “jihad”/holy war… under the guise of “cultural exchange” programs (read indoctrination/ propaganda) in our Public School Systems through Islamist groups, such as Connecting Cultures and the TN American Muslim Advisory Council.

Their protectors in the highest echelons of every branch of our Tennessee and
U.S. governments try to make us believe that there are no religious connotations associated with these programs, and They Lie! The Muslim culture is Islam… the “ummah”/their community centers around Islam… they are entertwined and one in the same… Islam defines their culture!

Do the Muslims have to integrate with us, or do we have to integrate with them? These are the United States of America with a legal system/framework based largely on English Common Law and in Judeo-Christian principles, which are an important part of our national identity. The answer should be obvious, and yet, some of our elected officials, along with the Islamists, seem to suggest that it is us who must integrate with them!

In their quest for power and wealth, politicians from the Far Left, like Obama and Rep Mary Waters, and the RHINO-Right, like Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rep Eric Cantor and Gov Bill Haslam, have unified in an unholy Triple Alliance with Islam like a private club that shelters a likely 6-8
million Sons of Allah and God only knows how many real terrorists, terrorist
candidates or future terrorists. A club that fornicates with the Islamists like
a whore and fills its pockets with dirty petrodollars… the very petrodollars
that fund terrorism, buys our banks and our industrial and commercial firms… a
club that dares to speak of “cultural similarities with the Middle East.” What
the hell are these mentally deficient chatterers saying? Where the hell is there
any similarity between America’s culture and Islam or the Middle East?!? At
Kabul? At Bethlehem, at Damascus at Beirut?!? At Baghdad, at Cairo, at Tehran, at Mecca?!?

Those champions of Islam invoke a solitary diatribe where, in the name of “liberal thought and of intellectual generosityy”, issues are seen from one point of view only. The Islamists of CAIR and TN AMAC ask for the withdrawal and/or revision of textbooks referencing anything Christian related or that makes no mention of the presumed contributions Islam has made to America’s culture; because virtually everything about modern America originates in the Judeo-Christian principles and values, this amounts to nothing less than a demand for us to deny Our Heritage and historical fact. They also ask us to accept Sharia concepts/ Koranic Law within our education system, especially universities. Have we any evidence of their intention to explain, in the spirit of “cultural exchange”, the enormity of contributions that Christianity and Western values have brought the world and Islamic communities? Shouldn’t we hand them a flat, resounding “NO!”, as we suggest they can either assimilate or move to some balmy Middle Eastern community where the wonders of Sharia compliant societies can be fully experienced everywhere?

In the meantime, open U.S, borders and non-existent enforcement of immigration laws by the Obama administration has placed the nation at extreme risk, as U.S. Border Agents have noted numerous abandoned prayer rugs and Korans at our borders with Mexico. Many U.S. military leaders are still saying, “It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when” in regards to possible Islamic backed biological, chemical or nuclear weapons attacks on major U.S. population centers. As terrible a threat as this truly represents, an equal and more insidious threat lies in the continued legal and illegal immigration of Muslims into the U.S., and it must be stopped at all costs… this threatens the very essence of American culture!

Justin O. Smith is a concerned citizen with a B.S.-MTSU/ International Relations & Cultural Geography, ex-firefighter, U.S. Army and freelance writer.

Related articles

GOP Platform Addresses Sharia Encroachment

By Andrew Bostom:

Reports  (at “Live”  wire , repeated at Salon)  are quoting Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach to the effect that  the GOP platform has adopted an amendment which addresses Sharia encroachment.  Kobach stated,

We  see it from the top where the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly quoted  foreign law in interpreting our U.S. constitution and it’s actually coming in at  the bottom as well, it’s being raised as an argument in courts around the  country. We actually put a provision affecting Kansas statute this year and I  think it’s important for us to say foreign sources of law should not be used as  part of common law decisions or statutory interpretations by judges in the lower  state courts as well.

…I’m  not aware of any court that’s accepted the argument, but in cases involving  either spousal abuse or assault or other crimes against persons, sometimes  defenses are raised that are based in Sharia law

Despite  the predictable sneering and distressing ignorance which frames these reports by  two agitprop  “journalists,”  and Kobach’s own noble, if incomplete assessment of the profundity of the  problem, this is very welcome news.

Kobach  referred to Kansas’s recently passed law-a version of American Laws for American  Courts (ALAC) legislation-which should remind us all that the earliest of these  laws (now also passed in Tennessee, Arizona, and Louisiana) have been in effect  for several years without being challenged, let alone overturned. David  Yerushalmi recently provided a very clear, didactic example of the need for  ALAC-style laws, which corrects Kobach’s assessment about courts not having  accepted Sharia-based arguments.

Yersuhlami  described in brief an appellate court decision from Maryland, cited in a Center for Security  Policy Study, where

…the  court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody  in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not  provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital  punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.

