:: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 ::
We Are All Al-Qadists Now
Posted by Edward Cline at 9:16 AM
One of the most appalling and bizarre opinion pieces about the Ground Zero mosque appeared on August 21st in The New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof’s “Taking Bin Laden’s Side.” The op-ed closely follows and dovetails with a Times report on how opposition to the mosque has only “provoked” Islamic “extremists” and “played into their hands.“
Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam.
Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say.
This amazing statement is based on the premise that not being “hostile” to Islam would somehow mitigate Islam’s hostility for the West and particularly its hostility for the United States. Ergo, we should just keep quiet about the Ground Zero mosque and not provoke “extremists” with “extremism” of our own.
Incensed about American opposition to the mosque (once Cordoba House, now called Park 51, to move the focus away from any suggestion of Islamic conquest), Kristof maligns the mosque’s opponents by arbitrarily allying them with Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, because they, too, appear to Kristof to be against “interfaith harmony.”. Ergo, they are intolerant bigots, and probably racists, recalcitrant enemies of “religious freedom.“ The piece is largely an excuse to attack Republicans, but one may take it as an attack on anyone who opposes the mosque.
Osama abhors the vision of interfaith harmony that the proposed Islamic center represents. He fears Muslim clerics who can cite the Koran to denounce terrorism. It’s striking that many American Republicans share with Al Qaeda the view that the West and the Islamic world are caught inevitably in a “clash of civilizations.”
Osama does not fear Muslim clerics who can cite the Koran, because the Koran can both sanction and “denounce” terrorism -- as long as the denunciation is addressed to future dhimmis in English. Krifstof also errs in thinking that most Republicans subscribe to the “clash of civilizations” argument. They do not. Most of them are as ignorant of the subject as most Democrats, and like them unwilling or unable to see the broader picture, that Islam is a totalitarian ideology tricked out in elaborate but disingenuous religious garb. They, too, accept the illogic that to be “anti-Islam” is to be bigoted, racist, or intolerant. Their thinking does not penetrate beneath the garb.
Firmly pinching his leftist nose to obstruct the offensive odors of freedom, Kristof sneers:
The first is that a huge mosque would rise on hallowed land at ground zero. In fact, the building would be something like a YMCA, and two blocks away and apparently out of view from ground zero. This is a dense neighborhood packed with shops, bars, liquor stores — not to mention the New York Dolls Gentlemen’s Club and the Pussycat Lounge (which says that it arranges lap dances in a private room, presumably to celebrate the sanctity of the neighborhood). Why do so many Republicans find strip clubs appropriate for the ground zero neighborhood but object to a house of worship? Are lap dances more sanctified than an earnest effort to promote peace?
I do not know of any YMCA’s that consciously harbor the promulgation of a hostile ideology, as most mosques in America do (about 80% of them financed by Saudi Arabian Wahhabists). Nor am I aware of any Republicans publicly endorsing strip clubs and lap dancing. Frankly, “shops, bars, liquor stores,“ and even strip clubs are consistent with what America is all about -- the freedom to trade, drink, and associate with whomever one pleases -- a freedom which Islam opposes and promises to extinguish.
Kristof performs a Joe Biden-caliber gaffe by referring the Imam Feisal Rauf’s mosque as a “house of worship,” when its promoters have strenuously denied it would be one, claiming that this structure would only incidentally have a “prayer room.” One may as well deem St. Patrick’s Cathedral uptown as a “community center” which only incidentally has an altar, pulpit, and nave.
We have Kristof’s assurances that Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, are on the up-and-up about the mosque being a mere “community center” because,
I know Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife -- the figures behind the Islamic community center -- and they are the real thing.
The “real thing”? President George W. Bush held Saudi King Abdullah’s hand, and President Barack Obama bowed to him, neither of them knowing “the real thing,” either. But then friendship with a con man like Imam Rauf is a necessary condition for the success of the con. However, this should not much bother Kristof, because he himself is devoted to the three card monte scam of moral relativism. He is just not as good at it as Rauf. He has fallen, willingly or not, for the chimera of the imam’s kindly, grandfatherly persona, just as many Americans have fallen for the chimera of ObamaCare and other socialist legislation, proposed or enacted.
Kristof also dwells on irrelevancies. Brushing aside the fact that Islam’s historical record is one of brutal conquest, he cites instead Christianity’s not-very-sterling record.
The second misconception underlying this debate is that Islam is an inherently war-like religion that drives believers to terrorism. Sure, the Islamic world is disproportionately turbulent, and mullahs sometimes cite the Koran to incite murder. But don’t forget that the worst brutality in the Middle East has often been committed by more secular rulers, like Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad. And the mastermind of the 1970 Palestinian airline hijackings, George Habash, was a Christian.
Remember also that historically, some of the most shocking brutality in the region was justified by the Bible, not the Koran. Crusaders massacred so many men, women and children in parts of Jerusalem that a Christian chronicler, Fulcher of Chartres, described an area ankle-deep in blood. While burning Jews alive, the crusaders sang, “Christ, We Adore Thee.”
There, Kristof boasts, is my top-drawer relativist argument, which I offer for your diversion and that you cannot rebut except in a two-volume book, which I won’t read anyway because it would be filled with religious bigotry and character assassination. Our “clashing civilizations” are both guilty of atrocities and massacres. So, don’t pick on Islam, stop throwing stones, because I threw the first ones at my own house, and I wish you would be humble enough to keep your mouths shut.
It is Kristof who labors under a misconception, for Islam is a warlike ideology, posing as a “religion of peace.” Yes, George Habash, a Christian, was a prominent leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, as well as founder of the rival and Communist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This is as irrelevant as the fact that Josef Stalin, Communist dictator, studied at a theological seminary before embarking on his murderous career. Kristof implies that, yes, Islam has its bad men, but so has Christianity, so there is no reason to brand Islam as the devil incarnate.
