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

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.

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.

Turkish Jihadists Attack Israel

Turkish Jihadists Attack Israel

Posted By Phyllis Chesler On June 1, 2010 @ 12:10 am In FrontPage | 46 Comments

Visit NewsReal [1]

One may describe Hitler as a “vegetarian” (which he apparently was) but he was still a genocidally exterminationist Jew-hater whose relentless racism and imperial ambitions led to the death of more than 60 million people.

One may also describe the Turks on board the “freedom flotilla” (Orwell himself could not have suggested a better logo) as “humanitarian activists.” But they are still pro-terrorist Turkish jihadists whose mission was to kill Jews, one way or the other. This was a mission which aimed to further demonize the already shamefully tarnished reputation of the Jewish state. This mission planned to force a violent confrontation; were Israeli soldiers to dare defend themselves and if Muslims are therefore martyred—even better public relations, even better for international lawfare against the Israel.

The so-called “humanitarians,” at least on one boat, came armed with metal bars and knives. They were fighters, not pacifists, and they called out traditional Islamic battle cries: “[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!” According to Palestinian Media Watch [2]:

“Khaibar is the name of the last Jewish village defeated by Muhammad’s army in 628. Many Jews were killed in that battle, which marked the end of Jewish presence in Arabia. There are Muslims who see that as a precursor for future wars against Jews. At gatherings and rallies of extremists, this chant is often heard as a threat to Jews to expect to be defeated and killed again by Muslims.”

“This video [3] shows Israeli soldiers being beaten with long and heavy metal rods on one of the Turkish boats. Jeff Dunetz (“YidWithLid [4]”) has a series of disturbing and informative videos in which we can see the planned nature and intensity of the Turkish-Palestinian violence against Israeli soldiers—an attack which involved stabbings, beatings, firebombing attempts, throwing soldiers overboard, etc.”

Earlier today, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon [5] said that the Turkish-led flotilla was: “An armada of hate and violence in support of Hamas’ terror organization and was a premeditated and outrageous provocation. The organizers are well known for their ties with global jihad, Al-Qaeda, and Hamas. They have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror. On board the ship we found weapons prepared in advance and used against our forces. The organizers intent was violent, their method was violent, and the results were unfortunately violent. Israel regrets any loss of life and did everything to avoid this outcome.”

Indeed, the death count currently stands at an estimated nine (mainly Turkish) dead and 34 wounded. Predictably, the Arab, European, and liberal media are viewing Israel as the vicious aggressor; as committing “obscene [6]” acts. Al-Jazeera’s website [7] calls what happened “a massacre.” They refer to the dead as “martyrs.”

Some say that the Israeli commandos could have used taser guns, rubber bullets, or simply sent far more soldiers onto each boat. But the Israelis initially boarded the boats armed with paintball guns. And one wonders: How many Israeli soldiers can fit on a boat? One Israeli now suggests that Israel should have surrounded all the boats, stopped them dead in their tracks, shot out their motors.

Said I: And then done what with them?

Said he: Negotiate.

Said I: Are you crazy? Negotiate with terrorists? And then feed them, house them, coddle them—terrorists who would not even agree to bring food and a note to Gilad Shalit? Incredibly, Israel has been doing just that, treating the wounded terrorists in Israeli hospitals [8] and preparing to intern the remaining “activists” in air-conditioned tents [9] in Ashdod.

Said he: There should have been better military planning.

I am sure that Monday morning quarterbacking is always more ingenious than what happens in the moment of battle. The problem is that, once again, the Israelis are being attacked for having defended themselves and the jihadists are still being seen as “martyrs.”

Why did Turkey attack Israel? How much Iranian support did they have? Turkey was once a haven for Jews in flight from the Christian Inquisition.

Once, long ago, Muslim Turkey gave asylum to Dona Gracia HaNasi [10], the noble and generous leader of the Jews who had fled from Christian Spain and Portugal. Dona Gracia, a widow, was the wealthiest Jew of her time and, after living in Italy, found final refuge in Constantinople in 1552. Some wealthy Jews still live in Turkey today—yes, despite the bombing [11] of two Turkish synagogues in 2003. I wonder how safe they are and for how long.

As to women? Locked up in harems—but if they were lucky/most unlucky, perhaps in the Sultan’s own harem or seraglio. For example, in 1784, a French girl, Aimee Dubucq de Rivery, [12] was kidnapped on the open seas by Algerian pirates who sold her into the Turkish Sultan’s harem. Aimee became known as “Naksh,” The Beautiful One, for her fair skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair. Improbably, incredibly, Aimee became the mother of the next Sultan, whose name was Sultan Mahmoud II, the Reformer. Some see [13] the influence of the Sultan Valideh (The Veiled Sultan) in Selim’s letter of friendship to King Louis XVI—and in other pro-European gestures and customs.

Myths [14] die hard. People still believe that Jews, Christians and other infidels lived safe and happy lives in Muslims lands. This is a Big Lie [15].

As a matter of historical fact, the Turks have a long and bloody history of cruelty and genocide. They colonized the entire Middle East, forced conversions or murdered those who resisted. Islamic gender and religious apartheid flourished.

To this day, the Turks continue to deny the Armenian genocide. And, the days of Kemal Ataturk are long gone. In the early 1920s, Ataturk imposed a secular democracy upon the Islamists and unveiled the women. Now, the Islamists are winning again: Women are veiling, honor killings are on the rise (both in Turkey and among Turks in Europe). Recently, a father and grandfather heartlessly buried [16] a 16-year-old daughter and granddaughter alive for the “crime” of presumably talking to boys. I have also written about a great Turkish feminist hero, my friend Seyran Ates [17], here; Ates was shot for her work among Turkish immigrant girls and women in Berlin. Her 15-year-old client died. Ates, a lawyer, was left for dead—but miraculously survived.

And we nearly admitted Turkey into the European Union. One wonders if they would have intensified their anti-Israel Islamism had they been accepted as “Europeans,” or whether their candidacy was merely a calculated move in tandem with pre-existing pro-Iranian plans. For years, Turkey has opposed [18] sanctioning Iran for its nuclear program. Turkey was among the first to congratulate Ahmadinejad [19] on his re-election victory. During 2009, Turkey improved its economic ties to Iran.

I am waiting for the United Nations and for the United States to condemn this unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

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. 

Cultivating the Moderate Hezbos

Cultivating the Moderate Hezbos   [Andy McCarthy]

While the Obama administration’s foreign service team is out apologizing to Chinese Communist gulag-keepers over the human-rights violations of Arizona, the president’s crack national-security team is combing Lebanon in search of the Hezbollah moderates! WARNING: The following is not a parody but an actual news story (from Reuters — and thanks to Ruth King for bringing it to my attention):

The Obama administration is looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” within the Lebanese Hezbollah guerilla movement and to diminish the influence of hard-liners, a top White House official said on Tuesday.

“Hezbollah is a very interesting organization,” Brennan told a Washington conference, citing its evolution from “purely a terrorist organization” to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet.

“There is certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us what they’re doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements,” Brennan said.

He did not spell out how Washington hoped to promote “moderate elements” given that the organization is branded a “foreign terrorist organization” by the United States.

Naming the Enemy— ISLAM

Naming the Enemy

 

Posted By Fern Sidman On May 17, 2010 @ 12:03 am In FrontPage | 6 Comments

On Tuesday evening, May 11th, the crossroads of the world, better known as Times Square in Manhattan was the scene of a passionate display of fortitude as members of the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam gathered for a rally to expose the existential perils that radical Islam represents to the Western world. Standing just a few blocks from the place where 30 year old Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani born and Taliban trained American citizen attempted to detonate his vehicle filled with deadly explosives, the leaders of this rainbow coalition of activists sounded a clarion call as onlookers watched and listened.

Comprised of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and ex-Muslims, the HRCARI is a nascent organization that champions the rights of those who have been victimized and slaughtered by Muslim extremists. Having staged its very first rally in Times Square in May of 2009, their ranks have swelled over the last year with those who are deeply concerned about the cultural indifference to the burgeoning growth of Islamic radicalism.

