»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 ::

The Muslim’s Conundrum 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 12:21 PM

One of the most succinctly put conundrums facing “moderate,” passive, non-violent Muslims was cogently put by Saba E. Demian in his Gatestone article of January 25th, “Europe's Civil War: The Politics of Separateness.” In it he states:

One unanswered question is whether Islam is a religion of peace. First, the Arabic word Islam does not mean "peace" but an act of subjugation to God (Allah) and His will. Second, the basis and teaching of Islam is understood universally to consider non-Muslims as infidels. Third, infidels have to be wiped out [or compelled to submit to Islam and pay jizya or the protection tax] There is no gainsaying the word of Allah in the Koran, the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad and the shari'a. Thus, Muslims by birth or conversion, regardless of whether they are ultraconservative, moderates or secularists, are trapped in this vise-grip of enforcing the will of Allah on everyone, non-Muslim or Muslim, if they veer away from the straight and narrow. [Brackets mine]

Or attempt to veer away from the contentious, violence-sanctioning elements of Islam, or to renounce Islam, or to repudiate it.

And there you have it: Muslims of whatever stripe are stuck between a rock and a hard place – between the totalitarian nature of Islam, and its absolute, non-negotiable imperatives of Islamic dogma. Demian is one of the very few analysts and critics of Islam who clearly, correctly, and honestly dissects Islam’s comprehensive character without reservations or qualifications about “benign,” non-violent Muslims.  There is nothing in Demian’s statement that suggests: “Oh, not all Muslims are bad people. Many wouldn’t harm a fly,” or, “There are nice Muslims who want to reform Islam to make it compatible with Western culture.”

Except that Islam can’t be reformed without killing it. The violent verses in the Koran are the principal sources of any power it might have. Remove them, or concoct pretzel-like explanations of what they don’t mean, and what you’d have left is an unstructured mishmash of banal homilies and exhortations to be a “good” Muslim, whatever that might mean. “Kill the Jew hiding behind a tree” doesn’t mean “kill him with Seinfeld jokes,” and “by your right hand possess” doesn’t mean embracing a woman’s waist during a ballroom dance.

And your friendly Muslim next door may regard you as less than a fly and eminently swatable.

As Saudi Imam Issa Assiri recently lectured his congregation in Jeddah earlier this month about the Charlie Hebdo massacre by devout Muslims on January 7th:

“When someone curses or mocks the Prophet Muhammad – what should be his punishment? Cursing or mocking the Prophet is an act of apostasy, as all scholars concur, whether it is done seriously or in jest. Anyone who does this, Muslim or infidel, must be killed, even if he repents.”
                     
The violent verses in Islam’s sacred texts, whether they’re read in Arabic or in English or any other translation, are quite clear and unambiguous.  Because they are supposedly Allah’s own words, one must take those verses literally, and not attempt to “interpret” them or quote them out of the context, as Allah’s words as supposedly whispered into Mohammad’s ear are unalterable and exempt from correction, emendation, and line-editing. They mean what they mean. Period. For example, in the Shi’ite view of the rape of women capture by jihadists, Koran 4.24 says:

“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.”

This applies especially if the captured spouse of the married woman has been beheaded or otherwise slain. Married one moment, widowed the next. And then the Muslim warrior can do with her what he wishes.      

The verse does not imply that the jihadist (or Muslim) will set up house with his captive and live in permanent marital bliss. “Temporary” means a one-night stand for both the Muslim, who may already be married, and the woman. Or it can mean the immediate or eventual rape of a captured woman. The Religion of Peace site focuses on this aspect of sex slavery or “temporary” marriages or permanent and involuntary concubinage. To wit:

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"  This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners.  Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."   This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves.  See also Qur'an (70:29-30).  The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."  Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur'an (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good"  A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part.  The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."

It’s not an issue of having your cake and eating it, too. It’s an issue that Muslims must eat the whole cake, and not what is convenient for them to consume, or of what is palatable from individual Muslim to individual Muslim, for otherwise they will have no authentic Islamic identity. They must wage jihad (internally as a chronic anxiety, or externally by violence against infidels or Muslims of another sect). If it is only by internally wracking one’s brains about whether or not one’s submission to Allah is sincere, with no visible actions taken against the infidel or to advance the conquest of the West, and developing a neurosis about it, only then can one be called a conscientious Muslim. Otherwise, he is a MINO, or a Muslim in name only.

