I Am An Islamophobe

CI7-0c8VEAAs6BX

By George Garbow

I am an Islamophobe, I’m proud to be an Islamophobe and you should be proud to.

You should be proud of the fact that you criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts the Quran and the Hadith’s tells it’s followers to not take non-muslims as friends, to lie to and deceive non-muslims in order to advance the spread of Islam and that there will never be any peace in the world until every single person on this planet either by persuasion or violent force becomes a Muslim. You should be proud to criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts condones and encourages the cruel treatment of animals for Halal meat, the beating of disobedient wives and the taking of non-muslim women and children as sex slaves by muslim men. You should be proud of the fact that you speak out about a religion that instructs it’s followers in the Quran and Hadith’s to terrorise and force all non-muslims to live as subservient slaves under their Muslim masters, to crucify and behead any non Muslims who disobey their masters in any country in the world where Muslims live and to make war on anyone who tries to stop them doing this. You should be proud to oppose a religion that considers Mohammed to be the most perfect man, a man who in the Muslim Hadith’s is praised and revered for being a thief, a peadophile and a murderer. You should be proud that by being an Islamophobe you are standing up to Western politicians and the Western media who out of fear and cowardice and for their own personal greed are trying to stop you telling the undeniable truth about what Islam teaches to it’s followers and the crimes against humanity that it is responsible for throughout history and that we see happening all around the world today.

You should be proud of the fact that the use of the word Islamophobe by our politicians and the media will not silence you and will not make you live in fear as they do. Be proud of the fact that by being an Islamophobe shows you care about the victims of this religion, you care about the muslim women who are forced to wear the Burqa and are treated as second-class citizens under Islamic law, you care about the non-muslim women who are taken as sex slaves by muslim man, you care about the children who are raped by Muslim men as they follow the teachings an example of their prophet, you care about the victims of Muslim terrorism and violence who are being shot, stoned, crucified and beheaded in the name of this religion all around the world today. So be proud to be called an Islamophobe by cowards and liars because it shows that in this world you choose right over wrong and good over evil and that you will not live your life on your knees.

So be proud of the fact that you are an Islamophobe.

***

SIX SURE SIGNS SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS AN ISLAMOPHOBE by Eric Allen Bell

The word “Islamophobia” was popularized by Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, operating under several different names in America – most effectively as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of, not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda and countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

The Holy Land Foundation trial was the result of the largest bust in FBI history of an Islamic “charity.” This organization was caught funneling about $12 million to Hamas.  These monies were to be used to enable Islamic jihadists to murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.

During this FBI raid, a memo was unearthed.  This memo has become known as the “Explanatory Memorandum.” In summary, the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple dozen of its front groups in America declared a “Civilization Jihad.”  In plain terms, the Muslim Brotherhood stated its intention to destroy the US from within, using our own culture, media, legal system, academia, law enforcement, you name it.  Unfortunately, most people cannot or will not look at this – and consequently, the plan is moving forward like clockwork.  As author Dr. Bill Warner reminded me recently, “You can wake a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.

Now, as it turns out, not everyone believes in this concept called “Islamophobia.” In fact, there exists a rapidly growing number of Patriotic Americans who see this form of terrorist spin control for what it is. But unfortunately, one of the ways that the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/CAIR has infiltrated our culture, is by using one of our greatest weaknesses, and that is the fear of not toeing the line when it comes to multiculturalism.  Those who do not drink the Kool Aid are called the “Islamophobes.”

You may already have an “Islamophobe” living in your community, or as a member of your family, an elected official, a member of your religious organization or even someone at work.  The “Islamophobes” are everywhere, and they are spreading.  Here are six ways to spot one:

1 – An “Islamophobe” loves liberty more than they love submission.  They know that the word “liberty” means “freedom” and that the word “Islam” literally means “submission.” And just like America’s Founding Fathers, the “Islamophobe” knows the value of liberty and knows it comes with a cost – a cost they are willing to pay, even when those around them neither understand nor appreciate this.

2 – An “Islamophobe” is more interested in the truth than the approval of their peers. They place their own moral intuition and the principles of the American Constitution above the group think of the times.  The “Islamophobe” is strong-willed, independent and exemplifies the American spirit.  They are unwilling to compromise the political self-determination that this great Republic was founded on, including and especially free speech.

3 – An “Islamophobe” resists passionately any attempt to impose Islamic law (Sharia) onto them.  Islamic law mandates the killing of those who leave Islam, the death penalty for homosexuals, second-class status for women, punishment for the crime of being raped (Islamic law calls this “adultery”), it forbids the questioning of Islamic doctrine, promotes slavery, forbids religious freedom and criminalizes free speech.  Although the “Islamophobes” are often smeared in the press as being irrational, the truth is that most actually realize that the more obvious forms of Sharia Law are not their most immediate concern.  Rather, it is understood among “Islamophobes” that it is “Creeping Sharia” or death by a thousand cuts that Americans have to watch out for and stand against.  The “Islamophobe” is always the first to notice when the political doctrine known as “Islam” is being given special treatment in schools, the courts and in the media.  The “Islamophobe” is often the first to realize that their own God-given right to free speech is being threatened by the slow and stealth implementation of Sharia Law into all levels of our society.

4 – An “Islamophobe” sees a pattern emerging before the rest of the population sees it, and they don’t hesitate to warn others, even when the social, professional and personal safety consequences come with a hefty price.  As David Horowitz pointed out recently, “80 percent of the American public was opposed to getting involved in WWII before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.”  What was it that the other 20 percent were able to see?  What was the pattern they were able to identify?  An “Islamophobe” sees the writing on the walls and does not sit around passively waiting for our so-called “leaders” to get it.  An “Islamophobe” is very likely already a member of organizations such as “Act for America” because they are already taking action at the grassroots level.

5 – An “Islamophobe” is able to tell the difference between Islam, the totalitarian political ideology, and Muslims – who are human beings.  “Islamophobes” are not concerned with how Muslims worship.  Rather, it is Islamic Law that concerns them, specifically as it pertains to the treatment of the infidel, who is to be subjugated or killed.  Contrary to popular opinion, “Islamophobes” do not hate Muslims.  In fact the “Islamophobes” know better than most, that no one is more victimized by the brutality of Islam than Muslims.  “Islamophobes” look for ways to stop this pattern, so that all people can be free, have dignity and human rights.  An “Islamophobe” is often somebody with a big heart, such that they tend to care about people whom they don’t even personally know. The “Islamophobes,” however, do oppose a violent ideology which seeks to subjugate or kill the unbeliever, and they make no apologies for not tolerating such inhumanity.  Ironically, “Islamophobes” are often branded as bigots for simply being the ones willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.  And making sure they are branded as such is the job of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas front group.

6 – “Islamophobes” tend to define themselves by what they are for – and not by what they are against.  An “Islamophobe” stands for liberty, stands for human rights and cares about our national defense.  They are less concerned about complaining about the problems and are more likely to actually do something about it.  “Islamophobes” are people of action.  “Islamophobes” take the time to read the Islamic scriptures (Koran, Hadith and Sira) and to understand what we are up against.  They study the works of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Sam Harris, Nonie Darwish, Bill Warner, Brigitte Gabriel and so many others.  An “Islamophobe” takes the time to understand the ruthless and barbaric Islamic Law (Sharia), which is committed to taking away our fundamental rights.  Consequently, many “Islamophobes” have the tools to speak to others, including their elected officials, spiritual leaders, friends and family and even the media, to affect positive social change – and preserve our American way of life.

Do you know someone who might exhibit these traits?  Is someone you know an “Islamophobe”?  Well now there is something you can do about it.  Join them!

If you love liberty more than the approval of your peers – you may already be an “Islamophobe.”

The word “Islamophobia” literally means an irrational fear of the ideology known as Islam.  It is misapplied, as this is in fact the intention of the word. Someone with an irrational fear of Islam would more likely make a statement such as, “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”  And really, what kind of a spineless coward would say something so utterly ridiculous? (Barack Hussein Obama, addressing the United Nations, October 2012.)

Those who are called the “Islamophobes” are generally anything but. However, they are strong enough not to allow cheap name calling to stop them from honoring their moral convictions.  The “Islamophobes” are our best and our brightest.  These are the people who can see around corners, connect the dots, spot a pattern, and are true to their moral intuition – even when it is inconvenient.

The so-called “Islamophobes” have the courage to speak out.  It has been said that “liberty is paid for in installments, one generation at a time.”  If you feel in your heart that you are ready to make your payment, to continue the legacy of freedom and liberty that has been paid for dearly by those brave men and women who have gone before us, then now is your time.  Now is our time.  Be willing to be branded an “Islamophobe.”  And if you are already a semi-active “Islamophobe” may I suggest becoming a “Raging Islamophobe.”  A word of caution: This could result in some people not liking you.  But if that is all that is being asked of us, for now, to stand up for liberty, to champion the cause of freedom — then being labeled an “Islamophobe” is a small price to pay.  In fact, to be an “Islamophobe” is an honor.

***

Picture-16 (1)

Download the pdf:

Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
By: David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

Britain’s Labour Party Vows to Ban Islamophobia

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, April 30, 2015

  • “In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. … If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.” — Leo McKinstry, British commentator.
  • The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

The leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has vowed, if he becomes the next prime minister in general elections on May 7, to outlaw “Islamophobia.”

The move — which one observer has called “utterly frightening” because of its implications for free speech in Britain — is part of an effort by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as “the tightest general election for a generation.”

With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.

In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:

“We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.

“We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”

Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred. Between 2001 and 2005, the then-Labour government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made two attempts (here and here) to amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, to extend existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.

Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened the freedom of speech. At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government’s definition of “religious hatred” was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.

In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, after amending the text so that the law would be limited to banning only “threatening” words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting. Lawmakers also said that the offense would require the intention — not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred. They added that proselytizing, discussion, criticism, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offense.

Miliband’s renewed promise to make “Islamophobia” (a term he has not defined) an “aggravated crime” may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act — which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred — into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.

According to British commentator Leo McKinstry, “Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.” In an opinion article, he added:

“In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.”

McKinstry says Miliband is currying favor with Britain’s three million-strong Muslim community to “prop up Labour’s urban vote.”

Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group.

The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

An extrapolation of the available data indicates that one million British Muslims aged 18 and above will be eligible to vote in this year’s election. According to one study, Muslims could determine the outcome of up to 25% of the 573 Parliamentary seats in England and Wales.

Others say that although Britain’s Muslim community is growing, it is also ethnically diverse and unlikely to vote as a single group. One analyst has argued that the potential for Muslim influence in this year’s election “will remain unrealized because the Muslim vote is not organized in any meaningful way on a national level.”

A study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found that although Muslims consistently vote Labour, they do so based on class and economic considerations, not out of religious motives.

Indeed, a poll conducted by the BBC on April 17 found that nearly one-quarter of “Asian” voters still do not know which party they will support at the general election. Some of those interviewed by the BBC said that economic issues would determine whom they vote for.

In any event, Muslim influence in the 2015 vote will be largely determined by Muslim voter turnout, which has been notoriously low in past elections: Only 47% of British Muslims were estimated to have voted in 2010.

Since then, several grassroots campaigns have been established to encourage British Muslims to go to the polls in 2015, including Get Out & Vote, Muslim Vote and Operation Black Vote. Another group, YouElect, states:

“A staggering 53% of British Muslims did not vote in the 2010 General Election, such a high figure of Muslim non-voters indicates that many Muslims feel ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the political process.

“With the rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in politics and an ever increasing amount of anti-terror legislation which specifically targets Muslims, it is now more important than ever that Muslims use the vote to send a message to politicians that their attitudes and policies must change.

“YouElect wants to get the message across that there is something you can do about the issues you care about. We have launched a new campaign using the hashtag #SortItOut, which calls on Muslims to use the political process to address the issues that concern them most.

“With 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics.”

Not all Muslims agree. The British-born Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary is actively discouraging Muslims from voting. In a stream of Twitter messages using the #StayMuslimDontVote hashtag, Choudary has argued that voting is a “sin” against Islam because Allah is “the only legislator.” He has also said that Muslims who vote or run for public office are “apostates.”

Despite several grassroots campaigns to encourage British Muslims to vote in greater numbers, some prominent Islamists in the UK claim that voting is a “sin.”

Other British Islamists are following Choudary’s lead. Bright yellow posters claiming that democracy “violates the right of Allah” have been spotted in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and Leicester, as part of a grassroots campaign called #DontVote4ManMadeLaw.

One such poster stated:

“Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.

“Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

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. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Also see:

Outlawing ‘Islamophobia’ Would Be Folly, Mr. Miliband

pic_giant_042815_SM_Ed-MilibandNational Review, by CHARLES C. W. COOKE April 28, 2015:

A few years back, when the American response to the horrors of September 11 reached its muscular zenith, dissenters from the cause liked to issue a pithy cri de coeur. “You can fight a nation or a person,” they would say with palpable indignation, “but you can’t declare war on an abstract noun.” The “War on Terror,” they would conclude, is little more than a marketing exercise for a preexisting disposition.

At the root of this objection was the fear that governments that cannot easily define what they are fighting will eventually come to be at war with everyone and everything. What, after all, constitutes “terror” — an inherently subjective term? How, pray, can we know when it has been truly vanquished? And which borders — physical, philosophical, and political — must we respect in the course of combat? These, I’d venture, were fair questions. “The essence of tyranny is not iron law,” Christopher Hitchens observed. “It is capricious law.” Now, as in the time of King John, free people should demand some ground rules.

This debate came rushing back to mind this week after it was revealed that a would-be prime minister of Great Britain, the Labour party’s Edward Miliband, had promised London’s Muslim Times that he would seek to outlaw and to punish “Islamophobia” if he were elected to high office. “Although Islamophobia already falls under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006#….#” The Independent recorded on Saturday, “Mr Miliband’s proposal would allow authorities to hand down tougher sentences for similar crimes.” Evidently, those sentences would be harsh. At present, Britons who violate the Racial and Religious Hatred Act are at risk of “up to seven years imprisonment” — not, you will note, because they have actually hurt anybody, but rather because they have uttered strings of opinion-laden words that the incumbent government happens to disfavor. This, alas, is apparently not good enough for the Labour party. Under a Miliband administration, The Independent confirmed, Britons who caustically knocked Islam would be guilty of an “aggravated crime.” “We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police,” Miliband submitted, “to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.”

The presumption that the state has a role to play in the policing of the human soul is an utterly terrifying one, running contrary as it does to all the beautiful suppositions that served as scaffolding to the Enlightenment. If Ed Miliband believes that his fellow countrymen are intolerant rubes, he of course has every right to lobby them to change direction. That he has promised to marshal the police in disapprobation is something altogether different.

The presumption that the state has a role to play in the policing of the human soul is an utterly terrifying one.

Why? Well, because underpinning the notion of free and untrammeled debate is the humble acknowledgement that the state cannot — and should not — decide what is true and what is false. Naturally, governments may have strong opinions on a corporate level. Individually their members may, too. But, whatever they might come to believe, those governments may not contrive to ossify or establish as legally impregnable a sole definition of reality. This, I’m afraid, is what Miliband is effectively proposing. Seemingly, he has contrived a two-step process for censorship: First, submit that criticism of Islam is beyond the pale (that’s the “phobia” stuff, for phobias are irrational, remember); second, because that criticism therefore has no value, move to prohibit it.

In attempting to discern a limiting principle, critics will likely pretend that this approach constitutes a radical departure from British norms and should therefore be resisted on principle. Much as I might like to pretend that this were the case, it represents no such thing. Despite its proud history as a cradle of individual liberty, Britain today boasts some of the most capricious, the most vague, and the most far-reaching censorship laws in the developed world. As of 2015, the execrable Public Order Act of 1986 had been used to harass two-bit singers, radical members of themedia, drunken students, preaching pastors, proselytizing Muslims, leafleting atheists, ignorant soccer fans, and pretty much anybody else who stepped out line. During this year’s election, moreover, aspiring members of parliament used it to shut down criticism from their potential constituents. Can we really be so surprised that the appalling Ed Miliband has jumped on the appalling British Milibandwagon?

Pushing back against Milband’s proposal, a few critics have noted acidly that the elite class’s obsessive focus on “Islamophobia” is peculiar given that the most frequent victims of racially motivated crimes in the United Kingdom are in fact Jewish. Well intentioned as that critique is, however, I’d venture that it represents entirely the wrong way of looking at the question. No matter what the numbers say, nobody who lives in a free country should be immune from harsh and even hateful oppobrium — not Christians, not Muslims, not atheists, not blacks, not whites, not anybody. Frankly, it is not the role of the British authorities to police the verbal output of the people they serve, until and unless that output is explicitly and deliberately brigaded to an illegal action. If they are to be at liberty, men may freely exhibit irrationality, fear, animadversion, disdain, acrimony, bitterness, revulsion, and pique — and they may do so without their emotions or their expressions being compared by the law to battery. If Ed Miliband hopes to make physical assaults even more illegal, he has my blessing. Until then, he must stay the hell away, lest he spur a recrudescence of precisely the sort of illiberalism he purportedly intends to banish.

