Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    July 2024
    S M T W T F S
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘dhimmitude’

Sam Harris: “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks”

Posted by Richard on June 13, 2016

With Orlando’s hospitals and morgue filled with the victims of jihad, an Obama/Bernie supporting SJW declared that “the real victims … are Muslims,”  the Planned Parenthood Black Community organization blamed the violence on “toxic masculinity” and “imperialist homophobia,” and ACLU lawyers blamed the “Christian right.” I could cite a dozen more examples along those lines, and that’s without even touching on the thousands blaming the NRA and guns for the slaughter.

Last night, best-selling thriller author Brad Thor tweeted the following, and he couldn’t be more correct:

The article is by Sam Harris and appeared at the Huffington Post about three weeks ago. It’s a bit long, but a compelling and quick read. Here’s a taste:

The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.”

But don’t stop there. Read the whole thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

Punishing Christian speech, embracing Sharia law

Posted by Richard on November 11, 2010

Publicly professing a belief in Christianity or inviting others to learn about it are punishable offenses in more places than you might think. But the severity of the punishment varies considerably.

In Pakistan, they sentence you to death. And sometimes just shoot you on the spot.

In Dearborn, Philadelphia, and Wichita, they just throw you in jail for a while. Don't count on the ACLU and other human rights organizations to help.

Any statement suggesting that Islam is not the one true religion or that Islamic law shouldn't govern everyone everywhere is considered either "blasphemy" or "defamation" by the Islamists, and they're waging a worldwide campaign to criminalize (or silence through intimidation) such statements. They have the UN on their side.

Last week, Oklahoma voters — 70% of them — adopted a constitutional amendment barring judges from relying on Sharia or international law for court rulings. They were perhaps motivated by the Islamists' war on free speech and the growing trend in Europe of bending to Sharia, as evidenced by:

  • court decisions in Italy and Germany acknowledging the right of Muslim men to beat their wives and daughters.
  • the establishment in Britain of a Sharia court system parallel to the English courts and supplanting them for members of the Muslim community.
  • the criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders (Netherlands), Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff (Austria), Jussi Halla-aho (Finland), and Brigitte Bardot (France), among others, for criticizing Islam. 

The will of Oklahoma voters has been thwarted for now by a restraining order granted to the Islamist group CAIR (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist funding case). Ironically, this ruling protecting the right of Muslim men to claim that Sharia law authorizes them to beat women — and to silence those who criticize them for that — was issued by a judge who was once a prominent women's rights advocate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PayPal apologizes to Pam Gellar

Posted by Richard on June 16, 2010

Last Friday, PayPal suspended Pamela Gellar's Atlas Shrugs blog because it supposedly violated PayPal's terms of use: "PayPal may not be used to send or receive payments for items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance or the financial exploitation of a crime."

Gellar's crime? Apparently, it was soliciting donations to fund bus ads offering protection and support for people seeking to leave Islam. The punishment for "apostates" from Islam is death, and it's been meted out to many such apostates, including some in the U.S. There is a very legitimate need for such a service on basic humanitarian grounds.

PayPal's criteria for enforcing its terms of use seem to be rather lacking in coherence and consistency, as noted by PajamasMedia's Patrick Richardson

In the meantime, as PJM’s Richard Fernandez reported earlier, Revolution Muslim was still being served by PayPal. Revolution Muslim is a site which, among other things, called for the murder of South Park creators Matt Parker and Trey Stone for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit and has a picture of President Barak Obama as Adolf Hitler.

“I got called a hate site and yet Revolution Muslim threatens death to the Comedy Central producers and they still take PayPal,” she said. Geller added that the DVDs of Imam Anwar al Awlaki, a jihadist cleric who has been linked to Major Nidal Hasan, the alleged Ft. Hood shooter, are for sale on eBay and can be purchased using PayPal.

“If the real killers can take PayPal then what’s the point of the hate site designation?” Geller asked. Her two other sites were likewise restricted and faced termination of their PayPal accounts. Those sites are for her two nonprofit organizations, Stop the Islamization of America and the Freedom Defense Initiative.

On Monday, someone from PayPal called Gellar and told her it was all just a "misunderstanding," and that she was OK with them. But by then, she'd already decided that PayPal wasn't OK by her. She's now using the alternative GPal service, which "does not discriminate based on the nature of your transaction," donates a portion of your transactions to the charity of your choice, and apparently was started by 2nd Amendment supporters. 

Good for you, Pam! I have a PayPal account (don't use it all that much; mainly for online donations), but I'll open a GPal account and look for opportunities to use it instead of PayPal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Supporting financial jihad

Posted by Richard on May 20, 2010

In Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's thin resume, Frank Gaffney found evidence of something troubling (emphasis added):

It turns out that, at the very moment Ms. Kagan was pushing aggressively to remove military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during her tenure as its dean, she was very supportive of having what amounted to Saudi recruiters ensconced there for the purpose of enlisting some of the nation’s finest young lawyers to work for the industry known as Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF).

