Irony alert: Eyes finally open, liberals hope for military coup in Egypt

January 30, 2013

From Andy McCarthy’s post at NRO’s “The Corner” blog on commentators rising calls for the Egyptian military to intervene as that country starts to fall apart:

Here’s the really interesting part: The [Egyptian] Left does not have the numbers needed to defeat the Islamists at the ballot box. That is why the latter have won election after election, usually by overwhelming numbers, thus putting Islamists firmly in charge of the government and ensuring passage of the sharia constitution. So what has finally happened: the Left-leaning press in the West is suddenly discovering that maybe popular elections do not equal democracy after all. Maybe there really is something to the notion that democracy is not merely a procedural means by which majorities achieve power; maybe democracy, as us Islamophobes have been contending all along, really is a culture that is committed to equality and respect for such minority rights as freedom of conscience and speech.

The liberal left’s obsession with procedure, seeing elections as synonymous with democracy, is a good portion of what lead to the folly of the Obama administration’s support for democratic-in-name-only “Arab Spring” revolutions in the Sunni Arab world. Instead we cut the legs out from under a friendly but authoritarian regime in Egypt, in the process doing untold damage to 30 years of American policy in the region, and we removed a cruel, crazy, but nevertheless harmless to us dictator in Libya, creating chaos in North Africa. (c.f., Mali)

But, at least, they’d have elections, so all would be good. Majority rule, and all that.

Except that the majority is turning out to be the very groups most hostile to the democracy we hold dear. smiley d'oh!

And now that their Wilsonian unicorn dreams have turned into nightmarish reality, they want a military coup.

Welcome to the waking world, kiddies.

PS: Longtime readers will recall that I supported the liberation of Iraq under George W. Bush, including the effort to help democratic, constitutional government to take root there. I still think it was worth trying –for reasons local to Iraq, I felt it was the one country in the Arab world in which this might work– but, thanks to the Obama administration’s precipitous and premature bug-out from Iraq, my opinion of that country’s democratic future has become much bleaker.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Fruits of the Arab Spring: peaceful, tolerant Muslim preacher pardoned?

August 7, 2012

Maybe, but the web site of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president and that of the preacher himself are doing their best to scrub the news from their sites.

Via Raymond Ibrahim, behold another consequence of Obama “Smart Power” diplomacy in Egypt:

Wagdi Ghoneim, the Islamic cleric whose many terrorist-connections and activities got him exiled from Egypt where, under Mubarak’s rule he was sentenced to do five years in prison, has, according to several Arabic news sites, just received a general pardon from Egypt’s new president, Muhammad Morsi.

Ghoneim is especially renowned for his hate-mongering and constant incitements to kill Christians, Jews, and secular Muslims. Most recently, he praised Allah for the death of Coptic Pope Shenouda, cursing him to hell and damnation—even as many Egyptians were mourning him during his state funeral.

What a sweetheart of a guy. So happy he’s free to return to Egypt to contribute to its future and that of the whole Middle East.

Yeesh.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Fruits of Smart Power: the jihad against Freedom of Speech

April 27, 2012

I’ll bet the Arab liberals, such as Wael Ghonim, who naively thought they could work with the Islamic supremacists are feeling like idiots right about now.

…a shadowy organization calling itself the “Jihad Group to Cleanse the Country” is threatening On TV (1), one of the nation’s leading liberal media stations, which regularly exposes the Islamist agenda. It sent a letter to the president of the station threatening to target its studios and facilities, as well as kidnap some of its top reporters and journalists, holding them for a $20 million ransom or otherwise “liquidating” them. The message further threatened other media and organizations dealing with On TV with “painful and severe punishments.”

The reason for all this? The letter accuses On TV of “seeking to destroy the nation and create chaos to implement the American and Zionist agenda”—or, more accurately, the media policy of the station is exercising free speech, and thus exposing the nefarious agenda of groups like this “Jihad to Cleanse the Country.”

The Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department don’t bear the blame for the rise of jihadism and Salafism in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world, of course; those processes have been at work for many decades. But they are responsible for the over two years in which they formulated no policy for the transition that was obviously coming in Egypt, did nothing to smooth the way beforehand, and then reacted spasmodically when the revolt finally hit. All that Obama/Clinton “smart power” accomplished was leaving us with the distinct possibility of the Arab world’s largest nation coming under Muslim Brotherhood control, with all the inherent dangerous implications for regional stability.

It also serves to illustrate again how utterly antithetical Islam –when practiced as Muhammad intended– is to the values of Western civilization. After all, Muhammad himself had poets murdered who criticized him, while modern Europe has seen several times the assassination or attempted assassination of critics of Islam.

Now that the fires have been lit, this pot isn’t done boiling, yet.

Footnote:
(1) The same TV station reported as criticizing the proposed “Farewell Intercourse” law described in an earlier post.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Nigeria: Religion of Peace leaves people in pieces

April 9, 2012

A double car-bombing at a church kills fifty. On Easter Sunday:

Shehu Sani, the President of Civil Rights Congress based in Kaduna, said two explosions took place at the Assemblies of God’s Church near the centre of the city with a large Christian population and known as a major cultural and economic centre in Nigeria’s north.

“There were two explosions and the casualty figure may go up because some injuries were really critical,” he said on phone.

Another resident of the city, Miss Blessing Audu said that the explosion has caused panic among Christians celebrating Easter.

She said some parts of the church were damaged even as the vibration caused by the explosives were heard in several parts of the city.

An emergency worker on condition of anonymity explained that the bombs were planted in two cars near the church.

At least 50 people were killed amid fears that the casualties may rise from the blasts.

But who could have done this?

No one has yet claimed responsibility for the bombings, but the BBC reported that Boko Haram recently said it would carry out attacks in the area over the Easter holiday.

The radical group has carried out a series of attacks on churches and other locations on Christmas Day, including outside the church in capital Abuja, where 44 people died.

It is waging a bloody war against the government to seek the enforcement of strict Shariah law and the release of all its detained members.

The imposition of Sharia is the goal of jihad:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

(See also for an exegesis.)

This isn’t a police matter. This is “jihad fi sabil Allah,” war for the sake of Allah. And it’s going to happen again and again in the borderlands between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations, whether we leave Iraq and Afghanistan or stay.

They’re on a mission from Allah.

RELATED: Background on Boko Haram, which is an al Qaeda ally.

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


TR forecasts the “Arab Spring”

March 30, 2012

From a letter to a friend written in 1911, after the former-president had visited Cairo and Khartoum:

The real strength of the Nationalist movement in Egypt, however, lay not with these Levantines of the café  but with the mass of practically unchanged bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian, and a return to all the violence and corruption which festered under the old-style Moslem rule, whether Asiatic or African.

Very foresightful, our 26th president. He and Churchill would have agreed.

via Andrew Bostom


Libya: Daffy Qaddafi dead? And the country’s future?

October 20, 2011

Let’s hope so; I can think of few people more deserving of a trip to Hell. What’s certain, though, is that his “hometown” and last major focus of resistance, Sirte, has fallen:

There are unconfirmed reports deposed Libyan leader Moamar Gaddafi has died of wounds sustained when fighters captured his home town of Sirte.

If true, his death, which came swiftly after his capture is the most dramatic single development in the Arab Spring revolts that have unseated rulers in Egypt and Tunisia and threatened the grip on power of the leaders of Syria and Yemen.

“He (Gaddafi) was hit in his head,” National Transitional Council official Abdel Majid Mlegta said.

“There was a lot of firing against his group and he died.”

Mr Mlegta said earlier Gaddafi was captured and wounded in both legs at dawn on Thursday as he tried to flee in a convoy which NATO warplanes attacked.

There was no independent confirmation of his remarks and NATO said it was still checking on the reports, which could take some time to confirm.

“We are checking and assessing the situation,” a NATO official said.

“Clearly these are very significant developments, which will take time to confirm. If it is true, then this is truly a historic day for the people of Libya.”

I’ll say it would be, if true. That sharp-dressing psychopath made the lives of most Libyans a nightmare for over 40 years and was responsible for the murder of Americans and other nationals in acts of terror. In the 70s he was a backer of the Irish Republican Army, as well as the Italian Red Brigades, the Basque ETA, and Peru’s Sendero Luminoso. While it became easy to laugh at his public buffoonery (and here’s the sad truth about his female bodyguards), let’s keep in mind that Muammar Qaddafi was a seriously evil, vile human being. If he has indeed met the fate of Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceaucescu, and Benito Mussolini, let no tears be shed for him.

But what of Libya’s future? This morning I caught a few minutes of Fox and Friends and watched Gretchen Carlson interview a reporter from the New York Times (sorry, can’t find a video link) and almost laughed at the man’s naivete: the Libyans were fighting for “democracy” and the “rule of law,” and that they “want the same things we do.” It was the starry-eyed “they’re just like us” argument that’s almost inevitably lead to cries of “what went wrong” a few years later.

“Just like us?” Did this reporter know of the Libyan Jew who went home to rebuild a synagogue in his old neighborhood, only to be told to flee for his life? Or how the rebels would scrawl the Star of David over pictures of Qaddafi, implying he was a Jew and thus an enemy to the Muslims?

“Just like us,” only without the religious tolerance part.