The alternative is to wage violent jihad against everyone and everything that is not by definition or is not perceived by Muslims as Islamic. This requires the jihadist to prefer death and “martyrdom” to life.

Reading the Koran and the Hadith, both of which were works-in-progress for centuries, one naturally gets the sense that they were being made up as the interpreters and scholars went along.

What's to stop them from realizing their desire for death? What stops conscientious Muslims from jumping off Brooklyn Bridge or slitting their wrists in bathtub? The knowledge that they can't take everyone who loves life with them; they want to hear us scream before we die. They won't be satisfied until they know that no one is left alive who loves life. On one hand, Muslims are the meek who want to inherit the earth. On the other hand, if the meek can’t inherit the earth, if they are arrested in a kind of Islamic stasis, then they want to ensure that the living who love life won’t inherit it, either.

An earth cleansed of all infidels and Jews would be an Islamic earth: desolate and inhabitable except for the Muslim manqués and the semi-zombies of the faithful. That is the Islamic vision of existence. Heads, it’s death. Tails, it’s death.  Islam is not a “religion of peace,” but a death cult that worships and preaches a living death, or literal death.

That is nihilism with a capital N. This is what more Americans and Westerners must grasp, and ignore the blandishments and excuses and evasions of our corrupted, ostrich-like political, academic, and media establishment, which is more a peril to the West than is Islam itself.  

If the establishment will not countenance or tolerate any words or images that might “offend” Muslims, then there is no defense against the stealthy and incremental Islamic incursions into Western culture, and the jihadists will be free to say or do what they please. The jihadists near and far – from London to Dearborn to Stockholm to Mosul to Karachi – know this, and say and do what they please.

This is not a conundrum or conflict we Westerners need to wrestle with. The problem is wholly the Muslim’s own.

:: Permalink | 0 Comments ::

 

:: Saturday, January 24, 2015 ::

Crying for Argentina 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 2:40 PM


But shed not a tear for King Abdullah
                                                                                        
Argentina is a lovely country if you forget all the dictators, juntas, strongmen, and assorted socialists, fascists, and communists who have run the country ragged, or that Fidel Castro’s favorite killer, Che Guevara, was an Argentine. It’s a far nicer country than is Saudi Arabia. I have been to Argentina, stayed in Buenos Aires and visited the  Alpine-like resort town of San Carlos de Barilochi on Nahuel Huapi Lake in the west near the Chilean border.

Argentina is a country settled and populated by people from a variety of European countries: Italy, Germany, England, Ireland, Spain, Russia, Scandinavia, and by Jews from the same nations. It is as nearly a “melting pot” as is the U.S.  From the late 19th century until the early 20th Argentina was an industrial nation that rivaled the U.S. and Great Britain in GNP and productivity and wealth. Then, around 1930, it caught the European collectivist/nationalist disease that was half Fascism and half Marxism, spiced with Latin American passion, and it has been in decline ever since.

But then the U.S. caught the same bug just a little earlier than that.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is an arid, hot country. Or is it an inflated tribal fiefdom in thrall to a Wahhabist theocracy? Was the Vito Corleone crime family ever recognized as a nation? Go figure. I would never set foot in Saudi Arabia even had I been forgiven all the critical things I’ve written about Islam. Saudi Arabia is a country that thrives on loot extorted from industrialized nations. It has been doing so since the end of WWI.  

Saudi Arabia is not a “melting pot” populated by people from other nations. It is overwhelmingly Arab in population. Immigration to the place is severely limited, if not outright prohibited. Non-Muslim foreign nationals residing there, such as diplomats, engineers, and the like, are there on sufferance, and are restricted in where they can go and what they can do, confined to kaffir ghettoes. Freedom of speech does not exist there.  The slightest squawk about Islam or the slightest infraction of Sharia law earns one horrific punishments. The 1,000 lashes “earned” by Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger who offended the theocrats on the Internet, is a measure of the utter irrationality and barbarity of Islamic “justice.” It hangs gays, amputates the hands of thieves, and strives to keep women under wraps, literally, not to be seen, nor even heard.

Saudi Arabia is not a “republic,” nor a “democracy,” nor even a “people’s state.” It is Saudi property, lock, stock and barrel.

