Trying to make sense of a meshuga planet

Islam: selective condemnations and double standards

Another confirmation that today’s Islam (Islam, not Islamism), whose preachers explode with loud protests, condemnations and conniptions only when convenient, is predominately driven by dirty politics.

Muslim Double Standards by Tarek Fatah (Natl. Post)

This week, more than 100 Muslims have died and thousands more have been arrested in China. Yet not a peep of protest has been heard on the streets of Cairo, Karachi or Tehran. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it seems, is too busy imprisoning and herding Iranian Muslims to jail to hear the outcry in Xinxiang, while Egyptian religious leader, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has also ignored the persecution of the Uighurs. China, after all is the trusted ally of the Arab world.

This is not the first time the so-called ummah has shrugged off the massacre of fellow Muslims. During Kosovo’s war with Serbia, Islamists depicted Kosovar Muslims not as victims, but as American agents. More recently, the genocide of Darfuri Black Muslims at the hands of the Arab janjaweed militia and the Sudanese government has passed unnoticed by the larger Islamic world.

My friend, the Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy explained this phenomenon: “Many Muslims only pay attention when America and Israel behave badly.” If Israel invaded western China, she mused, maybe the rest of the Muslim world would wake up, cry foul and protest.


July 12, 2009 Posted by | Arab-Israeli Conflict | | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders: Human rights exist to protect individuals, not religions and ideologies

In Netherlands Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) has won 4 seats in today’s elections to the European Parliament. Wilders is the author of controversial 15-min-movie Fitna, which many “progressives” and Islamists could not stand and, as usual, when they run out of arguments against political opponents, they resorted to legal (and not so legal) tantrums.

Here is an excerpt from Wilders’ acceptance speech on receiving The Freedom Award from Florida Security Council in Miami on April 27, 2009:

Islam is a political ideology. … The free world is now facing a ‘stealth Jihad’, the Islamic’ attempt to introduce Sharia law bit by bit.

If we do not stop the Islamization, we will lose everything: our identity, our culture, our democratic constitutional state, our freedom and our civilization. In Europe we are already losing the right to free speech, the right to criticize Islam. I think criticisms of religions or ideologies always ought to be possible in a free world. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.

The so-called ‘Middle East conflict’ is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too. I am very much in favor of a two-state solution. I mean Churchill’s 1921 two-state solution, when Palestine was partitioned in a Jewish and an Arab part. Arab Palestine is now called Jordan, and therefore, there is already a Palestinian state. With eighty percent of the population having roots on the other side of the Jordan, there is no doubt Jordan is truly the state of Palestine. I hope Israel’s government will start telling that to the world.

Islam forces Israel to fight and Israel is not just fighting for itself. Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West. Just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944, young Israeli men and women are fighting for our freedom, our civilization.

Like Bosnia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Sudan, the Caucasus, Kashmir, southern Thailand, western China and the south of the Philippines, Israel is situated exactly on the dividing line between Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world, and Dar al-Harb, the non-Islamic world. It is no coincidence that it is precisely this dividing line where blood is flowing and war is raging in many areas. We have to get rid of that politically-correct fallacy that it is all about separate conflicts. Let us, please, allow ourselves at last to see the big picture, which is that those conflicts all have to do with Jihad; Jihad in the spirit of Muhammad. Ladies and gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt in its relentless fight against those that threaten it, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas or a nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe certainly has the moral obligation to prevent at all cost another Holocaust against the Jewish people.

Islam is not our number one problem. Cultural relativism is. The crazy idea that all cultures are equal. Let me tell you they are not. Our culture based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism is far better than the Islamic culture, and I am proud to say so. The elites have converted to this philosophy a long time ago – government leaders, judges, churches, trade unions, universities, the media – all of them are blinded by political correctness and have chosen the side of Islam. They feel sorry for Muslims and pity them. Cultural relativism is weakening the West day by day. As a result of cultural relativism a little bit of the free West dies each day. Many politicians seem to believe that their job is not to defend democracy but to help make the transition to Sharia law as smooth as possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am often asked whether I have any answers to the problem and what those might be. Well, I certainly have some answers. Here are ten things we would have to do to stop the Islamization of the West:

1. Stop cultural relativism.

2. Stop pretending that Islam is only a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.

3. Stop mass immigration by people from Muslim countries. We have to end Al-Hijra.

4. Encourage voluntary repatriation.

5. Expel criminal foreigners and criminals with dual nationality, after denationalization, and send them back to their Arab countries. Likewise, expel all those who incite to a ‘violent jihad’.

6. We need an European First Amendment to strengthen free speech.

7. We need a binding pledge of allegiance in all Western countries.

8. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries. Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place. Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence.

9. Get rid of the current weak leaders. We have the privilege of living in a democracy. Let’s use that privilege and exchange cowards for heroes. We need more Churchills and fewer Chamberlains.

