The Cognitive Dissonance of the Progressive World View on Islam

images (60)Mark Durie explains the Progressive world view of “Universalism” and “Relativism” and way it shapes the Obama administration’s policy regarding Islam. The cognitive dissonance created by this world view and the coping mechanisms employed to maintain it are explored. This is how we have ended up with an insane foreign policy that not only tolerates but values the Islamic culture over our own. This is how we end up with rules of engagement in Afghanistan that value the lives of our enemy over our own soldiers. This is how we end up with a foreign policy that has aligned us with the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.This is how we end up with a dead Ambassador in Benghazi. And this is why the Obama administration thinks it’s a good thing to help usher in the rise of the modern Islamic Caliphate.

Wilders in Australia and the “Islamic Problem” – Part II, by Mark Durie, May 29, 2013

This is the second in a four part series of posts written in response to Geert Wilders’ visit to Australia in early 2013.
In a previous post I contrasted Geert Wilders’ view that ‘Islam is the problem’ with the claims of many Muslims who preach with equal conviction that ‘Islam is the solution’, and examined evidence of the negative characteristics associated with belief in Islam, including disadvantaged human development outcomes.

These days many leaders in the West find it convenient to sweep the ‘problem’ of Islam under the carpet. Long gone are the days of Theodore Roosevelt, Wilders’ hero, who declared  in Fear God and take your own part that values such as freedom and equality only existed in Europe because it had the military capacity to ‘beat back the Moslem invader’.

However, given the negative outcomes associated with Islam, one of which is Geert Wilders’ need for constant armed guards (some others were enumerated in the previous post), the question whether Islam is the problem or the solution is not something to be just swept under the carpet.

In the fourth and final post of this series we will consider Wilders’ policies for managing ‘the problem’.  The third post, the next after this, will review an on-going dispute between critics of Islam as to whether there can be a moderate, tolerable form of Islam. On one side stand those, like Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Spencer, who consider Islam to be essentially irredeemable.  On the other side stand those, like Daniel Pipes and Barry Rubin, who argue that there are different Islams and the ‘solution’ to radical Islam is moderate Islam.

Of course there are many opinions about Islam.  In this, the second post in this series, we consider two widely-held secular – and positive – perspectives on Islam which have been influential in shaping the response of secular-minded westerners to Islam.  These are universalism and relativism.

Relativism holds that no one religion is true, but as different as they are, all religions are equally valid in their own way, and the differences deserve respect.

Universalism — in the sense used here — holds that the core of religions consists of a set of positive ethical values shared by all people and all faiths.

For many western secular people, universalism and relativism are so deeply embedded in their world view that they have no choice but to process Islam through the grid of these belief systems. This means they pre-judge Islam by limiting their understanding only to what their frame permits them to see.  What they observe is not Islam as it really is, but as it appears through the window frame of their own beliefs. They see Islam as their world view tells them it must be.

*******************

Clinton’s answer to the evils of extremists — defined as those who believe in religious truth — is respect.  If we extend respect to the beliefs of others, treating them as worthy and valid and allowing their beliefs and practices breathing space, she believes these others are more likely to act moderately, and not adopt extremist positions:

“I think the more respect there is for the freedom of religion, the more people will find useful ways to participate in their societies. If they feel suppressed, if there is not that safety valve that they can exercise their own religion, they then oftentimes feel such anger, despair that they turn to violence. They become extremists.”

For Clinton extremism is a vicious circle.  The extremist A disrespects the beliefs of B, with the result that B feels such ‘anger’ and ‘despair’ that they become extremists in their turn, disrespecting the beliefs of others.  This vicious circle can be broken and turned into a virtuous circle if A chooses to respect B’s beliefs.  This respect will help B feel good about themselves, with the result that they become happy and self-confident, renounce extremist ways, and extend respect to others in their turn.

One problem with Clinton’s approach is that it is underpinned by a naive view of human nature.  Some oppressive religious ideologies command respect, but are allergic to reciprocating it.  If you offer one hand to a hungry lion, there is no guarantee he won’t like the taste of it and devour your other hand as well.

A deeper issue is that ideas do matter.  Truth is not only the prerogative of science.  Good ideas deserve vigorous support, including theological ideas. Conversely, bad ideas equally deserve to be rejected and refuted.  False ideas should be opposed. Some religious beliefs do not deserve respect and it is reasonable to judge some religious beliefs to be true or false.  For example, it is not ‘extremism’ to reject or even condemn the religious belief that Usama Bin Ladin is in paradise enjoying his virgins.  It is not ‘extremism’ to be certain that the Koran is not the word of God.

**************

The unspoken thesis woven throughout Clinton’s whole message is that the content of Islamic belief is not the problem. For Clinton, ‘tolerance’ means respecting the beliefs of others as valid, including and especially Islam. Renouncing belief in any ultimate truth, while embracing respect for all ‘legitimate religious differences’ is to her the real solution to the problem of religious freedom, and the yardstick of valid religious belief and practice.

Clinton embodies her own recipe for coexistence.  She manifests respect for Islam by not criticizing it, apparently in the hope that this will move persecuting Islamic governments towards a less ‘extreme’ — i.e. more relativistic — position like her own.

Clinton’s remedy for religious intolerance is also official US policy.  The Obama administration chooses to respect, tolerate and protect Islam as an official tactic to encourage Muslims to be more tolerant and less ‘extreme’.