It is a nominally “socialized” country in which all Saudis are guaranteed an income.  It builds white-elephant skyscrapers and funds terrorism against the West and also mosques and schools around the world that preach the Sunni Wahhabist brand of Islam. There are dozens of such mosques and Muslim “cultural centers” in the U.S. and the U.K., and in Europe.

Last week two men died: King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, on January 23rd, at age 90, with a net worth of $17 billion.  I could introduce some levity here about this paragon of morbid obesity, but the man was such a disgusting, useless, pig of a creature I can’t be bothered composing it.

The other man was Alberto Nisman, age 51, an Argentine prosecutor who had collected and was about to deliver damning evidence of the corruption of the Cristina Kirchner regime in that otherwise wonderful country.

Abdullah was born in Riyadh in 1924, one of the dozens of sons of Saudi Arabia's founder, King Abdul-Aziz Al Saud. I mention the elder Saud in my detective novel, The Black Stone, set in 1930 San Francisco, and my suspense novel, We Three Kings. It may come as a surprise to most people that the elder Saud, during WWI, did not fight the Ottoman Turks on the Arabian Peninsula, and was not an ally of T.E. “Lawrence of Arabia.” He sat out the war sipping tea with the British. When other Muslim high-muck-a-mucks beat the Turks (with British military aid), he consolidated his power, nudged his rival aside, and claimed all of the Peninsula as his own kingdom. See my column from January 2014, on the true historical background of the epic film, “Lawrence of Arabia.”

However, what is even more disgusting today are the verbal wreaths of praise from Western heads of state on the occasion of the Saudi obscenity’s overdue passing.  Fox News lists several American statements of condolences, to wit:

In a written statement issued shortly after the announcement of Abdullah's death, President Obama expressed condolences and said, " I always valued King Abdullah's perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship. As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions….”

Secretary of State John Kerry, who was in London for a meeting of the coalition fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, called Abdullah "a brave partner in fighting violent extremism who proved just as important as a proponent of peace."

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called the king "a powerful voice for tolerance, moderation and peace -- in the Islamic world and across the globe."

Read the other tawdry, off-the-shelf statements at your own risk. In the past George W. Bush held hands with Abdullah in Texas, and he was praised by Bush’s Secretaries of State and Defense. There are more of these testaments to Abdullah’s alleged wisdom and deceitful friendship on the Fox News link. Ronald Reagan, GW’s father HW, Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and many other politicos in the past lavished Abdullah with adulation . See the link here for all the Americans who have held Abdullah in high esteem.

The mainstream media also shed tears for the passing of the caricature of this allegedly benevolent despot. For example, S. Rob Sobhani  of The Washington Times, in his article, “Why Saudi King Abdullah Mattered, aspirated  this wildly craven encomium and vomitus about the late king:

The world lost a leader of consequence this past Friday. King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia was unique among world leaders. He was a pious man whose word was his bond. The sixth king of this long-time American ally held the keys to the world’s largest oil reserves but never used this enormous power as a weapon against others. He was the custodian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, but preached moderation, tolerance and interfaith dialogue among peoples of faith. He stood up against religious extremists and called them out for what they are. This past Friday the people of Saudi Arabia lost their father-figure and the world lost one of the main pillars of global stability.

I first met King Abdullah five years ago in Riyadh. Beyond his gentle smile and fatherly presence, what caught my attention was the twinkle in his eyes when he spoke of the love he had for his people. Our meeting was brief but he captured the essence of his vision for Saudi Arabia and the world by quoting from the Koran: “God cannot change a nation unless they change themselves.”
                                                                                                                                               
Concerning the settlements in Europe (and also in America) by Muslims in large numbers and at the invitation of Europe’s governments (and of our own), one argument I’ve heard is too bizarre to even credit: That these governments will eventually persecute Muslims and put them in concentration camps.

I counter that at the rate that European governments are surrendering to Islam and requiring their non-Muslim populations to surrender and defer to Islam, too, and at  the rate by which Muslims are accruing political power, i.e., getting elected or appointed to office, winning concessions from government, building mosques, and by factoring in the rate of immigration into Europe, and the expanding demographics and birth rates of Muslims throughout the continent, it's more likely that it will be Muslims who'll adopt some form of fascism, and they won't be building concentration camps for Muslims. Europe may resemble in the near future, in many particulars, Weimar Germany when the Nazis and other fascists and communists waged ongoing urban warfare under the  nose of an anemic, helpless government, except that the warfare will be between Muslim gangs and non-Muslim gangs.