As for Imam Rauf himself, he has a less-than-chaste background that straddles both stealth or “cultural” jihad in this country and the realm of terrorism itself. Alyssa A. Lappen, a leading authority on Islam, meticulously details both aspects of Rauf’s career. His association with the Muslim Brotherhood should dispel any doubts about his true motives and intentions. Discussing Article 17 of a long 1991 Brotherhood-inspired memorandum on how to rot and conquer the West from within, and in particular the United States, Lappen cites this specific section:
“The center we seek is the one which constitutes the “axis” of our Movement, the “perimeter” of the circle of our work, our “balance center”, the “base” for our rise and our “Dar al-Argam” to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the “niche” of our prayers. (emphasis added)
Lappen concludes with,
The Muslim Brotherhood clearly spelled it out in Article 17. Building Islamic centers equals building military “battalions,” points from which to later stage the planned destruction of the West.
Not so ironically, but wholly consistent with such conscious destruction, Investors Business Daily ran a piece on how American Muslims are now largely planning and directing Islamic terrorism. The article lists five individuals with American backgrounds who are staging these attacks from overseas. These individuals have the advantage of knowing their enemy, while our policymakers refuse to know their enemy.
By remaking itself into an American enterprise, al-Qaida is now more lethal than ever. Its new generation of leaders understands the way America works, having lived here for decades. They have a better sense of our security blind spots. They also know which kinds of attacks will produce both mass panic and maximum economic damage.
Another development is the start-up of an Islamic “college” last Monday (August 23rd) in a most appropriate venue, Berkley, California, home of the radical “free speech” movement (many of whose exponents went on to government careers to better impose socialism on America) and now home of what can only be called a home-grown madrassa for adults, Zaytuna College.
Their training in political science and economic will be confined to courses in shariah law…At the end of their four years of education, the graduates of Zaytuna will be expected to take part of the Islamic conquest of the American continent - - a conquest that began with the Immigration and Naturalization Law of 1965. They will be qualified to serve as imams at the hundreds of new mosques that are cropping up throughout the country every year and as Islamic chaplains in the military…Only two majors are offered at the new college: Arabic Language and Islamic Law and Theology.
Americans are behind this aspect of stealth jihad, as well.
Sheikh Hamza Yusuf , the key founder of Zaytuna College, was born in Washington state and raised by his Roman Catholic father and Greek Orthodox mother in northern California as Mark Hanson. He converted to Islam in 1977. In 1991, he delivered a classic oration entitled “Jihad Is the Only Way” to the California chapter of the Islamic Circle of North America.
It is interesting that Hanson styles himself a “sheik.” What does he think about the country he wishes to see ruled by Sharia law? Among other things,
I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights or any other element of this society that is held sacrosanct by the ill-informed peoples that make up this charade of a society.
Finally, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry of “Swift Boat” notoriety, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and proud possessor of bogus combat medals from Vietnam, is doing his bit to Islamize America. He introduced a bill, the International Professional Exchange Act of 2010 (S. 3688)), would specifically send Americans to “Muslim majority” countries to do Peace Corps type work, and invite Muslims to this country to perform the same kinds of selfless tasks.
“Today we stand at the crest of a demographic wave that will transform the early 21st century,” said Chairman Kerry. “Many societies are grappling with enormous economic strains as they struggle to keep up with the demands of a growing population. We need to meet these challenges head-on. This legislation is designed to help build professional capacity, strengthen civil society, and improve ties between the United States and Muslim-majority countries through a two-way exchange of professional fellows.”
“By targeting professionals like teachers, city planners, and public health workers, this program can be a valuable step in bolstering workforces around the globe. And by encouraging public-private partnerships, this program can help unite our institutions, governments, businesses, and charities around a common cause,” continued Chairman Kerry.
Which proves that one need not be a Muslim “brother” or activist ikhwan to advance the cause and campaign of Islam. There is an ideological linkage between Islam and what Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Kerry, and others propose that Americans “submit“ to vis-à-vis their socialist agenda, which will be explored in a future article.
9 Comments ::
:: Thursday, August 19, 2010 ::
Nancy Pelosi, Pen Pal
Posted by Edward Cline at 7:44 PM
Levity can be leveraged.
Roger L. Simon, writer, critic, and regular columnist for Pajamas Media and other news outlets and blogs, responded to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s remark on KCBS Radio in San Francisco that the funding behind the effective and influential opposition to Imam Feisal Rauf’s Ground Zero mosque (once Cordoba House, now called Park51) should be investigated. Doubtless she had been informed that about 65% of Americans are opposed to the mosque, and that this is largely a consequence of not only the blogosphere, which is doing the MSM‘s job of actually reporting news that‘s fit to report and print.
It is also the result of the dedicated, concerted, and collective efforts of critics operating independently on a total budget perhaps one one-hundredth the size of her House of Representatives income. This does not include her various Speaker perks, travel allowances (e.g., commandeered military aircraft for junkets, for getting home to have dinner with her very quiet, frightened-turtle, multi-millionaire hubby in San Francisco, and other pressing, “official“ business), a premium health care plan which most taxpayers who are paying for it could not afford, a multitude of reimbursable expenses, and other elitist benefits.
Roger Simon, in “Investigate Me, Nancy!” begs her in his “open letter” to Pelosi to please, please investigate him, because it’s her patriotic duty to, well, squelch all criticism of the Ground Zero mosque, ObamaCare, and other matters. It would give her so much satisfaction. Otherwise, he might be taken for a racist, or a bigot, or a cretin. He asks her to find and follow the money trail, although he admits there is no trail to follow. Never mind Imam Rauf’s own money trail, that’s completely “legitimate” it would certainly not lead to states that sponsor terrorism and who plotted and funded the 9/11 attacks on this country. And as for Rauf’s credentials as an “out-reacher” to all faiths and persuasions, well, he did attend some suspicious conferences and once said (rather amusingly) that the only place “interfaith dialogue” occurs is in hotel conference rooms, nowhere else if he could help it, and that he really didn’t believe in it.
I left a comment on Mr. Simon’s article which the satirist in me compels me to enlarge upon. It is an imaginary but wholly credible “open letter” reply from Nancy to Roger Simon. After all, they are both public figures, so, why not be “open” about it?
Are you serious? Are you, really? You’re not joking? I don’t know what I’ve said or done to earn such…well…not to put too fine a word on it: Sarcasm? Invective? Hate? I’ve half a mind (and I DARE you go comic about that!) to propose to the House that someone introduce a bill that would ban all hateful thoughts and words by outsiders (meaning the electorate, and especially Tea Partiers and bloggers), spoken or printed, about the members here, including me, to preserve the respect and dignity of my office and the House’s that we deserve.
We’d only need to dither over punishments and penalties -- behind closed doors, of course, transparency has its limits and we couldn’t concentrate on the bill’s particulars with lots of ignorant people shouting at us all the time. Of course, you and everyone else “out there” would need to wait for the bill to be passed and sent up to the Senate and the White House so you can see what’s in it.
Of course, that would require the creation of a new federal enforcement agency, and setting aside some budget money for it, or raising taxes, or just ordering the Treasury Department to print the necessary funds. What would the new agency be like? Something, well, a little like the Gestapo, or the Stasi, or the KGB, but without any scary faces or anything. No trench coats or fedoras or anything like that. You want effective, efficient government? We can oblige you. I understand those people were very effective moral conditioners and dispellers of bad feelings, even though they lacked the sophisticated SWAT gear that exists today. So, do you really want me to propose an investigation?
Now, I really wouldn’t want to do such a thing, but you must admit it would be good for the country, good for communications, a necessary corrective to preserve the power and dignity of those who know better than you what’s good for you in every little thing. You know how bad feelings and bad thoughts can simply ruin perfectly good relationships, and here I thought we had one, until people began asking me questions, and saying that “we lie,” and insisting on poking their noses into the House’s business, and just behaving like Americans gone wild. It’s intolerable and very saddening and I wonder just what this country is coming to, what with all those disrespectful town hall meetings and people waving silly flags and signs in Washington and all over.
About the Ground Zero mosque matter: We have reviewed all the information available about Imam Rauf and his partners and his funding sources, and have concluded that they’re irrelevant and the mosque will pose no security threat to this country. Of course, all the available information is hard to interpret, because all references to Muslims and Islam and terrorists have been banned from intelligence memos and the like, so it’s just your word against ours. Very difficult for you.
And, besides, to build or not to build the mosque is a local issue, very pedestrian, hardly a national security one. Mayor Bloomberg said so -- bless his heart, even though he’s a Republican -- and there’s the kind of bipartisan cooperation I’ve been talking about for the longest time! And now the archbishop of New York has endorsed the mosque, and he’s hoping Muslims and Islam will let bygones be bygones, because it was a couple of Catholic monarchs who kicked the Muslims out of Spain, wasn’t it? In 1492, when Columbus discovered America? Or was that later? What a shame. Those poor Muslims and Indians over here got such a raw deal in the same year. I’m told that Indians contributed as much as the Muslims to this country, they discovered the wheel and corn and stuff and I think I read somewhere that it was a Muslim pilot who had a magnet or compass or something on the Piñata or Pinto, one of those ships, that got Columbus over here in the first place.
Besides, this whole “affront to the country” thing and claiming the mosque at Ground Zero would be a victory symbol for Muslims overseas or the Taliban people, is just a lot of emotionalism and horse apples, as my father used to say. Smacks of the Ku Klux Klan and Rotary Club or Shriner bigotry. It would be a victory for religious freedom in this country, and I challenge anyone to prove to me that Islam is some kind of intolerant ideology bent on replacing our beloved Constitution with Muslim law, like some kind of sneak, as some right-wing paranoids are saying. I mean, I’m not an expert on Islam or Muslims, but I did go to the Mideast and wore a scarf or negligee or burqa or whatever that’s called. I admit Muslims wear funny clothes and do funny things -- not at all like the solemn things we do in my parish church -- you did know I’m a Catholic, right? -- but we must be tolerant of the peculiar ways of all creeds.
Now, Roger, if you want me to propose an investigation into your opposition funding, I will. All I have to do is slip the word to the right people. But wouldn’t you just rather I hit you over the head with my special Speaker’s gavel? I’ve acquired quite a swing! It would be so much simpler a solution, and it would save time and taxpayer money! Don’t just think of yourself, think of all the hard working Americans who’d have to pay for your incarceration.
By the way, don’t write me off as un-reelectable. Our Leader and I and Mr. Reid have some pretty tricky cards up our many and ample sleeves, so we’ll have the last laugh.
And, Roger, you know how I can laugh. In your face, or to the side, or up my sleeve.
As always, cordially, and impishly, your “public servant” (chuckle, chuckle),
Speaker of the House
United States Congress
2 Comments ::
:: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 ::
A Nexus of Nihilism
Posted by Edward Cline at 12:19 AM
“Political nihilism advocates the prior destruction of all existing political, social, and religious orders as a prerequisite for any future improvement,” states one Internet site. “Existential nihilism, the most well-known view, affirms that life has no intrinsic meaning or value.”
It should confound no one that the “atheistic” or “agnostic” liberal/left has found common ground with Islam, ostensively a religious creed, thus allying itself with political/religious ideology. How can this be, when they are so obviously antithetical? For brevity’s sake, I use the term socialism throughout this commentary to stand for any of its variants: the liberal/left, communism, fascism, corporatism, or any political system that regards the individual as a mere cog of society, duty-bound to serve and sacrifice to it, and indebted to society and/or the state for his existence and well-being.
It is the thesis of this commentary that both socialism and Islam are forms of political nihilism, and that both contend that the life of the individual has no intrinsic meaning or value outside of their systems. One ascribes meaning to the individual as a unit of society and its servant, and no more than that. The other ascribes meaning to the individual as a debtor to and servant of a supreme being, and no more than that.
As demonstrated by the actions of President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress over the last one and a half years, socialism (with fascist trappings) adheres to its purpose of destroying all existing political, social and economic orders as a prerequisite for any further improvement. This is and continues to be the goal of Obama’s “hope and change.”
As demonstrated by the alleged “extremists” of Islam, and by their “non-violent” brethren, Islam likewise seeks to destroy all existing political, social, economic, and religious orders as a prerequisite for any future improvement, which is a global caliphate in which all men submit to Islam, one way or another, or die..
These two ideologies have, for the moment, set aside their differences to work together until the common enemy, the West, is disabled, conquered, emasculated, and beaten. In the United States, it means to vitiate the Constitution, abandon the republican form of government, and institute some form of “pure” democracy. Under the secular brand, this would mean the manipulated (and bogus) rule of the “poor” and “needy” of all stripes and categories. Under Islam, it would mean ruling a subservient and obedient class of Muslims and a sub-class of conquered non-believers.
On the surface, Islam and socialism are discordant and irreconcilable opposites. In truth, they are rivals for political power, and only one can “win” in that contest. If Islam triumphs, “atheistic” and other non-believing socialists would be expected to convert and “submit” to the religious component of Islam, which is fundamentally a political/religious ideology, and to acknowledge Allah as the one and only “true” God and Mohammed as his prophet. Barring conversion, the socialist must accept the status of a dhimmi and pay jizya, or a special tax on non-believers. He will exist at the pleasure of Islam. The only other alternative offered by Islam is death.
Islam is no stranger to socialism. In fact, as Daniel Pipes and other observers have noted, Islam has made common cause with communism and socialism in the past. Islamic scholars and intellectuals have endorsed socialist trends in countries they wished to see Islam triumph. The phenomenon of America’s liberal/left making cause with Islam is just another episode of that on-again and off-again alliance.
If socialism wins, Islam is no worse off. It can exist in a socialist political/economic environment and bide its time, unless totalitarian measures are taken by the state to eradicate Islam as a rival ideology. The Soviet Union for decades suppressed both Christianity and Islam and all manner of other religions. Under socialism, everyone, including Muslims, would need to acknowledge the state or some personification of it (e.g., “Big Brother”) or some other prominent person and advocate of collectivism as the “true” God or “savior, and Karl Marx or Mao or Lenin as the “prophet.” Opposition to or digression from such deference and worship in any form would be deemed heresy, or blasphemy, and be punished with repression, imprisonment, or death.
If the West is sundered and vanquished, the two species of totalitarianism will fight savagely over the carcass, just as Hitler and Stalin fought over the carcass of Eastern Europe. That, of course, would be the beginning of a new Dark Age. Let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of “illegal” Catholic Mexicans pouring into this country. Will they convert to Islam or put up a fight? The totality of Islamic totalitarianism means just that: everyone and everything. Let us not forget America’s “native Americans,“ or the Indians, and Catholic South America, and Australia and New Zealand, and the whole of the African continent. Islam is committed to a global caliphate. That means everyone and everything coming under its rule. If the West collapses, it will be a bloody and horrendous Dark Age.
Why has the liberal/left formed a “gentlemen’s agreement” alliance with Islam? Islam opposed communism in Afghanistan, but one suspects that was mere opposition to a rival totalitarian ideology, not for sovereignty reasons. What would Islam profess to see it has in common with a strain of secular statism? What would advocates of secular statism profess to see it has in common with a political/religious ideology?
What are the commonalities of secular statism (or socialism) and Islam? What premises do they share? What are their shared ends? Are those ends similar or dissimilar or radically divergent?
The ends are demonstrably dissimilar and divergent. What unites them?
One thing stands out: The liberal/left, of its own accord and without evidence of an invitation, sides with Islam on several issues. There is Supreme Court appointee Elena Kagan and her penchant for Sharia law. There is Keith Ellison, Muslim representative from Minnesota. There is Barack Obama, who has a Muslim background and who has initiated an “outreach” to the Muslim world in a way he has not “reached out” to the Christian or secular world (except to pick its pockets).
The chief commonality between socialism and Islam is the deep-seated hatred -- and I would say is the fundamental motive of both socialism and Islam, its desiderative essence -- of the West, specifically of capitalism, of individual rights, and of freedom of speech. And particularly of America. What is it about those three hallmarks of Western culture that arouses the shared animosity? They are the requirements of an independent, unobstructed, free-to-act, selfish, value-driven, and life-affirming man. They are the descriptive attributes that cannot be permitted in a totalitarian society. They are diametrically opposite of what secular statism and Islam require to function. They are the unified, integrated nemesis of collectivism. They do not describe the “ideal” man in either ideology. Such a man must be eradicated, destroyed. And once destroyed, such a man in either system cannot be permitted to come into existence.
Under either system, the individual is but an obedient, manipulated, exploited, unquestioning manqué.
Islamic or Sharia law commands that Muslims who convert to Christianity or otherwise become apostates must be killed (Redda Law); women found guilty of adultery must be stoned to death; men can beat and rape their wives as disciplinary measures; homosexuals should be killed. Several Muslim texts declare that Jews are pigs and monkeys; killing them before the end of the world is a religious duty for Muslims. Muslim texts, approved by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Shafeii, Hanbali, Maleki, and Hanafi) state that Muslims must declare ceaseless wars against non-Muslims to spread Islam and those they conquer must either convert to Islam, pay jizya, or be killed.
The two brands of jihad -- violent and stealth -- must continue until the whole world is contained in the Islamic Ummah. Then there will be peace. An Islamic, totalitarian peace.
This is nihilism. Islam knows the good, and wishes to destroy it for the sake of its destruction. To replace it with a form of mass, universal zombie-ism, a society of the living dead.
Not something the left/liberals much contemplate. They are focused on the short-term gain of destroying the existing orders. The zealots of Islam, however, do not much contemplate their rival ideology or its practitioners. They are not concerned with the doctrines of socialism. They practically endorse them in their literature. They, too, wish to destroy the existing orders, to subjugate the individual in mind and body as thoroughly as the secular statists wish to. Should they lose the contest for power, they will continue to exist. They know that should they win the contest, their rivals will not be around for long.
The secular statists wish to destroy the good, as well, and replace the “existing order” with a zombie-populated mechanistic one that functions automatically in defiance of social and economic laws. In defiance of reality. This, too, is a nihilistic goal. They wish everyone to wade in the sump of socialism and be happy with what deleterious effluvia “society” provides them.
But, which is the more perilous ideology? Does one oppose Islam or socialism first? Or both at the same time? Which is more heinous, which is to be feared the most?
Observe cause and effect. When reason and Aristotelian philosophy governed the West, Islam was a fringe religion practiced in the uncivilized hell holes and backwaters of the world. Its practices of extortion, slavery, and brutality were beyond the pale of rational existence. It had no power to conquer the West or make any inroads in or demands on Western culture. There were no stagings in Muslim madrassas of a mullah-approved version of Mozart’s “Abduction from the Seraglio,” no Offenbach-like can-cans performed by women in smothering burqas or any other proscribed garb. No Muslim St. Gaudens sculpting Diana the Hunter, nor an Abdullah Hill building a private railroad across the Arabian wastes. The philosophy of life and living enjoyed in the West was incongruent, impossible, and antithetical to life under Islam. Winston Churchill observed just how deadening the religion was (and still is).
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy….Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
When the West began to abandon reason, at first piecemeal, then wholesale as it did throughout the twentieth century, all kinds of political and social pug-uglies began knocking on the West’s door. Islam began to acquire influence and an ascending momentum.
In short, socialism, or secular statism, adopted as a continuing political policy in the West, together with its destructive offspring, egalitarianism and multiculturalism, facilitated the invasion of and ascendancy of “radical” Islam, and in combination fostered the growth of competing ideologies of La Raza, black power, and other strains of collectivism.
Were it not for the multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and unlimited government power to impose such policies on America, to favor one group over another -- that is, the power to “level” the playing field to advance one alleged minority over another, in exchange for reciprocal support for the bestowers and dispensers of such favors at polling places -- Islam, La Raza, all the various beneficiaries of “group rights,” would remain, if they existed at all, on the farthest fringes of a free, civilized society, impotent by virtue of their inherent irrationalism.
All this has been examined before by professional intellectuals and perceptive observers, sometimes profitably, other times not. But I sense that the paradoxical nexus of today’s left/liberal alliance with Islam remains an insoluble paradox. However, I have a detective hero whose operating motto is, “Nothing that is observable in reality is exempt from rational scrutiny.” His specialty is to solve what I call “moral paradoxes.”
The left/liberal-Islam axis is a paradox that will remain one only to those who defer to the inscrutable in their lives, their economics, their philosophy. They are the ones who will end up slaves, or dead. They are the ultimate facilitators and enablers of the nihilists.
4 Comments ::
:: Saturday, August 14, 2010 ::
Towering Babble Over Cordoba House
Posted by Edward Cline at 3:52 PM
What should one write about first and foremost? The “greening” of America? The “socialization” of America? The “de-exceptionalism” of America? Or the “Islamization” of America?
I do not think Charles Krauthammer saw it coming, but in a rare alignment of political planets, he agreed with President Barack Obama by opposing the planned site of the Ground Zero mosque in lower Manhattan for the same reason that Obama endorsed it. Krauthammer claims that Ground Zero is “sacred” and that no mosque should be built on or near it. Obama, on the other hand, claims that it is the right of Muslims to build a mosque on private property as an instance of “religious freedom,” which one guess he regards of “sacred,” as well.
One shakes one’s head over Krauthammer’s confusion, and is tempted to laugh at Obama’s citation of “private property,” an institution he is devoted to abolishing.
Krauthammer disappoints, because he is otherwise so perceptive in his criticism of Obama’s policies. In this instance he practically sides with Obama in the latter’s evaluation and esteem of Islam. In his Washington Post article of August 13, “Sacrilege at Ground Zero,” he repeats the politically correct notion that Islam was “hijacked” by “extremists.”
Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
Calling the attack on this country by “Islamists” a “mass murder” without any qualifying description of it reveals that Krauthammer is utterly ignorant of the nature and ends of Islam. 9/11 was an attack on this country, a more emphatic declaration of war on America than was any previous terrorist depredation. 9/11 was not merely an act of “mass murder”; it was an attack designed to inflict the greatest number of casualties possible. In the next paragraph, Krauthammer compounds his ignorance.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
On the contrary, that “strain” of Islam is its core philosophical and political nature in action. It is fundamentally viral, vitriolic in its position on non-Muslims, and destructive. There is nothing “extreme” in how terrorists practice it. Their actions are not antithetical to it. It is as Islam is meant to be practiced. Run-of-the-mill, non-violent Muslims who do not practice Islam in its essentials are “sham Muslims,” who wish to have their mysticism and banal anonymity, too, passively content with their “submission.” It saves them from the task and responsibility of thinking.
Islam does not require agreement with its tenets, either with its violent or with its “pacific,“ esoteric ones; it demands mindless agreement with them. It is intolerant of internal dissension (witness the feuding between Sunnis, Shiites, and other Islamic sects), and of other religions. It cannot be “reformed” without destroying it. If it admitted disagreement, “reform” of Islam might be possible. But it forbids disagreement or dissension. So, there are no redeeming elements in Islam whatsoever. It is a moral code for manqués, for men and women who are human but who have voluntarily dispensed with their volition. It is for people who willingly surrender their minds and their identities to mysticism, either from fear of retribution for questioning it, or from a comfortable pragmatism.
This is what Krauthammer does not grasp. Further, he reveals his “conservative” take on property in his concluding paragraphs.
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all. These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred….
Build it anywhere but there.
The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
There are no “bridges” Rauf seeks to build, except those that would more easily allow Islam to cross them to invade, occupy, and conquer America. The governor of New York was wrong to offer Rauf and his backers help in finding land to build the mosque (whose land? State-owned land or land seized by eminent domain?), and was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibiting federal and state governments from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another.
As for zoning laws prohibiting liquor stores near schools and strip malls that “offend local sensibilities,” together with architectural codes and the like, these are wholly arbitrary statist laws that violate property rights. “Common decency,” moreover, is what apparently Rauf and his backers lack. And employment of the term “sacred” -- the nub of Krauthammer’s whole argument against the mosque -- is merely an unexamined emotional response to the prospect of a mosque being near Ground Zero.
“Build it anywhere but there”? Krauthammer should be perceptive enough to know that “there” is precisely where Rauf and his backers want the mosque, not for any “decent” reasons, but to erect a victory monument in Dar el-Harb, a country in which Islam is waging a war of conquest.
It is not so curious that some of the most prominent statists have come out in favor of the Ground Zero mosque: Obama, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, Governor Paterson, state Attorney General Cuomo, and others. They are all nascent totalitarians, as well. Of course they would be friendly to a totalitarian ideology, and practice what could be called “infidel taqiya” by posing their arguments for the mosque in terms of “religious freedom.”
Obama’s April 13th endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is not an error based on ignorance of Islam, nor is it a surrender to political correctness. It is a sugar-coated expression of malice for a country that is resisting his desire to transform it into one huge socialist penitentiary, and a particular verbal middle finger extended to those who died at Ground Zero and their survivors. Continuing a practice begun by his whipping boy predecessor in the Oval Office, George Bush, Obama presided over a Ramadan dinner at the White House.
"Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said at a White House iftar, the traditional breaking of the daily Ramadan fast.
Perhaps “anyone else” does have a right to practice his religion in this country, as long as he does not advocate murderous jihad against “anyone else” in this country. Muslims, however, are not “anyone else.” They are the self-effacing ciphers of a creed whose spokesmen boast that Islam will conquer America and urge the rank-and-file to engage in violent and stealth jihad. I cannot help but suspect that Obama knows this.
That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he continued. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.
Some “private property,” apparently, is more equal than others, as Obama’s own “jihadist” socialist agenda can testify. The overall “writ of the Founders” has been abused and ignored in the pursuit of that agenda. But, that issue aside, he must also know that Islam’s commitment to religious freedom is nonexistent. What is not there cannot be “unshakeable.” How often have we heard those same spokesmen boast that America is destined to become a Muslim-ruled America, and that the Constitution is an abomination, contrary to “Allah‘s will,“ and must be eliminated?
As Leonard Peikoff noted, rights exist in a context. If a religion or a state has declared war on America, we have no obligation to "respect" its property rights and "point of view," here or abroad. We have every moral right to eliminate them as a threat and stop them from achieving their agenda. Rauf and his ilk pretend to extend the “olive branch” of peace and tolerance and “interfaith dialogue.” What he and his ilk are actually offering is poison ivy coated with arsenic.
Obama spent more time “honoring” Islam and its alleged contributions to America than he did those who were killed on 9/11 with the destruction of the World Trade Center. He tossed this offensively brief fillip in their direction:
Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who led the response to that attack -- from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us also remember who we're fighting against, and what we're fighting for. Our enemies respect no religious freedom. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam -- it's a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders -- they're terrorists who murder innocent men and women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion -- and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.
Always make sure, one can imagine Rahm Emanuel advising Obama and his speech writers, to mention “innocent Muslims” killed on 9/11, in order to level the empathy. But, so what? Are any Muslims “innocent” who do not for any reason question the tenets of their faith? Those that do, become apostates who repudiate the faith -- and earn a death sentence. And, so what if al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than non-believers? It can boast that it killed 3,000 non-believers in one day, together with a handful of disposable Muslims.
One grows weary of hearing that 9/11 was “tragic.“ Earthquakes, tsunamis, nightclub fires, and head-on train collisions that result in innumerable deaths, are “tragic.” 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali, and the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing were acts of war. The thousands killed were casualties, not “innocent victims.” This is a reiteration of George Bush’s position on Islam, that Islam has been “hijacked.” Islam cannot be “distorted.”
As a political/religious ideology, Islam is the apotheosis of the psychotic. Listen to the speeches of prominent imams and mullahs on YouTube. Better yet, watch Geert Wilders’ Fitna, or Three Things about Islam You Didn’t Know, which clarifies the essentials of Islam. Any terrorist, living or dead, was exhorted by his Islamic religious leaders to do what he did or will do. Al Qaeda’s cause is the Taliban’s cause, as well as Hamas’s cause and Hezbollah’s and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s. And the Cordoba Initiative’s Imam Feisal Rauf’s.