The  salient facts of the case,  and appellate court ruling, were summarized by  Yerushalmi as follows:

The  Maryland appellate court ruled that since the woman could not prove she’d be  executed had she gone to Pakistan to litigate custody in the Pakistan Sharia  Court, which is a national-state court in Pakistan, her failure to go to  Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making the void as  against public policy argument. ALAC  would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to have  reversed the lower court’s outrageous  decision.

Here  are the Maryland appellate court’s own words, cited by Yerushalmi:

Additionally,  appellant [the mother] asserts that the Pakistani custody orders were founded on  principles of law repugnant to Maryland public policy because the Pakistani  courts allegedly “penalized the mother for not appearing without considering the  affect of her admission to adultery on her ability to return to Pakistan.” In  this regard, appellant points out that if convicted under Pakistani criminal law, her penalty could be public whipping or death  by stoning. Although Dr. Malik [the expert] opined that appellant would be arrested for adultery if she returned to  Pakistan for the custody proceedings, he also conceded that punishment for  adultery was extremely unlikely and that proving the crime was extremely  difficult. Given this testimony, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in  not considering the effect of whether appellant’s admission to adultery [under  sharia] was “repugnant” to Maryland public policy in its failure to find that  the Pakistani courts punished her for not appearing.”}

Let  me summarize for the (hope against hope) edification of  the “Live”  wire , and Salon,  agitprop journalists, the liberty-crushing, dehumanizing nature of Sharia:  open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order;  rejection of bedrock Western liberties-including freedom of conscience and  speech-enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of  non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient  chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as  amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol  consumption.

I  would also point out how the two agitpropjournalists  steadfastly ignore: ominous polling data from US  Muslims; jihad funding trial  revelations and the content of more banal Muslim litigation  proceedings; mosque  surveillance reports; analyses  of Islamic education institutions and their Muslim schoolchildren’s textbooks;  the issuance of obscurantist “fatwas” (Islamic legal rulings) by the respected,  mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America; and an open declaration by  one of America’s largest mainstream Muslim organizations, the Islamic Circle of  North America (ICNA), in its 2010 ICNA Member’s  Hand Book, which calls for the (re-)creation of a global Muslim Caliphate,  and the imposition of Sharia in America.

Notwithstanding  the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA’s) mainstream acceptance,  including uncritical  endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October  15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA  has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here),  “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here),  or adulterers (by stoning to death, here),  and condone  marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr.  Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America  and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether  “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could  take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

The  Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at  this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive  jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage.  But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows  best.

Just  six months ago (3/14/12), Translating  Jihad put what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely  Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing-and entirely unacceptable, seditious  context. AMJA’s own  words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the  US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.

Read more at American Thinker

Hamburg signs historic deal with Muslims

The Local:

Hamburg authorities have signed a deal with the city’s Muslim community groups guaranteeing Islamic holidays, school religion lessons, and burial rights. It’s the first agreement of its kind in Germany.

“Something that should be taken for granted has gained a lot of attention,” Hamburg’s centre-left mayor Olaf Scholz said as he presented the new agreement on Tuesday. It is the first ever deal between a German state and its Muslim community, Scholz said – “a signal that we’re ready and willing to cooperate.”

The 11-page agreement, which still has to be approved by the city parliament, is meant to regulate religious freedoms, school lessons, burial rituals, and recognition of Germany’s constitution, the taz newspaper reported.

The deal, which has been in negotiations since 2007, was signed by the council of Islamic communities (Schura), the Turkish-Islamic Union (Ditib), the association of Islamic cultural centres (VIKZ), as well as the city’s Alevi community.

These community groups, representing the Hamburg’s 120,000 Muslims, have agreed to recognize the “basic values of constitutional order,” to reject “violence and discrimination based on origin, sexual orientation, and faith” and “religious and political viewpoints,” and to recognize “equality between genders.”

In exchange, Hamburg city authorities will declare Eid al-Adha (“Festival of Sacrifice”), Eid ul-Fitr (the end of Ramadan), and the Day of Ashura (“Day of Mourning”), officially recognised holidays.

Muslim and Alevi workers will be allowed to take these days off, and their children will be allowed to stay out of school if they wish – under the same conditions that Christians can take Church holidays such as the Day of Repentance off. This means they have the right to take the day off – either taking it as holiday or in return for another working day.

The deal also promises Islamic communities more say in how religious lessons in school are formed.

Similar deals were signed with the city’s Protestant and Catholic churches in 2005, and with the Jewish community in 2007.

Schura official Daniel Abdin described the agreement as “an important step towards the institutional recognition of Islam in Germany,” while Aziz Aslandemir of the Alevi community organization said, “We hope that this contract will be seen as a spark for other German states.”