Friday, 29 January 2010

Wilders On Trial, Or Islam?

Wilders: On trial - but not the only one

As Geert Wilders goes on trial in the Netherlands for "offending Muslims", the mainstream media, predictably, remains mostly silent. But there are some rays of hope, from those not completely infected with Leftist insanity.

At the Telegraph, Douglas Murray, the head of the Centre for Social Cohesion, underlines the absurdity of the charges levelled aganst Wilders, as well as the fact that ultimately it is not the Dutchman who is on trial - it is freedom of speech, and it is Islam itself:

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.

Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison....

Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing. And very offensive indeed. The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.

Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders....

The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with. Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.

Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer.

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Why There Aren't More Moderate Muslims

A French imam who supports a ban on the burqa is receiving death threats from his fellow Muslims (80 of them, to be precise). Of course, the major reason why so few Muslims come out in public and defend Western values, such as the equality of women with men, is because their religion itself mandates inequality, and they know this. But the situation is not helped by the fact that moderate Muslims such as Hassan Chalghoumi end up being physically threatened by thier co-religionists for their views.

Extracts from the article:

[Hassan Chalghoumi] told Le Parisien last week that he supported "a legal ban of the burka, which has no place in France, a country where women have been voting since 1945".

The imam, whose mosque is in Drancy, a north-eastern suburb of Paris, also criticised those Muslims who advocated the wearing of the burka, saying they "belong to a tiny minority tradition reflecting an ideology that undermines the Muslim religion. The burka is a prison for women, a tool of sexist domination and Islamist indoctrination.” ...

Chalghoumi’s comments were designed to provoke discussion among the Muslim community in France, but a small minority of radicals considered his pronouncements so insulting that on Monday evening they stormed Chalghoumi’s mosque and threatened to kill him.

He was chairing a meeting of the Conference of Imams, a body established in 2009 to promote better relations between France’s faiths, particularly Jews and Muslims, when a mob of 80 men forced their way into the building. There was a brief scuffle between the two groups, ending in a handful of invaders grabbing the microphone. "They started to cry Allah Akbar and God is great," recounted Chalghoumi. "Then they insulted me, my mosque, the Jewish community and the [French] Republic. They left after an hour and a half."

According to a member of the Conference of Imams, the mob condemned Chalghoumi as an apostate and threatened him with "liquidation, this imam of the Jews"....

Fouad Alaoui, president of the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF), said he "wasn't surprised" at the incident. "We've warned him several times to moderate his words because he risks to attract these sort of reactions."

On the streets of Drancy, support appeared thin on ground for Chalghoumi . "If he wants to condemn the burka, why not, but not in the name of our mosque," a man called Malik said, adding that the imam’s recent declarations "have shocked us". Another young Muslim dismissed Chalghoumi as "not an imam but an administrator".

Monday, 25 January 2010

Crazy Iranian Conspiracy Of The Week

The state-controlled Iranian TV network Press TV is claiming that the Haitan earthquake was caused by a US weapons test aimed at Iran that went wrong.

Citing Venezualan and Russian sources (which also impressed the delightful Hugo Chavez), the report claims that "United States Navy test of one of its 'earthquake weapons' which was to be used against Iran, went 'horribly wrong' and caused the catastrophic quake in the Caribbean". Yes, that's right: the Great Satan was apparently planning to cause a deliberate earthquake in Iran.

The only surprise here is that it wasn't the Jews who were to blame. After all, what about the sneaky snake assassins?

N.B.It is also worth noting that among Press TV's employees is that demented far-left maggot, George Galloway.

Sunday, 17 January 2010

Why "Handing Out Goodies Won't Stop The Taliban"

Here are some invaluable insights from the brilliant Diana West, who says what I have been saying here for ages: that the Obama Administration's "strategy" (implemented by the clueless Stanley McChrystal) of trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people - let alone those of the Taliban - is utterly dense and doomed to failure. After all, Islam teaches hatred of infidels, and the Afghans are particularly devout in their Islam.

Below are some extracts from West's excellent article:

This wasn't supposed to happen. Anti-U.S., anti-infidel violence just wasn't supposed to erupt in Garmsir, Afghanistan, of all places. But it did. And some eight Afghans died in this Helmand province district in rioting this week inspired by rumors that U.S. troops had roughed up a Koran.