Pamela Geller ruthlessly parses Obama’s pre-Ramadan dinner remarks in her Big Peace article of August 12th, "Obama Ramadanadingdong.”
Islam is more a political ideology than a religion or creed. Its critics, apostate Muslim and expert non-Muslim, know this, for otherwise they would not feel compelled to weigh in on the subject. What politicians ever felt compelled to defend Quakerism, or Amish-ism, or Scientology, for example, the way they do Islam?. I cannot think of any. There is no hidden agenda woven into those creeds' tenets. A totalitarian one is intricately woven through the whole fabric of Islam, in the Koran and the Hadith. Obama, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and other politicians focus on the religious face of Islam, and ignore the far more important political face of it.
This is for two reasons: it earns them brownie points with liberal/leftists (and with Muslims, of course), and because they are nascent totalitarians themselves. Examine their statist careers. Of course they are friendly to Islam. It is their own brand of deception, a kind of infidel taqiya. “I’m for ‘religious freedom’ and private property, too” -- wink, wink.
We are confronted with a tower of babbling rhetoric concerning the Ground Zero mosque, a literal “confusion of tongues” opposing and defending the structure. All of it, so far, ignores or disguises the true nature of Islam. The babble is a consequence of an abandonment of reason.
37 Comments ::
:: Friday, August 06, 2010 ::
Cordoba House: A 'Man-Caused' Disaster
Posted by Edward Cline at 11:09 PM
In March of 2009, the German magazine Der Spiegel interviewed Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano.
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur. (Italics mine)
Political catastrophes, such as the French Revolution and the rise of Nazi Germany, can certainly be deemed "man-caused" disasters. But what is the "politics of fear," and what is its antonym? Appropriately, Napolitano may have been subconsciously paraphrasing Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address in March 1933, when he stated, "let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Napolitano, like Attorney General Eric Holder and others in the Obama administration, prefer to leave the "terror" nameless and unjustified, and nothing to fear. After all, fear by Americans of the terror of Islamic jihad would obstruct the "reaching out" to our enemies, because Obama and his administration do not plan to combat Islam. Napolitano’s evasive "nuance" is a nemesis.
In the wake of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission’s decision on August 3rd that the shuttered Burlington Coat Factory building two blocks from Ground Zero, and damaged when a hijacked plane slammed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, did not merit "landmark" status, the furor over the decision and the Cordoba mosque (now being referred to as the "9/11 mosque") has been growing. The decision paved the way for its demolition and construction in its place of Cordoba House, billed publicly as a "community center" but in reality a mosque that will serve as a symbol of conquest ten years after the "tragic" event.
The moving "spirits" behind the mosque, Imam Feisal Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, often refer to the nearly 3,000 people who were slaughtered on 9/11 as practically "fatalities" or "tragic victims." On the contrary, because Islam has been waging war against the West for decades, and in particular against the United States, "fatalities" or "victims" is a deliberately misleading term. Fatalities occur in accidents or natural disasters. The correct term in the context of Islamic jihad is casualties. War causes casualties, not fatalities or victims.
Even those wise to the Islamic jihad mistakenly refer to the Americans who perished on 9/11 as "innocent victims." But in the eyes of Islam, they were all guilty, as much the enemy as an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Indeed, Rauf holds the U.S. responsible for goading those bad "extremists" into attacking the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and very likely the White House. This is consistent with the Muslim attitude towards the Muslim rapes of Muslim and non-Muslim women. Somehow, because of some act of "immodesty," the rape victims invite assault, and are guiltier than are their assailants.
Hailing the Landmarks Commission‘s decision, The Washington Post exhibited its typical pious, liberal/left amnesia:
We understand the sensitivities and the emotions that have accompanied every decision related to Lower Manhattan since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But many of the protests used the murderous actions of 19 Muslim fanatics on that awful day to smear the entire religion of Islam. To succumb to that kind of bigotry would be to give in to the extremists who want to finish what those hijackers started.
I detest Islam because it is one of the most degrading, anti-mind, anti-individual, collectivist creeds in existence. I detest it for all the crimes it has committed throughout history, perhaps more than I do the crimes committed by the Catholic Church in its heyday, perhaps more than the atrocities committed by any religious creed. I understand the sensitivities and emotions of all their victims. So, if that is bigotry, I will make the most of it. For Islam is distinct from all other creeds for the reason that it is, from top to bottom, virulently anti-life.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs famously toes the liberal/left party line, as evident in his response to a question about President Barack Obama’s position on the Ground Zero mosque.
"I think this is rightly a matter for the local community….I think you’ve heard this administration and the last administration talk about the fact that we’re not at war with a religion, but with an idea that has corrupted a religion. But that hasn’t been said. I’m not from here going to get involved in a local decision-making like that….Again, I think it is a decision that is appropriately debated at the local level…."
We are not at war "with a religion," but with "an idea that has corrupted a religion"? Islam is a "corrupted religion"? I am surprised that CAIR, the ISNA and MPAC have not jumped on such a derogatory and insulting remark and demanded an apology. But, Gibbs' remark is based on an ignorance of Islam. A "religion of peace" that encourages in its principal documents conquest, slavery, dhimmitude, honor killings, child marriage, pedophilia, and intolerance cannot be "corrupted." No, Mr. Gibbs, An idea did not corrupt Islam. The idea you allude to -- which is indiscriminate killing and universal submission -- resides in it. It is corruption incarnate.
It is a testament to the corrupting and emasculating influence of political correctness that so many people cannot or refuse to grasp the fact that Islam is just as much a political ideology as it is a religion. These two elements are as integral to its identity and driving force as the arms of a swastika. Take away one swastika arm, and the one left is a meaningless zigzag: this could represent the vitriolic blueprint for conquest. But remove instead that arm, and one has in the other arm an unintegrated, wholly arbitrary litany of bizarre imperatives passing as a moral code. All of it, of course, purportedly authored by a rapacious, brutal, murderous, pedophilic barbarian who is also the creed’s saintly "prophet." Without both arms, Islam would have an identity antithetical to what it actually is.