Did the reporter recall that eastern Libya, the Benghazi area, where the rebels originated, was also a hotbed for Al Qaeda recruiting? Or that at least some influential rebel commanders and their soldiers have fought for Al Qaeda? I think the “rule of law” they’re fighting for may mean something a bit different to them then it does in a Western liberal democracy. (hint: Sharia)

“Just like us,” only without that equality under the law part.

I’m not saying all the Libyan rebels are Islamists nor that there are no liberals among them; they’re not and there are. Libya may yet become a recognizable constitutional democracy instead of another Islamic hellhole. Let’s hope so, for the world would be a better place. But no one can predict a revolution’s future, and I’m not nearly so sanguine and indeed positively chirpy about Libya’s as a “sophisticated” reporter from the nation’s fish-wrap of record.

They’re not “just like us.”

RELATED: Some great photos at The Atlantic on the fall of Sirte. (via Stephen F. Hayes)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Bill Whittle: What we did right in Afghanistan and Iraq, and my qualified disagreement

September 16, 2011

Bill Whittle returns with another episode of Afterburner, this time with his own retrospective on the ten years since the attacks of September 11th, 2001. In it, he looks at what has happened since in Afghanistan, Iraq, and America and looks at the things we got right, a needed corrective to the constant drumbeat of failure played for us by the MSM:

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Bill. We did indeed liberate over 60,000,000 people from two of the worst tyrannies on Earth, and we did indeed maul Al Qaeda, killing thousands of fighters who might otherwise have found there way to America or Europe. The removal of Saddam’s regime ended a serious strategic threat that would surely have returned once the sanctions regime had finally failed (which it was already doing).  And Iraq has a realistic chance to establish the first genuine Arab representative, constitutional democracy, though Obama is endangering that by pulling out too fast and too soon. And we have been very successful at preventing further catastrophic attacks against us.

None of that is to be dismissed lightly.

But I can’t wholly agree with Whittle. While he’s right that the fall of Saddam and it’s replacement with a democratic regime (albeit flawed) inspired the recent Arab revolts against dictators, much as the French Revolution inspired the liberal rebellions in Europe in 1848, I’m much less sanguine than Bill about the prospects for those revolts. Unlike mid-19th century Europe, the Arab “liberal class” (1) is small and likely to be overwhelmed by Islamist factions, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied Salafi groups in Egypt or the Islamists among the rebels in Libya. I can more easily see this “Arab Spring” turning into a bloody winter.

And while I too take great joy from the killing of bin Laden, unlike Bill (and assuming I’m not misunderstanding him), I don’t see this as the end of anything, except perhaps the end of the beginning. Al Qaeda “central” may be broken and reduced in influence, but it has dangerous franchises around the globe. And beyond Al Qaeda, the broader jihadist movement, one of the keystones of which is Iran, remains a menacing, perhaps even existential threat.

So, yes, while we’ve ravaged Al Qaeda, the struggle with the problem of jihad and the conflict created by the matter/antimatter incompatibility of Western liberalism and Islamic Sharia remain.

RELATED: Commentary’s Abe Greenwald on “What We Got Right in the War on Terror.”

Footnote:
(1) “Liberal” as in the constitutionalist, limited government and free market philosophy that evolved from the 17th-19th centuries, not the progressivism that hijacked the word “liberal” in the 1930s.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Such classy people — not

September 12, 2011

As part of yesterday’s observance of the tenth anniversary of the September 11th atrocities, the US Embassy in London held its own services. Also present were a group of Muslims who held their own commemoration:

A small group of Islamist demonstrators staged a protest outside the US embassy in London Sunday during a ceremony to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Around 50 people brandished anti-US banners, chanted slogans and burnt a small piece of paper with a picture of the US flag on it, an AFP journalist at the scene said.

Britain’s Press Association news agency reported that the protesters were from a group called Muslims Against Crusades.

They were there to disrupt a moment of silence scheduled for the time that the first plane struck the World Trade Center. When these religious fascists started their fire, the police formed a line to keep them away. Regrettably, no police dogs were loosed on these jerks.

Such classy people.

via Big Government

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


America, Islam, and democratic tolerance

June 20, 2011

There’s an interesting post by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media on Governor Romney’s problem with religion. No, not his Mormonism, though some blockheads might want to make that a problem, but his inability, thanks to the shackles of political correctness, to articulate why Islam poses a problem in America. And it’s not just Romney’s problem, but one shared by most politicians.

In his essay, Roger discusses the principle of religious tolerance and why it does not work when Islam is added to the mix:

Religious tolerance is a nifty idea.  As a Catholic, I’m pleased it exists. But here’s the rub: tolerance only works when practiced by all parties to the social contract.  It’s one thing for a Unitarian and a Catholic to tolerate each other.  They have  some important doctrinal differences.  But they do not endeavor to kill or enslave one another on account of those differences.