Writing yesterday in The Spectator, Douglas Murray struck a great blow for common sense when he noted that if Miliband were to get his unlovely way, almost everybody could find himself in the crosshairs:

If Ed Miliband were to become Prime Minister and were to decide to make what people call “Islamophobia” illegal then I’m very happy to test the law straight away. Indeed I will immediately put on a gathering of academics, writers, Quranic-scholars and philosophers — Muslim and non-Muslim — to discuss Islam. It is possible that some of those gathered may disagree with the foundational claims of Islam. I, for instance, may repeat my belief — not being a Muslim — that it is highly unlikely that the Quran was “dictated” by God. This is not only my belief. It is also the belief of Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christians (some Anglican priests excepted), atheists and ex-Muslims, to name only a few minority groups.

Murray’s point strikes at the beating heart of the matter. In Britain, in Australia, in France, and beyond, limitations on free expression are typically justified with mawkish appeals to “multiculturalism,” to “diversity,” and to the maintenance of the allegedly exquisite feelings of the supposedly out-of-touch. And yet, as Murray subtly implies, this is rather to put arse over elbow, for rather than creating an intractable problem, freedom of speech actually is at its most useful when the culture it serves is lacking in homogeneity. Were all Britons to adopt an ovine pose and to agree that the Church of England is the correct religion and that its central claims are unquestionably true, there would be little need at all for the protections of free expression. While reasonable in and of itself, “Oh, I like the Queen, too!” is clearly not the sort of opinion that requires the passage of strictures guarding against the intrusion of the state. When a country hosts a broad array of opinions, however — and when it is home to people whose deep-seated beliefs directly contradict the deep-seated beliefs of others — a legal framework that can accommodate sharp and pronounced dissension is absolutely vital.

In Britain at present, almost all speech that is critical of Islam is reflexively deemed to be “Islamophobic” — this, regardless of intent, regardless of context, regardless of caveat or commonition. In consequence, if the British government were indeed to crack down more robustly in this area, it would not really be defending the “rights” of a minority group against the pitchfork-wielding mob, but effectively privileging one clique over another. How, one wonders, would it decide what was beyond the pale and what was legitimate? How would it conclude whether the Islamic religion or Mr. Douglas Murray were the victim? How would it distinguish between the imprecations of the imam and the critiques of the atheist? Might it not be possible, perhaps, that this is little more than a recipe for the sort of whimsy of which there is too much in British life; and, further, that this is the sort of thinking that has led to situation in which, a few days before a close general election, one of the men who would instruct the bayonets has ended up tendering special legal protections to a crucial, and increasingly cunning, electoral bloc . . . ?

— Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.

Islamist Panel Approaches Self-Parody in Hebdo/Radicalization Talk

IPT News
January 23, 2015

1118A panel discussion Thursday hosted by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) promised to plumb the “the root causes of radicalization” in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks at Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher market.

It turns out the problem is not Islamic theology or radical Muslim ideology. It’s all the things the West does wrong. Fix those problems, panelists said, and things get better.

During the 90-minute program at the National Press Club, no speaker discussed the Quranic verses invoked by terrorists in the Islamic State or al-Qaida to justify their actions. Instead, speakers emphasized a host of grievances that they say lead young Muslims to believe that peace and democracy will not lead to the changes they desire.

Muslim immigrants must be treated with more dignity and equality, said CSID founder Radwan Masmoudi. “Basically you must end all forms of racism, discrimination and hatred directed against Europeans of Arab descent or of the Islamic faith.” The West also must end the war in Syria and denounce the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood regime by Egypt’s military in July 2013.

Dalia Mogahed, a pollster and former White House adviser, took issue with the public reaction to the attacks. Defending the right to offend people as part of free expression plays into the terrorists’ agenda, she said. There is such a right, but society normally polices “incredibly offensive depiction(s)” of minorities. She wasn’t offended by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as a Muslim, but she was “disgusted” by them as an American.

"All is forgiven"

“All is forgiven”

“The correct question isn’t, ‘can we?'” she said, “the correct question is ‘should we?'”

Mogahed called the attack on Charlie Hebdo “a very strange event” because it came at a time in which there were no protests. “The shooting literally came out of nowhere. It was a calculated act of provocation on the part of terrorist organizations. This was not an organic, or even fanatical, response of just rage and anger against cartoons.” This ignores the magazine’s history of satirizing all faiths, generating no violence from Christians or Jews. Last week, 10 people were killed in Niger when protesters angry at the latest Charlie Hebdo cover torched churches.

The assertion is puzzling because, as a pollster, Mogahed has monitored attitudes in the Muslim world for years. As such, she is well aware that the Paris attacks did not happen in a vacuum. In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street by a radical Muslim angered by van Gogh’s film, Submission, which focused on Islam’s treatment of women. In 2010, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard survived a home invasion attack by an ax-wielding Somali with ties to the Islamist terrorist group Al-Shabaab.

American Colleen LaRose, known as “Jihad Jane,” is serving a 10-year prison sentence in part due to her plotting to travel to Sweden to kill another cartoonist, Lars Vilks. That murder, she wrote in an email obtained by federal investigators, would be “my goal till i achieve it or die trying.”

There are numerous other examples of plots and attacks targeting people for their depictions of Islam’s prophet.

But the intent behind the attacks, Mogahed said, “was for Europe to respond essentially exactly as it did – to assert the right to offend by reprinting the cartoons.”

That certainly is a point of view. Another is that the terrorists hoped to intimidate others from showing images of Muhammad under any circumstance. Given that major American news outlets, including the New York Times, CNN and Fox and others have refused to show the Charlie Hebdo images, the attacks succeeded.

The focus on radical Islam and defense of free speech that resulted from the Paris attacks gave the terrorists “the rhetorical victory they desired,” she said. A better response would have been “to reassert the place of French citizens of Muslim faith in the republic.”

Mogahed and others repeatedly expressed resentment that the terrorists’ beliefs were being conflated with the beliefs held by 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide. They provided no examples to show this is what people mean when they talk about Islamic extremism.

Whatever the merits of Mogahed’s argument, it seems to have little connection to the causes of radicalization, which is what the panel was supposed to discuss.

In a podcast Wednesday, atheist writer Sam Harris slammed an emphasis on the West’s flaws in analyzing the Paris terrorist attacks as “completely insane.” After slaughtering the Charlie Hebdo staffers, Harris notes, Cherif and Said Kouachi yelled, “We have avenged the prophet.” They did not lament racism, disenfranchisement or any other grievance.

“That’s what causes someone to grab an AK 47 and murder 12 cartoonists and then scream ‘Allahu Akhbar’ in the streets,” Harris said facetiously. “It is a completely insane analysis. Even if you grant everything that’s wrong with capitalism and the history of colonialism, you should not be able to deny that these religious maniacs are motivated by concerns about blasphemy and the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, and consider their behavior entirely ethical in light of specific religious doctrines. And it’s a kind of masochism and moral cowardice and lack of intelligence, frankly, at this point, that is allowing people to deny this fact.”

Harris argued that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were not racist. But even if they were, emphasizing the offensive nature of the images shows someone “has completely lost the plot here.”

“[P]rotecting this speech becomes important when you have one group of people – ‘radical Muslims’ – who are responding to this offense with credible threats of murder in every country on earth. We can’t give in to this.”

“People have been murdered over cartoons,” he added. “End of moral analysis.”

Not for Nihad Awad, co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). His prepared remarks at the radicalization forum focused on the frustration he said Muslim American youth feel for constantly having to condemn the actions of others and for drawing disproportionate law enforcement attention.

“Islam has been blamed for the recent events, not the terrorists themselves,” Awad said. The media’s focus on the religious motivation inspiring terrorists and references to a war of ideas within Islam “is very offensive to me, to implicate the entire Islamic faith and the 1.7 billion people into accusing them of being inherently violent and warring among themselves. I believe this is dishonest discourse.”

Awad’s assertion is contradicted by other Muslims who believe the only way to stem radicalization is by modernizing and reforming Islam, steering away from strict, literalist interpretations. In addition, those most offended by cartoons or commentaries need to learn more peaceful ways to express their frustration.

Read more (with video)

The West’s Dangerous Enchantment with Islam: Muslim Women Thrown “Under the Bus”

Gatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, Nov. 9, 2014:

There are no women’s rights in Islam; there are no women’s rights in most Muslim countries. And there is no freedom of expression in these countries; people have become virtually voiceless.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly, without putting one’s life at risk, and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain.

If one is called “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the answer is that these are the accusations bullies always use to silence those who disagree with them. The real Islamophobes are those who degrade, abuse and kill their fellow Muslims.

If oppression of women is rooted in the culture, shouldn’t one be asking, ‘what makes a culture that misogynous?’

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries. The worst thing any Western progressive or feminist can do is to stay silent.

The loudest voices in the West now seem to come from many progressives who say that criticizing of Islam is racist, intolerant, bigoted and Islamophobic. Injustices, they claim, take place all around the world, not just among Muslims or in Muslim countries. The criticism, they go on, comes from wrong interpretations of Islamic teachings. They say that Islam respects women, and that there are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.

In just seven years, however, between 2002 and 2009, the rate of murdered women in Turkey has increased by 1400 percent.[1]

There are also more than 181,000 child brides in Turkey.[2]

When those figures are provided by state authorities, they are based on factual statistics. But when they are expressed in a critical manner by Canan Arin, a lawyer and women rights activist, they are, apparently, a “crime.”

Canan Arin, 72, is a feminist lawyer who has dedicated her life to women’s rights struggles in Turkey.[3]

The Antalya Bar Association, in December 2011, invited her to its newly founded Women’s Rights Enforcement Centre to give training to the lawyers on violence against women. There, she delivered a speech about early and forced marriages, and gave two examples — one from the 7th century, the other from the 20th century — to clarify her point.

The first example concerned Muhammad, the founder of Islam, who married a girl of seven. The second was about Abdullah Gul, then-President of the Turkish Republic, who became engaged to his wife when she was 14 and married her when she was 15, in 1980.

Although both of those examples are supposedly based on the truth, speaking the truth in Turkey now seems to constitute a crime. A year later, therefore, a warrant was issued for Arin’s arrest, and on December 12, 2012, she was brought to court for “insulting religious values adopted by a part of the society” (Turkish Penal Code Article- 216/3) and for “insulting the President” (Turkish Penal Code- Article 299/1).

On May 30, 2013, the court declared its final decision, which was the adjournment of the trial. According to the ruling, if Arin commits a similar crime in three years and receives a punishment for it, her case will be reopened.

“If I do not open my mouth for three years, and do not engage in [discussions of similar] subject matters, this trial will be ignored. Their ruling is like running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. But this trial should have never been opened in the first place,” Arin said to the Turkish newspaper, Hurriyet.

It is bewildering that any prosecutor actually considers child marriage a “value.” According to the Turkish Statistical Institute, in 2012 alone, the rate of parental consent for legal marriage under the age of 18 increased by 94.2%. This increase is not taking place in a country ruled by Islamic sharia law, but in Turkey, the only so-called “secular” Muslim country.

There are no women’s rights in Islam; there are no women rights in most Muslim countries. And as there is no freedom of expression in these countries, people have become virtually voiceless.

Yet many people, especially the so-called progressives, seem to find limitless excuses for fundamentalist Islamic atrocities against women. These include beheadings, stonings, domestic violence, honor killings, female genital mutilation, official legal inequality, home confinement, child marriages, and Saudi Arabia’s prohibition against women driving, to name a few.

Statements that come up with “multicultural” excuses to provide cover for the practices of fundamentalist Islam, however, never have, and never will, help to liberate women who suffer under Islamic misogyny, gender apartheid and jihad.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain. Yet in Muslim countries, it is impossible speak openly about what is in these Islamic teachings and traditions, without putting one’s life at risk.

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries, in part thanks to the dangerous enchantment of Western progressives and feminists who romanticize Islamism.

Women in the Muslim world desperately need the voice of Western progressives and feminists. But when it comes to finding excuses to neutralize critical questions about Islamic violence, Western progressives seem endlessly creative. Known by an increasing number of women as “Excuses for Abuses,” these include:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals “intolerance,” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

For the record, Islam is not a race. Moreover, if you discuss the violent and misogynous teachings of Islam, it does not mean that you hate or are intolerant of Muslims, just of violence and misogyny.

It does mean that you care about Muslim women; that you do not want them to be forced to find four male “witnesses” to “prove” they have been raped, or to be punished by Islamic courts as adulterers if their rapists do not confess. It means you believe that their testimony in court, or their inheritance, should be valued as highly as a man’s; that you do not want them to be the victim of honor killings or child marriages at the hands of their Muslim family members, and that you do not want their husbands to be able beat them with impunity.

It also means that you want children to grow up to be honest, informed, compassionate adults, filled with love for life and fellow human beings, and who can speak up for rights and liberties that can never be taken for granted — all gained as a result of centuries-long wars, struggles and social movements.

It means you do not want to see children blowing themselves up on a bus, or people buying or selling women, or killing their sisters for not wearing the hijab. And finally, it means that you do not want children getting married at the age of seven, especially to men they have never met, or to be hypocrites who have to say, “Islam is a religion of peace” to defend themselves every time another Muslim commits a crime justified by proclaiming Islamic beliefs.

“Injustices against women take place all around the world, not just against Muslims or in Muslim countries.”

If the oppression of women is rooted in the culture, shouldn’t one be asking, ‘what makes a culture that misogynous?’

What is progressivism if its objectives do not include helping emancipate women from Islamic oppression, such as honor killings, child marriages, stonings, flogging and punishing rape victims (while releasing rapists) — all of which are employed in the Muslim world, in line with Islamic teachings, allegedly to “protect” and “respect” women and to keep them “pure,” but more probably to keep women in their place?

“What you are seeing is not the real Islam; Islam has been hijacked.”

The problem with this view is that Islam actually does teach that a woman is worth less than a man. Many teachings in Islam are misogynous — from wearing veils; requiring four male witness to prove rape; issues of inheritance; court testimony; rules of marriage; rules of divorce and remarriage; a man’s “right” to marry up to four women and then beat them, and so on.

If Western progressives and feminists care at all about their Muslim sisters, they need to protest against the actual roots of this injustice: these Islamic teachings.

Many progressives, however, seem not even to want to learn about them, let alone speak out against them. Perhaps they fear that if they knew more, they might actually have to speak out. Or perhaps they remain silent from indifference or inertia. But if all they really care about in the West is their (understandable) ability to get abortions and equal pay for equal work, they have badly failed to grasp the consequences of a theocracy on everyone, not only on women.

If they wished to inform themselves, they might read just the verses of the Quran relating to women and glance at the hadith sunnah literature — all easily found on the internet. Then — if they sincerely wished to raise future generations with humanitarian values, equal justice under law, and a respect for human rights — they might educate others about those teachings, while basing their opinions on knowledge, not on wishful thinking.

“If you accommodate Islamic misogyny,” says the writer Pat Condell, “you legitimize it and you invite it into your own life and into the lives of your children … because it’s coming your way. You also help to ensure that the woman in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, who gets beaten every day, will continue to be beaten and treated as a piece of property, as will her daughters and granddaughters all the way down the line.”

“It is not about Islam. Crimes were committed and are being committed in all places throughout history.”

The world is no paradise, but in the West, if economic, political or social causes of injustices are freely discussed, why should religious, or Islamic, causes be exempt from discussion?

In many Muslim countries, where only Islam — but not the people — has the right to survive, such discussion is impossible without extreme risk. Even in Turkey, considered one of the most “liberal” of Muslim countries, if you dare to discuss or criticize the teachings of Islam, you can be killed, arrested, attacked, exposed to social and psychological lynching campaigns, brought to court and given a prison sentence.

Do progressives not oppose supremacy and oppression? Why then do they turn a blind eye to Islamic supremacy and oppression?

In Gaza, for instance, for whom Western progressives claim to have so much sympathy, women are systematically murdered in honor killings, and the Hamas government does not protect them. Appeals court judge Ziad Thabet, told Al-Monitor that “during his time in the judiciary, he had noticed that honor killing defendants were usually given light sentences. Three years in prison was the harshest…. Life sentences or execution were never a consideration.”

Al Jazeera also reported that “the number of so-called ‘honor killings’ in Palestine doubled in 2013 from the previous year. … For the past three years, the number of women killed has increased each year.”