Ladies and gentlemen, besides all the bad news, fortunately there is some good news. There is no doubt in my mind that freedom will prevail, there are already some hopeful signs: Last week the Dutch Parliament approved a motion proposed by my party seeking to block any dialogue between government officials and Hamas. And according to the most recent opinion polls, if elections were held at this moment, my party, the Freedom Party, would be the largest party in the Netherlands. You might be looking at the next Dutch Prime Minister. And so I ask you, if it can be done in the Netherlands, why not throughout the whole of the Western world?

If the Netherlands were the first country to end up in the multiculturalist swamp, why can’t we be the first country to find a way out?

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I have not forgotten those to whom we owe our liberties. Our liberties were bitterly fought for. American soldiers fought, bled and died for European freedom. American soldiers did not die for an Islamized Europe, they died for a free Europe. We owe something to these brave men. Their legacy cannot be squandered and given away.

The third President and spiritual father of this great nation once said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” As so often, Thomas Jefferson was right. Our freedom must be safeguarded. And it is we ourselves who must do so. A period of inattention, of dropping our guard for even a short while, might cost us our freedom. Just like that. It has happened before in our history. Please let us not allow it to happen ever again.

June 5, 2009 Posted by | Islam | , | Leave a comment

The meaning of jihad

While some think that the Global War on Terror is happily over… Raymond Ibrahim has a great article in Pajamas Media (reprinted in ME Forum): Words Matter in the War on Terror explaining very relevant concept of Jihad (which as of recently also officially became an unmentionable, at least in the U.S.) Ibrahim picks apart a piece by Colonel Jeffrey Vordermark, who attempts to explain – or rather excuse – Jihad to the gullible Westerners. I recommend the entire thing, here’s a short excerpt:

“Jihad” has a very precise, juristic definition; more to the point, Sunni Islam — which accounts for nearly 90% of the Islamic world — is, in fact, “simple and monolithic,” thanks to the totalitarian nature of Islamic law (Sharia), which categorizes all possible human actions as being either forbidden, discouraged, legitimate, recommended, or obligatory. Indeed, of the major religions of the world, none is perhaps so black and white, so clear cut as Islam, which meticulously delineates to Muslims the correct “way” of living (“way,” incidentally, being the literal definition of the word “Sharia”).

The real problem here is that Vordermark’s assertion that the military “jihad” has been “traditionally” limited to “defensive warfare” is totally false.

Even so, Vordermark is to be excused; he warns us about accepting definitions of “jihad” from “pundits, academics, and laymen,” and surely his falls into this category. Thus let us dispense once and for all with infidel-based definitions — including my own — and see what Islam’s own most revered authorities have to say about what “jihad” really means:

First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly dependent on the various rulings (ahkam) of the so-called four schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba’). I am currently reading an Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely examining the word “jihad,” he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.”

The book also contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” from each of the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam — or in this case, jihad — is articulated: According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” (Note: “infidels,” or kuffar, simply means non-Muslims.)

In short, the “traditional” meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to spread Islamic hegemony — period. This is doctrinally, textually, historically, and consensually demonstrable. At any rate, who probably better understands what jihad means, the non-Muslim Jeffrey Vordermark or the Muslim Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil? More to the point, whose definition will Muslims actually take seriously?

Emph. added by me.

May 7, 2009 Posted by | Islamism | , , , | Leave a comment

UN: all religions are equal, but some are more equal than the rest

As if we needed another proof of the absurdity theater that the UN (and especially UN HRC) have become.

UN rights body votes to curb criticism of religion

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.’s top human rights body has approved a proposal by Muslim nations urging the passage of laws protecting religion from criticism. Members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favor of a resolution Thursday to combat “defamation of religion.” Eleven nations, mostly from the West, opposed the resolution and 13 countries abstained. The resolution was proposed by Pakistan. Muslim countries have cited the inflammatory effect of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech. Critics say the resolution, while not binding, will have a chilling effect on free speech and may worsen relations between faiths.

World Jewish Congress Blasts UN Vote Threatening Freedom of Expression

“The World Jewish Congress, long a leader in the effort to champion human rights and freedom of religion, has for many years defended the rights of the members of all faiths, including the Muslim faith,” said Ronald S. Lauder, president of the WJC. “However, we strongly oppose the issue of “defamation of religions” being cast as a human rights violation at the United Nations. We see it as weakening the rights of individuals to express their views and criticize other religions, and, in the case of this specific resolution, particularly Islam.” Lauder added,” This resolution is an attempt to bring to the international body the blasphemy laws prevalent in some Muslim countries. In accordance with human rights laws, the rights of individuals to express their views should be protected and not restricted or punished by the state. Today’s vote is unfortunately only a harbinger for what may yet transpire in Geneva at the upcoming Durban Review Conference as proposals such as this one keep coming to the fore,” he said.

Screw the UN... before they screw you.

March 26, 2009 Posted by | Islam, UN | , | 1 Comment