According to the New York Times, "several thousand" Afghans converged on the central bazaar in response to these rumors. "The Taliban were provoking the people," an Afghan police official told the Times. "The Taliban were telling the people, 'This is jihad; you should sacrifice yourselves.' "

Jihad? What's jihad? Among see-no-Islam Western policymakers, Islamic war doctrine is a cipher, a taboo, so policy is made in ignorance. But thousands of uneducated Afghans knew exactly what the Taliban meant. And what's more, they acted on it...

Garmsir, first in U.S. hands, then British, and now U.S. hands again, was more than a Taliban battleground. It was a proving ground for the infidel-Islamic "interaction" strategy of giving away stuff.

British gifts to Garmsir include new roads, wells, ditches, pumps, and a 70-ton bridge (built in body armor and helmets) across the main canal. If I'm not mistaken, this same bridge gave rioters easy access to the central bazaar -- the same bazaar where last summer, the New York Times Magazine reports, McChrystal asked every Afghan he met: "What do you need?"

His subordinates followed up -- "unfailingly polite, even deferential" -- at a council meeting where the agenda "was to decide on a list of development projects, which the Americans would pay for."

First choice (since they already had a bridge)? Repairs to the irrigation system "built by American aid workers in the 1950s [and] badly in need of repair." Yes, as readers of this column know, we are on our second prolonged stint of nation building in Afghanistan, and no, the first one didn't work, either.

They still like our stuff. But it somehow doesn't fortify local yokels -- even U.S.-secured ones -- against a call to "jihad" over a simplistic lie about Koran abuse.

Why? You won't get an answer from on high where Islam is verboten in formulating policy.

Maybe a new recreation center for Garmsir would do the trick -- eh, general?

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

What Gets Muslims Excited?

What gets Muslims excited? Astute readers will probably already know the answer to this question, but if not, this video explains it all:

And for all interested, here is a link concerning the very last statement made in the video (to make the best sense of it, watch the embedded video first, then follow the link).

Sunday, 10 January 2010

The Islam Channel Exposed

Surprise, surprise: the "moderate" British Muslim satellite channel known as The Islam Channel, which describes itself as "the voice of authority for Muslims in the UK", has been accused of giving a platform to Anwar al-Awlaki, the extremist cleric with alleged links to al-Qaida and to the man charged with trying to blow up a transatlantic jet on Christmas Day.

The channel last year carried adverts for a box set of DVDs of Awlaki's sermons and for at least two events at which the cleric was due to be the star speaker via a video link. Furthermore, the channel's chief executive officer, Mohamed Ali Harrath, has been on an Interpol wanted list since 1992, after his native Tunisia accused him of attempting to create "an Islamic state by means of armed revolutionary violence".

I am not exactly overcome by shock. I tune in to the Islam Channel myself whenever I get the chance (Sky channel 813), and I have noticed a lot of worrying material. When I have watched its variety of programmes (most of which, it must be said, are sleep-inducingly dull), I have witnessed severe anti-Israel propaganda, hostility to all anti-terror programs that aim to prevent Muslims from becoming radicalised, and regular discussions about Muslims asserting their own values over those of their Western hosts. Furthermore, while watching Islam Q & A, a regular programme in which Muslim scholars answer viewers' questions, I have seen them condone polygamy. Plus, we already know that extremist authorities have spoken on the channel advocating the implementation of sharia law.

These facts underscore the observations of many that virtually every Muslim authority that is painted as "moderate" seems to have its not-so-friendly secrets. What implications does this have for the actual number of "moderates" - that is, those who can be counted upon to assist Western law enforcement agencies in stamping out jihad and Islamic supremacism - living in Britain? Our government is not asking the question, and that can only mean that the jihad will continue unopposed.

Thursday, 7 January 2010

The Islamic Roots of the Christmas Day Bombing Attempt

At Pajamas Media today, Jamie Glazov explains the Islamic ideology, and its psychological repercussions, that led the attempted Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to resort to terrorism.

Glazov points out that Internet postings made by Abdulmutallab expose his desire to only ever take Muslims, and not infidels, as friends (as per Qur'an 5:51 and others); and to live his life "according to the Koran and Sunnah to the best of my ability. I do almost everything, sports, TV, books … (of course trying not to cross the limits in the deen [religion]).”

But as Glazov also notes, the Left is desperate not to notice the Islamic ideology that motvated Abdulmutallab, for reasons particular to the Leftist psyche:

It’s so mysterious that the news anchors on CNN continue to incredulously ask each other and their guests these questions — back and forth, over and over again, in a cyclical circus that has no end and that never produces the most obvious answer staring any sensible person right in the face. In the liberal imagination, there is just this “extremist ideology” out there somewhere and somehow this unfortunate Muslim boy fell under its spell, but no one can be exactly sure how or why it happened. All one can be sure of is that an adversarial culture or ideology must not be blamed and that America, somewhere, somehow, must definitely be at fault.

And so, when it comes to the liberal left trying to digest Abdulmutallab and his suicidal quest, perplexed dismay becomes a much safer hiding place than honesty, because the basic truth threatens the very survival of the liberal faith. For the liberal to accept the evident reason why Abdulmutallab set off on his suicide odyssey would necessitate him having to completely shed himself of his entire worldview and personal identity. The much easier route, therefore, is to keep oneself confused and to stay focused on how American capitalism and imperialism must have surely had something to do with it — even though, as is the case with the cause of Islamic terror itself, these factors are so obviously not involved in Abdulmutallab’s suicidal and murderous yearnings (i.e., Abdulmutallab comes from a privileged, wealthy, and educated life, etc.).

What the lib-left milieu simply can’t digest is what Islamic terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab themselves insist motivated them. And these are things like, you know, reading certain religious texts and following a certain religion’s teachings. They are things, sort of like, well, following Islam and reading the Koran and stuff like that.

When all is said and done, the true reasons why Abdulmutallab embarked on his murderous mission of suicide are completely understandable — and only to be expected — in the context of his Islamic odyssey. And Abdulmutallab himself clearly points to the influence of his religion in his own personal writings on the internet.

There is much, much more at the link provided.

Incidentally, the Left's denial - and ultimately, acceptance - of Islamic terror is covered in exhaustive detail in Glazov's book United in Hate: The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror, which I reviewed here.

Wednesday, 6 January 2010

Six Arrested In Indonesia For "Sexy Dancing"

Details here.

I sure am glad Shakira doesn't live in Indonesia:

Not a hijab in sight.

Monday, 4 January 2010

Jack Nicholson And "A Head For A Cartoon"

Heeeeeere's Muhammad!

No, he is

This fantastic piece by Thomas Landen over at the Brussels Journal highlights the perverted logic and sense of priority held by the global Muslim community. It deals with the recent attempted murder by an axe-wielding Somali Muslim (a la Jack Nicholson in The Shining) of 74 year old Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, who drew the now-infamous image of the "Prophet" Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.

Westergaard was thankfully unharmed, but as Landen points out, many Muslims, instead of upholding his right to free speech, are making fatuous comparisons which are simply an insult to all rational, civilised people:

Though Gulf News condemns the assassination attempt, it calls it a “revenge attack” and morally equates it with Mr. Westergaard drawing a “deeply offensive” cartoon. Gulf News criticizes the would-be assassin, not for attempting to kill the cartoonist, but for having “descended to the level” of this “contemptuous and despicable man.” Have we missed something? Did Mr. Westergaard also try to kill a man with an axe? No, he merely made a drawing with a pencil.

There is a world of difference between voicing a political opinion – however offensive, contemptuous or despicable it may seem to some – and hacking someone to pieces. An assassination attempt can never be equated with an insult. Drawing a picture, making a documentary, writing a book, or wording an opinion, can never be equated with setting out with an axe to kill someone. This is obvious. Yet, it seems that even the “moderate” Muslims of Gulf News in the United Arab Emirates fail to understand it.

It is simply impossible to harbor any illusions about “the true faith of Islam” as long as Muslims fail to recognize this distinction. “An eye for an eye,” says the Bible, thereby restricting the extent of retribution to an equitable punishment. A cartoon for a cartoon, that would be fair. The Koran, however, does not restrict the extent of retribution. On the contrary, Islam demands a head for a cartoon (Westergaard), a head for a book (Rushdie), a head for a movie (van Gogh), a head for a political statement (Wilders). Anyone who “offends” Islam, the Koran, Allah or his Prophet, deserves capital punishment.

Left unspoken by Landen, although I'm sure it occurred to him, is the question of why it should be considered offensive at all to equate Muhammad with violence, when even the attacker's fellow Muslims invoke their Prophet's bloody legacy to justify acts of terrorism. This is a question many of our politicians ought to at least try to answer, given how many of them condemned Westergaard for drawing the cartoon, or Jyllands-Posten for publishing it - as if shedding the blood of innocent people over a drawing is entirely reasonable, and the real crime is "provoking" the rioters.