The comparison of Islam here with Nazism is not a throw-away analogy. Islam and Nazism share fundamental ideological tenets and premises. It is no coincidence that Islam is compatible with Nazism. Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem agreed wholeheartedly on that point. That agreement was not confined exclusively to their mutual hatred of Jews. The Grand Mufti envied Hitler for the whole of his ideology and for having brought it to fruition.
Islam is Islam. It means to conquer. The Cordoba mosque will serve as a field headquarters for more Islamic dawa, meaning indoctrination, proselytizing, recruitment, and fund-raising, behind the façade of a "community center." Rauf repeats the line we have heard from Presidents Bush and Obama, that the 9/11 hijackers were "extremists" or "Muslim fanatics." Or have Bush and Obama simply parroted what they have been told by spokesmen like Rauf (via CAIR, the ISNA, and other "civic" organizations)? They were enacting the core tenets of Islam. Islam means "submission," and the community board and the Landmark Preservation Commission submitted. The talking heads of the MSM denigrate anyone who opposes the mosque on moral grounds by calling them "racist" or "demagogues" or "bigoted."
Imam Rauf, the prime mover behind the mosque, has terrorist ties, and it is known to just about everyone but the Washington Post and the rest of the establishment press that when such figureheads talk of "peace" and "interfaith dialogue" in English to dhimmis and kaffirs, in Arabic they mean the opposite. And it is in Arabic that they mean what they say.
Those who hail the Landmarks Commission decision as a victory for "religious freedom", such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, should wake up and smell the blood, because it is not roses or religious freedom the Islamists are offering. It is submission and creeping Sharia law.
On August 6th The Daily Telegraph (London) featured an article that seemed to address the ignorance of politicians on the subject of Islam, "Our dangerous dalliance with radical Islam." To date it has generated nearly 500 responses, the majority of them castigating Andrew Gilligan, the writer, for his dangerous dalliance with dhimmitude. One reader, "Mark," wrote:
Mr. Gilligan, you have fallen for the pabulum that there is a distinction to be made between Islamism and Islam. And you have made that distinction – erroneously.
There is but one Islam, and that's Islam proper. No self-respecting Muslim would talk of Islamism, for he would know that such a term is a nonsense made up by ill-informed kufaar, or infidels.
To be a Muslim means to submit to the will of Allah (the root verb is salama), and to follow his messenger, Muhammad. All Muslims believe that Muhammad was the perfect man – al insaan al kamil. Good Muslims follow his lead and his example.
What Westerners call good Muslims, Muslims call fallen ones! They are moderate by dint of the fact that they do not follow correctly and closely the teachings of their prophet. Once they do, they become, in the eyes of people like you, Islamists.
We have a huge problem here in the West. First of all, we have to learn about Islam, and understand it; then we have to be determined to take the action it will take to purge the West of this cancer. If we cannot bring ourselves to do this, we will go down.
For your information, Islam has snuffed out each and every culture it has been allowed into. Ours will be no different.
My own response, which iterated many points I have made in past commentaries, garnered over eighty reader recommendations:
Mr. Gilligan writes: "Islam is a religion, practiced by millions of British citizens who have never sought to overthrow anything in their lives. Islamism is a revolutionary political doctrine, supported by a small minority of Muslims, whose aim is to overthrow secular democratic government and replace it with Islamic government." On the contrary, Islam is a political/religious ideology. Its core tenets sanction and encourage conquest, murder, or enslavement of infidels, dhimmis, and kaffirs. Sharia law is its political element. The political element aims to establish Islam as the only "true" faith, allowing no others. It does not allow "tolerance" or "interfaith dialogue."
Prominent spokesmen for Islam (the so-called "non-violent" kind) practice taqiya, or lying to beguile non-Muslims into thinking that Islam is "pacific"; this is sanctioned by the Koran to advance Islam by stealth or fraud. Islam cannot be "reformed" into a non-belligerent creed without gutting the Koran and associated tracts of their violent imperatives. If those are removed, what's left would be a "pacific" creed skin to the Quaker or Amish. If "pacific," non-violent Muslims are the majority, why do they not volubly condemn their "violent" brethren? Because they choose not to, or because they fear the consequences. Wake up, Mr. Gilligan: You've been lied to. You are a perfect dhimmi.
One reader opened with the statement that he was a "practicing Muslim." The rest of what he had to say was agreement with Gilligan that there is a distinction to be made between Islam and "radical Islam" or "Islamism," His comments amounted to an apologia for Islam.
But, what is a "practicing Muslim"? A practicing Muslim, one who applies the core teachings of his creed, is a terrorist. All other Muslims are passive, sham Muslims, much like most of their to-be-conquered, or to-be-enslaved, or to-be-slain Christian opposites of all sects, the "go to church on Sunday" believers. Sham Muslims are the silent dross who do not, or dare not, question the core tenets of Islam that motivate their more "activist" or consistent brethren. Sham Muslims exist merely to spur the population intifada in Western countries, to vote "Muslim" if political candidates demonstrate a sympathy for their alleged oppression, and to donate money to Islamic "charities," which are basically fund-raising venues for terrorists.
Ten years ago it would have been inconceivable that anyone would suggest, let alone approve, the construction of a mosque on or anywhere near Ground Zero. But over the decade the enemy took the measure of the United States -- or at least of its political and cultural leaders -- and grew confident that it could mark its victory with such a mosque and gain the support of that leadership.
Cordoba House, if allowed to flaunt its triumph over America, will indeed be a moral and political "man-caused" disaster.
14 Comments ::