The risk of this strategy is that it can minimize instances of Islamic persecution and conceal its causes. This all too easily ends up becoming collusion.  For example, one of the most disappointing features of Clinton’s 2012 religious freedom speech was that the US Government’s 2011 Religious Freedom Report failed to identify Egypt and Pakistan as a ‘countries of particular concern’ for religious freedom, despite all the evidence. The most plausible explanation is that the Obama Administration did not want to ‘humiliate’ their Islamist allies – inciting them to ‘anger’ and ‘despair’ – so it downplayed their prevailing patterns of religious persecution deeply rooted in Islamic dogma.

**********

President Obama also looks at the world through universalist eyes.  This was reflected in his 2009 Cairo speech in which he stated that Islam’s values are American values:

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Universalism comes under pressure from the cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that people of sincere faith actually promote and live out vastly diverse values, many of which certainly would not agree with Fraser’s personal conception of universal ‘human values’.  One true believer divests themselves of all their possessions to devote their life to helping the poor.  Another flies a plane into a skyscraper to kill thousands. Both believers are equally sincere.  They differ, not in the intensity of their beliefs, but in what their beliefs consist of.  It is their contrasting, not held-in-common values which cause them to act in completely opposite ways.

(The phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’ was coined in 1957 by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter in When Prophecy Fails, a study of a UFO cult’s coping mechanisms when an expected apocalypse failed to eventuate.)

Managing Cognitive Dissonance: Coping Strategies
There is a cost in retaining a belief which cannot be easily reconciled with reality. The relativist and the universalist need to deploy a range of coping strategies to help them hang on to their failing world views.

One strategy is to avoid being confronted with information which could make the feelings of dissonance worse. One does not expect Malcolm Fraser spends much time browing the hadiths of Muhammad.

Another coping strategy is to demonize a bearer of bad news.  Thus it can be reassuring and self-comforting for Geert Wilders to be vilified as ‘extreme right wing’.  The passion of the accusation is a reflection of the depth of the anxiety standing behind it.

Another strategy is to shift blame. I have many times given addresses on the Koranic motivation for violence, after which someone in the audience has stood up and asked “What about the crusades: Christians have been violent too!”  So true, but this is quite irrelevant to the challenge of understanding and engaging with Islam’s doctrines.  This deflection has a purely emotional function, as it serves to reduce cognitive dissonance: by diverting attention away from stress-inducing information about Islam, it helps relieve a person of the responsibility to make a moral judgement about Islam which has challenging and perhaps frightening implications.

Sometimes blame-shifting means searching around for a surrogate cause.  This was the coping mechanism played out after the Fort Hood Massacre, when Major Nidal Hasan, acting in accordance with jihad principles he had so clearly expounded in a medical seminar attacked and killed 13 fellow soldiers. After the event, President Obama pleaded with Americans not to ‘jump to conclusions’ saying, “we cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing.”  Newsweek’s Evan Thomas opined ‘he’s probably just a nut case.’

Sometimes blame shifting can involve constructing elaborate alternative narratives.  An example is the claim that the Palestinian conflict is the underlying cause of global jihad terrorism. Hence Malcolm Fraser’s claim that the West’s support for Israel perpetuates a breeding ground for terrorism:

“… the West’s one-sided policies relating to Israel and Palestine … is an abscess which breeds terrorists and will do so until there is a viable two-state solution.

This view can be understood as an elaborate coping mechanism for managing the cognitive dissonance caused by the problem of Islamic violence, a phenomenon which however predates the formation of the modern state of Israel by 1400 years.

**********

President Bush’s public statement after the 9/11 atrocity that “Islam is Peace” (implying that the attackers were not genuine Muslims and were not motivated by Islam) is another example.

Suppression of cognitive dissonance is not merely an individual experience.  It can be an epidemic, a mass psychosis, as coping mechanisms are replicated across newspapers, board rooms, government policies, talkback radio shows, family gathering and internet forums.  For example, the rising hatred being directed against Israel across Europe is a societal response to manage the cognitive dissonance — and fear — caused by the rise of supremacist Islam.

When the Obama administration banned the use of the expressions ‘jihad’ and ‘Islamic extremism’ in discussions of terrorist threats by its  security officials, this was an institutional form of deligitimizing and veiling the well-attested religious motivations of terrorists.  This illustrates how a cognitive coping mechanism can be played out at the highest levels of government, even through deliberate policy decisions, and filter down to change the thought patterns of society.

When newspapers and police forces repeatedly suppress Islamic motivations of crimes (see here and here) — whether in Egypt or in the West – this is a manifestation of a coping mechanism which has become a cultural trait.

Denial can be comforting.  It spares one the trauma and hard work of engaging with realities which do not fit with cherished and deeply held personal beliefs, and few things are more personal than one’s beliefs about religion.  But will it deliver peace and harmony?

***************

The problem is that the relativist and universalist belief systems are not reasonable.  They are not credible.  Not being truth-based, and relying on prejudice, they demand intense, constant and costly management of cognitive dissonance.  Truth is the first casualty of these coping strategies, which result in bad policy, and poor strategies which only serve to empower and cover for enemies of freedom and truth.

Shameful, painful examples abound.  Consider Major Nidal Hassan, the jihadi-for-a-day, who continues to draw an army salary while the Pentagon persists in mis-classifying his killing spree, performed while shouting ‘Allahu Akhbar’, as ‘workplace violence’.  One consequence is that his wounded victims have not been granted benefits normally available to those injured in combat, such as Purple Heart retirement and preferential medical support.

Read more

Islam Vs. Islamism: A Case for Wishful Thinkers

 

By Walid Shoebat:

“Our killer question is ‘How do you propose to defeat Islamism?’ Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to defeat it.”

This is what historian and Middle East analyst Daniel Pipes asks [1] in his recent Washington Times article.