Can Western feminists not stand up even against a terrorist group, Hamas, on behalf of Gazan women, who cannot speak up for themselves for fear of reprisals? Or would this not be as pleasurable as condemning Israel, the only Middle Eastern country where Muslim women do have equal rights? Or can these progressives only parrot propaganda, such as, “Palestinian women are exposed to honor killings by angry Palestinian men due to the Israeli occupation”?

“Not all Muslims are the same. There are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.”

First of all, thank you very much for this genius discovery. But how can it help reduce the Islamic violence around the world?

Of course it is true that there are many good Muslims, whose values do not follow Islamic teachings verbatim, but also include humanitarian values. They do not wage war on other religions or try to bring them under submission to Islam. In the eyes of jihadis or Islamists, however, who live by the harshest interpretation of most doctrinaire Islamic teachings, such a quality makes them “bad Muslims.”

“All religions are essentially the same.”

Well, not quite. Biblical values are far more benign than Islamic ones, and generally descriptive rather than proscriptive. Furthermore, the most violent of them were long ago abandoned.

No religion, for instance, other than Islam, has ever commanded that those who insult or leave it should be put to death. (See Surahs 6:93, 33:57, 33:61)

On September 24 after being found guilty of “heresy” and “insulting prophet Jonah,” Mohsen Amir Aslani, 37, an Iranian psychologist, was hanged in a prison near the city of Karaj west of Tehran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Aslani, it seems, had given religious classes where he provided his own interpretations of the Quran. In one of his classes, he apparently told his audience that Jonah could not have emerged from the whale’s belly; it was this statement that led to his charge of insulting the prophet Jonah, the Iran Wire websitereported.

Left: Canan Arin, a feminist lawyer arrested in Turkey for “insulting religious values adopted by a part of the society” and “insulting the President,” after she mentioned that the Muslim prophet Muhammad married a 7-year-old girl and the President of Turkey married his wife when she was 15 years old. Right: Mohsen Amir Aslani, an Iranian psychologist who was hanged in Iran for the crimes of “heresy” and “insulting prophet Jonah,” after he said that the biblical prophet Jonah could not have emerged from a whale’s belly.

How much time will pass until Islam is reformed or reinterpreted? How many people will be killed, attacked or enslaved until that happens? How many Muslims have the free will or courage to speak out? Will Islamists even ever allow them to, without threatening retaliation? Are the Islamists so uncertain that what they are preaching can stand on its merits — as the Quran instructs, “without compulsion” — that they cannot even tolerate even a single comment about one of their prophets?

What Western progressives and feminists are doing for the sake of political correctness — or a well intentioned, if misguided, “multiculturalism” — does nothing to help Muslim women. On the contrary, “political correctness,” silence, or making excuses for atrocities caused by Islam, can only add to the suffering of women in the Muslim world.

If progressives truly want to protect Muslims, they cannot achieve this goal by “protecting” Islam from criticism.

If one is called “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the answer is that these are accusations bullies always use to silence people who disagree with them. The real Islamophobes are those who degrade, abuse and kill their fellow Muslims.

The worst thing any Western progressive or feminist can do in the face of the suffering caused by Islamic teachings, is to stay silent.

Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.


[1] According to the Turkish Ministry of Justice, 2009.

[2] According to the data of the Turkish Statistical Institute in 2012.

[3] Arin co-founded the Purple Roof-Women’s Shelter Foundation, the Association for the Support of Women Candidates and the Women’s Rights Enforcement Centre of the Istanbul Bar Association. Between 1994 and 1997, she acted as an expert on violence against women for the Gender Equality Commission of the Council of Europe.

13 years after 9/11, borders wide open, victims families peddle Islamophobia meme

By Creeping Sharia, September 10, 2014:

Muslim terrorists can, and do, walk across the U.S.-Mexico border and literally sail across the U.S.-Canadian border. Not to mention this Illegals from Terror Hotspots, Ebola-affected Nations Exploiting Open US Border this Texas Rancher Found Urdu Dictionary, Korans Near U.S. Border this Muslim Prayer Rug Found on Border By Security Contractors and this Record Numbers of Illegals from Terror Hot Beds Crossing Texas-Mexico Border. And lest we forget the 58,000 Foreign Students Visa Scofflaws that ICE Can’t Find.

But thirteen years after Muslims attacked America, and have done so since (select any state from the Archive drop down for examples), some 9/11 Families Launch Anti-Islamophobia Campaign For Anniversary Of Tragedy.

o-islamophobia-570

As Muslims just beheaded two Americans who were sympathetic to the Muslim cause, it’s as if 9/11 never happened. They ignore:

Those are just a few samplings from August 2014. We don’t have time or space to list all the stories about Muslims from the U.S. waging jihad overseas or waging jihad against Jews right here in the U.S.

Geert Wilders was speaking to the world when he stated, “Recognize that Islam Is the Problem”. Thirteen years later the deaf, dumb and blind still refuse to face the problem and want to blame the Islamophobia boogeyman.

What’s worse? To be falsely labeled an Islamophobe or to actually be an Islamophile – pandering to and promoting an ideology of hate, misogyny and violence?

Our thoughts?

Better to be wrongly labeled an Islamophobe today than be a dhimmi, or dead, tomorrow.

Never forget, never surrender.

dsc04254

OIC Blames Free Speech for “Islamophobia” in West

by Soeren Kern:

The common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of speech.

“The Istanbul Process started with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton…. We need to build on it.” — OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Isanoglu

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual “Islamophobia” report.

The “Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2012-September 2013” is a 94-page document purporting to “offer a comprehensive picture of Islamophobia, as it exists mainly in contemporary Western societies.”

But the primary objective of the OIC—headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews—has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”

In this context, the OIC’s annual Islamophobia report—an integral part of a sustained effort to prove the existence of a “culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims” in the West—is in essence a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of “Islamophobia,” a nebulous concept invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s.

 

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the OIC Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)

The OIC report comprises five main chapters and several annexes aimed at documenting “incidents of slandering and demeaning Muslims and their sacred symbols including attacks on mosques, verbal abuses and physical attacks against adherents of Islam, mainly due to their cultural traits.”

But the common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of speech, which the OIC claims has “contributed enormously to snowball Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a ‘phobia’ of Islam and Muslims.”

According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding “the perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension, suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims.”

Chapter 1 of the report deals with “Islamophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims,” and purports to reveal the “unabated rise of Islamophobia in Western countries, thereby exacerbating tensions at all levels and constituting additional obstacles to the diversity and multicultural fabrics of the societies.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

How Muslims Celebrated Islamophobia Awareness Month

Islamophobia is bogusby Robert Spencer

“Islamophobic prejudice is worryingly prevalent in the mainstream; on display in political life, in the the [sic] media and in the attitudes of the police and the courts.” So said a poster for Islamophobia Awareness Month, which Muslims in Britain and Europe marked with a series of events throughout November. The inaugural event in London on November 2 featured talks from human rights lawyer Imran Khan; Peter Oborne, the chief political commentator for The Daily Telegraph; Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn; Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition; and many others. But other Muslims worldwide had their own creative ways to mark the special month:

  • In Florida, two Muslim brothers, Raees Alam Qazi and Sheheryar Alam Qazi, were charged with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction in the cause of jihad to commit mass murder of Americans.
  • In Tehran, Muslims brutally murdered and dismembered a Jewish woman, in the crowning episode of an ongoing attempt to seize her property for use by an adjoining mosque.
  • In Moscow, a Muslim, Ilyas Saidov, received a fifteen-year prison sentence for his role in plotting jihad-martyrdom suicide bombing attacks.
  • In Baghdad, Sunni Muslims used three car bombs to murder 23 Shi’ite Muslims who were participating in processions for Ashura, the Shi’ite mourning festival marking the death of the Shi’ite leader Husayn bin Ali in the battle of Karbala against the Sunnis in the year 680.
  • In Norway, a Muslim politician, Khalid Haji Ahmed, wrote on Facebook: “Damn Jew whores, wish Hitler could come back and shower you some more.”
  • A Florida imam, Abu Taubah (a.k.a. Marcus Robertson), was exposed as having ties to the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center jihad bombing.
  • Hamas’s official al-Aqsa TV station ran a music video containing the words: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.”
  • In India, a young Muslim who had appeared on a television show speaking about his fear of being honor-killed for marrying without his parents’ consent was indeed murdered.
  • In Libya, a jihadist group claiming to operate under authority of the Ministry of the Interior kidnapped twelve men it accused of homosexual activity, and threatened them with mutilation and execution.
  • In Austria, Muslims protesting against Israel’s defensive action in Gaza chanted “Death to the Jews” while their leftist fellow protesters looked on in silence.
  • On Facebook, a Muslim posted an admiring photo of Adolf Hitler, with the caption: “I could have killed all the Jews, but I left some of them to let you know why I was killing them.” Many other Muslims chimed in with “likes” and favorable comments.
  • In Mali, Muslim officials arrested three Catholics for the crime of declining to listen to an Islamic sermon.
  • In Nigeria, Muslims bombed a church and ambushed churchgoers, murdering fourteen Christians.
  • And a Muslim wrote a comment at my website, saying: “Whenever I see Robert Spenser’s [sic] face I feel like having my palms around his neck, its a good thing we never meet eye to eye because he would be licking my boots if we ever did. I’m actually a very reserved and polite gent but when I hear that guy’s voice or see his face I feel like shutting him up permanently.”

That list doesn’t actually take us through the whole of “Islamophobia Awareness Month.” All that happened in just the past two weeks.

Read more at PJ Media

See also:

Islamophobia, Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

The Sanity of ‘Islamophobia’

Islamophobia is bogusby Edward Cline

November was “Islamophobia Awareness” Month. Pat Condell, the indomitable  critic of all things mystical and murky, especially of that paragon of tolerance  and peaceful coexistence, has recommended that the West designate December as  “Hatred and Violence in the Koran” month.

 

In a Gatestone article on the ubiquity of blasphemy laws in Europe, Soeren  Kern, in “Muslims  Pressing for Blasphemy Laws in Europe” (November 30th), cites the continued  campaign of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to enact stricter laws  that would prohibit and punish any speech that “defamed” religion or  religious beliefs -particularly, and most importantly to the OIC, anything  Islamic.

The OIC, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries, is pressuring Western countries into  making it an international crime to criticize Islam or Mohammed – all on  [sic] the name of “religious tolerance.”

Criticism, of course, can include all forms of speech that call into  question the foundations, legitimacy, irrationality, or fraudulency of Islam,  from cartoons that mock Mohammad to amateurish videos (“Innocence of Muslims“) to  scholarly disquisitions. The OIC’s disingenuous promotion of “religious  tolerance” makes as much sense as if Stalin and Hitler had promoted “political  tolerance” in the nations they had overrun. “Tolerance” in this context implies  that a tolerable thing is not life- or value-threatening.

But Islam has demonstrated repeatedly over fourteen centuries that it is not tolerant of other religions – because those other religions have  threatened its political power. Other religions that compete for men’s minds,  time and money are, to Islam, intolerable. Islam, all the guff about  “interfaith dialogue” to the contrary notwithstanding, is the “one, true”  religion. Wherever it has gone, wherever it has planted settlers or immigrants  or fifth columnists, Islam must, by its totalitarian nature, become supreme and  all-encompassing. We see this happening in Europe. All other beliefs, all other  creeds, must defer to it, by hook, crook, or scimitar. All must “submit,” which  is the literal meaning of the term Islam.

Whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood,  an Islamic organization that promotes the goal of a global caliphate (with a  little help from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton),  introduced the term Islamophobia to describe any and all criticism of  Islam, is moot here (see Robert Spencer‘s  excellent column on this subject).  Anyone branded by Islamic spokesmen or by the Mainstream Media as Islamophobicor an Islamophobe, is someone who genuinely fears  Islam and sees it as a threat to his life or his values. This fear is claimed to  emanate from madness or bigotry or racial prejudice. Islam, however, and  regardless of the “race” of its followers, is a system of theocratic  totalitarianism. One can be as “phobic” about it as one would be about Nazism or  Communism, for the same reasons.

There is no reconciliation or “middle ground” possible between the two intolerants. One or the other must submit. Islam says so. But Western  champions of freedom have yet to say it.

I’m sure that space limitations governed Kern’s catalogue of blasphemy,  defamation, and anti-freedom of speech laws, together with instances of their  enforcement on hapless citizens of various countries. Aside from the Dutch  Parliament’s repeal of its blasphemy law, one very minor recanting of voluntary  self-censorship was recently published by the Associated  Press, which has excised the terms “Islamophobia,” “Homophobia,” and “Ethnic  Cleansing” from its Style Guide, and gives one a very slight twinge of hope that  the MSM is getting a clue. The first two terms it claimed (with justification)  reflect a mental disorder and an “irrational fear,” and suggest politically  incorrect thought, punishable by law if some action is associated with it.

The Associated Press has nixed “homophobia,” “ethnic cleansing,” and a number  of other terms from its Style Book in recent months.

The online Style Book now says that “-phobia,” “an irrational, uncontrollable  fear, often a form of mental illness” should not be used “in political or social  contexts,” including “homophobia” and “Islamophobia.” It also calls “ethnic  cleansing” a “euphemism,” and says the AP “does not use ‘ethnic cleansing’ on  its own. It must be enclosed in quotes, attributed and explained.”

“Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for pretty violent activities, a phobia is a  psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been  used quite a bit in the past, and we don’t feel that’s quite accurate,” AP  Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO.

The third term is actually a legitimate one, for that is precisely what  describes a number of campaigns in remote and recent history. (See the conflicts  in Rwanda, Nigeria, and other African nations; the Armenian Holocaust, initiated  by the Turks; and etc.). The question remains, however, of how to properly  define “ethnic cleansing” or genocide. Does Judaism mean a “race” or a  “religion”? Are those concepts inseparably linked, or not? Does the term “Islam”  denote a race, or a religion? Does Christianity? I do not think there are enough  “cross conversions” of individuals from one religion to another, by members of  numerous “racial” groups, that would validate the AP’s decision to remove  “ethnic cleansing” from its style guide.

After all, if one is a Semite, one is not necessarily Jewish; one could just  as well be a Muslim, or an atheist, or a Christian, or a Buddhist. “Semites” are  men and so are imbued with the attribute of a volitional consciousness. But  Hitler’s concept of Judaism was founded on the faulty premise of determinism: if  one is Jewish, one is necessarily, intrinsicallyof a particular “race.”  Jews can’t help being what they are. “Race” is linked to the religion; it is in  a Jew’s genes (or his “blood”) to be “Jewish” and adhere to a particular creed.  Appended to this horrendous fallacy was the Nazi assertion that to be Jewish is  also to be a corrupting and destructive influence and the bane of all moral  men.

The obverse of this policy was that Aryans were intrinsically “superior”  physically and mentally but polluted with the “blood” of inferior races. This  was just as much a myth as Hitler’s Jewish race one, because all during the  abbreviated “Thousand Year Reich,” it glossed over the historic fact that what  is now modern Germany was a kind of Grand Central Station for several thousand  years as waves of other races passed through it on tides of conquest and  immigration from the four corners of Europe and even from Asia in the form of  the Mongols and Huns.

This was Hitler’s own irrational “phobia”; it justified in his own mind a  campaign of “ethnic cleansing,” which was the Holocaust. But even there, Hitler  wasn’t consistent. He sent to extermination camps Jews of various nationalities,  from Germany, Poland, France, Norway, and so on. Which was the deciding factor  in those expulsions to the death camps: the victims’ nationality, their  religion, or their race? So, the argument could be made that “ethnic cleansing”  is not necessarily synonymous with “religious” or “ideological” or even “racial”  cleansing, but that equivocation seems to be the rule of thumb today. Why should  we or the AP accept Hitler’s or Islam’s (or Hamas’s) murky, undefined notion of  “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide”? The concept’s definition needs to be  refined.

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. 

6 Sure Signs Someone You Know is an Islamophobe – And What you can DO about it!

by Eric Allen Bell:

The word “Islamophobia” was popularized by Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, operating under several different names in America – most effectively as the Council on American Islamic Relations.  Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of, not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda and countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

The Holy Land Foundation trial was the result of the largest bust in FBI history, of an Islamic “charity”.  This organization was caught funneling about $12 million to Hamas.  These monies were to be used to enable Islamic jihadists to murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.

During this FBI raid, a memo was unearthed.  This memo has become known as the “Explanatory Memorandum”.  In summary, the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple dozen of its front groups in America, declared a “Civilization Jihad”.  In plain terms, the Muslim Brotherhood stated their intention to destroy the US from within, using our own culture, media, legal system, and academia, law enforcement, you name it.  Unfortunately, most people cannot or will not look at this – and consequently, the plan is moving forward like clockwork.  As author Dr. Bill Warner reminded me recently, “You can wake a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep”.

