An Islamic State In Palestine

Official Palestinian TV broadcasts an image of Israel coloured with the Palestinian flag

Leftists frequently insist that the Palestinians sincerely want peace in their conflict with Israel. And they are right, of course, because many of those Palestinians, such as "moderate" PA Prime Minister Salam Fayad, want to turn the entire region into an Islamic state, governed by sharia law, with Jerusalem as its capital.

So the Leftists are indeed correct. Because once Israel is an Islamic state, the Palestinians wouldn't have any need to fight it anymore.

And then there would be "peace".

Absurd Britannia

Sharia courts may be actively functioning in Britain now, but it seems that sharia is no longer confined to the four walls of the courtroom.

Consider the following: A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel. Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments. They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.

And what did they say that was so "aggravating"? Although the facts are disputed, it is thought that during the conversation the couple were challenged over their Christian beliefs. It is understood that they suggested that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.

The latter is a matter of opinion and the former is an indisputable fact - Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's earliest and most esteemed biographer, records that the Prophet “took part personally in twenty-seven (T. six) raids...He actually fought in nine engagements”. But criticism of Islam, no matter how firmly grounded in truth, is prohibited under sharia. Was the anonymous Muslim complainant one of the approximately 40% of British Muslims who would like to see Islamic law become the law of the land in this country? To ask such a question is rapidly becoming "threatening, abusive and insulting" to Muslims.

Protect Rifqa Bary Against The Slanderers

Over the last few weeks, I have looked on in complete disbelief (and controlled fury) as the media and criminal investigators betray an innocent young girl.

I am referring to Rifqa Bary, the American Muslim girl who fears for her life after converting to Christianity, and angering her family in the process. Previously, I have dealt with the Islamic death penalty for apostasy and its implications for Rifqa here, as well as focusing on why it would be lethal to send the girl back to her home in Ohio.

But investigators and the media have ignored voluminous evidence of the threat to Rifqa's life, using every excuse in the book just so they can say that there is no problem with Islam or sharia law. See, for example, this post at Diana West's blog dissecting a hopeless piece of "coverage" of the Rifqa Bary story in TIME magazine.

At FrontPage today, Jamie Glazov interviews Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is currently conducting a 50 State Counter-terrorism Research Tour (CTRT), and is collecting a huge amount of evidence relating to the extent that Muslims in America support the death sentence for apostasy. "I have visited over 200 Islamic Centers throughout America," he says. "The vast majority teach the worshippers ‘Apostates should be killed’ because it is a major sign of disrespect to Allah, the family of the Apostate is dishonored, and it may lead others to leave Islam."

Gaubatz is promising detailed documentation of his findings in the near future, but he provides one example during the interview:

Over the last three years I have conducted extensive research at Dar Al Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va. Islamic leaders and some of their worshippers provided me materials to understand ‘Pure Islam’. One such manual is “The Hudud” (Mandatory Punishments for specific crimes). The Arabic word for Apostasy is ‘Riddah’. Below are a few quotes from the manual recommended to me to study Islam and how to be a good and pure Muslim. Note: In 2007, I went through a ‘pseudo’ conversion (revert) to Islam at Dar Al Hijrah in order to obtain more in depth first-hand intelligence. A popular Islamic leader Yusef Estes was visiting Dar Al Hijrah and was my witness to the conversion. My complete discussion with Estes will be made available on my site as well.

From the Hudud:

[1] “Death for hudd punishment for riddah (apostasy).

[2] “Whoever renounces his religion, kill him.”

[3] “The Muslim who converts his religion, kill him.”

Nowhere in the manual obtained in Virginia does it inform a Muslim father to not kill their daughter in America if she were to leave Islam (as Rifqa Bary did). No where does it inform the Muslim reader to not seek death for the Islamic sin of apostasy. Contrary, the manual does state there is no “obedience due to” any state or ruler who contradicts the laws of Allah.

Real, honest investigative reporting is uncovering this sort of thing all over the place. Here is another example from none other than Harvard University. The mainstream media should be utterly ashamed of themselves for their failure to uncover and comprehend such obvious truths.

Voting For More Islam

During the recent Afghan elections, most Western media outlets focused on allegations of electoral fraud. But considerably less attention was paid to the reasons that people voted in the first place. Naive and simplistic journalists in the West have expressed hope that voters turned out in defiance of the Taliban, or that the voting represents the successful "democratisation" of Afghanistan.

Now, a new report from the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit shows that these conclusions do not take into account the whole picture.

As the report makes clear, Afghan voters had a number of reasons for turning out, one of the key ones being Islamic identity. A common view of voters was, “We vote for a candidate who is first a Muslim, second an Afghan and finally, someone who can serve his people.”

