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…