Charles Jacobs, a board member of the HRCARI and a writer for The Jewish Advocate in Boston said, “Our purpose here today is two-fold. We are here to send a clear message to the press and politicians who have intentionally obfuscated the nature of this most recent terrorist attempt by not labeling the enemy as radical Islam and acquiescing to political correctness. We are also here to educate the public about the pernicious agenda of those radical Islamists who would love nothing more than to obliterate our cherished values of democracy, freedom and liberty.”

“The Western world is mired in self-doubt and self-guilt that has been imposed upon us by those post-modern forces on the left and in the sphere of academia who believe we are deserving of the animus of our enemies,” he ruefully observed.

Holding aloft signs and banners saying, “Elected Officials and Mass Media – Unveil The Truth: Radical Islam Attacks Humanity,” “Stop Billions of Saudi Oil Money that are Funding Worldwide Radical Islamic Intolerance and Terror,” “Reform Radical Islmamic Madrassas: Stop Teaching Hate” and displaying placards of those Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, women and gays who have been summarily murdered by brutal Islamic regimes, the rally attendees graphically described the horrific consequences of being an “infidel” in the Muslim world.  Martin Rosenthal, a rally attendee from Queens held a homemade sign that said, “Queers Against Radical Islam” and spoke of the heinous atrocities committed against both gay men and women in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Narain Kataria, the founder of the Indian American Intellectuals Forum said, “Since 9/11/2001, the followers of the so called “religion of peace” have carried out 15,101 deadly terrorist attacks and killed more than 75,000 people. It does not requite a rocket scientist to tell us that the aim of the Jihadist is to dominate the entire world, force all of us to surrender and to plant the Islamic flag in Washington, London, Jerusalem and New Delhi, not to mention New York City.” He also spoke of the mass slaughter of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. “Pakistan is the nursery of terrorism. Pakistan is the epicenter of Jihad. Pakistan is the most untrustworthy ally in the war on terror. Pakistan is fooling us. They use sophistry and subterfuge to hoodwink us,” he declared.

“What we need here in America and throughout the free world is intellectual clarity,” said Madeline Brooks, the Manhattan chapter head of Act For America, a national human rights organization that stridently opposes radical Islam and serves as a bulwark against the mendacity of multicultural relativists in the progressive camp. “We here in New York are faced with mortal danger each day. We are the prime terror target on this planet. We are in daner of being nuked and the government’s denial of this threat only leaves us in a much weaker state and undermines the confidence of the people who reside here. That is the reality of radical Islam and we do ourselves a grave injustice by not confronting it head on with the gravitas that it demands” she continued.

John Kenneth Press, a PhD in history and the author of  “Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future” (2007 – Social Books) said, “Culturism is a political philosophy, art and science based upon the understanding that cultural diversity is real and important. Western culture believes in free speech, feminism, and the separation of church and state. Islam, for example, does not. Western culture is based on individuals applying their intelligence towards progressive and productive ends. For 1400 years there has been a worldwide Jihad fueled by radical Islam whose objective is death and destruction of all infidels and the sooner that we give voice to this, the sooner that we demand that our government consider this threat as a moral and physical exigency, the sooner we can increase our chances of not falling prey to an Islamic caliphate.”

“21st century Nazism is now tantamount to radical Islam” said Andrew Upton, a board member of HRCARI. “There is someone here today holding a sign saying, “Queers Against Radical Islam.” We applaud this person for spotlighting the fact that gays and lesbians are considered worthy of death in Islamic countries as are women who are consistently victims of honor murders by male family members for attempting to divorce their husbands, for being raped, for not allowing themselves to be party to forced marriages and for purported violations of Sharia law,” he said.

At the conclusion of the rally, the participants took their signs and banners and staged a march throughout the Times Square area calling on all concerned citizens to lobby their elected officials and the press to “jettison the fraud of multicultural relativism and political correctness in the name of our survival.”