This is why I have a jaundiced view of organizations such as Germany's PEGIDA. Do its movers and shakers have a wider perspective on the crisis? Do they in France? The Swedish government has given Muslims carte blanche to do whatever they want. Denmark and Norway aren't far behind. Britain is practically lost, as well, with the least criticism of Islam and Muslims automatically branded as “hate speech” and inviting one to an “interview” with the authorities. Finland one doesn’t hear much about, but Muslims have settled there, too.

So, I don't see European  Muslims imprisoning other Muslims, not even Muslims from rival sects (e.g., Sunnis vs. Shi'ites).

On that note, and in apparent acknowledgement that the true monarch of Great Britain is not Elizabeth II, but any Saudi royal who happens to succeed a deceased one, the British government ordered British flags lowered to half-mast to mark King Abdullah’s passing.

The second man, Alberto Nisman, was an Argentine prosecutor who claimed he found evidence of a Buenos Aires-Tehran deal to cover up responsibility for the Hezbollah bombing of a Jewish community center in 1994. He died on January 17th (or perhaps after midnight on the 18th), allegedly by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but now apparently was murdered by someone’s bunglers. Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, president of Argentina and widow and successor of the late president, Néstor Kirchner, at first claimed that Nisman had committed suicide, but then, when the evidence indicated murder, back-pedaled and claimed that his murder was an attempt by “right-wingers” to “defame” and discredit her and her administration.

Daniel Greenfield has written extensively on FrontPage about the growing transparency of a plot to silence Nisman, one incompetently executed by either Iran, by Kirchner, or by a partnership of both. In three probing FrontPage articles he excoriates Kirchner and her Obama-style administration. On January 17th article, “Prosecutor in Iran Bombing Found Dead Before Testifying Against Argentine President,” he wrote:

President Cristina Kirchner’s regime always looked dirty, but now it suddenly looks like a whole other kind of dirty.

The Argentinean prosecutor investigating the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires was found dead in his apartment on Sunday night with a gunshot wound to the head, hours before he was set to testify before lawmakers on his accusations of a cover-up by his country’s president in the case.

Argentinian media reported early Monday that Alberto Nisman, 51, was found in a pool of blood in the bathroom of his home in the capital’s Puerto Madero district. Police were investigating and Argentinian media reported that they had initially ruled the death a likely suicide.

Sure. Like those suicides that keep happening in Russia.
                           
And then the plot thickens. On January 22nd, in his article “Argentina Gov Plotted to Blame Islamic Terror Attack on Jews on ‘Right Wing’,” Greenfield wrote:

That would be the transcripts cited by the prosecutor who “committed suicide” without leaving any gunpowder on his hands hours before he was supposed to testify against the president and her apparatchiks. Intercepted conversations between representatives of the Iranian and Argentine governments point to a long pattern of secret negotiations to reach a deal in which Argentina would receive oil in exchange for shielding Iranian officials from charges that they orchestrated the bombing of a Jewish community center in 1994….

The transcripts were made public by an Argentine judge on Tuesday night, as part of a 289-page criminal complaint written by Alberto Nisman, the special prosecutor investigating the attack. Mr. Nisman was found dead in his luxury apartment on Sunday, the night before he was to present his findings to Congress….

The attempt to exonerate Hezbollah and Iran of any responsibility for the bombing, in which 85 people died, was hush-hush but apparently not hush enough.  Nisman charged that:

….the effort seemed to begin with a secret meeting in Aleppo, Syria, in January 2011 between Héctor Timerman, Argentina’s foreign minister, and Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s former foreign minister. At the meeting, the complaint contends, Mr. Timerman informed his Iranian counterpart that Argentina was no longer interested in supporting the investigation into Iran’s possible role in the attack. Instead, Argentina initiated steps toward a détente, with an eye on improving trade between the two countries….

Mr. Nisman said the negotiators, including intelligence agents, were given the task of “constructing a false hypothesis, based on invented evidence, to incriminate new authors” of the 1994 bomb attack.

Greenfield concludes this article with: “The rock has been lifted and the bugs are scurrying.”

In his article of January 23rd, “Murdered Prosecutor: ‘In Case Someone Murders Me, All the Data is Saved’,” Greenfield begins with:

It’s always awkward when you murder a prosecutor, fake his suicide, just before he was supposed to testify, and not only did he back up the data, but you didn’t even bother putting his hands on the gun to leave gunpowder residue.

