To Hell With the Freedom Flotilla

Everybody is absolutely outraged - outraged! - this morning at the news that more than 10 people have been killed after Israeli commandos stormed a convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip. Armed forces boarded the largest vessel overnight, clashing with some of the 500 people on board.

It is predictable that the mainstream media has gone all out in depicting the Israelis as barbaric aggressors terrorising a peaceful aid ship, but even the BBC has to give the Israeli side of the story, even if it was immediately glossed over: "Israel says its soldiers were shot at and attacked with weapons; the activists say Israeli troops came on board shooting."

Is that really it? Israel "says" this happened but it's unclear? In fact, you can clearly see in the video posted on the BBC website that IDF soldiers are being attacked with knives and clubs, although Auntie does not see fit to mention this little factoid.

And let's not forget the fact that even before it set out, many people setting sail on the flottila were quite happily bragging about martyrdom and singing popular jihadist warcries including: "Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" Khaybar was the location of an oasis where the Islamic Prophet Muhammad butchered many innocent Jewish farmers, tortured their leaders to death, stole their wealth and raped their women, as I have previously described here. Those who chant the name of Khaybar in the context of Israel clearly approve of unprovoked aggressive wars of conquest against the Jewish state, and are obviously not "peace activists".

Needless to say, the groups involved in the "Freedom Flotilla" were actually radical outfits like the International Solidarity Movement, which commits itself to resisting via "armed struggle" what it sees (wrongly) as "Israeli violence and occupation". It also condones Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians. There is also the Turkish IHH, or "International Relief Fund", which has been outlawed by Israel due to its extensive links with Hamas, al-Qaeda and other global jihadist groups.

Bottom line: this "humanitarian" flotilla was in reality full of Jew-hating jihadist scum, who had no qualms about resorting to violence themselves, and ultimately support Hamas' plan of antisemitic genocide as outlined in its own Charter. Would that the IDF had sunk it without a trace.

UPDATE: Here is video of the Israeli navy warning the "peaceful" flotilla to either return to its countries of origin or to land in Ashdod, where the Israelis would assist the activists in delivering their aid by land to Gaza. At the end, you can just about hear this raving bunch of humanitarians reject this reasonable offer, saying: "Negative. Our destination is Gaza."

And still the world screams at Israel.

Skewering John Brennan's Idiotic Conceptions

The dangerous intellectual bankruptcy of the Obama Administration knows no bounds, and it continues with the arguments by counter-terror adviser John Brennan that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

So Islamic terrorism is caused not by any kind of interior belief system held by the terrorists; they are merely "victims" of "political, economic and social forces" - in other words, terrorism is caused by things like poverty and frustration over Western capitalistic oppression. It has nothing to do with Islam, and even though the terrorists themselves say again and again that Islam is what motivates them, we should not describe them in "religious terms", which means that we should deliberately obscure our own understanding of those who have declared war against us, and how we can combat not just their physical threat, but their ideology.

What Brennan and his ilk are essentially saying is that Muslims and Arabs are basically puppets who only react to outside stimuli, and are not human beings capable of making their own choices based on their own ideas which are indepedent of any perceived "political, economic and social forces" - an idea that would be considered highly offensive if any known conservative and/or "Islamophobe" had said it.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

Brennan's presentation of jihad is whitewashed completely. For more detailed refutation of this nonsense, see my article on jihad here, and my article on the killing of civilian non-combatants in Islamic law here.

The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.

Just shameful.

Of Mosques And Men

In this video, David Wood explains as well as anyone why the plans to build a thirteen-story mosque on New York's Ground Zero are a dangerous and insulting statement of Islamic supremacism that must be opposed by all decent human beings who claim to honour those who died in the Islamic mass murder attacks of 9/11.

Wood focuses on a chilling Photoshopped image that circulated widely in the Muslim community shortly after 9/11. It depicts New York over-run with mosques and minarets, and the caption, "New York City, 2006". Contrary to the much-peddled idea that the mosque would be a statement of Muslim "tolerance" and a practical example of multicultural success, the circulation of this "prophetic" statement of intent demonstrates that American Muslims have long had an ambition to build mosques (which have always historically been not just houses of spiritualism, but also symbols of political conquest) on the grounds of what had been the centre of America's economic dominance.

For further detailed documentation of the Islamic supremacist intentions of Faisal Abdul Rauf, the chief developer of the Ground Zero mosque project, see Alyssa A. Lappen's devastating expose of his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, the original Islamic jihadist organisation which is devoted, in its own words, to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Also see Walid Shoebat's explanation of how Rauf deceptively hides his true intention of implementing barbaric sharia law in America by only ever mentioning it to his co-religionists in the Arabic-speaking media.

Enough Said

UK: Acid Attacks Rising

Not bad, just "different"...An Afghan acid attack victim

The massively negative consequences of the Leftist multicultural project are highlighted today in the news that acid attacks in service of cleansing "family honour" may be on the rise in Britain. Hospital admission figures for the past three years show a steady rise in the number of people being treated for having acid thrown in their face. According to the NHS information centre, 44 people were admitted to hospital in 2006-07 after they were "assaulted with a corrosive substance". The following year the figure jumped to 67 and last year there were 69 admissions.

The severity of the acid problem is acknowledged well enough in the article, but, as usual, care is taken to assure us that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. Rick Trask, of Acid Survivors Trust International, observes: "You get attacks in Buddhist Cambodia, among Christians in Uganda and across south Asia, which has many different religions. It's not specific to one culture or another."

That may be so, but the problem is that while acid attacks in service of honour cleansing are on the rise, Cambodian Buddhists and Ugandan Christians do not make up a significant portion of incoming British immigrants, while Muslims make up a much more significant number, thanks mostly to Euro-Arab cooperative agreements since the early 1970s. It is telling that despite Mr Trask's claim that some non-Muslim societies practise acid attacks and honour killing, every other specific country that is mentioned in the article is predominantly Muslim: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Kurdistan, and Iran. The only exception is India, which although primarily Hindu, nevertheless has the third-highest Muslim population in the world.

That this is mostly a Muslim problem is confirmed in the findings of a recent study highlighted by the prominent American feminist Phyllis Chesler, who points out:

Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims.

Although there is no specific sanction in Islamic law for honour killings or acid attacks, the fact remains that pervasive Islamic attitudes towards women and the concepts of shame and honour mean that such acts are broadly tolerated in the Muslim world. For example, in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted against introducing harsher punishments for honour killings and violence. According to Al-Jazeera, they did so on the grounds that such a law "violated religious traditions".

These are the realities that must be confronted by our leaders if the rise in honour violence is to be halted. Sadly, though, it seems very likely that with the ascension to power of the Dumb and Dumber Lib-Con Coalition in the UK, real action to preserve human rights (which, as we have seen recently, are so often misapplied) and halt the dangerous and stultifying cultural transformation of Western societies is getting not closer, but further away.

Simple Answers

Why do Muslims fly into bouts of fanatical, violent rage whenever someone subjects their revered Prophet to criticism or gentle (even not so gentle) mocking? Well...

Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen [religion] or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed [emphasis added] as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or jies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the 'ulama' [scholars] and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today." ~ Qadi Iyad (d.1149)

What To Do With Amazon?

Fine on Amazon?

A white supremacist who idolised Adolf Hilter was jailed for ten years yesterday for producing chemical weapons. A major source of consternation for authorities was the fact that many of the books that Ian Davison read in order to learn how to make ricin, including the Anarchist’s Cookbook and The Poor Man’s James Bond, are easily available at Amazon.

It is excellent to see that authorities not only managed to apprehend this evil man before he was able to kill anyone, but also drew attention to the free availability of the literature that inspired the suspect.

Switch tack to Islamic jihad, however, and it's all very different. After all, those Muslims who commit, or attempt to commit, acts of terroristic violence have a wealth of inspiring literature available to them. Sticking with Amazon, a quick search reveals that the work of the famous and highly revered Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir is available in multiple elegantly decorated volumes. Ibn Kathir wrote the following about jihad:

“This honorable Ayah [verse] was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book; after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians...

“Allah said, 'until they pay the Jizya', if they do not choose to embrace Islam, 'with willing submission', in defeat and subservience, 'and feel themselves subdued', disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah [protected religious minorities living under Muslim rule] or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”

A modern jihadist ideologue, Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi, is also represented. Here is the crux of his basic presentation on jihad:

“The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not as one might think to compel the unbelievers into embracing Islam. Rather their purpose is to put an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over men. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the true faith; unbelievers who do not follow this true faith should live in a state of subordination...Jizya symbolises the submission of the unbelievers to the suzerainty of Islam. To pay the jizya of their own hands 'humbled' refers to payment in a state of submission. 'Humbled' also reinforces the idea that the believers, rather than the unbelievers, should be the rulers in performance of their duty as God’s vicegerents...

“The simple fact is that according to Islam, non-Muslims have been granted the freedom to stay outside the Islamic fold and to cling to their false, man-made ways if they so wish. They have, however, absolutely no right to seize the reigns of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines. For if they are given such an opportunity, corruption and mischief will ensue. In such a situation the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.

“One of the advantages of jizya is that it reminds the dhimmis [non-Muslim subjects of an Islamic state] every year that because they do not embrace Islam...they have to pay a price – jizya – for clinging to their errors.”

Then there is Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian Muslim writer who was a key inspiration for Osama bin Laden and many other al-Qaeda leaders, who wrote:

“As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God...The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction. Anyone who is not convinced may continue to follow his faith. However, he has to pay the submission tax to fulfil a number of objectives...by paying this tax, known as jizya, he declares that he will not stand in physical opposition to the efforts advocating the true Divine faith.”

The work of numerous other influential writers, such as al-Shafi and al-Mawardi, as well as several important manuals of Islamic law - all of which teach the same violent and supremacist interpretations of Islam - is also freely available.

And then, of course, there is the Qur'an, which says all of the following:

2:191-193 – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”

4:95 – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.”

8:38-39 – “Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning). And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.”

9:5 – “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

9:29 – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [non-Muslim poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

9:111 – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth...”

So here's the question: If it is worrying that material which may encourage white supremacists to make chemical weapons is so easy to find and purchase on the Internet, shouldn't authorities be equally eager to question why literature that inspires jihadists is also easy to find, and to ask for it to be removed from Amazon's stocklist? And if they are not doing this, then why on earth not?

Lars Vilks and Obvious Problems

Swedish cartoon artist Lars Vilks, who became the target of an international murder plot for his 2007 cartoons depicting Muhammad as a dog, was assaulted by a Muslim yesterday during a talk about free speech at Sweden's Uppsala University.

While showing an Iranian film that depicts Muhammad entering a gay bar, a protester charged the dais and headbutted Vilks, breaking his glasses. Police were forced to detain or pepper-spray some "unruly" members of the crowd while the Muslim assailant's co-religionists mostly stood around cheering and shouting "Allahu Akbar!" You can see some video of the incident above.

So we get the idea. "Insulting" Muhammad and Islam is bad; freedom of speech itself - a cornerstone of any truly free, democratic society - is bad if it means hurting Muslims' oversensitive feelings. Meanwhile, those Muslims have no real problem at all with the kind of stuff that the aforementioned "Prophet" actually did according to his own most esteemed biographers - stuff like mass decapitation of innocents, torture and rape.

Recently I have been having some interesting discussions with a guy who says that he doesn't necessarily disagree with what I say about Islam; but he asked me why, despite my self-confessed atheism, I don't talk about other religions just as negatively. The reason, quite obviously, is that Islam is the only religion whose adherents keep doing things like this over and over again. As the linked article notes:

Last month, Comedy Central edited a "South Park" episode showing Mohammed in a bear suit in response to veiled threats by a New York-based Muslim group.

And:

Earlier this year, American authorities arrested two American women [converts to Islam], charging them with taking part in a plot to travel to Sweden and murder Vilks.

Furthermore, the article notes that "[b]efore the attack, Vilks also showed what some might deem offensive pictures of Christian symbols" - there are no reports, however, that any Christians attempted to attack Vilks or stop his presentation.

Islam and its supremacist, totalitarian law is an Obvious Problem for the world, especially when transported into the heart of the West, whose core values so definitively trump those of its ungrateful visitors. It is on this Obvious Problem that we must focus, while all unnecessary distractions must be cast aside.

Times Square: A Failed Act of Jihad?

Shocker of shockers: American officials declared that the failed car bomb that forced the evacuation of New York's Times Square was an "act of terrorism." I'm glad they are here to tell us these things.

But who could have perpetrated such an act? Perhaps Christian fundamentalists?

The perps are not yet known (the BBC informs us that "Investigators are poring over a wealth of evidence to find out who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square"), but an important clue may be found in this Telegraph article on the bomb today:

The location is also adjacent to the Viacom building, fuelling speculation that it might be linked to the company's controversial South Park cartoon which recently depicted Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.

Aha! Could be a coincidence, of course. Time will tell.

More Plagiarism Uncovered!

At his blog today, Andrew Bostom triumphantly links to an article by Diana West, which seems to be defending him in his recent spat with Robert Spencer over alleged "plagiarism" (whether he still would have posted it if West had been defending Spencer is unclear). The article focuses primarily on what does seem to be statements of inaccuracy and faulty memory on Spencer's part. In essence, he claims that Bostom got a certain quote from him, but in reality he got it from Bostom. A fair enough point.

But here's the interesting thing. This exact same point was made by Bostom himself at his blog two days before West made it at her own site. In other words, it seems that West "plagiarised" Bostom (that is, if we defer to Bostom's elastic and inconsistent definition of plagiarism), since she never cites him as the source for her "discovery". Will Bostom therefore admit that he is a steaming hypocrite? Unlikely, given that he has a habit of switching off his comments field, or disappearing altogether, whenever things get a little hot for him.

What this affair has basically shown is that while Bostom is a brilliant scholar of Islam, he is at his core an obnoxious little man. Spencer is worth twenty of him in this fight.