To support his argument, Pipes makes an unsubstantiated claim [2] that a majority of Muslims are moderate and that Islamism is only,

supported by 10-15 percent [2] of Muslims…

So how and why did he come up with such numbers? Pipes uses different studies and surveys about which he himself confesses [2]: “These ambiguous and contradictorypercentages lead to no clear, specific count of Islamists.” Why then use such statistics? It is only to serve the major argument he made in my first paragraph.

And there are more “confessions.” Pipes writes: “Out of a quantitative mish-mash, I suggested just three days after 9/11 [3] that some 10-15 percent of Muslims are determined Islamists.” This is in itself contradictory and is even absolutely nonsense mathematically as he clearly admits. To further support this conservative number, Pipes adds:

 Indonesian survey and election results led R. William Liddle and Saiful Mujani [4] in 2003 to conclude that the number of Islamists “is no more than 15 percent of the total Indonesian Muslim population.”

He did this while he ignored his other statement:

In contrast, a 2008 survey of 8,000 Indonesian Muslims by Roy Morgan Research [5] found 40 percent of Indonesians favoring hadd criminal punishments (such as cutting off the hands of thieves) and 52 percent favoring some form of Islamic legal code.

So here we have 52% of Indonesians are extremists, not 15%.

DanielPipes

Yet even that doesn’t determine the correct percentages to separate Muslims from Islamists. To say that “views on 9/11″ or “supporting Hadd” (Islamic punishment) is the yardstick to measure the percentages is also absurd and mathematically false. What if a Muslim doesn’t support 9/11 or Hadd but supports the idea that it takes two women in a court of law to equal the testimony of a man? Will Pipes count him as a moderate Muslim or an extremist Islamist? If he chooses “moderate,” then Pakistan got it right. No matter what Pipes chooses, it debunks all his unsubstantiated claims about moderate Islam.

What if a Muslim couldn’t care less about Sharia, jihad, and 9/11, yet he kills his sister for marrying a Jew? Is he a “Muslim” or is he an “Islamist”?

And what if we even use terrorism as a yardstick as Pipes prefers; in Saudi Arabia and across the Muslim world, you have many who do not support al-Qaeda. Are these then counted as moderates? In Pipes’ view the answer is “yes.” But this is false. Last week I had an exchange with Sheikh Faisal Al-Harbi, who chastised me on such issues,stating that his clan (Al-Harbi) would not support terrorism. Indeed, on his clan’s official website [7] they denounce al-Qaeda, adding:

Jihad for the sake of Allah is to go to war with the infidels and the polytheists to remove these and enforce Unitarianism. That is after inviting them to Islam and they reject the invitation (Da’wa). This Jihad is then organized and supervised by the Imam.

That cannot be placed in the moderate Islam camp. In light of this and my other arguments, Pipes’ percentages are escalating dramatically.

The true number for Islamists is 100%. Here, let me add more beef to my claim. What if a Muslim denounces today’s jihad, sharia, Islamic state and all? Is he then moderate?

Read more at PJ Media

 

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch weighs in on the debate:

As made clear in our FAQ, the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch was created as part of an ongoing effort to track and an analyze the activities of the Global Muslim Brotherhood that we define as “global network of individuals and organizations that developed as Muslim Brotherhood members dispersed to other countries while fleeing the periodic crackdowns on the organization in Egypt.” The GMBDW considers the Muslim Brotherhood, in all its manifestations, to be both the wellspring as well the most important ongoing influence on Islamism in the world today. Therefore, in line with what Dr. Pipes has written, we want to reassert that the GMBDW also makes the distinction between Islam the religion and Islamism which we would characterize as even a greater threat to Muslim-majority nations than it is in the West.

That said, the GMBDW does take issue with one passage in Dr. Pipe’s otherwise salutary article.

He writes:

Those who make all Islam their enemy not only succumb to a simplistic and essentialist illusion but they lack any mechanism to defeat it. We who focus on Islamism see World War II and the Cold War as models for subduing the third totalitarianism. We understand that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. We work with anti-Islamist Muslims to vanquish a common scourge. We will triumph over this new variant of barbarism so that a modern form of Islam can emerge.

We are not convinced that that World War II and/or the Cold War are appropriate models for taking on modern Islamism as we do not believe that Islamism can productively be analyzed in these terms. Therefore, those that adopt such models run the risk of advocating inappropriate strategies for taking on the problem. Further elaboration of this theme involves a degree of complexity and will have to wait for future analysis.

 

The Roots of Muslim paranoia

eurabia-flagBy M. Kamal:

When the twin towers came crashing down, many Muslims believed that it was the work of Mossad or the CIA and that Jews were absent that day. During the Asian Financial Crisis, Dr Mahathir Mohammed, then Prime Minister of Malaysia told his people that it was the Jews that were behind it. Nigerian mothers (who are Muslims) refused to allow their children to be vaccinated because they believed that the Americans were trying to harm them with contaminated vaccine. The cartoon, Tom & Jerry was invented by the Jews because people equated them to rats and they want to change the image of rats into something cute.

All these conspiracy theories are crazy. Yet millions of Muslims believe them. We tend to be mildly amused and ignore them without asking why they find it easy to believe these conspiracy theories which we know to be absurd. Yet a close inquiry into this will yield a mother lode of information into the workings and the world view of Muslim minds. So why then do so many Muslims believe absurd theories?

Firstly, Islam encourages mistrust of the infidel. Here are some Koranic verses concerning what Islam says about unbelievers (12 ):

Koran 3:118
O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.

Koran 4:144
O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?

(2)Koran 5:51
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

From this it can be seen that infidels (i.e. unbelievers) are out to do the Muslim in. The infidels hate Muslims and Muslims are discouraged from befriending them.

It says so in the Koran. So it must be true. If from young, you have this sort of attitude towards non-Muslims, then you are going to find conspiracy theories about infidels plotting the destruction of Muslims to be believable. No wonder they become paranoid.

Secondly, Islam has given Muslims an over-inflated self image that cannot square with reality. In the Muslim world-view, Islam is the perfect religion and Muslims are therefore the best nation charged with leading the world. Take a look at this verse from the Koran (3):

Koran 3:110
You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors.

I will talk more about this later. While Muslims are supposed to be the best, it of course follows that non-Muslims are less than best. Koran 9:28 reads (4):

O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

This view is echoed by Ayatollah Sistani whom the US hopes (fat hope) will be a moderate force in Iraq . See his website (5). According to Ayatollah Sistani, kafirs (another name for unbelievers) are dirty and in the same category with urine and feces.

But am I cherry-picking some verses from the Koran just to prove my point? Do Muslims really teach their young to despise and distrust the infidels? Wafa Sultan grew up in Syria . This is what she said (6):

“Until I came to United States I used to believe that Jewish people are not human creatures,” she says. “Unfortunately this is the way I was brought up, to believe that Jews don’t have our human features, they don’t have our human voices.”

In the first week she was in the United States she and her husband went to a shoe shop in Hollywood . Her husband asked the clerk where he was from and when he said that he was an Israeli Jew, “you can’t believe what I did”, she says. “I ran away without shoes, barefoot. My husband followed me. He said, ‘How stupid you are.’ But I said, ‘I cannot tolerate him.’ I was scared to death because he was from Israel ; I reacted in a very bad, negative way, because of the way I had been raised, for the past 30 years of my life.”

She was so afraid of the Jew that she ran away without her shoes on! This is the kind of upbringing that Muslim kids in that part of the world are getting from their parents and teachers.

Read more at No Compulsion

 

Islam vs. Islamism, again

4262329508_45b1258d1b_zBy Robert Spencer:

This is a familiar controversy to longtime Jihad Watch readers; in November 2011 I published an article in National Review responding to a piece by Andy McCarthy and criticizing the Islam/Islamism distinction for obscuring the fact that doctrines of warfare and subjugation are found in Islam’s core texts.

I’ve long rejected the term “Islamist” for reasons I explained in that piece: “…the distinction is artificial and imposed from without. There are not, in other words, Islamist mosques and non-Islamist mosques, distinguishable from one another by the sign outside each, like Baptist and Methodist churches. On the contrary, ‘Islamists’ move among non-political, non-supremacist Muslims with no difficulty; no Islamic authorities are putting them out of mosques, or setting up separate institutions to distinguish themselves from the ‘Islamists.’ Mevlid Jasarevic [a jihadist in Sarajevo] could and did visit mosques in Austria, Serbia, and Bosnia without impediment before he started shooting on Friday; no one stopped him from entering because he was an ‘Islamist.’”

And so to say we must work with ordinary Muslims while eschewing collaboration with Islamists is not precisely a distinction without a difference, but a distinction that is practically imperceptible and, in many cases, in fact not there at all.

This is not to say that Islam can never be reformed. Many strange things have happened in history: events that no one 100 or 50 or sometimes even 10 years before they happened would have or could have predicted. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989, but in 1986 and 1987 there were still plenty of learned analysts all over the airwaves and in the corridors of power in Washington talking about how we were going to have to deal with the Soviet Bloc for generations to come. So I will never say that something can never happen. But we have to recognize fully and honestly the obstacles in the way of it happening so as to make a truly realistic assessment of the situation we’re in, and apply remedies that are most likely to work, as well as to accord with our own fundamental principles.

This piece by Daniel Pipes has stirred up some controversy already; Pamela Geller comments here; Andrew Bostom weighs in here; and Walid Shoebat here.

“Islam and its infidels,” by Daniel Pipes in the Washington Times, May 13:

What motives lay behind last month’s Boston Marathon bombing and the would-be attack on a Via Rail Canada train?Leftists and establishmentarians variously offer imprecise and tired replies — such as “violent extremism” or anger at Western imperialism — unworthy of serious discussion. Conservatives, in contrast, engage in a lively and serious debate among themselves: some say Islam the religion provides motive; others say it’s a modern extremist variant of the religion, known as radical Islam or Islamism.

As a participant in the latter debate, here’s my argument for focusing on Islamism.

Those arguing for Islam itself as the problem (such as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) point to the consistency from Muhammad’s life and the contents of the Koran and Hadith to current Muslim practice. Agreeing with Geert Wilders’ film “Fitna,” they point to striking continuities between Koranic verses and jihad actions. They quote Islamic scriptures to establish the centrality of Muslim supremacism, jihad and misogyny, concluding that a moderate form of Islam is impossible. They point to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s deriding the very idea of a moderate Islam. Their killer question is “Was Muhammad a Muslim or an Islamist?” They contend that we who blame Islamism do so out of political correctness or cowardliness.

To which, we reply: Yes, certain continuities do exist, and Islamists definitely follow the Koran and Hadith literally. Moderate Muslims exist, but lack Islamists’ near-hegemonic power. Mr. Erdogan’s denial of moderate Islam points to a curious overlap between Islamism and the anti-Islam viewpoint. Muhammad was a plain Muslim, not an Islamist, for the latter concept dates back only to the 1920s. And no, we are not cowardly but offer our true analysis.

 

Not only do moderate Muslims “lack Islamists’ near-hegemonic power”; they also lack the justification in the Qur’an and Hadith that Islamic jihadists always point to in order to gain recruits among peaceful Muslims, as well as to justify their actions. And this is a key point: if Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (both, not incidentally, ex-Muslims) are right that there is a “consistency from Muhammad’s life and the contents of the Koran and Hadith to current Muslim practice,” and they most certainly are, as Daniel Pipes apparently acknowledges when he says that “certain continuities do exist, and Islamists definitely follow the Koran and Hadith literally,” then attempts to prescind from Qur’anic literalism in order to reform Islam and create a more peaceful version of the faith will always be challenged by the literalists (who are and have always been the mainstream in Islam) as heretics and apostates.

Read more at Jihad Watch

CPAC Turns Away Pamela Geller #STANDWITHPAMELAGELLER

pam-gellerby Breitbart News: For the last four years, Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com and the American Freedom Defense Initiative have held events at CPAC featuring guests she invites to discuss the influence of Islamism on America. But this year, the American Conservative Union (ACU) has no room for Geller or her message.

In 2009, she brought Geert Wilders, who is the head of the third largest party in the Netherlands and has spoken out against the Islamization of his country.

In 2010 she held an event that her organization, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, hosted, titled “Jihad: The Political Third Rail”, with speakers like Allen West, Wafa Sultan, Simon Deng, Anders Gravers, and Steve Coughlin.

In 2011, she hosted an event discussing the Ground Zero Mosque with 9/11 families. In 2012, the event was titled “Islamic Law in America.”

More at Breitbart

via #STANDWITHPAMELAGELLER

Huge thanks to Michelle Malkin, who took to twitter and really stepped up to support me in the wake of the Breitbart article: “CPAC Turns Away Pamela Geller”. Joining Malkin are Mark Levin, The Right ScoopMaggie’s NotebookRobert SpencerInstapunditDonald Douglas, Theo Spark, Patrick over at T&RLucianne,IOTWTim at Freedom PostMarooned in Marin, and many others.

Every year I organize a critical event covering issues CPAC won’t touch, like jihad and sharia. Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan wield enormous influence and have kept Robert Spencer and me and so many of our colleagues off the CPAC schedule for years.

“Michelle Malkin, others #StandWithPamelaGeller after CPAC snub” March 2, 2013 by Twitchy Staff

However edifying this year’s CPAC gathering will be for attendees, its organizers have provided plenty of entertainment value to the public in the run-up to the event. Who will appear — Mitt RomneySarah Palin, and Dr. Ben Carson, for example — hasn’t caused as much of a stir as who won’t be in attendance. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t invitedGOProud has been excluded, and today Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative announced that her application to speak has been ignored.

Check out all these tweets. If you are on twitter, please use the hashtags #standwithpamelageller and #CPAC and #CPAC2013.

Read the rest at Atlas Shrugs

6a00d8341c60bf53ef017d416ee9f0970c-600wi

Suhail Khan, A Case Study In Influence Operations:

 

Organizations Grover Norquist is Using To Subvert The Right:

 

Grover Norquist’s Ongoing Influence Operation:

Related articles

Former Muslims

muslims prayingby ED  ZIEGLER

In response to the violent  actions and  intense  hatred by  many  Muslims toward non-Muslims, my articles frequently attempt to  acquaint freedom loving people with the undeniable fact the goal of these  Muslims is to force the world to submit to Islam.

Fanatic Muslims consist of approximately 120 million followers of Islam  world-wide. Many of their religious leaders advocate killing apostates in  accordance with verses in the Quran such as vers 4-89   “Take not from  among them until they fly in Allah’s way. But if they turn back seize them and  KILL them wherever you find them.”

There is a small but growing number of ex-Muslims who realized that Islam is  not a peace loving religion as proclaimed. “Mohammed is God’s apostle.   Those who follow him are harsh to the unbelievers but merciful to one  another.”  Quran 48:29.  By denouncing their Islamic faith, these  apostates have put their lives on the line.

Also there are Muslims such as Dr. Zudhi Jasser, founder of  The  American Islamic Forum for Democracy, whose mission is to advocate for the  preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution.

There is another group, “Former Muslims United” (FMU), which seeks to protect  former Muslims from persecution by those who believe in Islamic dogma which  requires punishment of apostates. FMU is outspoken against honor killings and  rejects punishment for leaving the Islamic faith.

A former Egyptian Muslim, Nonie Darwish, is the Director of FMU, a human  rights activist and founder of Arabs For Israel. She also authored books: “Now  They Call Me Infidel; Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on  Terror” and “Cruel and Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of  Islamic Law.”

Nonie said she converted because she experienced love, peace and compassion  while attending a Christian school. She compared this with the harsh teaching in  Islamic text books and preached in Mosques. In Mosques you hear the holy man  preach “May God destroy all the infidel and Jews the enemy of God.” Nonie stated  that terrorism is violent jihad and the duty of every Muslim. She explained that  the sword is a symbol for conquering the world.

Interview with Nonie Darwish:

 

Wafa Sultan, an apostate, was born into a large, traditional Alawite Muslim  family in Baniyas, Syria. Wafa is a medical doctor, an American author and  critic of Muslim society and Islam.   I challenge everyone to listen  to Wafa’s plea (Former  Muslims United: Wafa Sultan – YouTube). Her short eye opening narrative will  dispel any idea that you may have that Islam is a religion of peace.

Sabatina James, a convert to Christianity, came from a strict Pakistani  family. She claims that after she refused to marry a man her parents had chosen.  Her father told her, “The honor of this family is more important than my life or  your life” and her mother wanted her dead.” James has lived in fear of being  murdered for leaving the Islamic faith. Since 2001 she has moved at least 16  times.

The Quran and the hadith call for the death of those who turn away from  Islam. Even though, throughout the centuries, individuals around the world have  openly risked their lives denouncing Islam. Go to http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html  for a list of such brave people. To listen to a number of former Muslims being  interviewed by the Chief Counsel of The American Center for Law and Justice go  to  http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html.

It is very important to remember the danger we are in with over 100 million  fanatic Muslins who are willing to kill non-Muslims to force the world to adhere  to Islam. Afshin Ellian a former Iranian Muslim fled the Middle East to the  Netherlands. There he became a professor of Law, philosopher, poet and out  spoken critic of Islam. One of Afshin’s quotes is “Radical Islamists are so  determined to prove Islam is the religion of peace that they are willing to kill  for it.”

For six years Ed Ziegler has been researching and writing articles on the War  Against Terrorism and anti-Semitism. Ed is an activist who believes freedom is  worth fighting for and that everyone should be involved.

Source: Family Security Matters

 

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

 

Leaders Who Suggest Curbing Muslim Immigration

Citizen Warrior:

On the one hand, we know some Muslim women want to move to free countries to get away from Islam, and don’t feel they can safely become apostates until they arrive safely in the free country. On the other hand, we have no idea what a Muslim will do when she or he arrives. Will they have ten children and teach them all to be orthodox Muslims? A British study found that second generation Muslims are more likely than their parents to be orthodox, which seems to imply that it doesn’t matter if the parents are “radical” or not. It only matters that they consider themselves Muslim.
To be on the safe side, shouldn’t we limit Muslim immigration until this kind of thing can be sorted out?
Looking around the world, we can see that the larger the percentage of Muslims in a given country, the more strongly and successfully the politically-active orthodox Muslims among them press for concessions to Islamic norms. Stopping Muslim immigration seems a sensible, obvious, self-preserving measure for a country to take, doesn’t it? What do you think? Leave a comment on this article or email me and I’ll post it for you.
I’m not the only one to advocate putting a stop to Muslim immigration, of course. Pim Fortuyn led one of the most consequential efforts so far to end Muslim immigration, in his case, to the Netherlands.
In an interview, Mark Steyn was asked, “What should the United States do?”
He said first the U.S. should stop “ideological subversion,” meaning we should prevent people like the Saudis from buying their way into places where they have influence, like Middle Eastern studies on college campuses, and building mosques here that teach orthodox Islam, and so on. He said, “If you are not on ideological offense, you’re going to get rolled.”
Second, he said, “Unless you have real serious cultural confidence, you should not have mass Muslim immigration.”

Orthodox Muslims moving into free countries.

In an article on stealth jihad, this quote is applicable:
“Analyzing the problem is one thing; solving it is another. Robert Spencer’s prescriptions on what to do will rankle some and lead to his further character assassination. He is at his best when calling for the government to impose existing laws — and most gets to the point when he calls for a revival of patriotism, the self-assurance necessary to deny Islamic encroachment, white liberal guilt, and multiculturalist recriminations of the greatest nation in the history of the world. He is at his most questionable in calling on the government to ‘End Muslim immigration into the United States.’”
Two Australian politicians, Pauline Hanson and Paul Green, have called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration.
Geert Wilders, Wafa Sultan, and the late Oriana Fallaci have also recommended stopping Muslim immigration.
So what do you think? Should free nations stop or limit Muslim immigration? Why? What about the heterodox Muslims? Should they be taken into consideration? Do you think it is unfair to discriminate like this?

Go to the comment section after the article at Citizen Warrior to see some interesting answers

See also: Frank Gaffney: Stop Shariah Immigration (counterjihadreport.com)

Sheikh Bakri Helps Wafa Sultan Educate All Americans on Islam

by Andrew Bostom:

Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad

The danger of Islamic convictions

The courage of Western convictions

Dr. Wafa Sultan, a remarkably courageous and thoughtful Muslim freethinker, recently debated Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad. Dr. Sultan watched passively while the good Sheik expressed without equivocation his pious views—in full accord with classical, mainstream Islamic doctrine on jihad—and then politely added her own plain spoken commentary in response.

This less than 8-minute video segment, if viewed objectively and dispassionately, could do more to educate the American public on the theory animating the practice of “Islamic international relations,” without any further explanation required.

For the full transcript of the English translation go here.

In brief, the video exchange confirms State Department consul Edward A Van Dyck’s didactic characterization from 1880, before the malign influence of post-modern self-loathing crippled the ability of our diplomatic corps, and policymaking elites to think and act clearly:

In all the many works on Mohammedan law no teaching is met with that even hints at those principles of political intercourse between nations, that have been so long known to the peoples of Europe, and which are so universally recognized by them. “Fiqh,” as the science of Moslem jurisprudence is called, knows only one category of relation between those who recognize the apostleship of Mohammed and all others who do not, namely Djehad [jihad[; that is to say, strife, or holy war. Inasmuch as the propagation of Islam was to be the aim of all Moslems, perpetual warfare against the unbelievers, in order to convert them, or subject them to the payment of tribute, came to be held by Moslem doctors [legists] as the most sacred duty of the believer. This right to wage war is the only principle of international law which is taught by Mohammedan jurists; …with the Arabs the term harby [harbi] (warrior) expresses not only an unbeliever but also an enemy; and jehady [jihadi] (striver, warrior) means the believer-militant. From the Moslem point of view, the whole world is divided into two parts—“the House of Islam,” and “the House of War;” out of this division has arisen the other popular dictum of the Mohammedans that “all kinds of unbelievers from but one people.”

Moreover, Sheikh Bakri reiterates the heinous conception—and practice—concordant with mainstream Islamic law, sharia, and the ugly history of Islamic depredations, that the very lives of non-Muslim “harbis” are licit. The great modern Western scholar of Islamic law, Joseph Schacht described this “legal” concept, succinctly, as follows:

A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, “in a state of war”, “enemy alien”; his life and property are completely unprotected by law…

Finally, Armand Abel, the renowned Belgian analyst of jihad doctrine, elaborated on the extortion inherent to such “treaties” imposed by Islamic imperialists, lest potential non-Muslim victims suffer worse fates as “harbis”—points omitted by Sheikh Bakri.

Thus the [Byzantine] Empress Irene [d. 803] “purchased peace at the price of her humiliation”, according to the formula stated in the dhimma contract itself, by paying 70,000 pounds in gold annually to the Caliph of Baghdad. Many other princes agreed in this way to become tributaries – often after long struggles – and to see their dominions pass from the status of dar al Harb to that of dar al Sulh.  In this way, those of their subjects who lived within the boundaries of the territory ruled by the Caliphate were spared the uncertainty of being exposed arbitrarily, without any guarantee, to the military operations of the summer ghazu and the winter ghazu:  indeed, anything within the reach of the Muslim armies as they advanced, being property of impious men and rebels, was legitimately considered their booty;  their men, seized by armed soldiers, were mercilessly consigned to the lot specified in the Koranic verse about the sword,and their women and children were treated like things.

 

 

Is it Racist to Criticize Islam?

Citizen Warrior:

Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist? She was born in Somalia, from which she escaped to avoid an arranged marriage, and she eventually became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands. She helped produce a film with Theo Van Gogh which criticized Islam’s treatment of women. Van Gogh was shot to death by a Muslim in retaliation, and a note was pinned to his chest with a knife — a note that threatened Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She made her way to the United States, and has since written two books critical of Islam: Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.

Is Wafa Sultan a racist? She was born and raised in Syria, and was trained as a psychiatrist. On February 21, 2006, she took part in an Al Jazeera discussion program, arguing with the hosts about Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory. A six-minute composite video of her response was widely circulated on blogs and through email. The New York Times estimated it was seen at least one million times. In the video she criticized Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently, and for not recognizing the accomplishments of Jews and other non-Muslims. The video was the most-discussed video of all time with over 260,000 comments on YouTube.

Is Ibn Warraq a racist? Warraq was born in India to Muslim parents who migrated to Pakistan after the partitioning of British Indian Empire. Warraq founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism. Warraq is the author of seven books, including Why I Am Not a Muslim and Leaving Islam. He has spoken at the United Nations “Victims of Jihad” conference organized by the International Humanist and Ethical Union alongside speakers such as Bat Ye’or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Simon Deng.

Is Tapan Ghosh a racist? The president of Hindu Samhati, he speaks all over India and the United States about the ongoing Islamic invasion of West Bengal. In an article about him, a correspondent wrote, “A life of 25 years of relentless service has strengthened the resolve of Tapan Ghosh to unite Hindu masses to fight against injustice and the oppressive attitude of the authorities in the face of ever-increasing Islamist aggression.” Ghosh said, “As someone who has suffered enormously from the Islamist onslaught in eastern India, both after the partition of India as well as the partition of erstwhile Pakistan to form Bangladesh, Islamic terrorism has deeply affected my life and the life of millions in the Indian subcontinent. The horrific events of 1971 where nearly 3 million Bengalis, mostly Hindus were exterminated by the Pakistani military regime left an everlasting impression on me. Since then, I have worked relentlessly for the service and upliftment of people reeling under the scourge of radical Islam.”

Is Seyran Ates a racist? Born in Turkey of Kurdish parents, and now working as a lawyer in Germany, Atest is highly critical of an immigrant Muslim society that is often more orthodox than its counterpart in Turkey, and her criticisms have put her at risk. Her book, “Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution,” was scheduled for publication in Germany in 2009. In an interview in January 2008 on National Public Radio, Ates stated that she was in hiding and would not be working on Muslim women’s behalf publicly (including in court) due to the threats against her. Ates is the author of the article, Human Rights Before Religion: Have we forgotten to protect women in our bid to accommodate practices carried out in the name of Islam?

Is Francis Bok a racist? Francis Piol Bol Bok, born in Sudan, was a slave for ten years but is now an abolitionist and author living in the United States. On May 15, 1986, Bok was captured and enslaved at age seven during an Islamic militia raid on the village of Nymlal. Slavery is a standard feature of orthodox Islam. Bok lived in bondage for ten years before escaping imprisonment in Kurdufan, followed by a journey to the United States by way of Cairo, Egypt. Read more of his story here. Bok’s autobiography, Escape from Slavery, chronicles his life from his early youth and his years in captivity, to his work in the United States as an abolitionist.

Is  Nonie Darwish a racist? Now an American, she grew up a Muslim in Egypt,  the daughter of an Egyptian general whose family was part of President  Nasser’s inner circle. Darwish founded Former Muslims United  with Ibn Warraq, an organization dedicated, in part, to helping Muslims  reject the inherent intolerance, violence, and supremacism in their  doctrine. Darwish is the author of two books critical of Islam, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, and Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. And she is an outspoken critic of Sharia law.

