I’ve never believed the “Obama is a secret Muslim” nonsense, but…

August 11, 2011

He is either appallingly naive about the religion or is doing his usual “say anything they need to hear to like me” act. Regardless, the kind of meaningless pabulum he served at the White House Iftar dinner last night is just jaw-dropping:

Welcoming guests at the annual White House Iftaar party, US President Barack Obama said, Islam has always been part of the American family and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country in all walks of life.

Attended by some 100 special invited guests including ambassadors of mostly Muslim countries and eminent Muslim academicians and community leaders, Akram Syed of the National Association of Indian Muslims was among the few Indian-Americans to attend the high-profile annual event at the White House.

Other special guests included families of Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks, as well as Muslim members of the US Armed Services.

Obama said the annual Ramadan dinner, a tradition that President Clinton began and President George W Bush continued, is quintessentially American.

“No matter who we are or how we pray, we’re all children of a loving God,” he said.

Tell that to the Copts in Egypt, Mr. President. And that’s just one example of the nearly 1,400-year legacy of Islam’s jihad against everyone else.

That quote is just the start. For more, and for a detailed deconstruction of the President’s blather, visit Jihad Watch.

PS: To clarify, I am not questioning the loyalty of Americans who practice Islam but who don’t seek to impose Sharia law here or wage jihad against the United States, and I especially do not question the loyalty and honor of the many Muslims who have served and do serve in the military. It is with Islam itself and its doctrines of (to name a few) jihad, Jew-hatred, female inferiority, enmity toward the outsider, and the supremacy of Sharia that I have deep problems.

PPS: Regarding Obama’s religious beliefs, if he has any, in my opinion he is most attracted to the Black Liberation Theology preached by James Cone, Cornel West, and Jeremiah Wright. (Although I’m not above believing that his time in Wright’s church was wholly cynical, and that Obama’s only real “religion” is himself.)

via Weasel Zippers, which has video.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Religious tolerance for me, but not for thee

November 6, 2010

Just another reminder that the principles of liberal democracy and Sharia law are not compatible: In New York, Muslims want to build a mosque near Ground Zero and most Americans, while hating the idea, agree they have the right to do it. Meanwhile, in Kuwait, Christians are denied permission to build churches:

A group of Christians has complained that Kuwait City’s Municipal Council is preventing them from getting land to build a church. “The Municipal Council is the big problem preventing us from getting land; not all of the members, just the Islamic fundamentalists,” said Archimandrite Boutros Gharib, head of the local Greek Catholic Church.

Recently the municipal council blocked an attempt by the Greek Catholic Church to acquire land in Mahboula, an area in the Ahmadi governorate south of Kuwait City. The request has been pending for several years.

A new church would reduce over-crowdedness in a villa currently used for worshiping, Fr Gharib said.

According to the Greek Catholic clergyman, both the government and the country’s leader, Emir Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, have given their approval and blessing to the Church to have its property built. However, the Council has not followed suit. What is more, “The council did not give us any reason,” he added.

“We found the higher levels of government say yes and the lower levels of government say no,” said Rev Andrew Thompson, the Anglican chaplain to Kuwait, who stressed that religious fundamentalists controlled the municipality.

As Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch points out, and as the “fundamentalist” councilmen understand, Islamic law prohibits dhimmi (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians) peoples from building new places of worship or even repairing the old ones. Yet, while while American Muslim groups complain if someone just speaks out against the building of a new mosque in the US, they say nothing about the far worse (and genuine) religious persecution practiced in Muslim lands. Indeed, Muhammad himself ordered that only Islam shall be practiced in the Arabian peninsula. I suppose the city councilors could argue that, hey, at least they’re allowing those dhimmi Christians to practice at all. Be grateful.

This isn’t an argument for tit-for-tat discrimination or, as some might put it, “they can build a mosque in New York when we can build a cathedral in Mecca.” To do so would be to abandon our own deeply held principles.

But neither can we ignore blatant hypocrisy and religious discrimination for the sake of an intellectually addled multiculturalism, regardless of how warm and fuzzy it makes us feel. Instead, it is incumbent on us to challenge and call out the advocates of Sharia in every case where their religious law, which they see as their duty to impose on us, conflicts with the basic human freedoms Western civilization holds dear.

If we don’t we may eventually find ourselves in the same unhappy state as the Greek Catholics of Kuwait.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Ground Zero Mosque: should CBS have rejected this ad?

July 7, 2010

CBS has refused to air the following ad from the National Republican Trust, which I assume is a  Republican Party-affiliated group, opposing the construction of a large mosque just yards from Ground Zero, the site of the most devastating of the September 11th attacks. Before commenting further, I’ll let you watch it. Tito, roll tape!

It’s powerful and intense, no doubt. And anyone who’s followed this blog knows my feelings about Islam and the jihad against the West. And I do oppose building that mosque. But two questions remain.

Does this ad cross the line into religious prejudice and smear Muslims in general? No, I think it stays just this side of that. The message it conveys is true: there is a religiously-inspired war against us, that war is being fought in the name of Islam’s god and for the supremacy of Islam, and the massacre of 3,000 of us was launched by a Muslim group and carried out by Muslims for Allah’s sake:

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

(Qur’an sura 9, verse 111)

It’s also true that a mosque is a symbol of conquest and the supremacy of Islam. To place one at Ground Zero would be interpreted inevitably in the Islamic world as a victory marker. So the ad is right to object for this reason, too.

The other question revolves around CBS’s right to refuse to carry it. Recalling what’s happened in the last few years when someone has “offended Islam” (riots against cartoons, the murder of a filmmaker, a professor getting his hands cut off for asking the wrong question), one can understand if the managers there are afraid of the reaction to this ad. And they are a publicly-traded private company and can freely choose which commercials to accept and which to reject. So I think Big Peace is wrong to characterize this as a “ban,” which implies censorship. The ad is free to run elsewhere, such as YouTube.

But I still wish they had accepted it, because this ad raises important issues for both New York City and the nation that should be freely discussed. I suspect its rejection was born largely of fear, and it is the resulting surrender of the right of free speech and the tacit acceptance of dhimmitude that makes CBS’ rejection wrong. The corporation has both a moral duty and a self-interest in the defense of that right, and it should change its mind and run the ad.


Sharia comes to the UK, your dog is not welcome

June 26, 2010

The growing submission of British society to Islam and Islamic law continues apace, as a passenger was forbidden from bringing her dog onto a public bus for fear of offending Muslims:

On two occasions last week my dog was barred from London buses, not because she’s particularly fierce or big, but on religious grounds. A friend and I had taken her to the park, and as I went across to the grocer, my friend took Daisy, a Manchester terrier, to the bus stop.

When a second bus arrived, she again made to embark, but was stopped again – this time because the driver said he was Muslim. I know that Muslims consider dogs to be unclean, but last time I looked this wasn’t a Muslim country and London Transport was a non-denominational organisation.

As they tried to board the bus, the driver stopped her and told her that there was a Muslim lady on the bus who “might be upset by the dog”. As she attempted to remonstrate, the doors closed and the bus drew away.

Well, the UK may not be a Muslim country ( yet), but the Archibishop of Canterbury has said it may be time to admit some aspects of sharia law into British jurisprudence, so Fido’s banning may just be a taste of the future.

And note the first driver’s dhimmi reaction: colored as tolerance and respect, I’ve no doubt it was born of fear of Muslim anger and a de facto deference to Islamic supremacy. You don’t hear of people acting like this in submission to “Christians on board” or for not wanting to offend the Jews on the bus.

It’s another small victory for the cultural jihad.

(via Creeping Sharia)

LINKS: At Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer cites the Islamic justification for Muslim disdain for dogs. In an earlier incident, I made it clear what I think of Islam vs. dogs.

UPDATE: Something I forgot to mention – I’ve no sure idea what the rules are in Britain regarding animals on public transportation. In the US, they’re generally banned, unless it’s a service animal. However, I’ve seen plenty of exceptions for well-behaved pets. In the case discussed above, it seems clear to me that the woman and her friend were accustomed to taking their dogs aboard the bus, making these two instances unusual. Equally, the drivers made it clear they weren’t enforcing civil rules, but religious law.


Amsterdam’s dhimmi judges

February 7, 2010

A few days ago I wrote about the trial of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who has been charged with “inciting hatred” for criticizing Islam. At the time, I described the decadent state of liberty in Holland, where a free man could be put on trial for expressing an opinion. The great Pat Condell minces no words in his latest video, declaring that Wilders was put on trial for embarrassing the Dutch establishment with the truth and calling shame on the crooked judges of Amsterdam:


Hollywood fears the fatwa

November 15, 2009

With the release 2012, Islamist Watch wonders why the film shows holy places being destroyed around the globe – except Mecca.

“Who will survive 2012?” asks a website promoting Roland Emmerich’s new end-of-the-world film set three years from now. The answer: Muslims — or at least their cherished holy places:

For his latest disaster movie, 2012, the 53-year-old director had wanted to demolish the Kaaba, the iconic cube-shaped structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. …

But after some consideration, he decided it might not be such a smart idea, after all.

“I wanted to do that, I have to admit,” Emmerich told SciFiWire.com. “But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right.”

Have a look to see how else Hollywood has gone out of its way to avoid offending Muslims, but shows no such concern for other religions, and learn why David Rusin rates Hollywood a D for Dhimmitude.


Religion of Tolerance watch

November 1, 2009

Funny, I would have sworn I’d been assured that Islam was a religion of peace and tolerance:

Egyptian security forces have intensified their presence in the Upper Egyptian town of Dairout, in anticipation of a recurrence of Muslim violence against Christians. Copts expressed their fear over leaflets entitled “These have to Die!” which are being distributed to all Muslims in Dairout and neighborhoods, enticing them to “burn, vandalize and clean the country of these evil immoral infidels.”

Reports from Dairout, 313 km south of Cairo, confirm that Christian Copts are afraid to leave their homes and have stayed indoors since violence against them erupted on October 24, 2009. This collective punishment of Copts was caused by an illicit sexual relationship between a Muslim girl, Hagger Hassouna, and the Christian Romany Farouk Attallah. It was rumored that he sent videos of them intimately together to cell phones in Dairout before fleeing. This prompted the Hassouna family to kill his father, Farouk Attallah, on October 19, 2009, in revenge. Four of the Hassouna killers were detained by prosecution, leading to Muslim riots against the Copts (AINA 10-27-2009) .

According to Wagih Yacoub of the Middle East Christian Assosiation (MECA), Muslim-owned businesses are now displaying stickers with ‘Allah Akbar’ (Allah is Great) to differentiate between them and Coptic-owned businesses, as a form of pre-planning for a forthcoming wave of Muslim violence.

Handwritten leaflets (Arabic) have been circulated among Muslims in Dairout for the last two days; they call on Muslims to unite to take revenge for their religion and honor, claiming that Hagger Hassouna is innocent and that she was forced into vice, and “all Jews and Christians should come to learn that Muslim honor is precious.” The fliers state that Muslims are the masters of the world since beginning of times until the present day, and entices them to “burn and vandalize and clean the country of the evil immoral infidels.”

Granted, if the rumors about Attallah are true, then he’s a swine. (And I hate to think what the poor girl’s family did to her, given Islam’s notorious treatment of women.) But is it a justification for punishment of an entire community? Maybe that’s easy to accept, when your religion tells you that Believers are supreme and all others are to be submissive, humble and humiliated.

(hat tip: Jihad Watch)


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.


Rome still pays tribute

October 15, 2009

In the decadent centuries of the Late Roman Empire, emperors and their generals often resorted to bribes to convince the barbarians to attack someone else, or to just stay quiet.

Their modern successors are still doing it:

French troops were killed after Italy hushed up ‘bribes’ to Taleban

When ten French soldiers were killed last year in an ambush by Afghan insurgents in what had seemed a relatively peaceful area, the French public were horrified.
Their revulsion increased with the news that many of the dead soldiers had been mutilated — and with the publication of photographs showing the militants triumphantly sporting their victims’ flak jackets and weapons. The French had been in charge of the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, for only a month, taking over from the Italians; it was one of the biggest single losses of life by Nato forces in Afghanistan.
What the grieving nation did not know was that in the months before the French soldiers arrived in mid-2008, the Italian secret service had been paying tens of thousands of dollars to Taleban commanders and local warlords to keep the area quiet, The Times has learnt. The clandestine payments, whose existence was hidden from the incoming French forces, were disclosed by Western military officials.
US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west. In June 2008, several weeks before the ambush, the US Ambassador in Rome made a démarche, or diplomatic protest, to the Berlusconi Government over allegations concerning the tactic.
However, a number of high-ranking officers in Nato have told The Times that payments were subsequently discovered to have been made in the Sarobi area as well.
Western officials say that because the French knew nothing of the payments they made a catastrophically incorrect threat assessment.
“One cannot be too doctrinaire about these things,” a senior Nato officer in Kabul said. “It might well make sense to buy off local groups and use non-violence to keep violence down. But it is madness to do so and not inform your allies.”

When ten French soldiers were killed last year in an ambush by Afghan insurgents in what had seemed a relatively peaceful area, the French public were horrified.

Their revulsion increased with the news that many of the dead soldiers had been mutilated — and with the publication of photographs showing the militants triumphantly sporting their victims’ flak jackets and weapons. The French had been in charge of the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, for only a month, taking over from the Italians; it was one of the biggest single losses of life by Nato forces in Afghanistan.

What the grieving nation did not know was that in the months before the French soldiers arrived in mid-2008, the Italian secret service had been paying tens of thousands of dollars to Taleban commanders and local warlords to keep the area quiet, The Times has learnt. The clandestine payments, whose existence was hidden from the incoming French forces, were disclosed by Western military officials.

US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west. In June 2008, several weeks before the ambush, the US Ambassador in Rome made a démarche, or diplomatic protest, to the Berlusconi Government over allegations concerning the tactic.

However, a number of high-ranking officers in Nato have told The Times that payments were subsequently discovered to have been made in the Sarobi area as well.

Western officials say that because the French knew nothing of the payments they made a catastrophically incorrect threat assessment.

“One cannot be too doctrinaire about these things,” a senior Nato officer in Kabul said. “It might well make sense to buy off local groups and use non-violence to keep violence down. But it is madness to do so and not inform your allies.”

I’m willing to bet the “senior NATO officer” was European.  What he’s describing is cowardice disguised as “being reasonable.” In fact, to devout jihadis of al Qaeda and the Taliban, this is nothing more than an act of tribute, the weak non-Muslims acknowledging the strength of the Believers and paying the jizya (Qur’an 9:29), an act of submission and dhimmitude.

I’ll agree with the unnamed officer in one regard: madness was at play here, but the madness was contained in the bribes themselves. The barbarians Taliban took it as their due for being the best of men, while non-Muslims are the worst. (Qur’an 98:6-7) When the French failed to pay the jizya, the jihadis did the predictable thing in order to chastise and subdue the “worst of men.”

The Italian government’s craven attitude cost French lives, but don’t bet on our allies learning from this. (The lesson the NATO officer seemed to take was “at least tell us when you’re paying bribes.”) Until they recognize and understand the ideological and theological motivations of our enemies, there will be future foolish attempts to buy peace that instead only buy trouble.

(hat tip: Jihad Watch)

LINKS: More at Fausta’s blog, Weasel Zippers.


Yet another reason I could never be Muslim

July 2, 2008

How on Earth could anyone ever expect me to submit to a religion that considers puppies unclean?

Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman’s hat

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman’s hat advertising a Scottish police force’s new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.

Tayside Police’s new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.

The choice of image on the Tayside Police cards – a black dog sitting in a police officer’s hat – has now been raised with Chief Constable John Vine.

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: ‘My concern was that it’s not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.

‘It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities.

‘They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they’d seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn’t have done it.’

Councillor Asif, who is a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board, said that the force had a diversity adviser and was generally very aware of such issues.

He raised the matter with Mr Vine at a meeting of the board.

I bet the Chief Constable was just thrilled to death. I mean, come on, who can think this is unclean?

Naturally, the Tayside police have bent over backwards and kissed their own arses to apologize to the horribly offended (by puppies) Muslim community:

A police force has apologised to Islamic leaders for the “offensive” postcard advertising a new non-emergency telephone number, which shows a six-month-old trainee police dog named Rebel.

The German shepherd puppy has proved hugely popular with the public, hundreds of who have logged on to the force’s website to read his online training diary.

But some Muslims in the Dundee area have reportedly been upset by the image because they consider dogs to be “ritually unclean”, while shopkeepers have refused to display the advert.

Tayside Police have admitted they should have consulted their ‘diversity’ officers before issuing the cards, but critics argued their apology was unnecessary.

Damn straight it was unnecessary. Here’s a little lesson for Mr. Asif and his brethren in the umma: We in the West like our dogs. They have been a part of our civilization for thousands of years. They are our friends. They are playmates for our children, companions for our elderly, guardians and members of our families. Time and again, dogs have risked and even lost their lives for their people. They are an integral, beloved part of our culture, and the disdain shown for them in Islamic society is testimony to its cultural bankruptcy.

You live in the West, now, Mr. Asif. Spare us the cultural jihad. We are not your dhimmis. You don’t want a dog in your house, fine. You don’t want to live in a society that likes dogs, I’m sure there’s a seat on the next flight back to where you came from. But quit playing the whiny victim to impose your benighted societal mores on us. We don’t want them. We don’t like them.

We like our dogs a lot better.

LINKS: LGF, Tigerhawk, Hot Air.


Multiculturalist nonsense

September 6, 2007

A bout of insomnia last night has left me almost too knackered to blog today (You should have read Gore’s book! –ed. But I don’t like bad science fiction.), but I can’t let this one pass:

Did you hear the one about the Swedish principle who banned sports jerseys bearing the Swedish flag from a Swedish school — because it’s a racist, xenophobic symbol?

A school principal in southern Sweden has banned pupils from posing for class photos wearing national team shirts containing Swedish flags.

Since national flags may be perceived by some as xenophobic, eighth grade pupils in Karlshamn have been ordered to wear less inflammatory garb for a photo to be published in the school yearbook.

"Anybody looking at the photo could view it as a political demonstration," principal Pär Blondell from Strandskolan told news agency TT.

The headmaster added that some of the pupils have labelled the ruling "ridiculous".

Following an article on the subject in newspaper Sydsvenkan, a number of parents and irate letter-writers contacted the principal to express their dismay at the shirt ban.

But Blondell stuck to his guns, arguing that the pupils risked inadvertently earning themselves a bad reputation. People could begin speculating about "the racists from Karlshamn" once the yearbook began being distributed in the Malmö area, he said.

Malmo is the Swedish city with perhaps the highest percentage of Muslim immigrants in Sweden. Riots are a regular occurrence there, and the public order situation is so bad that there are Muslim areas of Malmo that are no-go zones for the police.

One wonders if the principal is doing this out of multicultural sensitivity, or if he’s just plain scared. Actually, I don’t wonder at all.

LINKS: Gates of Vienna has more.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,182 other followers