The friction of difference works differently when you add Islam to the equation.  Why?  Because Islam does not — in principle as well as in practice  — acknowledge a legitimate sphere of operation for the secular as distinct from the sacred realm.  There is no “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” in Islam because Islam — that’s mainstream, garden-variety Islam, not just its wacko Wahhabist allotropes — regards everything as subordinate to the will of Allah.

Romney, like many well-meaning liberals, wants to regard Islam as a religious phenomenon.  The thought process goes something like this:

  1. We’re in favor of religious toleration.
  2. Islam is a religion.
  3. Ergo, we should tolerate Islam. (Q., isn’t it, e. demonstrandum?)

The problem with this syllogism is what it leaves out of account — namely, as McCarthy puts it, that Islam is a “totalitarian political program masquerading as a purely spiritual doctrine.”

As with all systems of belief in a liberal democratic regime, Islam deserves tolerance to the extent that it extends tolerance. That syllogism really should begin:

  1. We’re in favor of religious toleration for those religions that practice toleration.

And therein, as Shakespeare said, lies the rub. By misunderstanding the mutualism required for genuine tolerance, muddleheaded Westerners turn what originated as a pact into unilateral intellectual disarmament, refusing to think critically about Islam lest they be labelled “judgmental,” “intolerant,” or, worst of all, “Islamophobic.” And that in turn leaves us vulnerable to the cultural or  “civilizational jihad” that the Muslim Brotherhood is waging here and elsewhere through front organizations, the goal of which is the imposition of Sharia law on us all.

While I do sympathize with Romney’s plight (this is delicate, difficult ground for Americans to cover, and rightly so), particularly since he himself was slammed by religious bigotry in the last campaign, it is nonetheless essential for would-be American leaders to grasp, wrestle, and explain to the public then dangers of tolerating the intolerant. Seeing who does it best should be one of our criteria for choosing a nominee and future president.

PS: I urge you to read McCarthy’s article, linked above in the quote, but I disagree with his description of Islam as a political system “masquerading as a religion.” This is a misstatement; Islam is a religion, for it does what any religion does, arranging the relationship between Mankind and the Divine. It is, however, a religion that encompasses a totalitarian and aggressive political program. The distinction may seem minor or semantic, but I think it’s important, for to frame it as McCarthy does would be to ignore the spiritual appeal it has for those who find relief in submission to a higher authority.

PPS: And before anyone asks, no, I am not saying “ban Islam” or “deport all Muslims.” What I am calling for is an open, critical discussion of what Islam is and what its goals are, as opposed to the platitudes we’re fed by politicians and the media. And that includes challenging American Islamic leaders to defend what’s clearly in their scriptures.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pat Condell on Islamic cultural terrorism

June 17, 2011

There’s a category here at Public Secrets called “cultural jihad,” referring to the efforts of Islamic supremacists to condition Westerners to accept sharia law through grievance mongering and the exploitation of our generally tolerant customs and multicultural guilt. Robert Spencer has called this the “Stealth Jihad,” while former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy examines it at length in his book “The Grand Jihad.”

In Europe, the process is farther along, now involving intimidation, violence, and even enclaves run by Islamic supremacists in which the police refuse to enforce the law. Hence the reason why, in the video below, British comic Pat Condell calls what’s happening in Europe “cultural terrorism.”

Pat really shouldn’t be so shy about his feelings.

NOTE: Keep in mind that when Condell refers to Islamic extremists as “the far Right,” he’s doing so in a European context, where “far Right” means “fascist.” In the US, on the other hand, I believe we’re coming to a more correct understanding — that “Right” means “limited government,” while Fascism is part of the statist, totalitarian Left. See Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” for an excellent discussion.

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Jihadists and their supporters dominate DoJ terror prosecutions

March 10, 2011

Congressman Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is opening hearings today on the threat of radicalization of American Muslims by jihadist groups. Naturally, the usual coalition of Islamist front groups and their tools on the Left have denounced these hearings as “un-American,” “McCarthyist,” and Islamophobic.

Yet, when one goes past the screams of outrageous outrage and looks at facts, one fact stands out: most terror convictions involve defendants waging jihad fi sabil Allah — “jihad for the sake of Allah:”

More than 80 percent of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism since 9/11 involve defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda, a review of Department of Justice statistics shows.

Though Muslims represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases DOJ lists.

On Thursday, the House Homeland Security Committee holds its first hearing into radicalization among Muslim Americans. Critics have taken issue with the focus on one religious minority, but the DOJ list shows that radical Islamists are disproportionately involved in terror-related crimes.

Al-Qaida is involved in the largest number of prosecutions, representing 30 percent of the 228 terror cases involving an identified group. Hizballah-affiliated defendants are involved in 10.5 percent of the cases and Hamas is part of 9 percent. Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Tayyiba was involved in 6.5 percent of the cases.