The first insight this record suggests is that Ms. Kagan’s true motivation in barring the armed forces was, indeed, an animus towards the military, rather than concern about its supposed mistreatment of homosexuals.  After all, the theo-political-military-legal code that authoritative Islam calls “Shariah” and that is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia is infinitely more homophobic than the Pentagon’s efforts to enforce the U.S. statute that prohibits avowed gays and lesbians from serving in uniform.  The former requires the murder of homosexuals; the latter simply kept them out of the ranks.

Ms. Kagan’s troubling tolerance of Shariah would, of course, have vastly more far-reaching implications should she reach the Supreme Court.

The promoters of Sharia-Compliant Finance and their dupes in the media explain it with some hand-wavy blather about not charging interest and not investing in "impure" things like alcohol and pork. But it's much more than that, and it's a 20th-century invention.

Sharia-Compliant Finance was created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1940s as another tool to promote its goal of imposing radical Islam throughout the world. To be Sharia-compliant, you have to pay the zakat — a "charitable" donation that, more often than not, ends up in the hands of organizations promoting jihad or trying to rid the world of Jews. The Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood front group convicted in 2008 of conspiring to fund terrorist organizations, was an example. 

To be Sharia-compliant, you also have to get the approval of a "Sharia authority": 

Unfortunately, every one of such individuals embraces not only the supremacy of authoritative Islam’s Shariah.  Without exception, they aspire to its ultimate objective: a global theocracy in which a ruler (the “Caliph”) governs in accordance with Shariah.

Thus, the coterie of Shariah authorities now employed by most of the Western world’s financial institutions – including many in the United States – unfailingly champion a seditious program that has at its core the overthrow of the alternative legal systems like the U.S. Constitution and the government it empowers.

One of the most prominent of these authorities is Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi who sits on numerous SCF advisory boards and those of Persian Gulf sovereign wealth funds.  He also has his own television program on Al Jazeera, which he uses week after week to inveigh about and call for violence against infidels, the United States, Israel, apostates and, yes, homosexuals. Interestingly, Qaradawi has called zakat, the Muslim charitable donation required by SCF, a form of “financial jihad.”

According to Gaffney, Kagan's promotion of a Sharia-compliance project at Harvard helped the proponents of financial jihad gain significant power and influence in the finance industry and in government regulatory agencies.

Government involvement in promoting Sharia is the subject of a pending federal lawsuit. The Supreme Court may one day be asked to rule on whether such government promotion of Islamic law violates the Establishment Clause. Care to speculate on how a Justice Kagan, who helped make Harvard University "a major beachhead of Shariah in America," would vote in that case?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Typical workplace violence

Posted by Richard on November 12, 2009

As far as dangerously inane commentary on Hasan's Ft. Hood jihad goes, I thought it would be hard to top "pre-traumatic stress disorder" and "it's not illegal to call up al Qaeda, is it?" — but I was wrong.

Naturally, the even more unbelievable expression of naivete, stupidity, willful ignorance, and cowering before the specter of Islamist rage comes from academics — specifically, a pair of criminologists from Northeastern University in Boston, James Alan Fox and Jack Levin, writing in USA Today. They assured us that what Hasan did was just your ordinary workplace murder, not terrorism. And then they warned us that calling it terrorism might cause other Muslims to behave similarly — and it would be our fault. Unbe-frickin-lievable (emphasis added):

Appearances can be perilously deceiving, especially if Americans do not look any further than Nidal Malik Hasan's Palestinian descent, his Muslim affiliation, his Middle Eastern-style clothing, and reports of his having shouted out "Allahu Akbar," an expression of praise to God, before allegedly gunning down dozens of soldiers. Superficially, the Fort Hood rampage looks like terrorism.

Hasan's murder spree appears, however, to be much more about seeking vengeance for personal mistreatment than spreading terror to advance a political agenda. In many respects the Fort Hood massacre stands as a textbook case of workplace murder … and Hasan a disgruntled worker attempting to avenge perceived unfair treatment on the job. His rampage was selective, not indiscriminate. He chose the location — his workplace — and then apparently singled out certain co-workers for death.

No, he didn't. Every report I've seen said Hasan shot at anyone he could, and his victims were soldiers being processed for deployment overseas, not co-workers who had mistreated him. They just made that last part up.

And how about that explanation of "Allahu Akbar" as an innocuous "expression of praise to God"? Let's flesh that definition out a bit: "An expression of praise to God traditionally shouted by jihadists as they commence slaughtering infidels." There, that's better. 

In today's political climate, it is easy to understand why many observers would uncritically describe Hasan as a terrorist. …

But calling the Fort Hood ambush an act of terrorism would only compound the tragedy by reinforcing the kind of intolerance toward American Muslims that appears to have contributed to Hasan's despair. Unfortunately, according to FBI figures, there has been a precipitous increase in hate crimes against Arab Americans since the 9/11 attacks.

No, there hasn't. They just made that last part up (or compared only the numbers a few months before 9/11 and a few months after). Reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes have declined significantly since 9/11/01. The numbers are comparable to those for anti-Christian hate crimes and only a tenth of anti-Jewish hate crimes (many, if not most, of which are committed by Islamist Muslims). In an Oct. 20 fisking of an Eric Holder speech about hate crimes, Creeping Sharia provided these numbers:

Bias motivation Total victims
Year 2,006 2,007
Religion (total): 1,750 1,628
Anti-Jewish 1,144 1,127
Anti-Other Religion 147 148
Anti-Islamic 208 142
Anti-Christian 151 137
Anti-Multiple Religions, Group 92 66
Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. 8 8

*Source: FBI Uniform Crime Statistics

And on Nov. 4, he added this update (emphasis added):


Investigation and research by this author into the documentation that comprises hate crime statistics for 2007 (the figures for 2008 will be available through the FBI on November 23, 2009) found that the parameters used for “hate crimes” against Muslims are exceptionally broad and artificially inflated as a result. These expanded parameters are, in many cases, the direct result of CAIR officials demanding certain dubious questionable events to be included in anti-Muslim hate crime statistics. Examples are plentiful, and include unverified reports of minimal, if not insignificant property damage at mosques and Islamic centers. A trampled flower bed at a mosque, as one example, was listed as an anti-Islamic “hate crime” statistic.

In 2007, crimes classified as having their motivation in anti-Muslim bias amounted to about 9 percent of all hate crimes. By contrast, crimes against Jews, or those having an anti-Semitic motive amounted to nearly 70% during that same period. Despite those figures and the obvious disparity, there has been a continual and vociferous demand for special considerations within law enforcement on behalf of Muslims due to the deceitful embellishment of post-9/11 anti-Islamic bias. Although the statistics for 2008 are not yet published, a review of available reports indicates that the anti-Islamic motivated crimes have dropped significantly. Nonetheless, claims of anti-Islamic bias have risen exponentially during that same period.

Meanwhile, statistics of crimes by Muslims against Muslims, specifically those involving domestic violence, from Sharia sanctioned spousal abuse to “honor killings” are not maintained. The omission of this statistical classification is not due to its rarity, but by deliberate omission. Although the raw statistics exist within the comprehensive CIUS report, they are not properly categorized within the UCR Program’s hate crime data collection. Therefore, they remain a statistic that does not officially exist, except for the victims of such crimes.

Gateway Pundit just yesterday posted even more extensive data refuting the myth that Muslims are especially subject to hate crimes.

Promoting the myth of Muslim victimhood and "despair," along with pressing relentlessly for special accommodations for Muslims and encouraging fear of "Muslim rage" in response to the slightest provocation — these are among the weapons that Islamists use to wage what's been called cultural or political jihad. It's been extremely successful in moving much of Europe toward dhimmitude. And in reaction to that, numerous neo-fascist groups are on the rise across the continent, exploiting the backlash and resentment among non-Muslims. 

Fox and Levin are no doubt too stupid to realize that their vacuous blather benefits two dangerous forces — intransigent Islamists bent on imposing shari'a across the globe and anti-immigrant, anti-Arab neo-fascist nativists. Neither of those groups would treat pompous liberal college professors well, if given the chance. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Pre-traumatic stress disorder

Posted by Richard on November 10, 2009

It's been fascinating (and disturbing) to watch the evolving story of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in the media since the massacre at Ft. Hood last week. It began with the FBI, barely an hour after the shootings and with no evidence or investigation, declaring that this wasn't a terrorist act.

The mainstream media and leftist propagandists (but I repeat myself) quickly picked up that meme. Newsweek, in a contemptible piece, declared that Hasan's act was a symptom of "a Military on the Brink." The Huffington Post on Friday was awash with similarly vile posts about how the war, the "sick" military, American foreign policy, our cowboy insistence on defeating our enemies, and/or lack of sufficient mental health care funding were to blame for Hasan "snapping" (see here, here, and here for examples).

Then there was the ABC News story, picked up by many others, parroting the family's explanation that Hasan snapped because he was "constantly harassed," called a "camel jockey," and subjected to "bullying" for being a Muslim.

And there were countless suggestions that Hasan, who counseled post-traumatic stress disorder patients, had succumbed to PTSD himself.

Filling in for Rush on Friday, Mark Steyn joked that, since Hasan has never been deployed to a war zone (or even overseas), he must have suffered from "pre-post-traumatic stress disorder" — something akin to feeling pain in your leg because you're going to break it next week. But these days, it's not easy to parody the left. A while later, Steyn was informed that a commentator on NPR had in fact suggested Hasan was suffering from "pre-traumatic stress disorder" due to his pending deployment. It was Tom Gjelten on NPR's Morning Edition (emphasis added):

GJELTEN: That's right, Steve. You know, you referred to the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There's – almost seems to be a phenomenon that you could maybe call a pre-traumatic stress disorder. There have been a lot suicides in the Army, many more as a result of these wars than in previous years. Interestingly enough, as many soldiers have killed themselves before they were due to be deployed as after. Thirty-five percent of the suicides are pre-deployment, 35 percent are post-deployment. So there seems to be an issue here of expectation of what you are getting into. And the fact that Major Hasan would've known better than others, even, about how traumatic combat experience would be, you know, raises the question of, you know, was he an example of these soldiers who are literally freaked out by what they are likely to face when they are deployed?

Freaked out — as if the psychiatrist Major would be going into battle with a rifle instead of sitting in an office holding counseling sessions. 

Even as such nonsense was being offered, a mountain of evidence was accumulating that Hasan was a radical Islamist and had been for years. He proselytized his co-workers and his patients (a gross violation of professional ethics), warning them of the deadly consequences of remaining infidels. He praised suicide bombers for killing the soldiers who waged war on Islam. He worshipped at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA, maybe the most radical Wahabbi mosque in America, alongside two of the 9/11 hijackers. He remained in touch (into this year) with its former imam (now living in Yemen), Anwar al-Awlaki, who praised Hasan as a hero who did the right thing. He contacted or attempted to contact al Qaeda leaders.

This evidence was only spottily reported in the U.S. mainstream media (for thorough coverage, check the British press, especially the Telegraph). And then, usually accompanied by demurring that we don't know what motivated him or why he "snapped." The President cautioned us not to "jump to conclusions," and that blathering idiot, Chris Matthews wondered aloud on national TV, "it's not illegal to call up al Qaeda, is it?"

Dorothy Rabinowitz outlined a lot of this insane, delusional denial in an excellent Wall Street Journal column this morning. And growing numbers of people — even some in the media — are now questioning why the FBI, CIA, Justice Dept., and Army all failed to "connect the dots" regarding Hasan.

They failed because even now, eight years after 9/11, our government institutions and their media lapdogs refuse as a matter of policy to acknowledge the dangers of radical Islam and its many adherents. They practice as a matter of policy a suicidal political correctness that makes a question like "it's not illegal to call up al Qaeda, is it?" something other than absurd. For fear of offending the easily offended and violent, they embrace dhimmitude, and they're going to get a lot more of us killed. 

Maj. Hasan isn't an isolated phenomenon. He's one of many examples in the U.S. (and many, many more in other countries) of what Rusty Shackleford called "individual jihad" and Daniel Pipes dubbed "sudden jihad syndrome." Three years ago, an Islamist website even published a "Guide for Individual Jihad."

Pipes argued that this phenomenon means that all Muslims must be considered potentially dangerous. I disagree. People like Dr. Zudhi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, are decidedly not potentially dangerous. In fact, they're critically important — and immensely brave — warriors in the fight against radical Islamism.

But Pipes is partly correct. The mosques funded by the Saudis, distributing radical Islamist literature, and preaching Wahabbi doctrine, the mosques controlled by Hezbollah, and all the men who worship at these mosques and have been or are being radicalized by them are potentially dangerous. No, we don't lock people up or strip them of their rights for having a dangerous potential. But we shouldn't turn a blind eye, either.

When such a person is in the military, and provides plenty of warning signs of extreme radicalization, we sure as hell shouldn't ignore those signs and promote him! When we're that willfully ignorant, people die.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 14 Comments »

Bowing to the Saudis

Posted by Richard on June 5, 2009

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann recalled the fuss a couple of months ago over whether President Obama bowed to King Abdullah (I think it's clear that he did, but judge for yourself) and argued that he's really bowing to the Saudis on his current Mideast trip: 

First, he is bypassing Israel. Visiting the Middle East and not going to Israel would be like touring North America and omitting a stop in the United States. It only makes sense if you interpret it as a deliberate slap in the face of Jerusalem and a statement to the Arab world that America's pro-Israeli policy is changing.

But as he goes to Saudi Arabia, the United States State Department, headed by Mrs. Hillary Clinton, has announced that it has accepted the ground rules for media coverage of the Obama visit to the royal family and its domain. Reporters will only be allowed to cover the actual meetings between the Saudis and Obama and will not be permitted to visit the rest of the country or report on anything else they see during the trip. Those reporters who violate these terms are subject to arrest and imprisonment by the Saudi government!!

Hillary and Obama accepted these terms.

Since when does the U.S. government act as the assistant to the Saudi monarchy in charge of controlling the media? And since when would an American president permit this shackling of the media and still proceed with the diplomatic visit without a murmur of protest?

Since when? Since Obama became president determined to appease Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and all of the extremists while slighting Israel and turning his back on democracy.

Diana West found confirmation at Time magazine's Swampland blog, where Michael Scherer published the instructions he received from the State Department:

The Saudi government is permitting journalists accompanying President Obama entry into the country without a visa or the usual customs procedures.  While in Saudi Arabia, therefore, journalists are expressly prohibited from leaving the hotel or engaging in any journalistic activities outside of coverage of the POTUS visit.  Those who do so risk arrest and detention by Saudi authorities.


But wait! West noted that Scherer had updated his post with the following: 

Qorvis Communications, which represents the Saudi Government in the United States, emailed reporters Monday night with an statement saying the announcement of restrictions, which was sent from the State Department, is incorrect. The Qorvis email says that the Saudi Ambassador has said journalists can get visas and will be free to go wherever they would like. I am not yet sure the source of the confusion. Will update when I know.

If that's true, it suggests that folks at the State Dept. are eagerly embracing even more dhimmitude than the Saudis have asked for. No less disgusting. (And by the way, I'm certain that most American journalists are decidedly not "free to go wherever they would like" — non-Muslims who enter Mecca or Medina can be put to death.)

But wait! Now it gets weird. I personally saw the above update on Scherer's post early this morning. I just returned to the post to link to it, and the update is gone (the original post remains). Is it just a glitch? Or did Scherer or Time determine that the Qorvis claim was questionable or false? If so, shouldn't there be another update explaining?

For that matter, isn't this kind of kowtowing to medieval autocrats worthy of being reported in the news, not just noted in a blog post that almost no one will see? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Islamofascism awareness

Posted by Richard on October 26, 2007

I completely forgot that this was Islamofascism Awareness Week, featuring speeches and other events on college campuses across the country. It's sponsored by David Horowitz's Terrorism Awareness Project. Participants included Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Tammy Bruce, Daniel Pipes, Cyrus Nowrasteh, and Nonie Darwish.

On many campuses, the leftists took time out from supporting feminism, GLBT issues, tolerance, and peace to ally themselves with the most mysogynistic, homophobic, intolerant, and violent religio-political movement on the planet in an effort to silence discussion and criticism of that movement.

At Emory University, they succeeded. The university administration chose not to remove the protesters, implicitly stating that their freedom to "speak" (i.e., shout, harass, and disrupt) trumped scheduled speaker David Horowitz's freedom to speak (and the rights of those who came to hear him). So the lecture was terminated and police escorted Horowitz away. 

At other campuses, they tried, but failed. Horowitz was allowed to talk at George Washington, mainly because the conservative Young America's Foundation was in charge of the event and controlled ticket distribution. So folks like these had to protest across the street instead of attacking the stage:

 jihad klan

 The 1389 Blog has lots of info and links about the left's censorship efforts on various campuses. Incorrect University is chock full of related entries, with lots of video clips. Including a Democratic Party strategist defending the leftists who forcibly silence opposing viewpoints as "people who are desperate to having their voice heard." Yeah, right, because leftist ideas are never given a chance to be heard on college campuses.

Muslims Against Sharia commented on Nonie Darwish's appearance at Berkeley (emphasis in original):

… As usual, Islamofascists and their Dhimmi supporters have shown their unwavering resolve to crush any type of dissent. One the members of the "Students for Justice in Palestine" claimed that the purpose of the "Islamofascism Awareness Week" is to reinvigorate anti-Muslim and anti-Arab campaign. Given the fact that the speaker, Nonie Darwish, is both Muslim by birth and Arab it truly shows the depth of brainwashing on campus.

Not only that, but Darwish is from Gaza, so she's Palestinian, too. But to the left, only radical Islamists are authentic Muslims, only those who despise the West are authentic Arabs, and only crazed Jew-hating murderers are authentic Palestinians. 

The Dhimmi AwardIn recognition of the efforts by Berkeley's leftist students and faculty to defend Islamofascism, Muslims Against Sharia gave Berkeley The Dhimmi Award.

Muslims Against Sharia looks like a pretty fine group of people. Here's an excerpt from their manifesto:

Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy. Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past. We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.

Bravo, and best wishes to these brave Muslims. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Happy hookah fans

Posted by Richard on October 2, 2007

They're really tough on smoking in Vancouver, even prohibiting it on sidewalks. But they've adopted one exception to the harsh restrictions: hookah lounges. It would be culturally insensitive, after all, to ban "smoking while Muslim":

Vancouver's hookah-parlour owners are celebrating after winning an exemption Thursday from a proposed new bylaw that will ban smoking on most sidewalks in commercial districts, in bus shelters and even in taxis passing through Vancouver.

In giving the bylaw unanimous approval-in-principle, Vancouver city council members bowed to arguments that hookah lounges provide an important cultural space for the city's Muslims and granted them a temporary exemption.

Mind you, I object in principle to these draconian smoking bans, so I'm glad that hookah lounge owners remain free to run their businesses and exercise their property rights. But the Vancouver city council isn't belatedly and partially embracing the doctrine of natural rights here. It's practicing dhimmitude. It's furthering a growing trend in the Western world — the practice of bending over backwards to avoid offending Muslims.

Maybe it's craven cowardice. Maybe it's the self-loathing and loathing of their own culture and heritage that leads to the belief that the Other is more entitled to respect and accommodation than Us. Either way, it makes me want to loiter on the sidewalk in front of a Vancouver hookah lounge and smoke a cigarette.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

The sanction of the victim

Posted by Richard on September 22, 2007

The more I’ve listened to and read the arguments that there’s no problem with Mahmoud Ahm-a-doin-a-jihad coming to New York (yet again), the more disgusted I’ve become.

As if reasonable people could have a polite discussion with him about stoning women and homosexuals to death (with small stones, Mahmoud insisted, so they would suffer more), and publicly hanging dissidents by the score.

As if it were not craven cowardice for a Jewish mayor to say, in effect, he’d have no problem with a Holocaust denier committed to wiping out Israel visiting Ground Zero if it weren’t for that pesky construction and the security problem.

As if inviting this monster onto an American campus were not an unforgivable slap in the face to the students and faculty of Tehran University who’ve been beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and killed.

As if we don’t have incontrovertible evidence that he’s sent not only his weapons but his soldiers into Iraq to kill Americans, and as if Iran had not been killing Americans and de facto waging war on us for almost 30 years.

Treating this bastard as a respected world leader is giving him — and the other thugs that fill the halls at the U.N. — what evil always seeks and we must stop granting: the sanction of the victim. Dr. Sanity wrote about this a year ago:

Repeatedly over the years (but especially more recently), the world has said to America, “We will give you the honor and privilege of fixing our problems for us; and in return, we get to spit in your face; denounce you as immoral; and generally denigrate your culture, your leaders, and your people.”

The UN’s perverse anti-Americanism is well documented. No other country gives more to this organization than the U.S.; and no other country is on the receiving end of its absurd and childish criticisms more.

Only by withdrawing the “sanction of the victim,” –i.e., refusing to be manipulated in this manner–refusing to give aid where there is scorn and not even grudging gratitude; refusing to shoulder the burden of all as they beat us upon the back and tell us to go faster, do it better, and jump higher; refusing to pay their debts; fix their problems; or protect them from their own, deliberate, suicidal behavior–only then will the looters and the parasites be forced to recognize reality.

Every time I see our country accept the premises of the insane political correctness promulgated by the political left–a doctrine that claims that, while all cultures and countries are equal; you, America, are uniquely bad and evil and must be punished for your sins. Every time I witness the hysteria mounted when America falls short of its own ideals–and then willingly and honorably acknowledges the fact and takes steps to correct it; every time I witness the granting of moral equivalence between America and the barbaric terrorists who get a free pass from the international community and the MSM for their behavior (being a terrorist means never having to say you’re sorry as far as the left is concerned)– I am appalled.

Me too.

Do we really have no choice under our “treaty obligations,” as some insist? History says otherwise.

In 1983, after the Soviet Union shot down Korean Air Lines flight 007, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko canceled a trip to the U.N. after Governor Mario Cuomo of New York and Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey (not exactly rabid right-wingers) both vowed not to allow a Soviet plane to land in their states.

In 1988, the Reagan Administration denied Arafat a visa to speak to the U.N. because he was a terrorist. The U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the United States, and then packed up and moved to Geneva, where Arafat was warmly embraced.

In neither case did the world end. In 1988, unfortunately, there was a down side: the General Assembly later returned to New York.

UPDATE: Please sign Brigitte Gabriel’s petition to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

The Ahm-a-doin-a-jihad visit

Posted by Richard on September 20, 2007

If there were any justice in the world, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahm-a-doin-a-jihad's visit to the U.N. would culminate in his being taken hostage by a group of Jewish NYU students and held for a year or so, so he could see how it feels. It certainly wouldn't include:

  • a visit to Ground Zero (by the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism).
  • a speech at Columbia University (liberal academics apparently find the presence of Larry Summers intolerable, but are ready to warmly welcome a Holocaust denier who promises to wipe Israel off the map and is responsible for hundreds of American deaths).

At least there are people who are outraged. Demonstrations are planned. Michelle Malkin and Pamela Geller have lots of info and links (check their home pages, too, for newer posts). If you're in the NYC area, I urge you to help make this POS feel unwelcome.

UPDATE: I suppose that at this point in time, it's entirely unsurprising that Liberal Bloggers Defend Ahmadinejad Visit To Ground Zero

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Embracing dhimmitude

Posted by Richard on August 16, 2007

LGF had back-to-back stories yesterday about the one-way street called "multiculturalism" and "tolerance," which is really liberals displaying their willingness to embrace the role of dhimmi that all non-Muslim Europeans must assume when the caliphate is established:

Scottish Shari'a Watch

Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:58:04 am PDT

Doctors and health workers in Scotland have been banned from eating lunch at their desks during the Ramadan fast.

Willful blindness has now become standard practice in cases like this; the officials who instituted the ban openly admit they did it out of fear, even while parroting the usual tolerance-speak.

 Can it get any crazier? Well, yes.

Dutch Catholic Bishop: Christians Should Pray to Allah

Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 9:57:47 am PDT

The Roman Catholic bishop of Breda in the Netherlands wants Christians to start praying to Allah.

To promote healing and tolerance.

Go read both posts. Then, for your amusement, check out Charles' half-dozen or so updates since in the Wikipedia Editgate series. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kissing up to the enemy

Posted by Richard on June 28, 2007

Yesterday, President Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., a Saudi-funded mosque that preaches the most extreme Wahhabi theology/ideology, virulent Jew-hatred, and total rejection of virtually all aspects of Western culture and civilization. That's bad enough. While there, he announced that he's going to appoint a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference whose mission would be to "listen and learn." That's even worse.

As Steve Emerson pointed out, what this envoy will learn is that the OIC is run by anti-American, terror-embracing, Jew-hating radicals who argue that the 9/11 attacks were an understandable response to "the aggressions and discriminations committed by the West." The OIC embraces and supports Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Hezbollah, to name a few, as "freedom fighters." 

Charles Johnson was annoyed at all the journalists covering the story (emphasis added):

In all the mainstream media articles about President Bush’s announcement that he’s appointing an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, not a single one actually looks at the history and statements of this hate-filled Islamic group, whose charter explicitly states that it was formed to help implement the destruction of Israel.

Case in point: this is how the Washington Post describes the OIC: Bush Plans Envoy To Islamic Nations.

The creation of the post will mark the first time a U.S. president has designated an envoy to the 38-year-old organization, which promotes Islamic solidarity and cooperation.

I guess it would just be too difficult for these journalists to actually do some research and find out what the OIC really promotes. They’ve even covered it themselves in the past, but now seem to have forgotten about Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed’s statement that “Jews rule the world by proxy” and Muslims must unite to find a way to wipe them out: Speech by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia to the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference.

Or they could just search LGF, for years of stories about the hate speech and support for murder and jihad for which the Organization of the Islamic Conference is infamous: LGF search: “Islamic Conference”.

First, the Bush administration sucked up to Abbas and pressured Israel to arm and fund an organization dedicated to its destruction (not that Olmert needed much pressuring; dhimmitude seems to come naturally to him). Now this.

It seems that the anti-American, anti-Israel leftists who dominate the career ranks at the State Department have completely carried the day. I'm very disappointed. This is idiotarian pandering to people who've loudly and repeatedly said they're our enemy. When will we take their word for it and act accordingly?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

A Muslim parallel society

Posted by Richard on March 30, 2007

Last week, I commented on a German judge's ruling that the Koran gives a Muslim man the right to beat his wife. A few days earlier, I noted LGF's post on the "camel caravan" rule for Muslim schoolgirls' participation in field trips. A loyal reader recently emailed me about a long piece in Germany's Der Spiegel ("The Mirror") about these and related issues. It's entitled "Paving the Way to a Muslim Parallel Society." I've finally read all eight parts, and I highly recommend it. Here's the "executive summary":

A recent ruling in Germany by a judge who cited the Koran underscores the dilemma the country faces in reconciling Western values with a growing immigrant population. A disturbing number of rulings are helping to create a parallel Muslim world in Germany that is welcoming to Islamic fundamentalists.

Some of the evidence cited for this claim involves matters of headscarves, field trips, and swimming lessons. But some of it is much more grim: 

In 2005, Hatun Sürücü, a young Berlin woman, was killed because she was "living like a German." In her family's opinion, this was a crime only her death could expiate. Her youngest brother executed her by shooting her several times, point blank, at a Berlin bus stop. But because prosecutors were unable to prove that the family council had planned the act, only the killer himself could be tried for murder and, because he was underage, he was given a reduced sentence. The rest of the family left the courtroom in high spirits, and the father rewarded the convicted boy with a watch.  

Beatings and honor killings, often excused or treated leniently by the courts, are a growing problem in Germany. Even the apparently more innocuous matters supposedly involving "choice," like the field trip, swimming, and other female modesty issues, conceal the vicious reality: the "choices" being exercised aren't the apparent desire of the Muslim women and girls to be modest, they're the Muslim men's desire to subjugate and control their wives and daughters, treating them like property. Germany's women's shelters are increasingly seeing Muslim women and girls fleeing arranged marriages, slave-like living conditions, and savage beatings:

Ayten Köse, 42, who manages a shelter in the Neukölln Rollberg district, tries to help. She doesn't resemble most of the Muslim women here. Instead of a headscarf, she wears her hair uncovered. Köse knows how difficult it is for Muslim women in Germany to be courageous and rebel. …

The problem for many women, says Köse, is that they are completely alone, alone against their own family or their husband's family. "And if they haven't attended school in Germany," Köse explains, "they usually don't even know about human rights." 

Besides the human rights issues, there are other lesser public policy implications for the mulitculturalists' acquiescence to a parallel Muslim society. Germany's massive social welfare system can ill afford some of the consequences:

In another letter from Absurdistan, the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs issued the following announcement to German health insurance agencies in the summer of 2004: "Polygamous marriages must be recognized if they are legal under the laws of the native country of the individuals in question."

What the policy statement boiled down to was this: In certain cases Muslim men from countries where polygamy is legal — like Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia — could add a second wife to their government health insurance policies without having to pay an additional premium.

Read it, please. All eight parts. The Germans have a head start on us, but this is where we're headed, too, if CAIR and the like have their way. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Whither Europe?

Posted by Richard on March 23, 2007

I was stunned a few days ago when I read about the judges in the German state of Hesse who imposed a bizarre Islamic restriction on Muslim girls in the public schools. Little Green Footballs stunned me yet again yesterday with the story of the German judge whose ruling in a divorce case was based on what the Koran says:

The nihilistic dead end of multiculturalism has been attained in Germany, where a female judge seemingly forgot which culture’s laws she was supposed to uphold: German judge rules Koran allows wife abuse. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

BERLIN (AFP) – A German woman judge has refused a Moroccan-born woman permission to file for divorce by interpreting the Koran as allowing husbands to beat their wives.

It seems there's been a significant uproar over this decision, and the judge has been removed:

BERLIN – Politicians and Muslim leaders denounced a German judge for citing the Koran in her rejection of a Muslim woman's request for a quick divorce on grounds she was abused by her husband.

The judge was removed from the case on Wednesday and the Frankfurt administrative court said it was considering disciplinary action.

… The latest uproar comes amid an ongoing debate in Germany about integrating its more than 3 million Muslims, most of them from Turkey. A decision last year to cancel an opera featuring the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad and other religious figures out of security concerns caused a furor and was later retracted.

Lawmakers from Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats said traditional Islamic law, or Sharia, had no place in Germany.

"The legal and moral concepts of Sharia have nothing to do with German jurisprudence," Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats, told N24 television.

"One thing must be clear: In Germany, only German law applies. Period."

Ronald Pofalla, the party's general secretary, told Bild: "When the Koran is put above the German constitution, I can only say: Good night, Germany."

The mass-circulation Bild daily asked in a front-page article: "Where are we living?" The left-leaning Tageszeitung headlined its Thursday edition: "In the name of the people: Beating allowed." 

Not everyone's outraged, however. Notice how the AP reporter helps a Muslim group try to put a good spin on a very ugly aspect of their beliefs (emphasis added):

While the Koranic verse cited does say that husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they are disobedient, Germany's Institute for Islamic Questions noted that such an interpretation was no longer standard.

"Of course not all Muslims use violence against their wives," the group said in a statement.

Let me attempt to restate that for you: "Yes, the Koran says 'husbands may beat their wives if they disobey,' and we usually insist on unquestioning 100% obedience to every word in the Koran. But, umm, there's this other interpretation. Really. And besides, some Muslim women don't need to be bea… I mean, some Muslim men don't beat their wives at all. Hardly."

These incidents are just two more data points in the growing mountain of evidence that all is not well in Europe. Daniel Pipes recently considered "Europe's Stark Options" regarding its growing Muslim population and saw three possibilities:

  1. The high religiosity, high fertility, and high cultural confidence of the Muslims will win out over the Europeans' low religiosity, low fertility, and alienation from their own heritage. Europe will become Islamicized.
  2. Many Europeans (outside of the intelligentsia) are becoming resentful of radical Islam's increasing insistence that non-Muslims conform to and accommodate fundamentalist Muslim standards, and this will lead to a backlash that becomes increasingly ugly. In the words of Ralph Peters,  Muslims in Europe "will be lucky just to be deported."
  3. Europeans and Muslim immigrants could follow Rodney King's advice and "just get along." Muslim immigrants would assimilate more, or at least stop pushing for the Islamization of Europe, and would become more tolerant of and integrated into the free, democratic, pluralistic societies in which they've chosen to live.

Pipes seems to think option 3 is not very likely, and it's too soon to tell whether option 1 or 2 will prevail. I hope he's wrong. But there are certainly plenty of people in the European intelligentsia who are furthering option 1, as these German judges illustrate. And there are even more ordinary Europeans who are becoming angry and radicalized, as is clear from the reaction to such instances of dhimmitude and the growing nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment in many parts of Europe.

I have to believe that there are lots of Muslim immigrants in Europe who don't want Sharia — who emigrated at least partly to escape from the oppressive feudal strictures of their homeland. But the Saudi-funded radical Wahhabists at the mosques are turning some of their kids into jihadists. Are these people just too scared to stand up and speak out?

We're constantly reminded that most Muslims are peaceful, tolerant people. I'd like to think it's true, but in Europe as in the U.S., those peaceful, moderate Muslims are virtually invisible. So Europe's many appeasers and cowards keep submitting to the threats of the violent and intolerant Muslims, and everyone else gets angrier and angrier. It's a path to disaster, and it's those peaceful, moderate Muslims — if they exist in large numbers — who must act to stop it. For their own sakes, if not for everyone else's.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »