The Islamintern Meets in Chicago Tonight

The Islamintern Meets in Chicago Tonight

Andrew G. Bostom

At 7 PM Central Time this evening (9/28/10) in Chicago, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of Turkey will deliver a keynote speech opening a conference at the American Islamic College, entitled, “The Role of the OIC and The scope for its relations with American Muslims.” Bat Ye’or’s recent American Thinker essay highlighted the OIC’s agenda — consistent with the historical jihad imperative — global Islamization, or in modern parlance, totalitarian hegemony.
A 1954 Diogenes — lamp in hand, in broad daylight, searching for an honest assessment of Islamic totalitarianism — would have been uncharacteristically rewarded had he read Bernard Lewis’ essay, “Communism and Islam.” [International Affairs,Vol. 30, No. 1(Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12] Currently, however, in his twilight years, Professor Lewis’ apologetics on Islam (discussed here, here, and here) are but a simulacrum of the uncompromised views he recorded over 56 years ago. Alas, Professor Lewis’ “transition” is profoundly disappointing, and would only confirm the classical cynicism of a Diogenes, circa 2010.
But as the “Islamintern”/OIC holds forth in Chicago this week. We must share and preserve for posterity these timeless, intellectually honest insights on the totalitarian nature of Islam Professor Lewis published in his prime, during January, 1954:
I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition…. Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical-attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both. This sort of argument expresses a need of the up- rooted Muslim intellectual who is no longer satisfied with or capable of understanding traditional Islamic values, and who tries to justify, or rather, re-state, his inherited faith in terms of the fashionable ideology of the day. It is an example of the romantic and apologetic presentation of Islam that is a recognized phase in the reaction of Muslim thought to the impact of the West…. In point of fact, except for the early caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective, the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy…[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law. In the great days of classical Islam this duty was only owed to the lawfully appointed caliph, as God’s vicegerent on earth and head of the theocratic community, and then only for as long as he upheld the law; but with the decline of the caliphate and the growth of military dictatorship, Muslim jurists and theologians accommodated their teachings to the changed situation and extended the religious duty of obedience to any effective authority, however impious, however barbarous. For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as “tyranny is better than anarchy” and “whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent.”
…Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as “There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet!” was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy-might well strike a responsive note.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/the_islamintern_meets_in_chica.html at September 28, 2010 – 07:00:17 PM CDT

Advertisements

Texas warns book publishers: ‘No more white-washing Islam’

Texas warns book publishers: ‘No more white-washing Islam’

State board adopts resolution calling for fairness regarding world’s religions


Posted: September 24, 2010
5:30 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The elected Board of Education in the state of Texas today adopted a resolution that warns textbook publishers to be careful and provide fair treatment of the world’s religions – or face being snubbed by the state that buys more textbooks than any other.

The resolution was introduced by former Texas school board member Randy Rives and states very simply: “Resolved, That the SBOE will look to reject future prejudicial social studies submissions that continue to offend Texas law with respect to treatment of the world’s major religious groups by significant inequalities of coverage space-wise and/or by demonizing or lionizing one or more of them over others.”

The resolution, adopted on a 7-6 vote, confirms that “pro-Islamic/anti-Christian half-truths, selective disinformation, and false editorial stereotypes still roil some social studies textbooks nationwide,” including some “politically correct whitewashes of Islamic culture and stigmas on Christian civilization.”

Read the real wording of the Declaration of Independence and the story behind America’s founding document in Rod Gragg’s “The Declaration of Independence.”

The resolution included pages of footnotes documenting the specific offenses discovered in various textbooks including “patterns of pejoratives toward Christians and superlatives toward Muslims, calling Crusaders aggressors, ‘violent attackers,’ or ‘invaders’ while euphemizing Muslim conquest of Christian lands as ‘migrations’ by ’empire builders.'”

Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs for Liberty Institute, told WND the vote “sends a strong message that Texas state board members, and really speaking on behalf of the people they represent, care about keeping textbooks accurate.

“They are against religious discrimination. That sends a message,” he said.

Publishers, he said, “will have to live up to standards.”

He said the board, whose members are elected by voters, are serving their responsibility to be a “check” on the products being used in the state’s schools.

The resolution discusses world history textbooks officially adopted for use in Texas between 1999-2002, which may still be in some classrooms. The resolution also discusses textbooks used in other parts of the country. In Texas, world history textbooks are used at the high school level.

The resolution pointed out grounds for board concerns, “In one instance, devoting 120 student text lines to Christian beliefs, practices, and holy writings but 248 (more than twice as many) to those of Islam; and dwelling for 27 student text lines on Crusaders’ massacre of Muslims at Jerusalem in 1099 yet censoring Muslims’ massacres of Christians there in 1244 and at Antioch in 1268, implying that Christian brutality and Muslim loss of life are significant but Islamic cruelty and Christian deaths are not.”

Another situation has book authors “spending 139 student text lines on Christian beliefs, practices, and holy writings but 176 on those of Islam; claiming Islam ‘brought untold wealth to thousands and a better life to millions,’ while ‘because of [Europeans’ Christian] religious zeal … many peoples died and many civilizations were destroyed;’ and contrasting ‘the Muslim concern for cleanliness’ with Swedes in Russia who were ‘the filthiest of God’s creatures.'”

The resolution noted the state’s law requires reinforcement of “the basic democratic values of our state and national heritage,” along with the requirement that “no instructional material may be adopted that contains content that clearly conflicts with the stated purpose of the Texas Education Code.”

One book that was examined was “World History, Patterns of Interaction” published by McDougal. The footnotes noted that it has been reported that the Dubai royal family was a “major shareholder” in the Education Media and Publishing Group, which controls textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

“We’re just trying to protect the school children of Texas,” Rives told WND in preparation for the vote. “We have documented that in the past there was some pro-Islamic and anti-Christian literature in some of our textbooks. We want to put textbook companies on notice that if this happens again, it can cause your textbooks to be rejected.”

Rives also noted the prominent national role Texas plays in textbook disputes.

“We are the largest buyer of textbooks in the United States, and publishers like to try to get others states to accept the same version [we use]. What we do in Texas influences the rest of the nation and we need to take that seriously, and make sure an agenda isn’t pushed through the textbooks.”

Rives told Alana Goodman of the Alexandria, Va.-based Culture and Media Institute, “In the social studies books we need to make sure that our democratic values are depicted and that’s not just my opinion, that’s what the Texas education code says.”

Much to the dismay of the Dallas Morning News, the resolution also warns that “more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the U.S. public school textbook oligopoly, as they are now doing.”

DMN’s Terrence Stutz reported that the resolution “offered no specific evidence of such investments,” despite the footnote regarding the Dubai royal family.

As WND previously reported, American public school textbooks have been used to promote Islam, and publishing company executives are primarily responsible for the content of the texts.

America: Silenced and Dumb By ABIGAIL R. ESMAN

America: Silenced and Dumb

By ABIGAIL R. ESMAN

This time, I’ve had it.

While “outrage” has been pretty much the key word this summer, my own reached its upper limits with the news that cartoonist Molly Norris had been forced into hiding by a fatwa threatening her life for an idea: to establish “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” on which the world would sketch images of the Prophet Mohammed in defiance of efforts by Muslims to censor such images, and, in some cases, to murder those who created them. Norris’s suggestion came in response to a decision by executives at Comedy Central to censor the satirical show, “South Park,” which aired an episode that joked about showing Mohammed dressed in a bear suit.

Funny, right?

Well, not to religious Muslims, who, unable to distinguish fact from fiction or truth from allegory, view parodies of their holiest figure as an assault on Islam itself.  We’ve encountered that kind of ignorant hate before, of course – most famously in the case of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” created by cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for Denmark’s news daily, the Jyllands Posten. In that case, not only was Westergaard targeted for assassination, but Danish and other Scandinavian embassies across the Middle East were torched, and violent demonstrations left numerous people dead.

But Norris didn’t even draw a cartoon of the Prophet.  Rather, she sketched a number of commonplace objects – -a teacup, a spool of thread, a domino – with the caption, “Will the real likeness of the prophet Mohammed please stand up?”

Funny, right?

Apparently not – at least, not to some people, whose idea of “funny” is what happens when American civilians die. (Cut to images of Palestinians and of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands dancing in the streets on 9/11.)

The Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is one Muslim unamused by Norris’s idea.  Writing in the English language magazine Inspire, an online publication produced by al Qaeda, he declared: “A soul that is so debased, as to enjoy the ridicule of the messenger of Allah, the mercy to mankind; a soul that is so ungrateful toward its lord that it defames the Prophet of the religion Allah has chosen for his creation does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air.”

Not funny.

