Sunday, January 11, 2015

A Reply to a Muslim Caliban

On January 10th, Enza Ferreri ran on her blog spot an excerpt from the late journalist Oriana Fallaci’s predictions about the fate of Italy (and of Europe) in the face of unopposed mass Muslim immigration from the Mideast and North Africa. In the excerpt, she argues that the minuscule size of the activist, fundamentalist, jihadist element in any European Muslim population is irrelevant. It is the inescapably virulent ideology which that population also carries with it like leprous lesions that enables and emboldens the terrorism-minded among it.

The canard of "moderate" Islam, the comedy of tolerance, the lie of the integration, the farce of multiculturalism continue. And with that, the attempt to make us believe that the enemy consists of a small minority and that small minority lives in distant countries. Well, the enemy is not a small minority. And he's in our home. He's an enemy that at first glance does not look like an enemy. Without a beard, dressed in Western fashion, and according to his accomplices in good or bad faith perfectly-assimilated-into-our-social-system. That is, with a residence permit. With the car. With family. Never mind if the family is often made up of two or three wives, never mind if the wife or wives are constantly beaten up, if he sometimes kills his blue-jeans-wearing daughter, if sometimes his son rapes the 15-year-old Bolognese girl walking in the park with her boyfriend. He is an enemy that we treat as a friend. Who nevertheless hates and despise us with intensity.

He is, Fallaci continued:

An enemy who, right after settling in our cities or countryside, engages in bullying and demands free or semi-free housing as well as the right to vote and citizenship. All of which he gets easily. An enemy who imposes his own rules and customs on us.

He represents an advance force that intends to implement a total conquest of Europe to fashion a mammoth individual caliphate (with the cooperation of the behemoth European Union) or pick off each country singly to create many caliphates. He is here to aid in the conquest of Europe. He will refuse to assimilate or will assimilate only in non-essential ways, such as in his dress. He might even learn the native language. But, otherwise, he is here to command and lord it over non-Muslims. He is a foot soldier of Islam. He is “martyring” himself by enjoying a higher standard of living and an enhanced longevity not possible in his pest hole of origin. His pain and suffering stem from having to rub shoulders with the filthy kaffir and ogling the “exposed meat” of European women in their mini-skirts.

He’s ready to become “radicalized” by a “religion” that is radically primitive and totalitarian. He’s ready to become an “extremist” or a “militant,” or an “activist militant,” or a “militant activist extremist” in pursuit of Muslim “justice” – which means murder, rape, and income redistribution through taxes to support a European welfare state. Those taxes also support prisons populated disproportionately by Muslim criminals. Name me the country without a large Muslim count of inmates. It must be Patagonia. Patagonia isn’t a country, you say? Well, there you are.

He carries two bayonets: Islam’s, and the gilt-edged invitation of  multiculturalism, diversity, and political/sensitivity correctness. Europe might be able to fight the first, militarily, and effectively (as France did in Mali, as its police and security forces did in the post-Hebdo hostage-takings), but its self-imposed Rules of Engagement with Islam forbid it to question Islam and whether or not it is benign or malign. That is an ideational conflict which the European elite (and American politicians) refuses to fight.

Fallaci regarded Islam and its occupying, parasitical populations (aka, “settlers”) as a cancer that has invaded an anemic body – anemic because the governments that invited them are unable or unwilling to form any practical policies to fight the invasion, the brunt of which falls on the indigenous population in terms of crime, taxes, harassment, anti-Semitism, enforced compliance with Sharia, and threats of violence. Muslims have established their own Sharia-governed “separate but equal” ghettos or areas that are “no-go” zones for the police, firefighters, and the local and national law.

No sooner had Ferreri posted her Fallaci column than a Muslim troll signed in and left a ranting diatribe against freedom of speech. He has since been answered by me and several other readers who found his assertions bizarre, ludicrous, and overwhelmingly hostile. He signed his rant with “IA” together with a link to his alleged organization –

I searched for such an organization, found several Islamic “schools” of Islamic studies in London, but none of whose URLs matched the troll’s URL.  A search using his URL turned up nothing.

The troll’s name is Iftikhar Ahmad. A Facebook-style photograph of him was appended to his rant. A search on that medium turned up eight namesakes; not a one of them resembles him, none sports a Muslim-style beard, as he does, or any beard at all. They must be apostates.

Iftikhar Ahmad’s minor discourse in his lengthy comment on the blamelessness of Islam and Muslims and the wickedness of the West is such a tongue-twisting, mind-bending instance of Islamic taqiyya that it deserves a response. It is representative of the level of deception, falsehood, and dissimulation regularly practiced by Muslim spokesmen when addressing the West, and bought whole or in diet-conscious portions by Western politicians, liberal and leftist pundits, and the mainstream media. In this column I discuss only two paragraphs of  Ahmad’s entire diatribe. You will need to read the whole thing yourselves.

I begin with his last paragraph. It’s zanier than the best Marx Brothers routine.

The vast majority of terrorist attacks on US soil have been by non-Muslims. The vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe have been by non-Muslims. And Muslims are more often the victims of terrorism. The Muslims today are a demonized underclass in France. A people vilified and attacked by the power structures. A poor people with little or no power and these vile cartoons made their lives worse and heightened the racist prejudice against them. Even white liberals have acted in the most prejudiced way. It was as if white people had a right to offend Muslims and Muslims had no right to be offended? The difference was, when white people were offended, they had the state, white corporate media and the threat of a right wing mob to make their point — Muslims had nothing.

Ahmad appears to be plagiarizing Al Sharpton. Whites are all devils. This is Sharpton talk in olive-skin. (That is Ahmad’s complexion in his photograph). Ahmad forgets that Islam is not a race, it is an ideology subscribed to by the olive-skinned, by blacks, by Asians, and by whites. So much for that vaunted “racial prejudice” against Muslims.

Charlie Hebdo was not a part of the French “power structure”; if anything, it and Charlie Hebdo were committed enemies of each other. Muslims are not “more often” the victims of terrorism, except during Sunni-Shi’ite slugfests in the Middle East and North Africa. Non-Muslims have not conducted any terrorist attacks in Europe or elsewhere, except for the very occasional paint- or pig’s-blood splattered mosque. (Total casualties: one oinker.) The vast majority have been committed by…Muslims.

Muslims are not a “demonized underclass” in any Western country. If anything, they’re coddled and treated with kid gloves by governments, who go to great lengths to stop any vilification of them with speech laws. They are not a “poor people with little or no power.”

At last count, President François Hollande received 93% of the Muslim vote in France during the last election, which guaranteed that he would continue his coddling policies. As for Muslims being “poor” (aka, “disadvantaged,” or kept at subsistence level, but how to explain all those photographs of roly-poly, burqa- or chador-draped women roaming European streets, pushing expensive-looking baby prams?).  It’s a universal practice among multi-married Muslim men in every European country to collect welfare state benefits for each wife, gauged again by the number of his other dependents, such as children. These people can afford so many cars in France that they burn about a thousand of them every New Year’s Eve, and shop for newer models to replace them. It must be the Muslim version of French automotive industry subsidies, similar to our bail-out of General Motors.

French economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) discussed a similar economic fallacy: Breaking windows keeps the glassmakers in business. Someone in Moslemland must have read Bastiat’s Parable of the Broken Window, and had a brilliant, pyromaniac idea.

The next to last paragraph of Ahmad’s goes:

As for the killing of Charlie Hebdo staff by two or three gunmen, I hold my head high and say that even though I don't sanction, encourage, or endorse what they did, I'm not going to shed any tears for the vicious, racist, and malevolent victims who were the target of their excess. If a drug dealer gets run over by a car in my neighbourhood, I'm not expected to do a #Je_Suis_Drug_Dealer hash tag on twitter. I have more self-respect than that as a human being and as a Muslim. I do feel some pity for the Charlie Hebdo staff. I feel sorry that they chose to live a life of hate and die a death of hate, and that they could not find the stuff of human goodness in their hearts to do something better than be the Pharonic slave driver whipping the poor Hebrews of French society under their lash. I think there should be a uniform policy against publication of material that hurts religious feelings. Freedom of speech is all very well but with freedom should come responsible behavior or laws to ensure responsible behavior. There are limits to freedom of expression. These guys TRESPASSED them. They paid the fine for doing so.

This is mostly sanctimonious drivel. Ahmad doesn’t “sanction, encourage, or endorse” the “excessive” murder of twelve unarmed people, but, because they were “vicious, racist, and malevolent,” that’s okay with him. After all, they were as bad as drug dealers. Who’ll miss them? The victims “trespassed” on his feelings and those of other Muslims, inflicting irreparable emotional and material damage . Ergo, even though Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists never heard of Ahmad, they were “vicious, racist, and malevolent.”

“Non-excessive” assaults with, say, poisoned-paint-ball guns he would likely sanction, endorse and encourage, as long as the victims were only half-murdered. Or not. However, murder is murder and I don’t think Ahmad grasps that the staff of Charlie Hebdo never committed murder, so it wasn’t even an issue of an “eye for an eye.” Charlie Hebdo wasn’t engaged in tribal/clan warfare with Muslims. The publication simply despised their “religion.”

And no one ever frog-marched a Muslim and forced him to look at a cartoon of Mohammad.

I raise a hypothetical question here: Had Charlie Hebdo, instead of mocking Mohammad with grotesque caricatures, instead regularly projected him as a noble-looking moral savant, as he is depicted in the bas-relief of him in the U.S. Supreme Court (complete with his ever-handy scimitar), would Muslims have minded it so much as to commit murder? The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in 1997 mounted a challenge to have the image removed, but the petition was dismissed by then Chief Justice William Rehnquist (for rather specious reasons).  

The one statement of his that defies my powers of interpretation is that Charlie Hebdo was “the Pharonic slave driver whipping the poor Hebrews of French society.” It leaves me scratching my head, although it is clearly anti-Semitic. Ahmad is capable of his own “insulting” caricatures.

In conclusion, Iftikhar Ahmad is a modern day Caliban, that beast with whom ship-wrecked Prospero in Shakespeare’s The Tempest had a love-hate relationship. There are countless clones of him out there. Ahmad apparently is a chatterbox who can talk your head off before he is moved to take it off.

Not once in his rant did he challenge any of Oriana Fallaci’s statements about the perils of letting in the Huns. Or submitting to the Borg. Or admitting herds of the Walking Dead.

 It was all about him and his “victimhood.”

No comments: