The Jihad On Free Speech


Islamofascism: Islamists have launched a hostile takeover of American  language through an increasingly aggressive and organized censorship campaign  that threatens free speech.

Over the past few weeks, there have been an alarming number of cases of  Muslim pressure groups trying to force Americans to conform to a pro-Islamic  speech code.

They’ve insisted on censoring any speech or expression that offends them,  including TV ads, Christian symbols, speeches and even parts of speech.

In some cases, the targets of their wrath have caved in to their demands.

•  Last week, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester, Mass., canceled a talk  on Islam by author Robert Spencer after local Muslim groups, egged on by  Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, enlisted a sympathetic  Boston Globe reporter to smear Spencer as a “bigot.”

“We applaud the diocese’s decision,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper  gloated.

•  Last month, Hooper penned a column demanding the Associated Press drop  from its new Stylebook the word “Islamist” to describe militant Muslims who  support jihad and Islamizing the West, such as members of the Muslim Brotherhood  and CAIR itself. He doesn’t like the “pejorative” ring to it, accurate as it  is.

CAIR already got the U.S. government to scrub the term. Now it’s bullying the  press not to use it.

•  CAIR at the same time is running ads on buses in Chicago and San Francisco  redefining the term jihad. The whitewash campaign, dubbed “MyJihad,” aims to  convince Americans that jihad merely means “to struggle,” not wage war.

•  Speaking of ads, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the  Muslim Institute for Interfaith Studies joined forces last week to condemn as  “racist” a light-hearted Super Bowl commercial featuring an Arab walking through  a desert with a camel. Coca-Cola dropped everything and consulted with the  groups on bended knee.

“We did express regret that the ad had been misunderstood,” Coke said.

•  Islamist groups like CAIR are feverishly trying to insert their own word  “Islamophobia” — into the popular lexicon. They use this term, ad nauseam, to  describe anyone who speaks critically of the violent nature of Islam.

•  Recently they petitioned the United Nations to take action to limit free  speech when it’s deemed offensive to Muslims, citing a “striking increase in  Islamophobia.” They hope to one day criminalize it, and they’re inching closer  and closer to that goal.

•  Swayed by such international pressure, the Pentagon last month ordered  crosses and other Christian symbols removed from military chapels where our  soldiers pray in Afghanistan. Why? They insult the local Muslims.

Crescent moons and other Islamic symbols are perfectly fine, however, and  will remain at the mosques the U.S. has erected on those same bases for Afghan  interpreters and security trainees.

Here’s what’s really outrageous about this trend: In many cases, the Muslims  demanding greater respect for Islam are the very reason it gets such a bad  rap.

Some of the same Islamic groups arguing that their religious rights supercede  everyone else’s free-speech rights have actually been read their rights as  terrorist suspects.

Several former officials of CAIR, for example, now sit in prison on  terror-related convictions.

And the Justice Department has ID’d its founder and the entire organization  itself as unindicted terrorist co-conspirators, after linking them to both the  terrorist group Hamas and the radical Brotherhood in the largest terror-finance  case in U.S. history.

Unless Americans want to live under de facto blasphemy laws, they’d better  start standing up to these Islamofascists.


Turkey: Artists, Free Press Under Fire

Turkish PM Erdogan greets Syrian refugees with his wife Emine on the Turkish/ Syrian border near Akcakale. (Photo: Reuters)

Turkish PM Erdogan greets Syrian refugees with his wife Emine on the Turkish/ Syrian border near Akcakale. (Photo: Reuters)

by: Abigail R. Esman

Islamofascism, a controversial buzzword among the pundits and commentators since the attacks of 9/11. The term poses any number of questions, particularly for governments of Muslim countries: Is Political Islam a fascist ideology? Can Islam coexist with democracy? What is the difference between Nationalism and Islamism in an Islamic state?

These are precisely the issues that now rear their heads in the face of a series of arrests, lawsuits, and most recently, allegations of a state-sponsored assassination in Turkey over the past several months, and which have captured the attentions not only of the international media, but of human rights organizations worldwide.

Fazil Say

Fazil Say

Moves that elicit accusations of Islamism and fascist dictatorships are not new to the governing style of Turkey’s current government, led by the Islamist AKP, or Freedom and Development party.   Ongoing imprisonment of journalists, coupled with the arrest of world renowned pianist/composer Fazil Say last April on charges of insulting Islam, as well as the filing of charges earlier this month against the Turkish chapter of PEN for their defense of Mr. Say and “denigration of the state,” have particularly alarmed human rights activists abroad and pro democracy advocates at home.The charges against Say were brought after the 42-year-old musician joked on Twitter about a call to prayer lasting less than a minute. Sending out the message to his thousands of subscribers, the openly atheist Say wrote, “Why such haste? Have you got a mistress waiting or a raki on the table?”

Fundamentalist Muslims were not amused. The references to a mistress and to raki, an alcoholic drink, were inappropriate and insulting, they said, leading prosecutors to charge him with “public enmity” and “denigration of Islam.” If found guilty when his case comes to trial next month, Say could face a prison term of 18 months.

But the joke was not Say’s only misdeed.  Charges were also brought against him for another tweet, in which he quoted Omar Khayyam: “You say rivers of wine flow in heaven, is heaven a tavern for you? You say two houris [virgins] await each believer there, is heaven a brothel to you?”

What is significant about this is that Say’s tweet was, in fact, a “retweet” – the reposting of a twitter comment someone else had initiated. Moreover, hundreds, if not thousands, of others had also tweeted the same text.  Why, then, was Say singled out?

The case made headlines worldwide.  In an interview with Newsweek last June, Say defended himself, saying, “I did not insult Islam. I just retweeted a verse that I thought was funny. One hundred and 65 others retweeted that verse the same night, but I am the only one being tried.”

Neither Say and nor his manager responded to my requests for further comment on the case. It is said that he is no longer speaking to the press on this issue – an understandable position, if true.

But supporters of the 42-year-old pianist – who has performed with the New York Philharmonic, among others – continue to speak out. In June, the Turkish chapter of PEN issued a statement condemning the prosecution of Say: “The international community has been put on alert in the face of fascist developments in Turkey,”

Read more at Radical Islam

Abigail R. Esman, an award-winning writer based in New York and the Netherlands, is the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West

Future Vice President Paul Ryan on Islamic Fascism

by Doctor Bulldog:

There certainly has been a plethora of articles coming out about Mittler R’omni’s VP pick, Paul Ryan.  However, I have yet to find one which addresses Congressman Ryan’s views on Islam.

Since I am very much interested in how he views Islam, I spent some time digging around and have settled upon an item he wrote back in 2006 concerning the phrase “Islamic Fascism.” 

The article gives one of the most comprehensive overviews of his mindset concerning Islam.

Although he, like Bush, Jr., is fatuously under the mistaken assumption that Islam has been hijacked by Islamic radicals, he certainly won’t be supporting the current regime’s politically correct blackout concerning the use of any terms which might describe the enemy as being Islamic:

Defining the Threat We Face by Congressman Paul Ryan – via RyanForCongress

A debate has been raging about what to call our enemy – the terrorists and radical Muslim leaders who have committed themselves to bringing death and destruction to America, Israel, and allied democracies. President Bush has used the term “Islamic fascists” to describe the threat we face, while Senator Feingold argues that phrase is offensive and misleading. While I respect Russ and consider him a friend, I strongly disagree with his premise.

Words matter, especially when defining the multifaceted enemy that extends beyond national boundaries and operates as a network of jihadists waging war on the West. If we can’t even define what we are fighting against, how are we ever going to win? For this reason, we must strive to use the most accurate term – not necessarily the most politically correct one.

“Islamic fascism” expresses the essence of the violent, extremist, religion-driven movement that confronts us. Both words apply, but they must be used together in order to convey the proper meaning and make the crucial distinction between peaceful Muslims and the murderous extremists of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and similar groups that distort Islam and seek to dominate or destroy those who disagree with them.

Although the term “fascist” has often been misused, carelessly or consciously, the traditional understanding of fascism as exemplified by Mussolini’s Italy, Nazi Germany, and Franco’s Spain is a governing philosophy that is totalitarian, imperialistic, and militaristic. Fascism rejects the governing system and modern society, is hierarchical, and pursues the subordination of the individual. It’s also fueled by racism, anti-Semitism, and resentment kindled by defeats or perceived loss of power.

Stephen Morris, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, has written that fascism “refers to a revolutionary political mass movement or regime that aims to achieve national greatness by radically transforming political and social life with totalitarian rule and by a policy of imperial expansion. Fascist ideology is reactionary in that it aspires to re-create a mythical past.”

Those who lived in Afghanistan under the Taliban and those who experienced pre- and post-revolutionary Iran can testify to the radical transformation that occurs under such regimes, as well as the loss of personal freedom.

Although it is admittedly not a perfect comparison with past fascist regimes, today we can see in al Qaeda’s brutal actions and revealing statements the militancy; disregard for individual life, liberty, and established law; and appeal for the restoration of lost greatness that are characteristic of fascism. A statement by al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri on the war in Lebanon, posted this summer on a jihadist website, notes that: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a cease-fire agreement, Sykes-Picot borders, national zeal, or disputed borders. It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is a jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq. The whole world is an open field for us.”

In this declaration and others by radical Muslim groups we can see that we are dealing with a strain of fascism based on an explicitly religious ideology. This sets it apart from what we have observed in the past, where fascist regimes were rooted in nationalism rather than religion.

Whereas the old fascism glorified the state above all and directed its imperial drive toward increasing the state’s domain, the new variation seeks to confront and dominate those who don’t believe in its warped interpretation of Islam. In contrast to what we perceive as traditional fascist movements, its adherents work to establish an Islamic caliphate, rather than a primarily secular empire. This is why the modifier “Islamic” is necessary if we wish to be accurate.

“Islamic fascism” underscores that the militants’ ideology is explicitly religious, but it does not encompass most Muslims and should not be viewed as an indictment of their religion. Just as the term “Christian socialist” does not suggest that a majority of Christians embrace left-wing economic positions, the expression “Islamic fascist” doesn’t imply that most Muslims condone the extremist agenda of al Qaeda, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, or other reactionaries. In fact, the twisted portrayal of Islam that these radicals communicate to the world constitutes the true insult to faithful Muslims who respect life and cherish peace.

Despite this, a legitimate debate may occur over whether this particular nomenclature is good strategy. Some argue that the label could intensify misunderstanding of our goals in the Islamic world or estrange moderates. Some prefer Islamofascism or jihadist fascism. Nevertheless, this is a point of disagreement over the tactical value of the term, not a question of its accuracy or aptness.

I believe that failure to properly identify the enemy and grasp the magnitude of the threat posed by Islamic fascists will hinder our ability to defend ourselves. It will also hurt the cause of moderate Islamic nations striving for greater openness and democratization, including the emerging representative government in Iraq. These are militant Islam’s other targets, and we must make clear that we stand together with their peaceful citizens in defense of freedom – including the freedom to worship as a Sunni, Shi’a, Jew or Christian.

Islamofascism And The War on Nigeria’s Christians



Islamofascism: Scores of Christians attending Catholic mass in Nigerian churches were slaughtered in their pews by massive bomb blasts on Christmas Day. While decried as “un-Islamic,” a frightening number of Muslims believe the bombings are justified.

The year that began with a New Year’s attack on an Egyptian Coptic Christian Church that killed 21 worshippers is ending with attacks on two Nigerian churches that killed 35 and injured at least 57.

While such attacks are officially condemned, they are part of a campaign of violence and suicide bombings for which 34% of Nigerian respondents in a Pew Global Attitudes Project poll last year expressed support.

The first explosion occurred Sunday as Christmas service was ending at St. Theresa’s Church in Madalla near the Nigerian capital of Abuja. Some 35 people were murdered and 57 injured in the attack for which a radical Muslim sect known as Boko Haram, which translates to “Western education is a sin,” claimed responsibility.

Another blast occurred at a church in the central city of Jos, where last year at least 32 people were killed and more than 70 wounded in three bombings targeting Christian areas on Christmas Eve.

Jos is located roughly on the divide between Muslim north and Christian south. Sharia law was introduced in 12 northern states, where most Nigerian Muslims live, a decade ago.

Boko Haram is reported to have links to Somalia’s al-Shabaab and to al-Qaida’s North Africa affiliate, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Pew’s 2010 poll found 49% of Nigerian Muslim respondents viewed al-Qaida favorably.

Nigerian Islamic scholar Sheikh Muhammad Isa told the News Agency of Nigeria that the attackers were not adherents of any faith, while Alhaji Quasim Badrudeen of the Muslim Students Society in Lagos described the attacks as “unfortunate and un-Islamic.”

“Un-Islamic” they may be, but they are part of a systematic campaign of violence and hatred against anything Christian and Western by Islamofascists that include the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, the attacks on Danish cartoonists for merely depicting an image of the prophet Mohammed, and the prosecution of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who dared to speak his mind about militant Islam and immigration and the threats he felt both posed to his country and democracy at large.

Mark Steyn, whose words often grace these pages, felt Wilders’ pain in 2008 when the columnist went on trial for “Islamophobia” in Canada. Like Wilders, this consisted largely of quoting Muslim speakers verbatim and drawing some obvious conclusions.

These latest violent attacks on Christian churches in Nigeria mirror the Oct. 31 onslaught on Our Lady of Salvation in Baghdad in which 68 people were murdered. The Islamic State of Iraq, another al-Qaida linked group, took credit for that attack and vowed a campaign of violence against Christians wherever they are.

The Iraqi church bombing was followed by a series of targeted attacks on Christian homes by bombers who clearly knew every Christian address. Many Iraqi Christians are fleeing northward to Kurdish areas while seeking asylum in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In a terrorist attack one minute after midnight last January, 21 Christians attending a New Year’s Mass were killed, and 97 people, mostly Christians, were injured after a car bomb detonated outside a Coptic Christian church in the Egyptian port city of Alexandria.

If this is yet another example of the hijacking of a religion of peace and tolerance, not everyone apparently got the memo.

Christians from Iraq to Egypt to Nigeria, as well as their Christian brethren worldwide, want to know when someone in authority will say “let’s roll” and wrest control from the hijackers.