The remainder involved the South Asian Tamil Tigers and Colombia’s FARC. The article’s author, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, goes on to break down the statistics by international versus domestic terror plots, and it covers significant cases not included in the Justice report. All in all, it’s an enlightening and a disturbing survey.

My own opinion is that these hearings can serve a useful purpose, because there is no doubt that Islamic-supremacist groups have targeted the United States and want to radicalize the Muslim population here. As former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy details in his excellent “The Grand Jihad,” the Muslim Brotherhood operates here through fronts such as the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and others to spread a Salafist interpretation of Islam with the goal of replacing our constitutional government based on individual liberties with sharia law. Leading Brotherhood intellectual Sheikh Yusef al Qaradawi has called this “jihad by da’wa.” (Islamic proselytism. See also.)

The fact is that there is a continuing strong effort to radicalize Muslims in the United States to support jihad, whether that means traveling overseas to fight (as in Somalia), fighting here in America (as in Times Square), or through non-violent support. The Department of Justice statistics bear that out. While I’m disappointed Congressman King has left out important, knowledgeable witnesses such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and IPT’s Steve Emerson (especially since they could effectively challenge blatant apologists such as Congressman Keith Ellison), I do think these hearings can serve a valuable purpose by shedding light on efforts to radicalize Muslims in the United States. They will certainly be worth keeping an eye on.

LINKS: My blog-buddy Sister Toldjah launched a spirited defense of the hearings a couple of days ago. IPT’s Steve Emerson says the real hysteria-mongers are the Muslim-American groups attacking Congressman King. Oh, and by the way, the usual death threats from the Religion of Peace have made their appearance. An essay on “jihad fi sabil Allah.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Egypt: “Things are never so bad they can’t get worse.”

January 29, 2011

Those are the wise words of Michael Ledeen’s Grandma Mashe and, in the case of Egypt, I think she’s right. While the situation there right now looks bad, the likely outcomes are even worse: harsh military rule or the ascension to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks a society based on strict sharia law and sees itself in a long-term jihad against the West. The prospects for replacing the current authoritarian regime with liberal democracy is, in my opinion, minimal in a land that has never known democracy in it 6,000-year history and where the current regime has done little, if anything, to allow democratic opposition to grow — and in the process left the people only with radical Islam as an outlet for protest.

Anyway, in reading online I’ve come across some articles to pass along, the first from the aforementioned Mr. Ledeen, who’s always worth following: Revolution? By Whom? For What?

And what about us?  We are supposed to be the revolutionaries, and we must support democratic revolution against tyranny.  But we must not support phony democrats, and for the president to say “Egypt’s destiny will be determined by the Egyptian people,” or “everyone wants to be free” is silly and dangerous.  Egypt’s destiny will be determined by a fight among Egyptian people, some of whom wish to be free and others who wish to install a tyranny worse than Mubarak’s.  That’s the opposite of freedom.  Think about the free elections in Gaza that brought the Hamas killers to power.  For that matter, think about Khomeini, viewed at the time as a progressive democrat by many of the leading intellectual and political lights of the West, from Foucault to Andrew Young.

We should have been pressuring the friendly tyrants in the Middle East to liberalize their polities lo these many years.  We should have done it in the shah’s Iran, and in Mubarak’s Egypt, and in Ben Ali’s Tunisia.  It is possible to move peacefully from dictatorship to democracy (think Taiwan.  Think Chile.  Think South Africa).  But we didn’t, in part because of the racist stereotype that goes under the label “the Arab street,” according to which the Arab masses are motivated above all by an unrelenting rage at Israel for its oppression of the beloved Palestinians.  That myth went along with another:  the belief that the culture of the Arab world (sometimes expanded to “the culture of the Muslim world”) was totally resistant to democracy.  The tumult has nothing to do with Palestine/Israel and even a blind bat can see hundreds of thousands of Arabs fighting for democracy, as have their fellow Muslims in Iran.

We shoulda, coulda done better all along.  But here we are.  It’s quite clear that Obama is totally bamboozled.

The United States has huge stakes in Egypt and the region, but I fear our ability to influence events is limited by our lack of knowledge and by, quite simply, the fact that revolutions, once ignited, are almost impossible to direct. The winners are not always the largest force, but usually the most organized and disciplined, such as the Bolsheviks in 1917.

And speaking of disciplined forces, former UN Ambasssador John Bolton sees the situation becoming more dangerous, as the Muslim Brotherhood has become openly involved and the military wonders about its own survival:

I think after the Friday prayers the Brotherhood brought its people out. That’s why the protests are even more extensive today. That constitutes no doubt about it a direct threat to the military government, and I think the failure of the other security forces to bring the demonstrations under control also now explains the presence of the military.

Let me be clear here, this is not just the Mubarak-family government. The military has ruled Egypt since Gamal Nasser and they overthrew King Farook.

It’s the military that is the real government and they are not going to go peacefully.

I think the question is whether and to what extent the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists have infiltrated the leadership. If the military holds firm it’s entirely possible, although bloody, that the government can hold onto power. That doesn’t necessarily mean Mubarak will be in power, but the military will be, and I think that is why this contrast makes it so important for people to understand, this is not a choice between the Mubarak government on one hand, and sweetness and light, Jeffersonian democracy on the other.

I don’t think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, “one person, one vote, one time.” The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t care about democracy, if they get into power you’re not going to have free and fair elections either.

He also brings up the parlous situation of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority, who constitute roughly ten percent of the population and suffer regular persecution and pogroms. You can bet they’re terrified of the possibility of a Brotherhood-dominated government or a more nakedly military government that needs a convenient scapegoat to deflect the Islamists.

And the Brotherhood may be calling in markers, as its offshoot Hamas appears to be coming to its aid:

The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Hamas armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB. The MB has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

(via Power Line)

Only a fool (Or a TV talking head) pretends to be able to predict with certainty what will happen in Egypt, but Andrew Bostom reminds us of a University of Maryland survey showing that a disturbingly large number of Egyptians want a sharia-ruled state:

In a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/  WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 1000 Egyptian Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007, 67% of those interviewed-more than 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”). The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 74% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict (…) application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

See also Michael Totten’s recent blog entry talking about other worrisome data points of Egyptian public opinion. Like Michael, I fear that Egyptians may just get what they wish, only to very much regret it later — like the Iranians in 1979.

LINKS: Obama adviser Bruce Riedel tells us we shouldn’t worry about the Muslim Brotherhood;  Bruce Riedel is also a fool. At Big Peace, journalist Caroline Glick has a must-read article on Egypt and the Pragmatic Fantasy, while former Muslim Nonie Darwish calls Egypt’s situation a choice between bad and worse. At Threat Matrix, Thomas Joscelyn examines the longstanding ties between the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the Shiite mullahs of  Iran.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Islamists in the UK government? What could go wrong?

December 16, 2009

For several years now, Great Britain has been trying to deal with the growing radicalism in its Muslim population by bringing into government moderate Muslims who can advise the Crown as to the best ways to “reach out” and counter Salafist influence. Trouble is, the “moderates” they keep recruiting aren’t so moderate. Islamist Watch gives us two of the latest examples:

Not Jolly Good: Islamists in the UK Government

Is there any degree of radicalism that disqualifies someone from holding a sensitive government post in the UK? Probably. But it would be difficult to tell based on two recent stories.

First, Treasury official Azad Ali has begun advising the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on combating Islamic extremism. Apparently his suspension earlier this year for blog entries steeped in — you guessed it — Islamic extremism presented no barrier to his joining the “community involvement” panel chaired by the CPS anti-terror chief. In addition to naming radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the email pal of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, as “one of my favorite speakers and scholars”

And…

Second, there is Asim Hafeez, the new “head of intervention” at the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism of the Home Office, where he is charged with “divert[ing] fellow Muslims from the path of violence.” However, Hafeez has been described by a knowledgeable colleague as a “hardcore Salafi,” one who follows a puritanical form of Islam. According to Harry’s Place:

A number of Hafeez’s talks are available online which appear to not only back up [these] accusations but also to suggest that Hafeez might additionally be a hard-line Islamist who wishes to replace the British constitution with “the Quran and the Sunnah.”

Do read the whole thing.

This is only the latest example of how, through a blind devotion to unquestioning multiculturalism and political correctness, we tie one hand behind our backs in our fight with the jihadis. For fear of seeming intolerant or bigoted against all Muslims (and for fear of angering those on whom we depend for our crack oil), we don’t dare inquire into what the people we want to place in sensitive positions might really believe. We turn a blind eye to the very real ideology of violent jihad, Islamic supremacism, and antisemitism that runs throughout the Qur’an, the hadiths, the writings of later scholars to the present day – the core of Islam, not a radical heresy or misunderstanding. At times, as at Ft. Hood, this leads to fatal results.

Do I think there are no moderate Muslims? Far from it. There are plenty who reject the jihad imperative and just want to live quiet lives among their neighbors. But there is a disturbingly large fraction who have taken Islam’s aggressive message to heart and support both the cultural and the violent jihad, seeking Islam’s eventual victory over Western civilization. We do ourselves no favors -indeed, we harm our own cause and that of genuinely moderate Muslims – by refusing to face head-on the ideological and theological challenges posed by Salafist Islam.

Screening for Islamist sentiments should be a basic precaution, hurt feelings be damned.


Links fiesta: Climategate, Smart Power, and more!

December 9, 2009

It’s a busy Wednesday today, so here are some interesting links to keep you amused and informed:

Climategate marches on:

  • While the world’s (so-called) leaders meet in Copenhagen to save us from a crisis that doesn’t exist, consider the following:
  • How climate alarmists are like hamsters trapped in a cage.
  • Solar geomagnetic activity is at an all time low. Expect things to get colder, in defiance of Al Gore.
  • The EPA has declared carbon dioxide a major threat to your health. Scientific truth be damned; this is all about a breathtaking power-grab by the Obama Administration, which is frustrated by resistance from Congress and the American people.
  • The Goracle may be a Green poet, but he has a tremendous tin ear.
  • Taking a break from her book tour, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin pens an article for the Washington Post (But I thought she was irrelevant?) condemning politicized science and asking President Obama to boycott the farce in Copenhagen.
  • And all that talk of transferring trillions to developing countries to help them fight global warming? Would you like to buy a bridge, too? Then again, if it crashes the conference, this double-cross would have to be counted a Good Thing(tm).

Smart Power in action:

  • Nile Gardiner in The Mail wonders why Barack Obama seems to hate Great Britain and if the “special relationship” can survive. John Steele Gordon calls it gratuitous arrogance. I don’t know. Our President-Messiah did promise us change, after all. He just didn’t mention that would involve trashing a century-old alliance.
  • Con Coughlin thinks it’s time Obama learned some manners.
  • Don’t worry, Britain, it’s not just you. Our new policy seems to be to hug our enemies and slap our allies. The latest target apparently is Norway, which has just awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize (for nothing). Even people who like him get slighted.

Bits and Bobs:

See ya later tonight or tomorrow, folks!


Teach the children, Palestinian-style

December 9, 2009

On Al-Quds TV, a sheikh glorifies a suicide bomber before a group of children, praising her love of death:

Transcript here.

How much you want to bet that this noble sheikh will be among the last to volunteer to blow himself up. But he’s very happy to encourage these children to do the same.

Barbarians.


Political correctness kills

December 7, 2009

Andrew Klavan explains how:

Happy spots are people too, you know.


Priorities

November 9, 2009

A Muslim traitor decides to wage jihad and murders 12 soldiers and civilians while wounding 30 others at Ft. Hood. What is the priority of the Secretary of Homeland Security? Could she be exploring the possibility of other Muslim-American soldiers turning on their comrades? Is she directing an investigation into jihadist penetration of the Armed Forces? No, she has something far more important to do in the wake of the worst terrorist incident on US soil since 9-11: making sure there is no backlash against Muslims.

The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Refresh my memory, but have there been any documented anti-Muslim incidents in the US in the last eight years? And I mean serious incidents, not the “Someone looked at me funny” encounters that CAIR likes to claim are “hate crimes.” Truth be told, Americans have been remarkably restrained. And yet Janet Napolitano sees it as her primary duty to worry about a “backlash” that has never materialized.

Unbelievable.

And isn’t that last quoted paragraph a peach? Hasan “…reportedly expressed growing dismay….” No, Mr. Associated Press Reporter, it was a bit more than that. Hasan attended a radical mosque, the imam of which was a spiritual adviser to three of the 9-11 hijackers. Major Hasan spread anti-American propaganda and defended suicide bombings. His fellow mosque-members described him as a typical fundamentalist who firmly believed that “jihad” meant fighting and killing. This wasn’t someone “dismayed” at a war, as if he were an average protester. This was a devout Muslim who felt it his duty to wage jihad fi sabil Allah – “war for the sake of Allah.” A duty that came before his oath of loyalty to his comrades and to the United States.

But rather than investigate the ideology that lead Major Hasan to commit treason, rather than take a long, hard look at the role Islam and the doctrine of jihad played in this, Secretary Napolitano worries about a backlash, transferring the onus of responsibility onto the true targets -us- and once again pandering to Muslim victim-hood: the threat as Napolitano sees it is from angry, irrational redneck Americans, not radicalized Muslims bent on jihad. It’s just this kind of political correctness, the kind that lead Hasan’s fellow officers to ignore the obvious signs of coming trouble for fear of being accused of “Islamophobia,” that got those people at Ft. Hood killed.

And until Janet Napolitano and the whole US government take off the politically correct blinders and deal honestly with the nature of the threat we face, we are running every day the risk of another Ft. Hood. Or London. Or Madrid. Or Bali.

Priorities, Madame Secretary. Priorities.

RELATED: Former US Army officer Ralph Peters is angry. Justifiably so. Dr. Rusty Shackleford points out that there is nothing sudden about Sudden Jihad Syndrome. In the peace-of-mind department, the threat from home-grown jihadis is growing.

(hat tip: Power Line)


Islam and the threat to free speech

November 8, 2009

The jihad against the West isn’t just on the battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Ft. Hood, but it’s also an assault on the values Western Civilization holds dear, free speech chief among them. Britain’s Pat Condell looks at Islamic efforts to restrict free speech in international law and sends a warning to America from Europe:

I don’t agree with Pat’s atheism (being a devout apatheist, myself) and his hostility toward all religion, but I’m one-hundred percent down with his views on Islam, the rank hypocrisy and sanctimony of the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,  and the threat posed by the cultural jihad and the spread of sharia law.

RELATED: An article that discusses the global blasphemy law the OIC is pushing for. While Secretary of State Clinton has come out in opposition to it, her boss has directed that the United States co-sponsor the resolution in the Human Rights Council. I’ve written before about my concerns regarding President Obama’s commitment to free speech. Eugene Volokh analyzes the measure for the Huffington Post.


Religion of mercy: kill the mother after the baby is born

November 6, 2009

This is life under Islamic law -sharia- the blessings of which the jihadis of al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other allied salafist groups want to bring to us all:

Abas Hussein Abdirahman, 33, was killed in front of a crowd of some 300 people in the port town of Merka.

An official from the al-Shabab group said the woman would be killed after she has had her baby.

Islamist groups run much of southern Somalia, while the UN-backed government only control parts of the capital.

This is the third time Islamists have stoned a person to death for adultery in the past year.

Al-Shabab official Sheikh Suldan Aala Mohamed said Mr Abdirahman had confessed to adultery before an Islamic court.

“He was screaming and blood was pouring from his head during the stoning. After seven minutes he stopped moving,” an eyewitness told the BBC.

The BBC’s Mohammed Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says that if the woman is also killed, her baby would be given to relatives to look after.

Al-Shabab’s concern for the welfare of the child is touching.

The President of Somalia (or, what’s left of it) decried the stoning:

Meanwhile, President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed has accused al-Shabab of spoiling the image of Islam by killing people and harassing women.

“Their actions have nothing to do with Islam,” said the moderate Islamist…

Bunk. Just ask the Iranians, who stone women and execute gays as prescribed by sharia law. Just ask the Saudis, who whip rape victims. Just ask the Jordanians, who refused to pass a law against honor killings because it would go against religion. (And they meant Islam, in case you didn’t guess.) It is part and parcel of Islam, as attested by the hadith in the Sahih Buhkari, one of the most revered collections of hadiths in Islam:

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

(What is a hadith?)

The difference between “moderate” Islamists and full-throated Islamists is one of degree, not kind.

(hat tip: The Jawa Report)


Religion of Tolerance Watch

October 28, 2009

Following up on an item I linked yesterday, we now know why over 100 FBI agents -including snipers and helicopters- raided a Muslim slaughterhouse in Illinois: it was linked to a plot to kill 78-years old Kurt Westergaard, author of one of the most well-known of the infamous Muhammed Cartoons:

Two Chicago men charged in terror scheme

When FBI agents at O’Hare arrested David Headley en route to Pakistan earlier this month on charges he plotted to kill a newspaper cartoonist in Denmark, authorities say he held an additional airline reservation – to Copenhagen.

He was to depart Thursday.

Headley’s friend, Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who shared an extreme hatred for cartoons that depicted the prophet Mohammed, arranged for the flight, authorities said.

Any depiction of the prophet, even a favorable one, is forbidden by Islamic law as likely to lead to idolatry.

The Chicago men, who knew each other from a military school in Pakistan, on Tuesday were accused of an international plot dubbed “The Mickey Mouse Project” that since late 2008 included scheming with others to “commit terrorist acts against overseas targets,” according to federal criminal complaints made public in Chicago.

The North Side men are accused of plotting to target employees of the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, which published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in 2005, sparking violent riots across the Muslim world.

The most controversial of the 12 cartoons depicted Mohammed wearing a bomb with a lit fuse as a turban. That cartoon was drawn by Kurt Westergaard, 78 – who was targeted for assassination, authorities said.

This is the cartoon in question:

jyllandsposten_bombhead

For this act of free speech, a right we in the West hold to be among the universal, natural rights of Mankind, Mr. Westergaard and Flemming Rose, the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, as well as other staff at the paper were marked for death.

They were to be murdered for offending Islam.

Free speech means nothing unless it means the freedom to criticize and even give offense, for no other kind of speech needs protection. If we renounce our right to criticize or even insult a public figure, a political party, or even a religion -any religion- then free speech is dead, the first amendment is “just words,” and we are all self-made dhimmis living in fear.

Which is exactly what jihadists like David Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana want.

(hat tip: Jihad Watch)

RELATED: The original Dread Cartoons Of Blasphemy.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,853 other followers