Apparently, the FBI doesn’t think so, either; and here is where my outrage boiled over.  Cautioning Norris to take al-Awlaki’s threat seriously, they have now advised her to change her identity, move far from her home in Seattle (where she, until now, worked for the Seattle Weekly), and start over – essentially entering into a witness protection program – only without the accompanying protection.

Let me repeat: The U.S. government is suggesting that Ms. Norris change her name, strip away her past, possibly even change her appearance, because she has been targeted by Muslim extremists who are not amused by her work or her ideas.  Rather than protect her, rather than defend her, rather than stand up for her Constitutional and democratic rights, declaring their intention to route al-Awlaki out and bring him (and others who are threatening her life) to justice, the American government, as it were, is itself in essence allying with him by taking away her freedom and her life .

And here’s the kicker: it’s likely not that hard to find Al-Awlaki – who has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre, the so-called “Christmas bomber,”  and the attempted bombing of Times Square.  Anwar Al-Awlaki, born in Las Cruces, New-Mexico, is a citizen of the United States.

And yet, unlike the British, who for years protected and defended Salman Rushdie from the edicts of Ayatollah Khomeini and others, the USA has thrown up its hands, leaving her to her own devices, the victim of the same sick Islamic ideology that permits women to be stoned to death for the crime of having loved.

And so it becomes clear: If we are not involved in a physical war against Islam, we certainly are engaged in an ideological one.  And as a woman with a secular, democratic ideal runs, now, for her life, the knights in armor assigned to save her stand aside.

This is how we protect our values? This is what has become, now, of America?  That even the suggestion “Draw Mohammed” can cost a woman’s life and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will do nothing? That even the voicing of a threat has America putting down its arms?

We have spent untold billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq at the cost of more than  5,000 US lives.

And all the Islamic militants had to do to conquer us was speak.

Such is the power of the word: and America now sits silenced, silent, dumb.

The Left-Fascist Axis. Again

The Left-Fascist Axis. Again

By James Lewis

We are seeing another Left-fascist axis in our time, recapitulating Stalin’s (and worldwide communism’s) embrace of Hitler’s Germany. The Gaza flotilla crisis was set up by the radical Left (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jodie Evans and other Obama buds), in collusion with Hamas, which is about as fascist as they get. If you doubt it, watch Hamas TV on the MEMRI website. They are the worst. They teach toddlers about the glories of dying for Allah.  Even Fatah thinks Hamas is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

In the Gaza flotilla, the Turks who yelled out “Khaibar! Khaibar!” as they were trying to kill Israeli soldiers, were members of the Turkish branch of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood. They yelled out “Khaibar!” because that massacre of Jews was Mohammed’s own Auschwitz. That doesn’t leave any doubt about who they are. Martyrdom is just a means to an end, and that end is “Khaibar.” The media always forget to tell us that part.
Words matter, which is why the Left is always making up new words for themselves, to disguise who they really are.  The Left isn’t  Communist any more, they are “progressive” — which leaves the rest of us  back in 1776. “Progressives” always know which way to find “progress,” and it always comes down to stomping on the rest of us. Because if you’re not “progressive” you must be an enemy of  “progress.”  
The radical Left  hasn’t changed one smidgen since Stalin. The Left still believes in global totalitarianism. Stalin is dead, but Stalinism is on the march. Listen to the stomping of their boots.
The Left is a throwback to all the ancient utopian cults, the Mayans, Genghis Khan and the Yellow Emperor of China, Idi Amin Dada and Robert Mugabe. It’s the ancient Egyptian priesthood, which was also a cult run by a totalitarian clique. In ancient Egypt you had to die to get to utopia, but the psychology is always the same.  Utopian cults always appeal to suckers. They are a very nasty part of the human condition. But there’s nothing new there, and they are certainly not “progressive.” They are a throwback.
Obama doesn’t look like a normal American because he is a High Priest. Harry Truman wouldn’t recognize him, but King Tut would. Obama has all the arrogance and ignorance of a Pharaoh.
So here are two ways to simplify the daily media circus. First, the media are the cult of the Left, trying to twist your mind. The “Left” equals global totalitarianism, which is Stalinism, which is Leninism, which is radical feminism, which is the hateful racism of the Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan.  Same story, different labels. Keep it simple.
Whatever mask they try on, radical leftists are internationalists — meaning that they are against America as a sovereign nation. That’s Obama’s real beef against us, and it’s why he will never enforce our borders. Sure, leftists are all “patriots” in their own minds, because they worship the prairie flowers and the pretty mountains.  And they all despise MacDonald’s hamburgers and eat arugula, because at bottom they are the most amazing snobs.  America is just one little piece of Planet Gaia, where everybody will live in peace and harmony because Obama or Algore will rule us with an iron fist. It’s all for our own good.
So, the Left hasn’t changed since ancient times. That’s why Harvard has a “speech code,” courtesy of the likes of Elena Kagan and the PC Commissars. People can’t be trusted to say what’s on their minds.  They might hurt somebody’s feelings. Speech codes are ancient ways to control people.  All the prehistoric little Hitlers had speech taboos.
The second useful word is “fascist.” Academics spend their lives trying to define that word. But if  you believe in killing people until they surrender to your totalitarian hokum; if you want to enslave women, kids, Jews, Christians, nonconformist Muslims (like the Bahai’is), gays, Africans in the Sudan, Marxists (yes), Trotskyites, liberals, and anybody who thinks the US Constitution is a good idea, you’re a fascist. Simple, reasonable definition.
So we are seeing the Hitler-Stalin Pact, Take 2. The motivation is identical. These people  hate the modern world, just like the Nazis and Lenin did.  Hitler wanted to go back to the Nordic gods. His utopia was in a fantasy past. Lenin placed his utopia in the distant future. If you’re a coercive utopian you have to dream of  a long-ago  past or a misty future, as long as it’s impossible to see what it’s really like.
Today the Saudis want to go back to Mohammed in the 7th century, and the Twelvers in Iran want to go back to the Hidden Mahdi in the 11th century. They all want to make utopia by force and terror. 
The Left-fascists are intolerant of individualism, liberty, free speech and electoral legitimacy, which is why they always try to sabotage constitutional government. Kagan on the Supreme Court. Obama as Pharaoh in the Oval. Why bow down to the King of Saudi and the Emperor of Japan? They are both medieval reactionaries. Obama bowed down to them, but he was really giving the high sign to America. That’s Obama’s schtick.
We are seeing a re-run of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1938. That Left-Fascist alliance fell apart when Hitler flipped and decided to send tanks into Poland and Russia instead.
It is what Freud called a “repetition compulsion.” It happens over and over again, because these people don’t live in reality. That’s why they are dangerous. They can never figure out what went wrong last time, so they keep trying it again.  They live in egomaniacal fantasies, and real people keep getting in their way. Off with their heads!
The last time a Left-Fascist Axis rose to power it led to World War Two and the Cold War. Maybe the only way to win is to make them fight each other. That’s how we came out of it before.
I don’t know how decent people will prevail this time. I think we will, because we have done so over the centuries. But we are in another Long War with some real bad hot spots. The enemy today is both the Left and the fascists.
Read the news and you’ll see it every day.
They’re baaaaack!

Understanding Muslims’ Mindset Take time to read this carefully — email it to everyone

Understanding Muslims’ Mindset Print
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Diffusing the present dangerous confrontation between Islam and the West demands rational impartial and cool heads to untangle facts from myth, understand the Muslims’ mindset, and redress any grievances on either side.The Muslims’ perennial complaint is that the imperialist West—all colonial powers of the past, as well as the United States of America—have victimized them for decades and even centuries and continue to do so in every conceivable way. The litany of the alleged wrongdoings by the West is encyclopedic. To begin with, the West has shown utter contempt for the legitimate rights of the Muslim nation by arbitrarily dividing much of the Islamic land into fractured entities, plundering its resources, and topping these crimes by installing in its midst its illegitimate stepchild of Israel—a huge thorn in their side, so they complain. “A grain of truth is needed to make a mountain of lies believable,” is an old saw. In fairness to Muslims, there is some substance to their claims against the West. For now, let us focus on the general mindset of Muslims which bears heavily on the hostility toward the West—a serious hostility that may bring about the dreaded Armageddon.
* Patriarchy and authoritarianism: The Muslim’s mind is imprinted with authoritarianism which starts with the supreme authority, Allah, through his one and only prophet, Muhammad, his Caliphs or Imams, and the high-ranking religious divines all the way down to the village clergy. This authoritarian mentality encompasses all aspects of life for the Muslim. The king and his dominion as the viceroy of God, the Emir and his despotic ways, the Khan and his unchallenged rule over the tribe, the village headsman and his extensive power, and finally the father and his iron grip at home over the women and children. All these authority figures are male.

The authoritarian type poses numerous problems and presents many ramifications—ramifications much too important and complex to be comprehensively treated here. For now, it is important to understand that a person with the authoritarian personality is an extremist. He can be docility itself under certain circumstances and a maniacal murdering brute under others. He is the type who would just as happily kill or die, when he is directed to do so. He would, for instance, gladly strap on an explosive vest, in obedience to a superior’s order, and detonate it in a crowd of innocent civilians without the slightest hesitation.

* Blind obedience: A dangerous feature of the authoritarian personality is the relative lack of independent thinking. This deficiency makes the person highly amenable to manipulation. Islam, by its rigidly authoritarian make up, robs a Muslim of independent thinking to the extent that the believer blindly adopts it as his infallible system of belief. Hence, the religion of Islam is guilty of conditioning masses of people as easily manipulatable instruments in the hands of authority figures.

Studies have shown that the authoritarian personality type can be found among all people, including Americans. The important difference is in the degree and prevalence of the condition. Islam breeds vast numbers of extremists, while in America, for instance, the prevalence is significantly lower and less severe.

* Focus on goal: To Muslims, the goal is everything. As religious fascism, Islam condones any and all means to achieve its goals. The ultimate objective of Islam is the rule of the entire world under the Islamic Ummah—never mind that these life-in-hand soldiers of Allah disagree with one another regarding the Ummah itself and who is going to reign over it. That’s a “family dispute” that they will resolve by their usual favorite method—brute force. Each Islamic sect believes that it has the Prophet and Allah on its side and it will prevail over the other. For now they have to work diligently to achieve the intermediary goal of defeating all non-believers. There are countless instances that substantiate Muslims’ “End justifies the means” guiding principle. This policy dates back to Muhammad himself. Muhammad repeatedly made peace covenants with his adversaries, only to violate them as soon as he was in advantageous position to do so. Betrayal, deception and outright lies are fully condoned in furthering the work of Islam. In the present-day world, the work of Islam is defined by a deeply-entrenched and influential clergy who issue fatwa—rulings—that become directives and laws to the faithful.

Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian Islamic state, for one, made extensive use of the fatwa. Widely-known in the west is Khomeini’s fatwa condemning Selman Rushdie to death for his book. A less known fatwa of Khomeini during the last Iran-Iraq war led to the slaughter of thousands of Iranian children. Children, nearly all under 15 years of age, were given plastic keys to paradise as they were commanded by the fatwa of the imam to rush forward to clear minefields for the tanks to follow. The Islamic murderers, in obedience to the fatwa of a bloodthirsty man of Allah, had no problem in deceiving the clueless lads clinching made – in – China plastic keys to paradise.

Such is the existentialistic threat of Islam. It is a rigid stone-age authoritarian system with a stranglehold over many of the nearly one and a half billion people under its command.

* Fatalism: One of the greatest subtle, yet important differences between the Muslim’s mindset and that of the people in the West is the extent to which Muslims are fatalistic. There is hardly a statement that a Muslim makes without being conditional—conditional on the will of Allah. “I shall see you tomorrow, Allah willing,” “You will make it home, Allah willing,” “Things will work out, Allah willing,” and on and on and on. To the Muslim, Allah is on the job—on every job. Allah, with his invisible mighty hand, literally does and runs everything. “Allah’s hand is above all other hands,” adorns every imaginable space in Islamic lands—a telling point about the Muslim’s fatalism and submission to the omnipotent omnipresent hand. If something happens, it is Allah’s will. If it doesn’t, it is Allah’s will. The rank and file Muslim has little will of his own. It absolves him of any and all responsibility. This mentality is in stark contrast with the “take charge” and “can do” mentality characteristic of Americans and others.

* Psychological uniqueness
:  People as a group or as individuals are different and none is perfectly healthy psychologically. We all have a loose wheel or two as we travel the bumpy road of life. Yet, most people manage to stay on course most of the time, with perhaps a stop or two at a repair shop of a mental health professional.

Most psychological disorders are exaggerations, deficits or surfeits of the generally accepted norm—whatever the norm may be. When caution, for instance, is practiced past suspicion, then we have paranoia; when reasonable fear is exercised beyond any justification, then there is phobia. The degree and severity of a condition frequently determine the presence or absence of psychopathology.

Muslims share a common Islamic psychological milieu, they are on an Islamic “diet,” whether they live in Islamic lands or in societies predominantly non-Islamic. The psychological condition of any Muslim group or individual is directly dependent on the kind and amount of Islamic diet they consume. The Islamic diet has numerous ingredients—some of which are wholesome, some are dangerously toxic, and some are between the two extremes.

Over the years, the Islamic leaders have found it expedient to feed the masses mainly the toxic ingredients to further their own interests. Individuals and groups, for instance, have used the immense energizing power of hatred to rally the faithful; the cohesive force of polarization to create in-group solidarity; and, the great utility value of blaming others for their real and perceived misfortunes. Jews have been their favorite and handy scapegoats from day one. To this day, as true fascists, like the Nazis, Muslims blame just about everything on the Jews.

Providing a comprehensive inventory of the psychological profile of the Muslims is beyond the scope of this article. Yet, there is no question that the psychological makeup of a Muslim, depending on the extent of his Muslim-ness, is different from that of non-Muslims. This difference, often irreconcilable as things stand presently, is at the core of the clash of Islam with the West.

* Conclusion. Admittedly, the non-Islamic culture is no panacea. It has, however, one outstanding feature the Islamic lacks—it allows for liberty with all its attendants— good, bad, or indifferent. Those who have experienced liberty, no inducement is likely to make them give it up—particularly not the fictional promises of the Islamists that have failed in the past and are doomed to fail even more miserably in the future.

The best, yet difficult resolution of the conflict is to do what hundreds of thousands of Muslims have already done. They have abandoned the slaveholder Islam: they broke loose from the yoke of the exploitative clergy, renounced Islamofascisim, purged the discriminatory and bizarre teachings in the Quran and the Hadith, and left the suffocating tent of dogmatic Islam for the life-giving expanse of liberty.

Within the emancipating and accommodating haven of liberty, those who wish to remain Muslim can retain and practice the good teachings of Islam but renounce intolerance, hatred and violence. It takes great effort and courage to ascend from the degrading pit of slavery to the mount of emancipation. Yet, it is both possible and exhilarating to do it, since many have done so successfully and happily. As more and more people leave the shackles of religious slavery, more and more will follow, and the long-suffering Muslims, victimized by Islam itself for far too long, will be a free people in charge of their own life and destiny. It is a painful process of growing up, of asserting one’s coming of age, and marching lockstep with the free members of the human race.

Slavery of the mind is as evil as the slavery of the body. Islamofascisim enslaves them both.

Losing Their Religion

Losing Their Religion

Posted By William Kilpatrick On June 14, 2010 @ 12:35 am In FrontPage | 21 Comments

Although many won’t admit it, we are in the midst of an ideological war with Islam. And since the advantage goes to the side that fully realizes they are at war, the West is losing. The propaganda war is going in favor of Islam precisely because the West doesn’t realize it is supposed to be fighting one. The ability of Islam to rally much of the world behind its hatred of Israel is a telling indication of who is winning the war of ideas. As for war aims, it’s not clear that there are any. Even those who see the danger clearly rarely talk in terms of victory; they talk mainly in terms of resisting cultural jihad. You know you’re in trouble when your ideological opponent is a primitive seventh-century belief system, and yet the best that your top strategists hope for is to put up a good resistance.

As the Dracula-like return of Communist ideology demonstrates, an ideological war needs to be fought to complete and total victory. The enemy ideology should be so thoroughly discredited that no one—not even its former staunchest defenders, not even the most doctrinaire college professor—will want to be associated with it. In regard to Islam, then, our aim should go beyond simply resisting jihad; it should be the defeat of Islam as an idea. But, aside from inflicting crushing military defeats on Islamic powers, how do you accomplish that?

One answer is that you do all you can to force Muslims to question their faith in Islam. As Mark Steyn observes, “there’s no market for a faith that has no faith in itself.” He was speaking, of course, of the more mushy versions of Western Christianity—the post-Christian Christians who seem anxious to dialogue themselves into dhimmitude. But there’s no reason the concept can’t be applied to Islam. Surely the average intelligent Muslim has occasional doubts about the founding revelations. And just as surely he keeps them to himself, not only because he fears his fellow Muslims, but also because the rest of the world seems to be going along with the pretense that he belongs to a great religion. It may be time for the rest of the world to drop the pretense.

If one of your opponents’ core beliefs is that you need to be subjugated, why wouldn’t you want to foster doubts in his mind? Jihadists commit jihad because they correctly perceive that their religion calls them to it. As long as they are kept secure in the illusion that their faith is unassailable, they will continue the jihad by whatever means seem most expedient. They won’t question their faith—and neither will the majority of Muslims—unless they get used to the fact that it can be questioned and criticized.

One man who has done a lot to shake up the faith of Muslims is Fr. Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest who hosts a weekly Arabic language TV program watched by millions of Muslims around the world. Among other things, the engaging Fr. Botros forces his Muslim audience to confront unflattering facts about their prophet. He also talks to them about the Christian faith—something that most Muslims know very little about, beyond some simple caricatures. Apparently he is very successful at what he does. According to reports he is responsible for mass conversions to Christianity.

Does such questioning of Muhammad’s character provoke anger among Muslims? Well, yes, it does. The elderly Fr. Botros has been labeled Islam’s “Public Enemy #1,” and a reported $60 million bounty has been put on his head. But, according to a recent piece by Raymond Ibrahim, “the outrage appears to be subsiding.” Ibrahim contends that Life TV (the satellite station that carries Fr. Botros’ program) “has conditioned its Muslim viewers to accept that exposure and criticism of their prophet is here to stay.” The first time a Muslim hears the moral flaws of the Prophet exposed, he may well be angry at the exposure. But how about the third time? The tenth time? The twentieth time? What initially provokes anger might eventually provoke doubts about Muhammad’s claims.

There are those who think that such efforts are doomed to failure—that Islam is too deeply rooted in the Muslim world. But deeply held beliefs are not always as deeply rooted as they seem. Thirty-five years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that the Catholic faith was deeply rooted in Ireland, but if you said it today you would be going out on a limb. More to the point, Islam itself was less “deeply rooted” 60 years ago in the Middle East than it is now. Consider this recollection by Ali A. Allawi, a former Iraqi cabinet minister:

I was born into a mildly observant family in Iraq. At that time, the 1950’s, secularism was ascendant among the political, cultural, and intellectual elites of the Middle East. It appeared to be only a matter of time before Islam would lose whatever hold it still had on the Muslim world. Even that term—“Muslim world”—was unusual, as Muslims were more likely to identify themselves by their national, ethnic, or ideological affinities than by their religion.

Deeply rooted? Perhaps you’ve seen that sequence of photos of the University of Cairo graduating classes for the English Department. The women of the Class of 1959 look like college students anywhere in the Western world circa 1959. They wear Western style skirts and dresses and no head covering. Ditto for the class of 1978. It could be the class of ’78 at the University of Chicago. But by 1994 half the women are wearing hijabs. By 2004 almost all the women are wearing hijabs and ankle-length clothing. So, sometime in the 1990’s educated Muslims apparently began to take their faith more seriously. They appear to take it very seriously now. But how “deeply rooted” is twenty years?

Given that the penalty for leaving Islam—or even criticizing it—can be death, we may be mistaking deeply rooted fear for deeply rooted faith. Moreover, the fact that Islam prescribes such harsh penalties for doubters suggests that the faith itself is not intrinsically convincing. As the Ayatollah Khomeini once said, “People cannot be made obedient except with the sword.” Any religion that needs so many external incentives—swords behind you, and virgins in your future—cries out to be questioned. Unfortunately, instead of exploiting its theological weaknesses the West insists on chivalrously shielding Islam from the kind of scrutiny that the West reserves for its own institutions and traditions. And with good reason. Because it’s generally understood, though rarely said, that Muhammad’s claims would not meet the tests of critical reason and historical evidence that we apply to the Judeo-Christian revelation. The much revered sufi theologian al-Ghazali wrote, “The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or his Prophet…” You can see why. Curiosity didn’t kill Christianity, but curiosity would almost certainly kill the Caliphate—or, in our times, the hope for a resurrected Caliphate. Obliged not to mention the Prophet? Given the threat Islam poses to the world and to Muslims themselves, it’s beginning to look as though the obligation runs the other way. The world needs to take a much closer look at the Prophet and his claims. The Prophet is Islam’s main prop. If he is discredited, Islam is discredited. Hence, the mighty efforts by the OIC to make it a crime to blaspheme a prophet.

The Prophet’s integrity is not the only thing in doubt. Theologically speaking, Islam is a house of cards. The whole faith rests on the belief that Muhammad actually received a revelation from God. But where’s the proof? Were there any witnesses to this revelation other than Muhammad? Why should we take his word for it? Why were there so many revelations of convenience that worked directly to Muhammad’s personal advantage? Are there really dozens of renewable virgins awaiting young warriors in paradise, or was this revelation simply a clever recruitment tool manufactured by Muhammad to provide an incentive for following him? And why is the Koran, despite its flashes of poetic brilliance, put together like a soviet-era automobile? As an exercise in composition the Koran would not pass muster in most freshmen writing courses. Why can’t God write as well as the average college student?

Ordinarily it’s not a good idea to go around questioning other people’s firmly held beliefs. But these are not ordinary times, and Islam is no ordinary religion. As any number of observes have noted, it’s partly a religion and partly a supremacist political ideology—although no one seems to be able to say exactly what percent is political ideology and what percent is religion. Is it 50/50 or 60/40 or 80/20? Is it legitimate to criticize the political part of it, but not the religious part? How do you tell where the politics leaves off and the religion begins? Or are they so bound together that they can’t be separated?

If you remember “Joe Palooka,” the old comic strip series about a decent but not-too-bright heavyweight boxer, you might remember that one of Joe’s craftier opponents once tattooed his rather expansive stomach with the word “Mother” inscribed within a large heart. His midsection was his weak spot, of course, but he knew he could count on Joe to avoid hitting him there, Joe being too much of a gentleman to do otherwise. In On the Waterfront, Marlon Brando’s character refers to the place where failed fighters go as “palookaville.” Currently, our whole culture is in danger of ending up in “palookaville” because there are large areas of Islam we decline to examine out of a sense of delicacy that would be excessive in a Victorian matron. Islamic strategists are counting on polite Westerners not to hit them in their soft spot.

Islamic strategists invoke the supremacist principles of the Koran in order to stir up aggression against the Muslim world, yet any criticism of Islam is met with cries of, “No fair! You are blaspheming a prophet and his religion.” So far, the shame-on-you-for-criticizing-a-religion strategy has worked very effectively. Fortunately, a few, like Fr. Botros, aren’t buying into the ruse. He has enough respect for Muslims as individuals to realize that their religion should not be put beyond discussion. Many Muslims, especially Muslim women, suffer a profound sense of desperation: the feeling of being trapped in a 1400-year-old nightmare, with no way out. It’s difficult to see any convincing argument for propping up the system that oppresses them. On the contrary, it seems almost a duty to undermine that system—political and religious—and call it into question at every turn.

In past ideological struggles we wisely sought ideological victory—the discrediting of the belief system that inspired our enemies. Because the driving force behind Islamic aggression is Islamic theology, it makes no sense to treat Islamic theology like a protected species. Rather, we should hope that Muslims lose faith in Islam just as Nazis lost faith in Nazism and Eastern-bloc Communists lost faith in communism.

Of course, it would be all the better if, like Fr. Botros, we had something to offer them in its place. Winston Churchill once said that Greer Garson, for her role in Mrs. Miniver, was worth six divisions in the war against Hitler. It seems safe to say that Fr. Botros, for his role in instilling doubts about Islam and giving Muslims something solid in its place, is worth at least a couple of Departments of Homeland Security.

William Kilpatrick’s articles have appeared in FrontPage Magazine, First Things, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Jihad Watch, World, and Investor’s Business Daily.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to

 

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and ontemporary Threat

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military
components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other
components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to
agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving
minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and
disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among
street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the
introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure
on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them
to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we
are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and
results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam ,  with opposition
to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen
daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks,
and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run
ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of
Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim,
the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such
as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

‘Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me
against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family
against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe
against the world, and all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, ‘The
Haj’

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under
100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim
religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into
the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only
the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with
death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and
extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But
their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus,
Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse.
The wolves will be herding the sheep!

Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn’t
this make you feel safer already?

Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim
who was born in Damascus , Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a
member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified
as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant…?  Just wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?
Doesn’t this make you feel safer already??

That should make the US ‘ homeland much safer, huh!!

Was it not “Devout Muslim men” that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago?

Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically – no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia 
Religiously – no… Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
 
Scripturally – no… Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran. 
Geographically – no… Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day. 
Socially – no… Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.. 
Politically – no…Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
 
Domestically – no… Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34) 
Intellectually – no… Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt. 
Philosophically – no… Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually – no… Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names. 
Therefore, after much study and deliberation….
 
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS 
in this country. – – – They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans. 
Call it what you wish, it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. 
Can a muslim be a good soldier??? 
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!! 
Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. 
SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
 
THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S. 
Please don’t delete this until you send it on.