This placing of religious identity above national and societal values exemplifies the way that, for many Muslims, their being a Muslim is more important to them than anything else, even their own nationality. Under such a worldview, there can never be hope for a secular outlook towards morality and law - religious principles always come first. Such tendencies are expressed even by supposedly secular Muslim "reformers" such as Tariq Ramadan, who has said: “I accept the law, provided it does not force me to do something in contradiction with my religion.” And: “If, to be a good citizen, you must be a bad Muslim, the answer is no.”

This religious fanaticism is also evident in the fact that, according to the report, "among older, more rural voters, democracy was condemned as embracing western values and moving away from tradition, reflecting more widespread concerns with the meaning of democracy in Afghanistan." Now, I thought it was only greasy Islamophobes who said that democracy is incompatible with Islam!

Actually, that's an important point. As, once again, the report notes, "Participation in elections does not necessary mean a wholehearted endorsement of democracy or democratisation in Afghanistan." A true democratic state would require the jettisoning of Islamic sharia law, which denies individual freedom and human rights to women and non-Muslims, and amounts to a theocratic, totalitarian regime akin to the Taliban's.

Polls in the Islamic world, most notably this one, have shown that the majority of Muslims actually support the implementation of strict sharia law in all Islamic countries. Afghanistan is not likely to be an exception. That means that whatever the Afghan people have been voting for, it certainly isn't real freedom.

And that's ultimately the reason why the US-led war in Afghanistan has, from the start, been so misguided. This is not to say, of course, that the Taliban should not have been ousted from power; but Bush and company never understood that their democratisation project in the country was doomed to fail, because they made no attempt to deal with the fundamental Islamic identity and values that would serve as barriers to such a project. Had they known what they were doing, they would not have allowed the Afghans to put in place a Constitution which states that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam." The practical implications of this were the fact that Abdul Rahman was put on trial for apostasy after converting to Christianity and, more recently, a law was passed making it legal for men to starve their wives if they refuse to have sex with them.

Any attempt to transform an Islamic country into a Westernised democracy must begin with a confrontation of Islamic law and values, and a thorough re-education of the people. It is a shame that neither Bush nor, now, Obama understand this. The price for their ignorance has been the pointless blood of our soldiers fighting the wrong enemy.

It's not the Taliban; it's Islam.

Indonesia Becomes a Target For "Fascists"

Textbook anti-fascism

Indonesia's province of Aceh has passed a new law making adultery punishable by stoning to death, a member of the province's parliament has said. The law also imposes severe sentences for rape, homosexuality, alcohol consumption and gambling.

The basis for stoning to death in Islamic countries is Muhammad's own example. On one occasion he encountered a group of Jews in Medina who had arrested an adulterous couple. The Prophet of Islam asked them what the prescribed punishment was for adultery in the Torah. They tried to dissemble, claiming that the Torah prescribed only lashes, an indication that the Jews of Muhammad's day no longer took the judicial proscriptions of Mosaic law literally – and indeed, Islam is the only religion which has continued to practise this punishment for thousands of years. One of Muhammad's followers challenged them on this, so one of the Jews began to read from the Torah, but he deliberately covered the part about stoning with his hand. On exposing this deception, Muhammad said, “Woe to you Jews! What has induced you to abandon the judgement of God which you hold in your hands?” Then he had the couple stoned to death (Bukhari v.4, b.61, no.3635; see also Ibn Ishaq). On another occasion, a woman came to him and admitted that she had committed adultery, and asked for his forgiveness. He forgave her – and then had her stoned to death. (Muslim b.17, no.4206)

Muhammad's example, or Sunnah, is a major criterion for determining right and wrong in Islam. For this reason, stoning is considered a legitimate method of punishment under Islamic law to this day, even though it isn't actually mentioned in the Qur'an.

Anyway, the BBC article says that "[t]he governor of Aceh, a former rebel with the Free Aceh Movement, is opposed to strict Sharia law. He had urged more debate over the bill."

Which means, if you believe John Denham, that he must be a fascist.

A Lesson For John Denham On The Meaning Of "Fascism"

John Denham, grinning like the idiot he is

You will probably have read by now about communities minister John Denham's outrageous statement that "Right-wing" groups who claim to oppose Islamic extremism are trying to provoke violence on Britain's streets, and are comparable to the fascist followers of Oswald Mosley.