Now, as it turns out, not everyone believes in this concept called “Islamophobia”.  In fact, there exists a rapidly growing number of Patriotic Americans who see this form of terrorist spin control for what it is.  But unfortunately, one of the ways that the Muslim Brotherhood / Hamas / CAIR has infiltrated our culture, is by using one of our greatest weaknesses, and that is the fear of not toeing the line when it comes to multiculturalism.  Those who do not drink the Kool Aid are called the “Islamophobes”.

You may already have an “Islamophobe” living in your community, or as a member of your family, an elected official, a member of your religious organization or even someone at work.  The “Islamophobes” are everywhere, and they are spreading.  Here are 6 ways to spot one:

1 – An “Islamophobe” loves Liberty more than they love submission.  They know that the word Liberty literally means “you own you” and that the word Islam literally means “submission”.  And just like America’s Founding Fathers, the “Islamophobe” knows the value of Liberty and knows it comes with a cost – a cost they are willing to pay, even when those around them neither understand nor appreciate this.

2 – An “Islamophobe” is more interested in the truth than the approval of their peers. They place their own moral intuition and the principles of the American Constitution above the group think of the times.  The “Islamophobe” is strong-willed, independent and exemplifies the American spirit.  They are unwilling to compromise the political self-determination, that this great Republic was founded on, including and especially free speech.

3 – An “Islamophobe” resists passionately any attempt to impose Islamic law (Sharia) onto them.  Islamic law mandates the killing of those who leave Islam, the death penalty for homosexuals, a second-class status for women, punishment for the crime of being raped (Islamic law calls this “adultery”), it forbids the questioning of Islamic doctrine, promotes slavery, forbids religious freedom and criminalizes free speech.  Although the “Islamophobes” are often smeared in the press as being irrational, the truth is that most actually realize that the more obvious forms of Sharia Law are not their most immediate concern.  Rather, it is understood among “Islamohobes” that it is “Creeping Sharia” or death by a thousand cuts that Americans have to watch out for and stand against.  The “Islamophobe” is always the first to notice when the political doctrine known as “Islam” is being given special treatment in the schools, the courts and in the media.  The “Islamophobe” is often the first to realize that their own God given right to free speech is being threatened by the slow and stealth implementation of Sharia Law, into all levels of our society.

4 – An “Islamophobe” sees a pattern emerging before the rest of the population sees it, and they don’t hesitate to warn others, even when the social, professional and personal safety consequences come with a hefty price.  As David Horowitz pointed out recently, “80 percent of the American public was opposed to getting involved in WWII before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor”.  What was it that the other 20 percent were able to see?  What was the pattern they were able to identify?  An “Islamophobe” sees the writing on the walls and does not sit around passively waiting for our so-called “leaders” to get it.  An “Islamophobe” is very likely already a member of organizations such as “Act for America” because they are already taking action at the grass roots level.

5 – An “Islamophobe” is able to tell the difference between Islam, the totalitarian political ideology, and Muslims – who are human beings.  “Islamophobes” are not concerned with how Muslims worship.  Rather, it is Islamic Law that concerns them, specifically as it pertains to the treatment of the infidel, who is to be subjugated or killed.  Contrary to popuar opinion, “Islamophobes” do not hate Muslims.  In fact the “Islamophobes” know better than most, that no one is more victimized by the brutality of Islam than Muslims.  “Islamophobes” look for ways to stop this pattern, so that all people can be free, have dignity and human rights.  An “Islamophobe” is often somebody with a big heart, such that they tend to care about people whom they don’t even personally know. The “Islamophobes” however do oppose a violent ideology which seeks to subjugate or kill the unbeliever, and they make no apologies for not tolerating such inhumanity.  Ironically, “Islamophobes” are often branded as bigots for simply being the ones willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.  And making sure they are branded as such, is the job of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas front group.

6 – An “Islamophobe” tends to define themselves by what they are for – and not by what they are against.  An “Islamophobe” stands for liberty, stands for human rights and cares about our national defense.  They are less concerned about complaining about the problems and are more likely to actually do something about it.  “Islamophobes” are people of action.  “Islamophobes” take the time to read the Islamic scriptures (Koran, Hadith and Sira) and to understand what we are up against.  They study the works of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Sam Harris, Nonie Darwish, Bill Warner, Brigitte Gabriel and so many others.  An “Islamophobe” takes the time to understand the ruthless and barbaric Islamic Law (Shaira), which is committed to taking away our fundamental rights.  Consequently, many “Islamophobes” have the tools to speak to others, including their elected officials, spiritual leaders, friends and family and even the media, to affect positive social change – and preserve our American way of life.

Do you know someone who might exhibit these traits?  Is someone you know an “Islamophobe”?  Well now there is something you can do about it.  Join them!

If you love Liberty more than the approval of your peers – you may already be an “Islamophobe”.

Read more at Global Infidel TV

Eric Allen Bell is a filmmaker who was banned from blogging at the “Daily Kos” in the beginning of 2012 because he wrote three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” He has told his story in his article, The High Price for Telling the Truth About Islam. Visit his Facebook page: http://www.Facebook.com/EricAllenBell or at www.EricAllenBell.com

See also: Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future

 

“Islamophobia” is a Sacralized Islamic Objective

The Muslim Brotherhood’s unabashed emblem of terror, meant to instill “Islamophobia”

By Andrew Bostom:

Fjordman reminds us today how the great contemporary Dutch scholar of Islam  Hans Jansen, has observed that the Koran, for example 8:60, the verse alluded to in the Muslim Brotherhood emblem,

…actually commands Muslims to instill fear of Islam “Islamophobia” into the hearts of non-Muslims, using any means necessary to force them to submit to Islam’s might.

Koran 8:60 states,

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know.”

This motif—instilling terror in non-Muslims—is repeated in verses such as 3:151 and 8:12:

3:151We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.”

8:12 “(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, ‘Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.’”

Muhammad reiterates this directive in the most important canonical hadith collection (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), stating, “I have been made victorious with terror.”

Furthermore, according to the earliest and most authoritative pious Muslim biography (or “sira’) of Muhammad,  Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of Muhammad,” Islam’s prophet ordered the killing of the poet Kaab b. al-Ashraf, for writing “offensive” poetry:

…the Apostle of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said, “Who will take care of Ibn al-Ashraf for me?”“I shall,” answered Muhammad b. Maslama, the brother of the Banū Abd al-Ashhal. “I will kill him.”“Do it then, if you can,” he [Muhammad] said.

After the brutal assassination, which Muhammad commissioned, Ibn Ishaq quotes this approving observation from the Muslim assassin:

The Jews were terrified by our attack upon Allahs enemy. And there was not a Jew there who did not fear for his life.

The Koran, hadith, and sira—Islam’s most important foundational sources—thus mandate Islamophobia to be inculcated amongst non-Muslims as a “sacralized” objective.

Why?

Ibn Hudayl a 14th century Granadan author of an important treatise on jihad, elucidated the allowable tactics which facilitated the violent, chaotic jihad conquest of the Iberian peninsula, and other parts of Europe:

It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden – if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them – as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him…[being] suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him.  Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate.

And these repeated attacks, indistinguishable in motivation from modern acts of jihad terrorism, like the horrific 9/11/01 attacks in New York and Washington, DC, and the Madrid bombings on 3/11/04, or those in London on 7/7/05, were in fact designed to sow terror. The 17th century Muslim historian al-Maqqari explained that the panic created by the Arab horsemen and sailors, at the time of the Muslim expansion in the regions subjected to those raids and landings, facilitated their later conquest,

Allah thus instilled such fear among the infidels that they did not dare to go and fight the conquerors; they only approached them as suppliants, to beg for peace.

**********

Today, this true doctrinal and historical meaning of Islamophobia  has undergone an Orwellian transformation. Our media and political elites, cowering in submission to the cultural jihadist dictates of the mainstream Muslim Brotherhood front groups which dominate institutional American Islam, now claim “Islamophobia” is an unwarranted, even discriminatory fear of Muslims and their creed.

Read more

Eric Allen Bell – “Islamophobia or Islamo-Reality?”

Published on Oct  1, 2012 by    

Eric Allen Bell discusses his conversion from Liberal documentary filmmaker, out to “expose Islamophobia” to committed Counter Jihadist, fighting Political Islam. Find out what happened, why the media doesn’t get it and how to talk about the threat of Political Islam with others. Go to: http://www.EricAllenBell.com
Footage from an Act for America meeting, Corona, CA / Summer 2012
http://www.ActCorona.org

 

STATUS UPDATE:  I have been moved to a safe house while the FBI investigates numerous death threats against me,  4 Pakistani newspapers wrongfully published that I was “the filmmaker” behind “The Innocence of Muslims”.  An Islamic terrorist organization has ordered my death, and a bounty has been placed on my head.  This rumor, associating me with the film, was intentionally planted by those who wish to silence me, after I published several articles, naming names and making connections between THE ISLAMIC CENTER OF MURFREESBORO, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.  PLEASE SUPPORT ME AS I’VE GONE UNDERGROUND: http://www.EricAllenBell.com –  I will not be silenced.  I may have physically gone underground, but I will continue to write these articles, use radio, and any and all media to expose the truth about Political Islam and those who try to advance this brand of tyranny in America.

There Are Morons in the Counterjihad Movement

 

Citizen Warrior:

SOME PEOPLE can see that there are fanatical morons in the counterjihad movement and they conclude “all counterjihadists are fanatical morons.”

This is the same mistake as someone noticing that the people doing the most killing in the name of their religion are Muslims and concluding that “all people who call themselves Muslims are terrorists.”

Overgeneralizations are the enemy of us all.

A GROWING movement in Europe is explicitly anti-Muslim (click here to read more about it). This is both good news and bad news. The good news is the problems inherent in Islamic encroachment into Western democracies is being spoken about publicly. The bad news is that some of the most outspoken are white supremacists.

For those of us who are not racists but who see the growing threat of Islamic encroachment, the white supremacists are a problem. People on the other side, the multiculturalists and the Muslims and many of the most ardent anti-conservatives see anyone who speaks out against Islam or tries to educate people about Islamic doctrine as racists and white supremacists and fascists. And, in fact, there are some fascists who speak out against Islam. But we’re not all fascists, of course. We’re not all white supremacists. We’re not all racists. Not by a long shot.

What is racism? It is an overgeneralization. It says because some members of the racial group have a particular characteristic, all members of the race have that characteristic.

The blind multiculturalists also overgeneralize when they say all people in the counterjihad movement are racists. They are making exactly the same mistake they are accusing us of making (that most of us are not making). That is, since a few of us who are working to curb Islam’s prime directive are racists, then anyone who says they don’t like Islamic doctrine is a racist. It’s the same mistake. It’s an overgeneralization.

And even those of us in the counterjihad who are not racists often make the same mistake against both Muslims and multiculturalists by thinking that all Muslims believe X, or all multiculturalists are Y.

Another example of the same mistake is “white guilt” (as it is known in America) or “post-colonial guilt” (as it is known in Europe). This guilt is being exploited by many orthodox Muslims. It makes us less able to defend ourselves, and the source of the guilt is the same mistake: Overgeneralization.

America had slaves. That was wrong. But should I feel guilty about that? I’ve never owned a slave or endorsed the idea. I have no idea if any of my ancestors did, either, and even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. Any crime committed by an ancestor does not make me guilty. And any bad action taken by someone with the same skin color as me does not make me guilty either. This guilt — that allows orthodox Muslims to get away with things they wouldn’t be able to get away with otherwise — is caused by the overgeneralization (all white people are guilty and have ammends to make).

One of the things non-Muslims dislike the most about the content of Islamic teachings is “kafir hatred,” which is, of course, the same mistake again. The doctrine says Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of people. These are overgeneralizations.

On all sides, it’s the same mistake, and it makes any productive conversation almost impossible. If you believe you do not make this mistake, I suggest to you that you’re probably wrong. It is a natural mental error our brains are prone to make.

How can we get out of this mess? How can we have productive conversations about Islam with our fellow non-Muslims? How can we help school those who are against our cause? The answer is to be specific, and insist on others being specific too.

We in the counterjihad are talking about Islamic doctrine. We must make it absolutely clear that we’re talking about doctrine, not people. We’re talking about Islamic ideology, not Muslims. When we’re talking about a Muslim, we need to speak about a particular Muslim. Our overgeneralizations usually come from talking about a group of people rather than a specific person or an ideology. Any group of people contains individuals. Any group of individuals will be different from each other, will have different levels of belief, will have different levels of commitment to the ideology, will have different understandings and familiarity with the ideology, and will have different characteristics from each other.

And we can speak specifically about Sharia law. This is a very effective way to avoid overgeneralizing.

We can also make a clear distinction between the different kinds of Muslims: Orthodox and heterodox, Jihad-embracing Muslims and Jihad-rejecting Muslims, Practicing Muslims and MINOs.

Read more

The Price of a Koran

by Daniel Greenfield:

What does a Koran cost? You can get a full color one for the Kindle for only 99 cents, just don’t expect it to feature any pictures of old Mo. If you want to go deluxe, you can get a hardcover edition that runs three different translations side by side for around 40 bucks. But if you want to be more practical about it, the price of a Koran is the lives of six American soldiers.

That butcher’s bill doesn’t count the soldiers who burned the Korans, who despite following procedure will be penalized on orders of the White House which thinks that punishing American soldiers will somehow satisfy the Koran fueled bloodlust of men who aren’t satisfied with their corpses.

The nature of the marketplace of human affairs is that a thing is worth what we will pay for it. Once upon a time Americans decided to pay any price for freedom. The price was high, but they got what they paid for… at least for a season or two. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were works of freedom written in blood. They made a free nation possible because that nation was willing to pay the price for them.

Muslims are equally willing to pay the price in blood for slavery, their own slavery and ours, for a book of slavery, written by an owner and abuser of slaves, who created a religion of slaves, where the optimal position was to stand on as many people as possible while reaching for heaven.

The men who fought to make us free placed value on their lives. The men who fight to enslave us place little value on their own. Whatever material pleasures they enjoy in this life, little girls, hashish and wealth, will be vastly improved upon in the afterlife. And they buy their way into that afterlife by killing us, as they have been doing for over a thousand years.

Each of their murders imposes their religion on us. They impose their notion of what is important and what isn’t important. Twenty years ago no one would have cared a fig for a burned Koran or a cartoon of Mo. Today either one earns you an accusation of endangering the lives of American soldiers and inciting violence. Dress up as Zombie Mohammed and Judge Mark Martin will tell you that in a Muslim country you would get the death penalty. That’s not the way it works here. Yet.

What’s the price of a Koran? Whatever Muslims see fit to charge us for it and whatever our leaders are willing to pay. Not just in lives or ranks of men who were risking their lives in the way that B. Hussein could not even begin to imagine, but in the big picture appeasement.

At the store of international and domestic affairs in Washington DC, Muslims haul up a bunch of corpses and in return we pay them with all sorts of concessions, both tangible and intangible. Cartoons stop appearing in newspapers. Books don’t get printed. Presidents attend Iftar dinners. Muslims get appointed to high positions. NASA gets retooled into a Muslim empowerment agency. And all of that isn’t enough because the blood price never gets paid.

The essence of the vendetta is that it is eternal. It can only be resolved by marriage, by mingling two bloods into a single clan. If we agree to become Muslims, we can be part of their clan. Without that we are forever the targets of their rage, inferior in their minds, yet materially superior, despised in the Koran, but somewhat triumphant in land and wealth. A religious paradox that can only be resolved by subjugating us or by converting us.

This hasn’t stopped us from trying to meet the blood price anyway, instead of imposing our own. The blood of free men goes on dripping into the sewers of Kabul or Baghdad and a hundred other places and the Jihad hums along. Slowly and deliberately we learn to censor ourselves, adopting the habits of the Dhimmi, kowtowing to our masters, praising their learning, their wisdom and above all their mercy. If they have gone a day without killing us, does it not show what a peaceful people they are?

Without going through the formalities of reciting the Shahada or donning the Burqa, we are becoming slaves. Our leaders have sold our rights to pay the blood price, our cultural elites are eagerly teaching us the habits and mindset of slavery. To always obey, to never question and to know that our Muslim masters are always right. If they kill us, then we have done something to deserve it. If they fly planes into our buildings, it is time for some soul searching. If they go mad and kill, that is an expression of the pain and suffering that we have made them feel.

We apologize not because we have done anything wrong, but because they are angry. And every time they are angry, we know that we have done something wrong. Like dogs, our leaders develop the moral reflex of a newspaper across the nose, accepting that they are guilty when Muslims carry out violence. The worse the violence, the more they apologize.

What is the price of a Koran? It’s any price that we are willing to pay. It can be six soldiers or six hundred or six hundred thousand. There is no set exchange so the potential price is only limited by how much we are willing to bleed without fighting back. Slaves will endure anything, free men will not. The Declaration of Independence was a bill drawn up and sent back with the firm statement that free men would no longer pay this price.

Read the rest…