Top Iranian General: Give Us Full Nuclear Rights or Deal Void

Jafari

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the Guard’s chief commander, also said Israel would be destroyed if U.S. attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities.

BY REZA KAHLILI:

The leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is warning not only the West, but his own government that any agreement reached in Geneva must guarantee the Islamic Republic’s full nuclear rights or it will be voided.

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the Guard’s chief commander, also threatened to destroy Israel should Washington order an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“In case [Iranian] officials witness any violation or an effort to disregard our country’s inalienable nuclear rights by the West and America taking advantage of the [Geneva] agreement with their interpretation of it, they should consider the agreement annulled with full authority,” Jafari said in an exclusive interview Monday with Tasnim, an Iranian media outlet.

The Revolutionary Guard was organized early after the 1979 revolution as a parallel force to Iran’s military to protect the new regime and the clerical establishment. It is now the de facto force of the regime, its influence expanding to all aspects of the economy and the government.

Jafari said Islamic Republic principles require it to confront “oppressive powers,” and the country will continue to do so for as long as America continues its “arrogant behavior” against Iran and the rest of the world.

In blunt language, Jafari sneered at the use of the “military option” against Iran.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

An Interview with Ibn Warraq on his book “Why the West is Best”

With all that has been written recently on the progressive/Islamist assault on Western Civilization I thought it would be good to re-post this.

ibn_warraq (1)By Jamie Glazov On December 16, 2011:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ibn Warraq, an Islamic scholar and a leading figure in Qur’anic criticism. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Westminster Institute, VA. He has addressed distinguished governing bodies all over the world, including the United Nations in Geneva, and Members of the Dutch Parliament, at The Hague.

In 2007, Mr. Warraq completed a critical study of the thought of Edward Said, Defending the West. Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism, described the book as “a glorious work of scholarship, and it is going to contribute mightily to modernizing the way we think about Western civilization and the rest of the world”.

Mr. Warraq was goaded into writing his first book, Why I am Not a Muslim (1995), when he felt personally threatened by the infamous fatwa pronounced on Salman Rushdie for his book that satirized Islam, its founder Muhammad, and his family. He felt that only a ferocious polemic against Islam as a totalitarian system would wake up Western intellectuals to the dangers that the Iranian theocratic regime posed to our own freedoms in the West. Since this passionate attack on Islam, Mr. Warraq has edited, with long introductions, a series of more scholarly works on the origins of the Koran, and the rise of Islam, works such as The Origins of the Koran, 1998,  The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, 2000, What the Koran Really Says, 2002, and the recent Which Koran?,2011.

images-39Ibn Warraq’s new book, Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy (Encounter Books, December 2011) carries on the defense of the West started in Defending the West. He defines, describes, and defends Western values, strengths and freedoms far too often taken for granted. This book also tackles the taboo subjects of racism in Asian culture, Arab slavery, and Islamic Imperialism. It begins with a homage to New York City, as a metaphor for all we hold dear in Western culture — pluralism, individualism, freedom of expression and thought, the complete freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness unhampered by totalitarian regimes, and theocratic doctrines.

FP: Ibn Warraq, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s start with this question:

What does this book do that is unprecedented?

Warraq: First, thank you for inviting me to Front Page; it has been a while since we talked.

I do not think there are many books on the market that are unashamedly pro-Western, defending, without apologies, Western values, and talk without reserve of the superiority of Western Civilization, and which take on such taboo subjects as Asian racism, Arab anti-Semitism, Islamic Imperialism, the role of Islam and the Arabs in the Slave Trade, the complicity of Black Africans in the enslavement, and later selling of fellow Africans to Arabs, Persians, Indians and Europeans. There also cannot be any books on the market that defend Western Civilization that begin with a walk down Tin Pan Alley in New York City.

FP: What qualities of Western societies make them superior to those societies that have not adopted Western values?

Warraq: The self-evident superiority of the West stems from certain principles inherited, and further developed and refined over two millennia, from Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. We can, perhaps, subsume these principles under the abstract terms rationalism, universalism, and self-criticism, and then unfurl them in the following more substantial manner. Under rationalism, one would include the notions of truth, objective knowledge, and intellectual curiosity. Under universalism, I would include the idea of the unity of mankind, openness to “the Other” (an unfortunate phrase borrowed from recent anti-Western polemics), other ideas, other customs, other people; and finally under self-criticism the willingness to submit all of the West’s traditions to rational scrutiny. Under curiosity, I include all those examples of disinterested study. Other great ideas of the West which further help define its character and explain its success are: the separation of church and state, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights — in short, liberty and individual dignity which must never be sacrificed for some spurious collective, totalitarian goal.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: this triptych succinctly defines the attractiveness and superiority of Western civilization. In the West we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live as we choose. Liberty is codified in human rights, a magnificent Western creation but also, I believe, a universal good. Human rights transcend local or ethnocentric values, conferring equal dignity and value on all humanity regardless of sex, ethnicity, sexual preference, or religion. At the same time, it is in the West that human rights are most respected. It is the West that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians, recognizing and defending their rights. The notions of freedom and human rights were present at the dawn of Western civilization, as ideals at least, but have gradually come to fruition through supreme acts of self-criticism. Because of its exceptional capacity for self-criticism, the West took the initiative in abolishing slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in black Africa, where rival African tribes took black prisoners to be sold as slaves in the West.

Today, many non-Western cultures follow customs and practices that are clear violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). In many countries, especially Islamic ones, you are not free to read what you want. Under Sharia, or Islamic law, women are not free to marry whom they wish, and their rights of inheritance are circumscribed. Sharia, derived from the Koran and the practice and sayings of Muhammad, prescribes barbaric punishments such as stoning to death for adultery. It calls for homosexuals and apostates to be executed. In Saudi Arabia, among other countries, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith. The Koran is not a rights-respecting document.

FP: What in your mind are the greatest achievements of the West?

Warraq: Not only is the West so successful economically, but it leads the world scientifically, and culturally (one only has to look at the list of Nobel Prize winners in science, and literature to gauge the overwhelming triumph of the West in these domains; or at the influence of the Western arts on the rest of the world- both High Culture and Popular entertainment, from Classical music to cinema).

The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience, thought, and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy- quite an achievement, surely, for any civilization-—remain the best, and perhaps the only, means for all people, no matter of what race or creed, to reach their full potential and live in freedom.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: defines succinctly the attractiveness and superiority of Western civilization. We are free, in the West, to choose; we have real choice to pursue our own desires; we are free to set the goals and contents of our own lives; the West is made up of individuals who are free to decide what meaning to give to their lives-in short the glory of the West is that life is an open book,[1] while under Islam, life is a closed book, everything has been decided for you: God and the Holy Law set limits on the possible agenda of your life. In many non-Western countries especially Islamic ones, we are not free to read what we want; in Saudi Arabia, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith — all clear violations of article 18 of the Universal Declaration.

This desire for knowledge, no matter where it leads, inherited from the Greeks, has led to another institution that is unequalled-or very rarely equaled- outside the West: the University. Here the outside world recognizes this superiority; it comes to the West to learn not only about the sciences developed in the West in the last five hundred years — in all departments of Physics, Biology and Chemistry — but also of their own culture. They come to the West to learn of the Eastern civilizations and languages. Easterners come to Oxford, Cambridge, or Harvard and Yale, the Sorbonne or Heidelberg to receive their doctorates, because they confer prestige unrivalled by similar doctorates from Third World countries.

A culture that gave the world the spiritual creations of the Classical Music of Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and Schubert, the paintings of Michelangelo, and Raphael, Da Vinci and Rembrandt, does not need lessons from societies whose idea of spirituality is a heaven peopled with female virgins for the use of men, whose idea of heaven resembles a cosmic brothel. The West has given the world the symphony, and the novel.

To paraphrase Alan Kors[2], instead of the rigid, inhuman caste system of India, we have unparalleled social mobility in the West. Western society is a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives; it is a society of boundless private charity; it is a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth. The West has given us the liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction.

FP: How do you define the West in your book?

Warraq: I define the West through its values of liberty, and rationalism, and then look at their historical origins. The origins of the modern West are often seen in the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, but the roots of the Enlightenment can be found in habits of mind cultivated in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem, and the institutions that grew from them. The Greeks gave us the city and the notion of citizenship, the ideals of democracy and liberty, rationalism and science, philosophy and history. The Romans systematized the law, defined private property, and emphasized individual responsibility. Judeo-Christianity added a sense of conscience and charity, tempering justice with forgiveness, and the concept of linear rather than cyclical time, which allowed the possibility of progress. The Middle Ages brought a deeper synthesis of Athens and Rome with Jerusalem, laying the foundations for the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, the Enlightenment, and pluralistic liberal democracy.

FP: How is New York City a metaphor for the greatness of the West?

Warraq: In New York, I show the principles of the United States Constitution being applied in a real, vibrant place. I give the term “Western civilization” a physical context in the very concrete of the city. The details of New York’s streets and structures create a believable, breathing image of Western civilization, just as Dickens created believable, breathing characters. See this building, I say—it’s an example of beautiful architecture, one of the glories of New York, and as integral to Western civilization as the works of Shakespeare. See that building—it’s the New York Public Library. Inside the Beaux Arts masterpiece is an institution that embodies key aspects of Western civilization: philanthropy, education, the love of knowledge, the preservation of all the best that has been written and published. Each time you admire the façade of the New York Public Library, you are paying homage to Western civilization. Each time you consult a book in the magnificent Main Reading Room, you are participating in the maintenance of Western civilization. By working and living in New York, you are breathing Western civilization, continuously reminded of its benefits and its values.

Describing a New York street that became known as Tin Pan Alley and the area known as Broadway led me into the Great American Songbook, created by composers and lyricists who were born and lived and worked in that great city. Discussions of Western civilization are too often confined to works of high art that reflect a relatively narrow element of public taste and experience. I maintain that Western popular culture at its best is worthy of respect and should be cherished as much as the operas of Wagner. The work of composers like George Gershwin, born and bred in New York, embodies Western ideals over and above the aesthetic principles of the music itself. I could have written at length about various artists associated with the metropolis—Fred Astaire, P. G. Wodehouse, George Kaufman, the Marx Brothers (born in the Yorkville section of the Upper East Side)—and their contributions to Western popular culture, with creations that are witty, graceful, inspired, and at times touched with genius.

New York, like life, is its own excuse. Nonetheless, no other city in the West—or indeed, in the world—so well exemplifies the inexhaustible possibilities of a modern metropolis, where the inven­tive and enterprising put into practice the many freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The implausible, well-nigh-miraculous functioning anarchy that we know as New York is adorned with every excellence of Western art. It is a city of manifold suggestions, which ministers to every ambition, engenders a thousand talents, nurtures ingenuity and experimentation.

FP: What changed within Western societies that allowed them to so dramatically outperform other societies over the past 500 years, when that wasn’t the case beforehand?

Warraq: What has made the West successful economically while so many countries in other parts of the world fail to provide adequate food and shelter for their citizens?  The short answer is the Scientific Revolution of the Seventeenth Century, and the Industrial Revolution of the Eighteenth Century, both depended on European Culture, Economic and Political Freedom, that is the institutions and habits of mind developed over two millennia.

Thus we can no longer defend the notion that Western prosperity is founded on the exploitation of poor people in the Third World. The rich countries are rich because of their practices at home, and because of their readiness to adopt and adapt new things, such as Chinese inventions or New World crops. Jared Diamond concluded that the “proximate factors” in Europe’s ascendance were “its development of a merchant class, capitalism, and patent protec­tion for inventions, its failure to develop absolute despots and crushing taxation, and its Greco-Judeo-Christian tradition of empirical inquiry.” Ironically, given Diamond’s otherwise anti-Western animus, some readers disparaged this view as ethnocentric, or as “utterly conventional Eurocentric history,” in James M. Blaut’s words. But Diamond, in fact, was pointing to some key ingredients of Western success; and behind those proximate factors were culture, ideas, and attitudes.

********

Sharia is totally incompatible with Western liberal democracy and with human rights in general, because it is a totalitarian con­struct designed to control every aspect of the life of Muslims and even non-Muslims. It discriminates against women in many ways: their testimony in court is worth half of a man’s testimony (Surah II.282); they inherit half what men do (IV.11); they may be beaten by men (IV.34); they may not marry non-Muslims (II.221). Sharia pre­scribes amputation of hands for theft (V.38), crucifixion for spreading disorder (V.33), stoning to death for adultery (Reliance of the Traveler, p. 610), execution of homosexuals and apostates (XXVI.165–66; Reliance, pp. 109 and 665). In other words, Muslims want to rein­troduce practices that we in the West long ago deemed barbaric.

Moreover, Islamic law is considered infallible and immutable. In contrast to the fixed edicts of Sharia, Western law is bound up with the realities of human life and conflict. It allows the flexibility of making new law to accommodate changing circumstances, within a framework of fundamental principles. The Western constitutions and systems of law are magnificent creations; are we really prepared to jettison them in the name of multiculturalism and globalization?

Most troubling are the efforts to enforce Islamic laws against “blasphemy” throughout the world. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is taking steps toward outlawing “defamation of reli­gion” (i.e. Islam) worldwide, and these efforts have, in effect, been abetted by Western governments under the guise of suppressing “hate speech.” As Islamic countries consolidate their hold on the UN Human Rights Council and demand national laws to suppress criticism of Islam, how long will it be before Western legislation for­bids research into the origins of the Koran or early Islamic history?

FP: Why does the Left in the West not stand up against Sharia? And why do you think the West has lost all self-confidence in its own values and is unable and unwilling to defend its own civilization?

Warraq: I think these two questions, and their answers, are related. One of the reasons why Westerners feel so shy about defending Western civilization was well-described by James Burnham, “When the Western liberal’s feeing of guilt and his associated feeling of moral vulnerability before the sorrows and demands of the wretched become obsessive, he often develops a generalized hatred of Western civilization and his own country as a part of the West….The guilt of the liberal is insatiable. He deserves, by his own judgment, to be kicked, slapped and spat on for his infinite crimes”

First there has been the influence of intellectuals and academics who have undermined the confidence of the West in its own values and strengths. For more than sixty years schools and universities in the West have inculcated three generations of the young with moral relativism leaving them incapable of passing moral or cross-cultural judgments, and unwilling to defend those values. Post-modernism and multiculturalism have completed the destruction of the West’s self-assurance.

Another reason was the intellectual terrorism of left-wing ideologues such as Edward Said, and his highly influential book, Orientalism, that bludgeoned Western intellectuals into silence. Post–World War II Western intellectuals and leftists were consumed by guilt for the West’s colonial past and continuing colonialist present, and they wholeheartedly embraced any theory or ideology that voiced or at least seemed to voice the putatively thwarted aspirations of the peoples of the third world. Orientalism came at the precise time when anti-Western rhetoric was at its most shrill and was already being taught at Western universities, and when third-worldism was at its most popular. Jean-Paul Sartre preached that all white men were complicit in the exploitation of the third world, and that violence against Westerners was a legitimate means for colonized men to re-acquire their manhood. Said went further: “It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric” (p. 204). Not only, for Said, is every European a racist, but he must necessarily be so.

As I have argued, Western civilization has been more willing to criticize itself than any other major culture. These self-administered admonishments are a far cry from Said’s savage strictures, and yet they found a new generation ready to take them to heart. Berating and blaming the West, a fashionable game in the 1960s and 1970s that impressionable youth took seriously, had the results we now see when the same generation appears unwilling to defend the West against the greatest threat that it has faced since the Nazis.

When shown that Said is indeed a fraud, his friends and supporters in academia sidestep the criticisms and evidence, and pretend, as did several reviewers of Robert Irwin’s book on Said, that Said may indeed have got the “footling details” wrong but he was, nonetheless, onto a higher truth. Said’s influence, thus, was a result of a conjunction of several intellectual and political trends: post-French Algeria and post-Vietnam tiers mondisme (third-worldism); the politicization of increasingly postmodernist English departments that had argued away the very idea of truth, objective truth; and the influence of Foucault. In effect Said played on each of these confidence tricks to create a master fraud that bound American academics and Middle East tyrants in unstated bonds of anti- American complicity.

FP: This is a toxic combination with Islam’s supreme confidence and agenda to exploit the West’s moral weakness and cultural confusion. Your comment?

Warraq: The West must wake up to the nature of the enemy. Islam is supremely confident in its values, and, of course, convinced that these values are blessed by God, and it is the God-given duty of every Muslim to spread Islam, until it covers the entire world. This is not right-wing paranoia of Western extremists but self-confessed principles everywhere openly proclaimed by the Muslims themselves. Only the Left refuses to recognize it, and is scandalously complicit in helping Islam take over the Western world. It is no less than civilizational suicide. It is perhaps already too late as, on December 13, 2011, the White House invited the OIC within its doors to plan how best to destroy the West from within.

Read more at Front Page

 

Awareness Month for Islamophobia AKA Taqiyya Month

“Liberalism go to hell,” yet liberals are the biggest champions for Islam.

“Liberalism go to hell,” yet liberals are the biggest champions for Islam.

By  Rachel Molschky:

Everyone wants their awareness month these days, and Islam is no exception. As of 2012, Britain has declared November Islamophobia Awareness Month. This comes on the heels of Canada’s Islamic History Month in October. Studying the history of Islam’s conquests, rapes, mass murders, terrorism in general and other violence is actually quite a good idea. If only that were the focus, rather than a “celebration” of the most violent religion on earth.

According to the Muslim Council of Britain, “Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred is reaching worrying heights in Britain, across Europe and globally.” This statement is unsubstantiated. Muslim immigration to the UK is on an astronomical scale, Islam hasmade its way into the public school system, not to mention the existence of government-sponsored Muslim schools, halal food being forced upon non-Muslim British citizens, the increase in the construction of mosques and conversion of churches into mosques, the generous welfare benefits provided to Muslims, which are often abused and are draining the British economy, and the gradual removal of all things religious (such as Christmas decorations) in order to avoid offending Muslims. (The exception is any Muslim religious attire or symbols which are allowed, as Muslims belong to the only religion permitted to be openly observed, even prayers in the streets.) Where pray tell, is the hatred? British society is catering to Islam, not acting out against it.

He’s against the freedom of expression, yet there he is freely expressing himself. Photo Source

He’s against the freedom of expression, yet there he is freely expressing himself.

He’s against the freedom of expression, yet there he is freely expressing himself.

Any anti-Islamic sentiment is based on the government’s insistence of forcing Islam upon its people, displacing the native population with an economically unsustainable amount of immigrants who refuse to assimilate to any degree whatsoever, are largely out of work and living off the government, thereby providing absolutely no benefit to the nation whatsoever, and who follow a religion which teaches them to hate the very nation which has generously opened its borders and government programs to help them. In fact, the gratitude is so nonexistent, these immigrants parade around the streets demanding the law of the land to be replaced with their own laws, screaming for their rights, attempting to force their religion upon others and calling for anyone who insults them to be decapitated. Yet the police protect them, the government gives them handouts and punishes their native population for being upset about being supplanted by a group of people who are now becoming second, third and fourth generation immigrants (rather than first, second or third generation Brits because with the lack of assimilation, they remain more loyal to their ancestors’ homeland than they do to Britain or any other country in the West where they arrive), a people who follow a religion with a set of values drastically clashing with the traditional Judeo-Christian values that are the moral foundation of the native population.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

 

Rouhani’s Deceptive Negotiations: We’ve Seen This Play’s Rehearsal

Saeed Jalili

When he was Iran’s the nuclear negotiator, he bragged about how skillfully he manipulated the West to advance the program.

BY RYAN MAURO:

By striking a nuclear deal with the U.S., the Iran’s so-called “moderate” President Rouhani is hoping to take one step back so he can take two steps forward. When he was the nuclear negotiator, he bragged about how he skillfully and deceptively manipulated the West so the program could advance. We’ve already seen the rehearsal for this play.

In a September 2005 speech, Rouhani pointed to Pakistan as an example of how Iran can succeed in forcing the West to accept it as a nuclear power. His proposed strategy had three pillars:

1. Deception: “No, we have not lied … But in some cases, we may not have disclosed information in a timely manner,” Rouhani said.

2. Using diplomacy to prevent the West from having a common front, especially in the United Nations.

3. Advancing Iran’s nuclear capabilities to the point where the West accepts it as irreversible. He said, “If one day we are able to complete the [nuclear] fuel cycle, and the world sees that it has no choice … then the situation will be different.”

There is also video of Rouhani gleaming in an interview as he talks about the tremendous progress his tactics produced. He explicitly states, “We needed time.”

The current engagement with Iran is based on a misinterpretation that Islamists cannot be both pragmatic and radical. In fact, many Islamists have rational strategies in pursuit of goals that the Western mind would see as irrational.

The regime is not trying to obtain nuclear weapons capability as quickly as possible, but as smartly as possible. The Iranian regime is under immense financial stress; stress that threatens both the stability of the regime and the viability of the nuclear program.

Much like a business investment, Rouhani is betting that a freezing or even a rolling back of Iran’s nuclear program will result in profit and long-term growth. Again, it is taking one step back in order to take two steps forward.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Only a God Can Save Us Now

download (25)By David Solway:

Those of us who believe that Islam is a “religion of peace” that desires to live in harmony with the West and is comprised mainly of “moderates” who pose no danger to our way of life are living in a fool’s paradise. Despite its bloody sectarian divisions, Islam is strong, durable, belligerent and determined to impose its faith-based imperium upon an infidel world through one or another form of jihad. Violent jihad is the child of short-term thinking; stealth jihad is an expression of long-term planning. The only difference between the incendiary and the vanilla, the “extremist” and the “assimilated,” is patience, for both adhere to the tenets and commands of the Koran and the Sunnah. “Moderates,” whether they know it or not, keep the faith intact, maintaining its longevity and social status; their militant brethren profit from both the informal and official approval that “moderation” ensures, staking out the terrain in which the radicals are able to operate unhindered. As I’ve written before, moderation is the sea in which the sharks swim. (The British website Liberty GBfeatures a sober and persuasive article, “Ten Reasons Why Moderate Muslims Are Not the Answer,” which should be consulted by those who believe they are.)

A keynote speaker at the October 2013 Islamic Peace Conference in Oslo, addressing an audience of several hundred ordinary Muslim citizens, repeatedly made the point that “normal” Muslims hold to the same Koranic principles mandating abhorrent  punishments as do the “extremists,” concluding that this cultural and scriptural contiguity somehow proves that normal Muslims are not extremists. Go figure! What he actually succeeded in showing is that Islam is Islam and not the innocuous doppelgänger we ludicrously wish or assume it to be. It is from its very origins a conquering religion that has never ceased throughout its more than 1400 year history to pursue its constitutive and self-defining aims. Like the tide, it has advanced and receded many times over, but it is now poised to complete an inundation from which we in the West may not recover. And we have only ourselves to blame.

There are, broadly speaking, five categories of individuals who refuse to take the Islamic threat seriously or who claim that no such credible threat even exists, namely: (1) overt or covert sympathizers and allies; (2) those who have been bought off with fees, perquisites or substantial gifts of money or donations to a cause or institution; (3) those who feel secure and protected, imbued with a “gated community” mindset, convinced they are exempt from any possible menace (no mosque will ever be built in their neighborhoods); (4) those who have been intimidated into keeping a low profile; and (5) the indifferent or ignorant, the low information — no information majority uninterested in or oblivious to the wider issues that impinge upon the health of the culture or the well-being of society.

Such attitudes bear an uncanny resemblance to the prognosis spelled out for Western civilization in the cataclysmic vision of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West. As historian H. Stuart Hughes explained in his study of Spengler’s thought, a new “Caesarism” or tyranny will proclaim itself in our time, “while the mass of mankind will look on in bewilderment, apathy or resignation, ready to accept without question” their depressing fate. “A new primitivism will begin to pervade all human activity [and men] will be ready to believe anything,” as part of a “second religiosity” that Spengler foresees.

There is much truth in Spengler’s diagnostics. The secular religion of Communism has been superseded by the political faith of Islam, both aspects of that “second religiosity” replacing the Judeo-Christian foundation of the West. In the present time, the “new primitivism” of Islam has been embraced or accepted, consciously or passively, by a sweeping constituency of the bewildered, the resigned, the credulous — and, of course, the exploitative and the parasitical.

Owing significantly to the five categories enumerated above, it seems plausible to assume that the “clash of civilizations” in which we are now profoundly embroiled — the struggle between a far too insouciant West and the forces of supremacist Islam — will eventually be settled in favor of the latter. Barring a sudden awakening and an unlikely stiffening of resolve, the West as we have known it in recent history is probably doomed. Observing the shameful spectacle of Western politicians bending over backwards to placate their growing Muslim immigrant populations or siding with  the objectives of their leaders, to the point where an American president has salted his administration with Muslim Brotherhood operatives and has materially supported its adherents abroad; considering the successful strategy of lawfare jihad, which has in effect suborned the legal community and the judiciary, as well as bullying many writers, journalists, magazines, newspapers and TV networks into an unoffending silence; and reflecting on the vast cohort of profiteers, academics, intellectuals, members of the privileged classes, and illiterates functional or otherwise who offer no opposition to or even concretely facilitate the progress of Islam — it is hard to escape the conclusion that it is only a matter of time before Islam triumphantly asserts its hegemony over the West.

Naturally, it won’t happen overnight, but it is happening gradually and inexorably, day by day, year by year, as one bastion after another falls to Islam’s insidious predation: lawfare in the courts in which citizens and citizen groups taking issue with Islamic practices are driven into bankruptcy; major cities being carved up into no-go zones or problematic neighborhoods; universities becoming hotbeds of Islamic advocacy; the mainstream media launching itself, in Doug Giles’ apt formulation, as “21st century truth reconstructors”; race-based or two-tier policing; political parties assiduously seeking Muslim votes and political administrations civic and national, as we have seen, riddled with Islamic agents. Islam has understood that it cannot win on the battlefield, but that it can bring its millennial campaign against the West to fruition on the fields of civil society, culture, the judiciary, the media, the entertainment industry, the constabulary, the political establishment and the energy sector.

And again, as we have noted, it is aided and abetted by a miscellaneous fifth column  of fellow travelers whose posture toward Islam — whether through fear, ignorance, delusion, conciliation, profit, or liberal complacency and multicultural toleration of the intolerant — is one of supine compliance. The sequel seems foreordained. Conor Cruise O’Brien in On the Eve of the Millennium gives Western civilization 200 years before it collapses. He is probably being over-optimistic. A new poll, for example, based on exploding Muslim birth rates in conjunction with the so-called “deathbed demography” of Europe, has projected that Britain will be a majority Muslim nation by the year 2050. Indeed, the Malthusian geometric increase in Muslim immigrant populations spells the end of Europe as we know it and the victorious ascension of Eurabia. It has been estimated that France, Germany and Scandinavia are well on the way to Muslim majority status before mid-century. Even Russia faces the prospect of internal subversion, home to a restive Muslim population that constitutes 25% of the census.

Read more at PJ Media

David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books. His latest book is The Boxthorn Tree, published in December 2012.

Jihad: A harvest of bitter destruction continues to escalate

 A wounded woman is carried from the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, after the Sept. 21 attack by Islamic militants. Associated Press/Photo by Khalil Senosi


A wounded woman is carried from the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, after the Sept. 21 attack by Islamic militants.
Associated Press/Photo by Khalil Senosi

World Mag, by :

Middle East expert Mark Durie, an Anglican vicar in Australia, shares the following insights on what’s fueling the Islamic violence exploding across much of the world, including the continuing attacks against Christians in Nigeria. —Mindy Belz

This violence is the culmination of two trends. One is the Islamist revival, which in response to the perceived failure of Islam in the face of Western dominance proposed a program of ideological cleansing leading to jihad as the way back to reestablish Islamic supremacy. The other is the cowardice and denial of the West over several decades, which strategically began with the adoption by the UN and Western powers of the narrative of Palestinian victimhood while not recognizing the jihad agenda, which lay under this victim plea. Thus the West lent credibility to the jihad against Israel and is now inheriting the fruits of that jihad, morphed into a global struggle.

Islam has gone through two crises in recent centuries. The first was the military, scientific, and economic failure—the civilizational failure—of Islam and its retreat before the West, leading to. This led to the Islamist revival, which has been cooking for more than a hundred years and is now erupting all over the place in violence against the infidel, fueled by the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-infidel verses in the Quran and the Hadith. The simultaneous fruit of this revival has caused so many similar attacks at the same time—rather like a tree that bears fruit all over itself at the same time, and not one branch and then another.

This violence is not in a sense unprecedented: Such things have happened many times in the past. It is the history of Armenia, Egypt, Andalusia, and the Balkans. But what is distinctive now is that historical forces are aligning globally—the controlling mechanism being the Islamic revival—to bring different nations and societies to a similar point all at the same time.

But not all are at the same stage. Many Iranians are increasingly “post-Muslim” in their thinking. But in other places, like Egypt, the bitter fruits of the Islamic solution are being experienced as if for the first time.

The second crisis is one of doubt in Islam in the face of the patent failure of the Islamic revivalist solution. We are seeing that in the turning of Iranians to Christ. I see these present-day atrocities as the bitter fruit of a long period of denial by the West and fervent planning and activism by radical reformers. The question is, what will come to us beyond this violence? Will it lead to surrender to the forces of death and destruction—of radical Islam—or will Islam itself begin to collapse from within, as its adherents experience failure and pain rather than success? But in the meantime we are in the middle of a harvest of bitter destruction that will continue to escalate. Europe should prepare itself for millions of refugees from around the Mediterranean. We should all anticipate more and more violent attacks as the increasingly desperate and cornered beast of radical Islam tries to thrash itself out of its trajectory of failure into a season of triumph.

The challenge for Christians is to hold fast, to acknowledge the truth of what is happening: Islam is a failed ideology that is bringing only sorrow and failure to the world. We should repent and return to our core truths: the power of Christ to heal and save. And get ourselves ready to respond to the coming harvest among the Muslim world as the second crisis increasingly comes upon Muslims.

I note also that this eruption of jihad violence has exposed the futility of attempts at outreach across the Muslim-Christian divide: President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech and countless dialogue meetings, including deriving from the Common Word process and the Amman letter to the pope. What we are seeing now is a grassroots phenomenon, incubated for decades. And the worst is yet to come.

Mark is an Australian scholar, an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, and vicar of St Mary’s Anglican Church in Caulfield, Victoria, Australia. He is the author of The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom and hosts a blog on religious liberty.

 

Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?

By Victor Sharpe:

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted in his book, Gandhi: The Power of Pacifism, by Catherine Clement, as follows:

While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.

Gandhi was referring to the experience during his lifetime in the Indian sub-continent, but the growth of Wahhabism and the current resurgence in Islamic triumphalism since Gandhi’s death in January 1948 now poses an increasingly existential threat to the West, to Judeo-Christian civilization, as well as to Hindus, Buddhists, and members other faiths.

The question repeatedly posed by the talking heads on the TV networks and cable television is how and why so many Muslims, young and old, are living in the West and enjoying all the material and educational benefits bestowed upon them — and also committing hideous acts of terror and perpetrating atrocities upon innocent civilians, even against their very own neighbors.

The Times Square bombing attempt on May 1, 2010 by Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad and the 2009 Fort Hood massacre of unarmed members of the military by Major Nidal Hasan (still described by the problematic U.S. administration as “workplace violence”) are well-known.  So too is the attempt at terrorism by a Somali immigrant, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who had come to America at the age of five with his family as a refugee from the hell that is Somalia, and who attempted to kill thousands during a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.  But until the Chechen Muslim brothers succeeded in their massacre at the Boston Marathon, most terror attacks had been thwarted since the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon by the 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers, in which 3,000 people were murdered.  This time, however, the Muslim miscreants succeeded.

It was the baleful President Carter who undercut the shah of Iran, an autocrat who jailed and restricted the jihadists and Islamic groups but who was nevertheless a supporter and ally of America.  Just like President Obama, who equally undercut Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the subsequent void was quickly and gleefully filled by Islamic fundamentalists and the Muslim Brotherhood who imposed sharia law and raised the banner of Islamic supremacy.

With the shah’s fall came the Ayatollah Khomeini from his exile in France, and almost immediately Carter’s foolish act resulted in a seemingly endless and most definitely humiliating imprisonment of American Embassy staff in Tehran.  Since then Iran has fed the flames of Islamic terror around the globe, arming, and funding terror organizations such as Hamas and Hezb’allah.  Ayatollah Khomeini preached violence to ultimately conquer “the land of the infidel.”  By that he meant Israel, Christian European states and Britain, the United States, and the entire non-Muslim world.  His followers throughout the Muslim and Arab world have all endorsed the legitimacy of jihad against what they call the “enemies of Islam.”  Islamic martyrdom operations — specifically blowing up soft targets like the spectators at sporting events — are guarantees to paradise even if the victims are children.

So the answer to those talking heads in the media who endlessly ask why so many Muslims commit such atrocities can be seen both in Koranic passages and in, for instance, the sickening hate indoctrination found in the government-controlled Palestinian TV and radio broadcasts.

Here are some of the grisly passages from the Koran:

“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191

“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123

“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5

“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85

“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”… Koran 9:30

“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Koran 5:33

“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19

“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65

“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28

“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12

“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60

Read more at American Thinker

 

See also: Front Page series “Middle East Peace Process” exposing the true genocidal intent of the Arab Palestinians, Israel’s so-called “peace partners.”

Why Talk About Islam? Shouldn’t We Talk Specifically About “Extremists?”

STOP-ISLAM-INVASIONCitizen Warrior:

One of our articles, Will It Stop Terrorism To Build Schools?, received a comment and I wanted to talk about it here because the point of view of the commenter is one of the most important barriers preventing the West from successfully defending itself against Islam’s relentless encroachment.

In other words, if the issues the commenter brought up are not answered and answered well, I believe Islam will successfully Islamize the West. My answer (below) may not be complete enough, but it’s a start, and I hope others will help out by adding their points in the comments to this post. So here goes…

The commenter’s name was Ekblad. His first comment was, “Seems to me that you yourself, sir, is promoting hatred.”

My response was, “Let me get this straight, Ekblad: Because I stated a fact: ‘The primary doctrinal source of Islam, the Qur’an, teaches hatred and encourages violence against non-Muslims,’ that means I’m promoting hatred?

“Who do I recommend hatred toward? Nobody, as far as I can tell. But if you quote a statement I have made that recommends people hate somebody, please let me know so I can correct it.

“Otherwise, what I am concerned with is a particular DOCTRINE. That is, a collection of written teachings. My main message is that anyone following those teachings will be necessarily dangerous to non-Muslims, and we non-Muslims best be aware of that fact and alter our policies accordingly. I’m talking about immigration policies, sedition laws, and our policies of negotiating with anyone following those teachings. I’m talking about policies toward allowing madrassas that teach these ideas to children, and I’m talking about policies toward what is said in mosques. Read more about that here.

“Many people do not know that inside the Qur’an are passages urging hatred toward Jews and Christians, and even greater hatred for those of us who are neither, and there are Muslims around the world who take these passages seriously and follow the teachings religiously.

“Do you recommend that we infidels simply stop talking about these teachings? Do you repudiate these teachings? Which passages of the Qur’an do you reject? Let’s hear it, Ekblad.”

Read the rest of this very educational debate at Citizen Warrior. And while you’re there, check out the rest of the site. There are new flyers and pamphlets you can print out.

Islam’s Deceptive Use of Western Terminology

Islamic supremacists use language deceptively to carry out their civilization jihad. For an excellent discussion on this see the following 4 part video series”Prescribed by Sharia” by Clare Lopez and Stephen Coughlin.

Common rhetorical devices used by Muslims, what they really mean and how to counter them:

********

Islam-Speak, By: Henry Kadoch 

download (4)FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, December 09, 2008

It has become very clear that in the West, we have a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam. Its history, guiding principles, and more importantly, what it means to a Muslim when he uses certain terms.

In order to understand what Muslims mean when they use a certain word, we must remember that in their minds and cultures, certain words do not mean anything like the accepted meaning we have for them in the West.

For Muslims, the meaning of any word is very closely related to the traditional meaning of that word in the Koran and their other holy texts. Unlike most of us with the Bible, for a Muslim the Koran is not just a prayer book, it is the complete guide to his life, and the absolute guiding principle for the world, and all who reside in it, religious and political.

Because of this, we in the West are often dumbfounded by their words vs. their actions, because for us the words mean one thing, and for them they mean something entirely different. They are thus able to manipulate the uneducated listener into believing they agree, when in fact for the most part, they do not agree.

Here then, is a short guide to real meaning of certain key words, when used by a Muslim.

An Islam-speak glossary:

Peace – The state of cessation of all resistance to Islam. Peace only exists when Islam rules politically and religiously, and all Islamic principles are established as the law of the land.

Freedom – Freedom exists when Islam and its principles attain complete dominance and constitute the entirety of religious belief and political rule.

Justice – The state when Sharia law is the law of the land, and all judicial decisions are based on it and it alone. Justice exists when non-Muslims have no standing before a court, and when the testimony of two Muslim women is equal to that of one Muslim man.

Equality – Equality is achieved when Muslims are the only leaders of society, and are given their rightful place as the best of men, leading all institutions, political and religious. This does not extend to non-Muslims or apostates.

Tolerance – The state when non-Muslims are properly subdued and subservient to Muslim rule, agree to their second-class Dhimmi status, and duly pay the Jizya to their Muslim overlords.

Truth – Truth is the accepted Islamic version of events, as laid out in the Koran and the Sunna. Anything beyond that is merely hearsay, and in many cases blasphemy. (see Lies).

Democracy – The state when Islam is the absolute law and religion, and all peoples conform to Islamic law and customs. (see Freedom).

Freedom of Speech – Freedom of speech is achieved when Muslims, and only Muslims, are free to espouse their beliefs, and non-Muslims are prohibited from commenting on or criticizing anything Islamic.

Just Society – A society ruled by Muslims under Islamic law.

Koran – Allah’s final word, perfect and un-altered, superseding all others and the true and only guide for mankind in religion, law and politics.

Oppression – The rule of a state by non-Islamic law; actions of resistance to implementation of Islamic law and Muslim rule.

Racism – The state where anything Islamic or any Muslim is criticized or rejected.

Infidel – Any and all non-Muslims. Subject only to conversion, subjugation, or death under Islamic law.

Slavery – The rightful and lawful status of any infidel captured in battle against Islam.

Treaty – A non-binding and temporary agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims, valid only until such time as the Muslims have the power to achieve by force or other means what they have momentarily failed to achieve.

Lies – The act of hiding the truth, permissible by Islamic law for a Muslim when in fear for his safety or when it advances the cause of Islam.

With these definitions in mind, we will be better prepared to answer or debate a Muslim statement.

********

FromThe 4Freedoms Library: Islamic Language Glossary

By Alan Lake on October 17:

Fascist Enablers use our words with different meanings, commonly because it allows them to equivocate around pejorative terms or difficult issues.  Therefore, before you join any media discussion or public debate, you must get agreement on which definitions are being used.

See also here: http://hesperado.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/an-islamic-western-dictiona…

  • ALLAHU AKBAR: Literally means (our) “God is greater”, but is most often found used to celebrate killing or victory over, a non-Muslim, thus rendering the sense “Die, inferior scum!”
  • BIGOT (religious): This term can only be applied to non-Muslims, because, as Muslims follow the one true religion, they are entitled to treat other religions with contempt
  • CHARITY: The giving of alms to other Muslims (only)
  • CIVILIAN: a non-combatant, as long as he is also INNOCENT
  • COMPASSION: The concept of Al Wala’ Wal Bara’ (love and hate for Allahs sake) means that compassion can only be extended to those within the Ummah. (Qur’an 48.29)
  • CONSENT: also conveyed by SILENCE
  • DEFAMATION (of Religion): Defamation of Islam (only)
  • EQUALITY: The equal treatment of Muslims, apart from the special privileges and exemptions granted to them by their HUMAN RIGHTS
  • FALSE: See TRUE
  • GOOD: The concept of ‘good’ as applied in Mohammed’s time, not the modern meaning.
  • HOLY: Respected or sanctioned by Islam, no matter how criminal or violent. Also acts as a warning sign to non-Muslims, that they must show respect to it.
  • HUMAN RIGHTS:  The apartheid privileges and dispensations given to Muslims in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (as opposed to those assigned to everyone in the UDHR of the UN)
  • HYPOCRISYMeans “pretending to be a rule-following muslim, but (secretly) breaking some of the rules”.  But for a muslim to pretend to care for non-muslims is not hypocrisy, it is a form of Jihad.
  • INNOCENT: Islam prohibits the killing of innocent people, except for those who reject Muhammad’s message after it has been clearly explained. So any non-Muslim is not ‘innocent’
  • INTEGRATION: The mandatory accommodation of Islamic requirements by the host society
  • INTERFAITH DIALOGUE: a conversation agreeing to the superiority of Islam and promising to respect all religions and the sensibilities of all believers, particularly Muslims
  • ISLAMOPHOBIA: Any statement by a non-Muslim which breaks Islamic law on SLANDER & TALEBEARING
  • JIHAD: 99% of the time means violence used in the furtherance of the political ideology of Islam
  • JUSTICE: The result of the full application and enforcement of Sharia Law
  • MARRIAGE: Note that Islamic ‘marriage’ includes polygyny and excludes polyandry
  • Offence: Offence occurs when a non-Muslim breaks the Islamic law on slander.
  • OIC: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – the largest UN voting block (56 states, 1.4B people)
  • OPPRESSION (of Muslims): if you do not grant preferential treatment to Muslims, as required by Sharia Law, then you are ‘oppressing’ them.
  • PEACE:  The situation that exists in a region/world, once all non-Islamic forces have been subjugated
  • PERSECUTION: The state Muslims are in if they suffer OPPRESSION
  • QSHUT: A 4F acronym for the 5 canonical, defining, texts used by 80% or more, of Muslims
  • Racist: A non-Muslim person who criticises Islam or Muslims
  • RAPE: Is not defined simply in terms of coercive intercourse, because in many situation the man is permitted to force himself on his wife, or other captive women
  • RELIGIOUS HARMONY: A society in SOCIAL HARMONY, with no disputes between the religions, as the Infidel ones have accepted, and defer to, the superiority of Islam
  • SELF DEFENCE: Muslims can kill you in self defence if you’ve rejected an invitation to join.
  • SILENCE: Indicates consent, if you want it to, as in the case of marrying off 9 year old girls
  • SLANDER: truth that Muslims don’t want to hear
  • SOCIAL HARMONY: A society in which there are no more ‘days of rage’, because OFFENCE is no longer caused to Islam by non-Muslims, as they have learned to respect and fear it
  • TALEBEARING: Making or revealing any statement which is not of benefit to Muslims
  • TERRORISM: The killing of a Muslim without right
  • TOLERANCE:  The cessation of violence to Infidels, once they have accepted the rule of Sharia
  • TRUCE: A temporary cessation of fighting while Muslim forces re-group and re-arm. The Muslim side is permitted to break the truce at any time
  • TRUE: A factual lie by a Muslim is not considered to be a lie by them, if it falls into one of the many QSHUT exemptions permitted in order to promote Islam in the land of the Kafir.
  • UNIVERSAL (religion): Is used to mean ‘mandatory’, as opposed to ‘generally accepted’.
  • UNJUST: Technically, any failure to apply JUSTICE. More generally, any situation in which a Muslim group is not given the privileges and concessions it demands
  • WOMEN’S RIGHTS: Those rights permitted to women by men, in exchange for obedience

********

Here is another one from John GuandoloExtremism in Islam is exceeding one’s authority or ability. For instance, a few years ago when Islamic jurists contemplated labeling Osama bin Laden an “extremist” our government got giddy assuming THOSE particular Islamic jurists must be “moderates.”  In fact, Osama bin Laden’s forces were losing a lot. Since Allah never loses a jihad, the jurist argued bin Laden had exceeded his ability to succeed and was thus putting the Muslim ummah (community) at greater risk, making him an “extremist.”

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

download (3)Another good resource is 500+ Islamic Words You Should Know by Dorrie O’Brien:

“A layman’s desk reference, dictionary, and mini-encyclopedia for anyone trying to translate English words, terms, and phrases to their Islamic counterpart (primarily Arabic, but also some Farsi, Urdo, Pashto, etc.) in order to understand how Islam works. The Islamic world’s use of English words such as Truth, Justice, Peace, Treaty, Blasphemy, Slander and many more, sound like we re talking the same language, but these words, in Islamic understanding, have a different meaning and are in fact inimical to Western life, and Westerners can easily be (and consistently are) fooled by that. All kuffar (non-Muslims: people of un-belief in Allah) need to be aware and wary of this. The book explains core doctrines and documents in the ideology, such as the Qur an, Al-Fatiha (opening surah of the Qur an), Fitna (oppression), Al-Nasihk wal-Mansuhk (abrogation), Jihad, Sharia law, Mosques, Auliya (friends), and Jenseyyah, (nationality). This critical work also delves into the history of Islam up to its present status (in its Third Jihad); the Muslim Brotherhood and its presence in the U.S. as well as internationally; the Iranian NIAC, and fits it all together in a simple form by translating its language to provide a greater understanding of how it impacts the world we live in today.”

********

Stephen Coughlin explains in depth how important it is to understand the meaning of Islamic terminology in dealing with the OIC’s attempts to criminalize criticism of Islam internationally:

The Arab Spring in Europe

download (2)by Anat Berko:

It is not difficult to portray Western women as licentious whores. For Muslim men, the West has no honor whatsoever. Even if immigrants try to adopt the culture of their new countries, the cultural and religious indoctrination breeds only the rejection of all the values of the host countries. What we are witnessing is not multiculturalism; it is a violent attempt by guests to devour their hosts, along with their houses, property, culture and legacy.

In a 1996 interview, Hamas founder and leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin stated that “every Arab rule that does not rule by the law of Allah and his religion is to be rejected.” That was 17 years ago, long before the so-called Arab Spring, the terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe and the “days of rage” declared by Muslim rioters worldwide; now the breathing spaces between the attacks get shorter, and turn into years of rage.

One would expect that Muslim immigrants, whose children were born in the West, would adapt, become part of the Western society and partake of its freedom — otherwise, why did they immigrate? What we see, however, is the opposite. The beheading of a British soldier in London, and the murder of a soldier in France, are only the beginning of a wave of violence and a dictatorship of fundamentalists who will call the tune. The wave of riots and vandalism carried out by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 was just a hint at what is to come. The immigrants are brainwashed in the mosques, the madrasas [Islamic religious schools] and informal discussion groups, all of which represent the West as worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.

Western women in particular are easy prey; it is not difficult to portray them as licentious whores. Since in Muslim culture the honor of a man is dependent on the behavior of his woman (like chattel), especially when it comes to accepting the laws of modesty, chastity and sexual conduct in general, for Muslim men the West has no honor whatsoever. The face of Europe is changing rapidly, as is clear to anyone walking along a street in Paris, London or Berlin. The veiled women are immediately obvious, their hair covered by hijabs or their faces covered with niqabs; their personalities, identities, features and femininity obliterated, their freedom of movement hindered, ground under the heel of religious dictates chained to the past, despite their living in enlightened, progressive Western countries.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

What jihad has cost Americans

download (1)By Guy Rogers:

Perhaps you’ve noticed. Every time there’s a jihadist attack, whether foiled or successful, government leaders, media mouthpieces, Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, and academic apologists bend over backwards urging us not to rush to judgment.

They collectively decry “Islamophobia” and wring their hands in fear for all the Muslims who will now be persecuted by “bigoted” Americans.

It’s so predictable, it’s like watching a bad remake of the movie “Groundhog Day.”

Perhaps you’ve also noticed that the alleged bigoted wave of Muslim persecution never comes. If it did, it would be front page news all over America.

What you won’t find on the front page news is the horrific cost in lives, money, and freedom, that America specifically, and the West generally, has paid—and continues to pay—thanks to the rising tide of global Islamic jihad.

Most of us have some awareness of the cost in lives, from 9/11 to Ft. Hood to the Boston Marathon bombings.

The direct cost in dollars is tougher to calculate. Since its creation we’ve spent over $400 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost close to $1.5 trillion. Throw in the creation of the TSA; extra costs for security at every level of society; the costs for Guantanamo Bay and every prosecution of every Islamic terrorist; and I’d estimate we’re conservatively talking about $2.5 trillion since 9/11.

We’re paying that with our taxes and the national debt we’re piling on our children and grandchildren.

What’s more, as soon as a jihadist blows up something at one of our ports we’ll have to implement heightened security and screening measures not now in place. Ka-ching.

And all these costs don’t include the indirect cost in dollars due to the recession after 9/11. Hundreds of billions? Who knows? I know my IRA took a huge hit after 9/11.

But what about the intangible costs we’ve incurred? The costs in loss of freedom, rising fear, and impositions on our way of life?
  • Onerous shakedowns, pat-downs, put-downs, and invasive imaging at airport security.
  • Extra time we have to allow to go through long security lines at airports.
  • Watching the TSA agent throw away your expensive bottle of perfume you forgot was in your carry-on bag.
  • Explosion of public surveillance cameras.
  • Extra time we have to allow when attending any public event where security is considered necessary (such as sporting events).
  • Fear of going to public events.
  • That knot in our stomachs when we see an abandoned backpack in a public place.
  • The time law enforcement has to spend preventing terrorism and tracking down terrorists—time that takes them away from keeping us safe from murderers, rapists, thieves and vandals.
  • Bag searches at theme parks like Disney World.
  • Endless intimidation tactics, such as the persecution of free speech, name calling and threats (“Islamophobe,” “racist,” “bigot,” etc., etc.). I’m thinking of that wonderful teacher in Concrete, Washington, whose reputation has been smeared by CAIR-Washington because she dared to tell the truth about the Taliban and Hamas.
  • Government intimidation, such as reported instances where government agents (e.g., police), have shown up at people’s homes to question them after complaints of “Islamophobia.” I wonder how many burglaries occurred while those police were busy interrogating innocent people?
  • Messing with the minds of our children and grandchildren thanks to biased and inaccurate public school textbooks.
  • Heightened security precautions for every person or organization that speaks out against the threat of radical Islam. For instance, some of our chapter leaders use pen names. Brigitte Gabriel has been the target of death threats.
  • Government surveillance of our websites and blog sites.
  • The NSA (National Security Agency) collecting phone records nationwide. The justification for this, and it’s understandable even if disconcerting, is the terrorist threat to our national security. No terrorist threat, no phone records seizure.
  • Banking and financial regulations that impose often unseen burdens on our ability to engage in financial transactions. One group of nuns actually had their bank account frozen because they were suspected of terrorism. Why? One of the nuns didn’t have her Social Security number and photo ID on the account!
In short, the entire fabric of American society has been dramatically altered by the rising tide of global Islamic jihad. There is no aspect of our lives that hasn’t been negatively impacted by this. We have less privacy, less freedom, more cost, more fear—the inevitable consequence of jihadist terror.

And the jihadists know this. They know their actions are negatively impacting our lives. It’s part of their strategy to break our will.

I’m not saying Islamic jihad is the only threat that has spawned all of these changes to our lives. But clearly, it’s the most predominant, by far.

As I assess the incredible price we’re paying for jihad, I’ve grown weary of hearing how Muslims are being inconvenienced or feel uncomfortable or feel like their rights are being infringed upon.

Join the club. Every time I have to virtually undress at the airport, I feel violated and my rights infringed upon.

I’ve lost patience with the complaining about how bad Muslims are being treated in America, about the price they’re paying.

We’re ALL paying a price. Where’s the sympathy and empathy for us non-Muslims who didn’t ask for this?

To the degree that Muslims are suffering repercussions, they’re paying a price for the actions of other Muslims. If they really want things to change, they can do something about it by going to the heart of the problem and standing up to the stealth and violent jihadists in their midst, including their leaders.

  • Stop screaming “Islamophobia” and start exposing all the hate-filled, violent and jihadist literature in the majority of mosques in America.
  • Join together with reformist Muslims and organizations who are confronting the Muslim Brotherhood and its alphabet soup of legacy organizations in America (CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MPAC, MSA, IIIT, NAIT, etc., etc., etc.).
  • Start asking why historically open and tolerant countries like the Netherlands, who welcomed Muslim immigration for decades, are now experiencing a growing citizen pushback against that immigration.
  • Start putting yourselves in the shoes of us non-Muslims. We’re paying a hefty price for something we didn’t ask for and we didn’t deserve.

And please, no more lectures about how supposedly “intolerant” Americans are. It’s a remarkable commentary on the goodness and tolerance of Americans when you consider the enormous price we’ve paid thanks to jihad, which we’ve shouldered virtually without retaliation against the Muslim community.

So the next time someone complains to you about the price Muslims are paying, however that price is defined, nod your head and say “I hear you. Have you ever calculated the price non-Muslims are paying because of global Islamic jihad?”

And then spell it out for them.

Who knows? You might change a few minds along the way.

 

 

U.S. Praises Sharia Censorship

2012-634807128700938005-93By Deborah Weiss:

The United States is silent as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) passes its most recent UN Resolution that unravels global consensus to support freedom of speech.

From 1999-2010, the OIC succeeded in passing its “defamations of religions” resolutions, which ostensibly would protect Islam from all criticism, including true statements of fact.  Though the name of the resolutions indicated that it would pertain to all religions equally, in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied to Islam only.

Realizing the clash that this concept holds with that of free expression, the US State Department urged the OIC to produce an alternative resolution which would address the OIC’s concerns about “Islamophobia” and still protect free speech.

Accordingly, in March 2011, the OIC introduced the now infamous Resolution 16/18 to combat intolerance based on religion or belief, purportedly proposed as a replacement for the defamation of religions resolution.  It garnered wide-spread support and Western states touted it as a victory for free speech.  They believed that its focus marked a landmark shift from suppression of speech critical of religions to combating discrimination and violence against individuals based on their religious beliefs.

Over time it became clear that the OIC retained its long term goal to protect Islam from “defamation” and indeed to criminalize all speech that shed a negative light on Islam or Muslims.  Resolution 16/18 turned out to be a tactical move by the OIC to bring the West one step closer toward realizing its goal of achieving global blasphemy laws, by using language more palatable to the West, and open to interpretation.

Against this backdrop the US held the first conference to “implement” Resolution 16/18, the process now known as the “Istanbul Process.”

Unfortunately, America’s concern for the protection of free speech seems to have gotten lost as its focus moved closer to the OIC’s positions, and an emphasis was placed on protecting Muslims in the West from “Islamophobia.”

Some circles including free speech advocates, national security experts, and those concerned about the Persecuted Church, have beaten the drum against Resolution 16/18 and the continuation of the Istanbul Process.  Their efforts have been to no avail as the Istanbul Process continues.

However, while awareness of the perils of Resolution 16/18 is on the increase, news on Resolution A/HRC/22/L.40 has gone virtually unreported.  It retains the same title as Resolution 16/18, but has glaringly dangerous amendments.

To focus on just one, it asserts that “terrorism…cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group.”  This is obviously problematic.  The lumping together of these categories implies a false equation of immutable characteristics such as nationality and ethnicity with those that are subject to choice such as religion or belief.

Religions and belief systems come in all stripes.  To preclude the possibility that any of them might be ideologically associated with terrorism leads to a position based on an unexplored assumption rather than a conclusion based on fact.  Indeed, the assertion condemns the mere exploration of the facts a priori, a notion which is not only illogical but dangerous.

Read more at Front Page

 

London Woolwich’s Jihadi Butchers: Their Non-Spontaneous Words Matter

images (59)by DR. WALID PHARES:

The savage slaughtering of a British soldier on the streets of Woolwich, England is not a common random crime; it is an act of terror, an expression of relentless war that is inspired by a Jihadist ideology and sponsored by an international network of Salafist indoctrination.

The reason we are making this assertion hours after the killing is not to simply repeat what we have underscored in reports on similarly-inspired bloody attacks in the West in recent years. Rather, it is to prevent disorienting a shocked public by propaganda being diffused by apologists spreading intellectual chaos, covering up for the real culprit, and confusing audiences in Great Britain and around the world with irrelevant arguments.

We will hear some pushing the argument of root causes being the Western presence in Muslim lands. The two assassins made sure to shout their “political motives” and the cri de guerre, “Allahu Akbar,” in a determined way. They said their actions were in response to Western occupation of Muslim lands. That is the same excuse that was repeatedly given by Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda Jihadists in the 1990s, and increasingly since 2001. The two perpetrators are British citizens, but they act as citizens of the “umma” in defense of an emerging Caliphate. They do not speak on behalf of a community; they speak on behalf of a movement that claims to speak on behalf of a community. In short, they are Jihadists, regardless of whether they are rank and file al Qaeda or not. They are part of a movement solidly anchored in a doctrine, whether they act as individuals, a pair, or two commandos dispatched by a larger group.

The attackers spoke openly to witnesses on the street where they committed their treachery and spoke with predetermined certainly, not spontaneity. “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. We must fight them (the infidels-kuffar) as they fight us.” These words matter, not because of their content alone, but because they come from the Salafi Jihadi dictionary used by committed operatives, fighters and killers around the world. In his letter to the American people Osama bin Laden said, “It is commanded by our religion and doctrine that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.” The commander of al Qaeda and his successor and other Jihadi leaders around the world, have consistently used the expression “as long as we won’t have our security, you won’t have yours.”

Translated strategically, the proposition means that as long as the enemies of the Jihadists are obstructing the rise of a Caliphate, a Taliban-style empire to cover one fifth of the Planet for starters, all those who resist are enemies and will be treated with the full force of militants continually produced by pools of indoctrination.

The Woolwich butchers had no personal quarrel with the UK soldier they hacked to death with medieval weapons. They had no mandate from the Afghani people to commit bloodshed in Great Britain as a way of provoking a withdrawal. The mandate the two terrorists acted upon was from a standing, growing, creeping political ideology with a name, Salafi Jihadism (al Salafiya al Jihadiya).

Read more: Family Security Matters

Related articles

Jihad in America

ll

Front Page:

Editor’s note: Frontpage is proud to announce that our Shillman Journalism Fellow, Mark Tapson, co-wrote this documentary.

On the bright, beautiful, and crisp fall day that was early morning, September 11, 2001, few Americans were familiar with stealth jihad, or considered Islamic terrorism a threat to America.  Yet, there was a voice crying in the wilderness, warning of a danger that already existed here.  That voice belonged to Steven Emerson, whose documentary film titled Jihad in America was aired by PBS on November 21, 1994.  Islamic militant groups in America, including CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) began their protestations and intimidation even before the broadcast date.  Since the airing, the use of intimidation has been ramped up and gone global, having a stifling impact on terrorism/jihad-related broadcasts in the mainstream media throughout the Western world. This oppressive atmosphere has affected the conduct of Western governments, including the Obama administration.

Emerson’s newly released Jihad in America: The Grand Deception is a must-watch documentary — an educational tool for Americans to learn about the network of stealth Islamist jihadists in the U.S. that has grown in the aftermath of 9/11.  The fact that evil lurks just under the surface in America (brought to life last month at the Boston Marathon) seems to be difficult to acknowledge, yet ignoring it is at our peril.  Unfortunately, Americans have a short memory span, and most prefer to turn away from unpleasant realities, especially in the Obama Age.  Hence, all the more reason to circulate information about this essential documentary.

The 70-minute documentary by Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) deals with the covert structure and growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimun) and other such radical Muslim groups, masquerading under the deceitful moniker of apolitical religious groups, as well as civil rights groups in the U.S. This IPT documentary reveals how the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has infiltrated the highest institutions of the land, including the Obama White House, the U.S. Congress, U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security, Hollywood, the mainstream media, law enforcement in various states, the publishing industry and American museums.  The film not only presents examples of MB infiltration, but reveals how the MB and its affiliates intimidate policymakers to submit to their demands by their use of our open democracy to undermine our institutions, all of which is done to further their quest for global rule under Sharia law.

This film includes previously unseen interviews with articulate and most courageous Muslim individuals, former FBI agents and federal prosecutors, a prominent Hollywood director, journalists, as well as a top official of the Muslim Brotherhood.  This documentary features secretly recorded audio and video speeches of radical Islamists, including individual preachers and groups, original MB documents, and unsealed federal documents.

In an interview Steven Emerson had with Lou Dobbs of Fox News on January 21, 2013, the host introduced The Grand Deception as follows: “Our guest [Steven Emerson] says that the ‘Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist off shoots are hiding in plain sight right here in the U.S.’”  What followed is Emerson’s explanation of the documentary title. “A group of Muslim Brotherhood activists secretly got together in Philadelphia in 1993 in a meeting that was actually wiretapped [the wiretaps have since been declassified] by the FBI.  They [the MB activists] openly talked about deception as the primary campaign tactic that they would use to change the image of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. by creating new front groups, by changing the terminology, and by claiming they were against terrorism publicly, but in fact raising funds for Hamas privately. The word deception is the word that I used in the title because that is exactly what is going on throughout the country with these radical Islamic groups.”

One of the radical Islamists the documentary presents is a Brooklyn, NY-based Imam named Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who, according to Emerson, had been invited in 1991 to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress (the first Muslim to so) and would subsequently be recorded saying about the U.S., “You know what this country is? It is a garbage can, it is filthy and sick.” The film also points out that this anti-American, hate-spewing Imam, was invited to appear at anti-terrorism conferences and was paid by the U.S. government.

Muslim Brotherhood victories in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya have provided encouragement for the hundreds of MB cells worldwide, including those in the U.S.

The film shows Attorney General Eric Holder undergoing congressional drilling in 2010 from Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on how he refused to acknowledge the role of radical Muslims in terrorism on American soil and refused to use the words “radical Muslim” or “Muslim.”

In another frame of the film, Dr. Mamoun Fandy, an Egyptian-born American scholar, President of the Fandy Associates think tank and a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, declared that the MB is the “mother” of all radical Muslim groups.  He pointed out that “instead of isolating the MB, the West and the U.S. [especially under President Obama] have engaged them and regarded them as “moderate.” According to Fandy, the West was tremendously naïveabout the nature and intentions of the MB.  According to Emerson (in conversation with this writer), Fandy was let go by Georgetown University because of his views on the MB.

The film records the spiritual leader of the MB, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, speaking to a Muslim audience in Toledo, OH and revealing the goals of the MB.  “We will conquer Europe and we will conquer America for Islam through religious proselytization” (dawa in Arabic). MB documents captured by the FBI in 1991 further reveal this insidious plan by the MB to conquer America for Islam.  It includes increased immigration and settlement as part of the MB’s plot of stealth Jihad, just as they have done in Europe.  Their aim is to destroy Western civilization from within by destabilizing “their miserable house,” and replacing it with God’s religion — Islam.

Read more at Front Page

Online Jihadi Publications Luring Teens

The cover of the spring 2013 edition Al-Qaeda's slick, English online 'Inspire' magazine.

The cover of the spring 2013 edition Al-Qaeda’s slick, English online ‘Inspire’ magazine.

The Clarion Project:

Radical Islamists around the world have been reacting online to the bomb attacks that struck the Boston Marathon last month.

Since America intensified its counterterrorism efforts against al-Qaeda over the last several years, the terrorist group’s leaders have called on their followers in the United States to carry out smaller-scale attacks while at the same time providing online education and teach them how to carry them out.

According to Shiraz Maher of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization, the bombings at the Boston Marathon not only caught U.S. intelligence services by surprise, but debate raged onjihadist websites over the motivations and its implications.

“In the most generic and broadest sense, there was a sense of celebration on the jihadi forums. These guys are committed jihadists. They hate the United States and the West,” Maher said.

Terror analyst Raffaello Pantucci of the Royal United Services Institute says al-Qaeda cells are encouraging radicalized individuals in the West through the internet. Al-Qaeda has developed a new tactic which essentially teaches that even if it cannot take lives directly, it wants to inflict economic and financial losses on the United States and the West generally.

This is “Open-source jihad as they call it, in which individuals are very much empowered or the emphasis is on them to launch attacks where they can on targets that they specifically identify using materials on hand,” Pantucci said.

Read more