It is telling how Denham assumes that one must be "right-wing" to oppose Islamic jihadists (although it is certainly true that Leftists don't have a great record when it comes to leaning in that direction). But for their part, the English Defense League (EDL), one of the main targets of Denham's statement, have issued an official response, which reads in part:

"The EDL exists precisely because extremist Muslim groups are being allowed to tour the UK unchallenged, corrupting the minds of young and impressionable people, undermining community cohesion and causing gratuitous offence to non Muslims....Your comparison of the situation in Harrow yesterday (to which the EDL were not party) with the Black Shirts of Oswald Moseley is farcical, intended only to legitimise the violent response of Muslim and government sponsored counter demonstrators, and to demonise a group of people who feel that the actions of Anjem Choudary and his ilk must be opposed. Failure to do so will result in further alienation as these extremists are allowed to preach their hatred of the UK, our people and our way of life."

And indeed, Denham's idiotic comparison is symbolic of the tendency of the entire Western political class to get the facts completely backwards.

Let us assume, for a moment, that the movement we dub "Islamic extremism" is a corruption of a peaceful and tolerant faith called Islam, and not (as is actually the case) a mere extension of its mainstream, orthodox teachings. This movement is pushing a powerfully presented ideological and political challenge against the West. In its imagined utopia, non-Muslims and women would face institutionalised discrimination; homosexuals are put to death; freedom of conscience is denied to those who wish to leave the Islamic religion; freedom of speech is denied to those who wish to speak out against the dominant ideology; and wars are declared with the express purpose of imposing all of these conditions on non-Muslim nations by force.

Regardless of whether this jihadist movement represents "true Islam" or not, it is undeniably totalitarian in nature. Of course, a larger issue is that Islam itself is, in its traditional form, fascist, as Ibn Warraq has brilliantly shown.

And what does it mean if you oppose this fascism and advocate resistance to it, along with promotion of Western values of freedom and democracy? Why, in John Denham's world, it means you are a fascist.

In his 1920 Theory and Practise of Bolshevism, philosopher Bertrand Russell openly compared Islam to Soviet Communism:

Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam.

Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike the early successors of Muhammad.

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.

Almost 90 years later, the moronic John Denham would do well to take note.

Eight Years On And We Have Learned Nothing

In one sense, there is no need for me to have to tell you what today means.

But in another sense, the situation as it prevails today is in urgent need of addressing, for it is a situation that should not be.

It is now eight years since Islamic jihadists, explicitly in the name of Islam, committed the mass murdering atrocities that would come to be collectively known as "9/11". One would have thought that those events, and subsequent events piled on top, would have opened Western leaders' eyes - and those of lay people - to the threat of a rapidly expanding movement that aims to subjugate the entire world under its totalitarian rule...and will wreak all kinds of havoc - much of it deadly - in the process if it has to. One would think that eight years on, our determination to fight, to defend ourselves, would be stronger than ever.

But it is not. Instead, the leaders and their people have chosen to close their eyes and go back to sleep, for comforting illusions are preferable to hard realities.

The cost of this laziness, this cowardice, could be astronomical.

Consider the following.

The British government has so far given £48,000 to the Muslim Brotherhood for the purpose of helping it "prevent extremism" in the Muslim community. And who is the Muslim Brotherhood? Why, it just so happens to be the original Islamic terror organisation, founded in 1928, from which most similar groups, such as Hamas, have sprung. Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, openly avowed that he wanted to see Islam take over the world, and also wrote that "Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one."

The Muslim Brotherhood is also engaged in a plot to undertake, in its own words, "a kind of grand Jihad in 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."

With this knowledge foremost in our minds, why is our government giving this group money?

The situation in the US is no better. Over there, the FBI is actively working with a number of groups who are directly associated with the Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and allowing such groups dangerous access to the White House and the intelligence services.

A recent poll in the US found that the number of Americans who believe that Islamic doctrine encourages violence against unbelievers (a fact that is beyond dispute to any objective observer) has dropped, meaning that Americans are failing to understand the core ideology driving those who have declared war upon them and are intent on eradicating their entire way of life, which is based on Western principles of democracy, human rights, individual freedom and equality...principles that would be overturned by Islam should it ever establish dominion in that land.

And meanwhile - and most tellingly - a new survey gauging Muslim attitudes indicates that backing for suicide bombings against civilians, while generally down from earlier years, remains significant in some Islamic countries – challenging the assertion that Muslims supporting terrorism constitute a “tiny minority”.

And that's what it boils down to. Islamic doctrine and law unequivocally teaches that it is the duty of the Muslim community to compel unbelieving nations to adopt Islamic law, at the point of the sword if necessary. While most Muslims do not heed these teachings, they nevertheless have a substantial level of support among Muslim communities worldwide. Checking the news every day will expose the increasing body count that Islam is accumulating. As the counter in the top-right corner of this blog attests, we have now exceeded 14,000 Islamic terror attacks around the world in just the last eight years.

Islamic jihadists - who wield substantial numbers and support, as well as religious orthodoxy behind them - have declared war on Western civilsation. Eight years on from 9/11, that declaration must not go unheeded.

Please, never forget.

9/11/2001