Is  Brigitte Gabriel a racist? She’s an Arab, born in Lebanon. Gabriel watched her country become an Islamic state. Lebanon was a Christian country and “the jewel of the Middle East” when she was young. But the Muslims in Lebanon, supported by Syria and Iran, slowly became more militant until they turned the country into a war zone. She made her way to America only to find, to her horror, the Muslim Brotherhood here in her newly adopted country, going down the same road. She decided to warn her fellow Americans about the dire results you can expect from appeasing orthodox Muslims, so she founded  ACT! for America, a grassroots organization dedicated to educating the public about Islam’s prime directive. Gabriel is the author of two books, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, and Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.

Is Mark Gabriel a racist? Born in Egypt, he became an Islamic scholar in the Muslim world’s most prestigious university. Early fears by relatives that Gabriel would grow up a Christian because he had been breastfed by a Christian woman resulted in him being given a thorough Islamic education. So he grew up immersed in Islamic culture and was sent to Al Azhar school at the age of six. By the time Gabriel was twelve years old he had memorized the Quran completely. After graduating from Al-Azhar University with a Master’s degree, he was offered a position as a lecturer at the university. During his research, which involved travel to Eastern and Western countries, Gabriel became more distant from Islam, finding its history, “from its commencement to date, to be filled with violence and bloodshed without any worthwhile ideology or sense of decency. I asked myself ‘What religion would condone such destruction of human life?’ Based on that, I began to see that the Muslim people and their leaders were perpetrators of violence.” On hearing that Gabriel had “forsaken Islamic teachings” the authorities of Al Azhar expelled him from the University on 17 December, 1991 and asked for him to be released from the post of Imam in the mosque of Amas Ebn Malek in Giza city. The Egyptian secret police then seized Gabriel and placed him in a cell without food and water for three days, after which he was tortured and interrogated for four days before being transferred to Calipha prison in Cairo and released without charge a week later. He escaped Egypt and has since written several books, including, Islam and Terrorism.

Is Walid Shoebat a racist? He’s a Palestinian immigrant to the United States  and a former PLO militant. Shoebat was born in  Bethlehem, the grandson of the Mukhtar of Beit Sahour, an associate of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.  In 1993, Shoebat converted to Christianity after studying the  Jewish Bible for six months in response to a challenge from his wife,  initially trying to persuade her to convert to Islam. After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Shoebat began to criticize Islam publicly. He has appeared on mainstream media around the world and has been an expert witness on a number of documentaries on orthodox Islam. Shoebat argues that parallels exist between radical Islam and Nazism. He says, “Secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism that we see today…because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it; it says ‘God the Almighty ordered you to do this’…It is trying to grow itself in fifty-five Muslim states. So potentially, you could have a success rate of several Nazi Germanys, if these people get their way.”

Read more

“Impossible to Believe in Islam and be Mentally Sane” – Wafa Sultan

Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan Blasts Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and Sheik Al-Qaradhawi, and States: When You Criticize Their Prophet, It Is As If You Chopped Off Muslims’ Noses

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on May 29, 2008.

ooo OOO ooo

Sultan is a Syrian-American psychiatrist from an Alawi family. She was herself a Sunni Muslim. Well, she was born and raised as one, at any rate. And, unlike many of her sympathizers, she does not hold with the opinion that Islam was “hijacked” by extremists. On the contrary, she says, serious research into the holy texts led to her own personal rejection of the religion. The faith, she says, cannot be reformed, but rather has to be “transformed.”

She grew up as a religious girl in Banyias (“a small town on the Mediterranean”), attended medical school in Aleppo, and now lives as a secular American in California, where she settled in 1989, eight months after her husband, and two years before her two elder children (her youngest was born in the US).

ooo OOO ooo

But 1979 was the real turning point of our lives. It was the year I witnessed the murder of a professor of mine. While shooting him, the killers were screaming “Allahu Akbar [God is great]!”

I was in a state of shock. The sound of the bullets became associated in my mind with Allah.

JP: Why was your professor targeted?

For no reason other than belonging to the Allawi sect of Islam – that of the president – while the majority in Syria were Sunnis. And at that time, there was a bloody conflict between the government and the Muslim Brotherhood. But I knew for a fact that he was not involved in politics. I was devastated, and began to question what kind of Allah this is.

JP: Until then, were you and your family devout Muslims?

Oh yes. I had to fast, I had to preach about Islam…

JP: What altered that?

After the trauma of the murder in the name of Allah, I delved into all the Islamic texts – the Koran and the Hadith – carefully studying each, one by one.

Look, the Iraqi woman on the panel [Pascale Warda] told me about a case of a man killed in Iraq for selling ice, since Muhammed didn’t use ice. Can you imagine? According to Sharia, selling ice is a crime! She also told me that Iraqis believe that you must not put cucumbers and tomatoes in the same bag, because cucumbers are male and tomatoes are female. This is an example of a dangerous belief system driving bad behavior.

JP: Do you think a “transformation” will be best achieved through the men or the women?

Through the women. Muslim women have everything to gain by a transformed Islam and nothing to lose. They’ve already lost everything. Muslim men, on the other hand, won’t relinquish their powers so easily.

JP: Are Western feminists on your side? I have encountered Americans and Israelis who – when it comes to the rights of women in Arab countries – side with multiculturalism. Has this been your experience as well?

Yes it has. I haven’t received the kind of support I expected from women in the US. Recently, I gave a speech at the University of California, and during the question period, an American woman told me she didn’t believe the things I was saying about Muslim men’s treatment of women. She said: “Muhammed was the first man on earth to give women rights.”

I responded, “Would you please tell me what some of those rights are, so I can tell Muslim women to be aware of them?”

She said, “I don’t know, but I was invited to a mosque in LA, and that’s what the mullah told us.”
Can you believe how naive these women are?

Source: The Jerusalm Post http://www.jpost.com