No wonder President Kirchner’s government is going bankrupt. It’s not only evil. It’s also incompetent.

Greenfield quotes The Jewish Press:

Just days before Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found dead in his Buenos Aires apartment on Jan. 19, 2015, he took measures to make sure his research into the Jewish Center bombing and high-level conspiracy didn’t disappear with him, according to a Makor Rishon report. Nisman sent an email to three friends with a backup of his research and report.
         
It was the last email that Israeli-Argentine writer and educator, Gustavo Daniel Perednik, received from Nisman. A few days later Nisman was found with a bullet in his head. A month before, Perednik met with Nisman in a cafe, where Nisman told him about what he was working on. Nisman told Perednik, “In case someone murders me, all the data is saved.”

And President Kirchner? She first put her foot in her mouth claiming that Nisman committed suicide, then, when the evidence indicated a botched fake suicide and murder, she made like Porky Pig:

Kirchner, after flip-flopping on the suicide theory, is now trying to convince the public that Nisman was duped by people whom he wrongfully thought were intelligence agents and who gave him false information.

That’s all, folks! said Kirchner. Nisman participated in his own murder just to make her look bad. Who’s aspirating vomitus now?

Shed no tears for the passing of a useless parasite, King Abdullah. But spare a few for a man who sought justice and who was murdered by  los parásitos inútiles of Argentina and Iran.

:: Permalink | 3 Comments ::

 

:: Thursday, January 22, 2015 ::

The Muslim Ministry of Funny Complaints 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 3:12 PM


The Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris on January 7th of twelve of the publication’s staff members, and also of the murder of four Jews in a Paris kosher shop by one of the terrorists, is having some curious but not all that surprising reverberations. The New York Times published an article about a week afterward originally soliciting from Muslim settlers accounts of their horrendous experiences of living in countries whose cultures they detest anyway (and in which they refuse to assimilate), while the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), according to Arab News, wants to take the satirical magazine to court and massacre its staff with legal expenses and noisome litigation.

After the New York Times received some heated queries from spokesmen of other “minorities,” chiefly from Jewish organizations that wondered why the Times did not also solicit the “experiences” of Jews in European countries in light of repeated attacks on Jews by Muslims, the Times amended its solicitation to one of a general nature, so as not to seem bigoted or discriminatory in favor of Muslims. (I don’t think the ruse fooled anyone familiar with the Times’ anti-Israel bias.)  The Tablet reported on this sleight-of-hand on January 15th.
                      
*Sometime today, the Times changed the headline on this feature from “Share Your Experience as a Muslim in Europe” to “Share Your Experience After the Paris Attacks.” As of 5:20 p.m. Thursday [January 15th], the text of the piece issues the same call, initially directed to Muslims, to Europeans more broadly.

A Twitter search of the article URL shows that the feature changed Thursday.
                           
I can only satirize the episodes of harassment and victimhood sampled by the Times related by put-upon Muslims in Germany:

  “I was coming out of a falafel shop and I felt something hit my back. I thought I’d been shot by a cowardly kaffir! Then this bigoted Islamophobe rushed past me. People gave me strange looks as walked home. Then one of my wives asked me while I was praying why I had a GO PEGIDA! sign taped to my back. I was mortified! I beat her for interrupting my shadada." RA, Dresden

 – “I was pushing my pram with my four kids in it when I was out shopping when this Islamophobe gave me the eye, practically looking right through my burqa! It was humiliating. I really expected him to try and rape me then and there. My kids began crying!” ZZ, Cologne

 – “I was being interviewed for a job in a cheese shop and the kaffir pig who was the interviewer pulled an Obama on me and asked if I knew the Swiss language. I said I didn’t, and he dismissed me, saying ‘Ignorant Muslim raghead! There is no Swiss language!’ I left with tears in my eyes! How was I to know that? Educational opportunities for Muslims don’t exist here.” MC, Potsdam

 – “I work in an auto repair shop as a tire inflator and all day I have to look at all the “pin-up” pictures that plaster the walls of the shop put there by these subhuman apes and grease monkeys I work with. They show Kate Upton and Kate Middleton and Megyn Kelley nude on the beach and doing disgusting things, flaunting their uncovered meat most immodestly! I go home every night with a severe headache and blurred vision. I’ve asked the manager many times to take down this filth out of respect for my faith, but he always tells me, ‘Don’t look at them.’ As though I had a choice!” AK, Dusseldorf
                                                                                            
As I remarked in a past column on Charlie Hebdo, no one has ever strapped a Muslim to a chair, pinned open his eyelids (as happened to Malcolm McDowell in Clockwork Orange), and forced him to look at a series of Mohammad cartoons with the object of having him vomit in “conditioned” revulsion all over his keffiyah or perhaps causing him to die as a “martyr” from a Koranic aneurism.

The New York Times vetted the authenticity of these complaints with filed petitions of redress and correction with the German Ministry of Muslim Moaning and Malefactious Misrepresentations (Deutsch Ministerium für muslimische Stöhnen und Malefactious Verfälschungen). The Times has scheduled for publication next week a similar litany of complaints with its French sister agency, The Bureau of Muslim Whining and Malefactious Misrepresentations (Le Bureau des musulmans de pleurnicher et Malefactious Fausses déclarations).

Just kidding. The New York Times vets nothing. Its left-wing bias excuses it from fact-checking, from adhering to any kind of truth, and from reality.  

As an atheist, my columns regularly attract Christian religionists who either agree with what I have to say about Islam, and assure themselves that God is going punish the perpetrators who will burn in hell for eternity, or they immediately charge me with being a Stalinist in league with the liberals, the Left, and Obama. In fact, Communists are imbued with their own brand of mysticism, one shared with liberals and the Left; Obama is merely the new mystic of muscle poster boy.

The Obfuscator-in-Chief’s State of The Union Address, aside from sounding like a broken record of  Obama’s past State of the Union addresses, was a verbal trip through a Fantasy Land which Obama wishes you would believe existed, in spite of the evidence of your senses, a realm in which non-A is A and everything is just hunky-dory and getting hunkier under his imperial direction.

It’s why we speak out against the deplorable anti-Semitism that has resurfaced in certain parts of the world. It’s why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims — the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.
                       
“Deplorable anti-Semitism”? Expressed by whom? Martians, or Muslims? “Stereotypes of Muslims”? Or caricatures of its icons, such as of Mohammad in Charlie Hebdo? By “stereotyping,” does he also include profiling likely terrorists, or simply making cogent observations of an insidious ideology that brooks no tolerance of any disagreement or incisive examination and of its principal “holy” texts, which pointedly sanctions and encourages anti-Semitism? The answer is: Yes, he includes all of that.

Obama referred to the anemic attacks on ISIS which nevertheless has expanded the territory it conquers in spite of the air campaign to stem its tide:

In his remarks, President Obama underscored the importance of “assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism.”

He will sanction the assistance to everyone except Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and any other group he’d really rather not know anything about. Which means: No assistance to anyone. That would implicitly “defame” ISIS and Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood.

“This effort will take time,” Mr. Obama said. “It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).”

Just don’t “focus” too intently on that “violent extremism.” You might think it has something to do with Islam’s fundamental and irrevocable nature, which is violence to the core.

Not to be left behind in the assault on freedom of speech – a.k.a., “stereotyping” – various Islamic organizations want the West to codify censorship in order to suppress the study and/or mockery of Islam. The Daily Mail (London) in its January 21st article, “Muslim scholars urge UN to outlaw 'contempt' of religions,” reported:

The Qatar-based International Union of Muslim Scholars, headed by influential preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, appealed to Muslims to continue peaceful protests against images of the Prophet Mohammed but "not to resort to any violence"….

In a statement released Tuesday, the union said there should be protection for "prophets" and urged Islamic countries to submit a draft law to the UN calling for defamation of religions to be outlawed. The union said the UN should then issue a "law criminalizing contempt of religions and the prophets and all the holy sites".

It also called for the West "to protect Muslim communities from attacks, whether they are citizens or residents or visitors".

Referring to the Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Mohammad that was published about a week after the massacre of the publication’s staff by jihadists,

The union has condemned the publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed holding a "Je suis Charlie" sign under the headline "All is forgiven" in the first Charlie Hebdo edition since Islamist gunmen killed 12 people in an attack on its offices.

It said that the new drawing would give "credibility" to the idea that "the West is against Islam" and warned the image would incite further hatred. Qaradawi, 88, is seen as a spiritual guide of Egypt's banned Muslim Brotherhood, the movement of ousted former president Mohamed Morsi.

Yes, the West should be against Islam, qua ideology and as a threat to Western civilization. Islam is a kind of ideological polio that enfeebles the West and confines it to the wheelchair of accommodation and submission to Sharia law. The condition attacks specifically Western cultures that deny that the infection can disable or kill, and, taking no steps to combat it, relegates it to the symptoms of the common cold. You see, it’s just a handful of “extremist” germs that are causing all the trouble. Islam is a contagious ideological disease only among cultures and nations that refuse to identify it as malign and virulent. Western nations that attempt any compromise with it are doomed to dissolution and submission to it. And in that submission lies the wholesale negation of a nation’s identity.

The major objector to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as well as to freedom of speech is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). On January 18th, the OIC sanctimoniously proclaimed:

The OIC Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) is appalled by the recent repeated publication of sacrilegious caricature of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) by the French magazine Charlie Hebdo and squarely condemns this act as an intolerant, disrespectful and manifest expression of hatred as well as insensitivity towards the feelings of more than 1.6 billion Muslims around the world.

Last week, the entire Muslim world, as well as this Commission, had expressed strong profound shock and revulsion at the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office by some errant French nationals.  

I’m betting that Obama regrets he hadn’t coined the euphemism “errant French nationals” himself. As most Western politicians and the mainstream media have shouted until hoarse, the attack had nothing to do with Islam. The “errant French nationals” only thought the Koran told them to kill or enslave infidels, and also to murder Jews. The killers obviously hadn’t taken any courses in Post-Deconstructionist studies and performed “close readings” of the Koran. Had they underwent such education, they might have become, instead of killers, James Joyce scholars or teachers of “creative writing.”

While condemning these acts, the Government of France as well as the international community overwhelmingly stressed the fact that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam or any other religion for that matter. However, the Commission has noted with deep regret that the first edition of Charlie Hebdo after the attack, deliberately carried the most disrespectful and provocative caricature offensive to all Muslims, thus betraying the sense of abhorrence against the attack, as well as the sympathy towards the families of those killed during the incident. 

Tea and sympathy. Crocodile tears. Sham piety. Muslims are very good at it. But even Arab scholars and Islamic mouthpieces, such as OIC secretary general Iyad Ameen Madani, apparently believe that Islam is a race, and not just a “religion” subscribed to by countless members of a variety of ethnic groups.

Manifest stereotyping and ridiculing the most revered personality of a pristine religion is nothing but an extreme form of racial discrimination.

I wonder when was the last time Madani visited Indonesia, the country with the largest population of Muslims. I think he knows full well that Islam is not a “race.” The racism charge I suspect is a boilerplate device that can handle anything the OIC has overlooked. There must be a secret Islamic text I’ve not yet discovered, called How to Talk From Both Sides of One’s Mouth: Successful Examples of Taqiyya and Islamic Dissimilation From the Pros. Its popular title is probably Taqiyya For Dummies.

And one can only gawk at the characterization of Islam as a “pristine religion.” Not with knowledge of all the blood on its hands, blood it has shed over fourteen centuries.

On January 20th, The Clarion Project reported on just how Islam is committed to freedom of speech about a January 17th “funny and well-funded conference” about how to combat Islamophobia. .

Less than two weeks after the massacre of French journalists for insulting Mohammed, the founder of Islam, American Islamists held a conference last Saturday  titled, “Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect.”

Only selected press was allowed into the event and only for the first 20 minutes.
The conference was billed as a fundraiser to establish a “Strategic Communication Center” to combat “Islamophobia” and train young Muslims in media relations.

Islam has no “honor” to defend and has earned not “respect” but fear and loathing. The young Muslims will purportedly be introduced to the art of fabricating and disseminating funny complaints.

If the West is ever going to see a cessation of Islam’s murderous onslaught, then the chief funders and instigators of that onslaught must be taken out: Saudi Arabia and Iran.


:: Permalink | 1 Comments ::

 

 

» Recent Posts

» The Muslim’s Conundrum
» Crying for Argentina
» The Muslim Ministry of Funny Complaints
» A Miscellany of Observations
» Islam, CAIR and Politically Correct Speech
» Force, Blasphemy, and Freedom of Speech
» My Dangerous New York Times Interview
» A Reply to a Muslim Caliban
» The Establishment’s Anti-Reality Check
» Paris: City of Darkness

» RSS Feed


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
We want to hear from you!

 


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
»
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
»
Thrutch
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


SPONSORED LINKS


 

Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster