Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
As Far As The Eye Can See
by Moshe Dann
Threats of Pain and Ruin
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky

The Iconoclast

Friday, 26 September 2014

It was not a "hijab ban" -- though that's how it is being reported, as you can see, by the BBC -- but a ban on women's headgear, period.

The Qatari women of the team in question withdrew from the Asian Games. Would that this ban extended elsewhere, everywhere in the non-Muslim lands, so that the hijabbed might withdraw themselves.

Posted on 09/26/2014 8:51 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Friday, 26 September 2014

From the Spanish edition of The Local

Nine jihadists with links to the terrorist group Isis were arrested on Friday morning in Spain's northern African enclave of Melilla and in the neighbouring Moroccan town of Nador, officials have said. One Spaniard and eight Moroccans were arrested in the early morning raids carried out authorities of both countries, Spain's El País newspaper reported.

The men allegedly belong to a group that organized the recruitment of jihadists to fight for Isis in Iraq and Syria. Several of the men had seen combat in Syria while all had received military training, sources within Spain's interior ministry told Spain's El Mundo newspaper. The single Spaniard was thought to be the head of the terror cell . . . The operation remains ongoing.

Spain's foreign minister José Manuel García Margallo recently announced plans to amend the country's penal code so that Spaniards joining foreign conflicts and radical Islamic groups such as ISIS can be prosecuted on terrorism charges.

Posted on 09/26/2014 4:29 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax

Friday, 26 September 2014

For a quick summary first up I will use the two ABC reports, by Brian Atkinson, but the local paper, the Sunshine Coast Daily, has lots of extra - and very telling - details in a couple of articles that are well worth reading.  It seems that many Aussie infidels grow ever better informed, and more alarmed, by the day, and week, and month; even despite the efforts of a still-dismaying number of Useful Idiots.

Anti-Muslim Protest: Hundreds Rally at Proposed Sunshine Coast Mosque".

'Hundreds of people protesting against a mosque on Queensland's Sunshine Coast (which lies about an hour's drive north of Brisbane, the state Capital - CM) have come to verbal blows with the building's supporters, with about 20 police separating the emotionally-charged groups.

"Verbal blows" are not physical blows.  And the reporter does not specify who said what to whom, and in what tone; if there was argument, or insult, one wants to know who initiated it.  Not recording, not reporting in proper detail, is bad reporting. - CM

 'More than 200 anti-Muslim demonstrators shook placards stating "Islam is plotting our destruction" (cf. the lapidary statement by Joseph Schacht in his tome "An Introduction to Islamic Law" - "the basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war: they must be either converted, or subjugated, or killed"; or the equally lapidary formulation penned by Conor Cruise O'Brien in his 1995 article for "The Independent", entitled "The Lesson of Algeria: Islam is Indivisible": to wit, that "The Prophet Mohamed did not offer his followers a chance to live in harmony with their neighbours.  He taught them to fight their neighbours, if they were

unbelievers, and kill them, or beat them into submission. And it is futile to say of those Muslims who faithfully follow those teachings today, that their actions are "not intrinsically related to Islam". - CM) and "Australia, We Have a Problem" (oh, we do, we do! and how! At least half a million resident Muslims, constantly demanding to be flattered and fawned upon, petted and stroked, and accommodated and given special treatment and consideration, and amongst whom the jihad plots are hatching and from whose midst the fanatically-jihad-minded are emerging ever more rapidly and in increasing numbers. - CM) at the site of the planned mosque, on Church Street in Maroochydore.

For more on that central site - which was, foolishly, sold to the Muslims by the local Uniting Church, and which is right next door to the Stella Maris Catholic Church (whose resident priest ought to be alarmed, but is not) and within walking distance of St Peter's Anglican Church, see the report in the Sunshine Coast Daily:

"...The block, formerly owned by the Uniting Church, was bought under the hammer at auction on September 4 and is next to the Catholic Church and not far down the street from the Anglican Church....Maroochydore parish priest Father Joe Duffy has extended his potential new neighbours a warm welcome, saying he was "looking forward to the inter-faith street party".  

Has our enthusiastic Fr Duffy, so happy to see a mosque move in next door, been paying any attention at all to what Muslims have been doing and have done to Christians - and to churches - in (inter alia) Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, Central African Republic, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, northern Nigeria, Egypt, Syria and Iraq, of late?   Fortunately, as we shall see, not all the local Christians are as ignorant or wilfully blind as he is.  Now, back to the ABC.

"The protestors said they were concerned the site could become a hub of radicalisation (sic: a hotbed of armed jihad  plots - CM) threatening the local community.

They are right. - CM

"I'm not for it anywhere in Australia", a man who called himself Aussie Ron told the ABC.

'One Nation state president, Jim Savage, who said he had two adopted Asian daughters, said he was not a religious bigot nor a racist.

"This is nothing to do with race", he said.

Correct. - CM

"What Muslim [sic: Islam? - CM] preaches violates the laws of my country.  It is an ideological, political organisation wrapped up in a very thin skin of religion".

That is one quite valid way of seeing it. Or one could look at the doings of Mohammed and his companions, faithfully imitated today by the likes of Islamic State jihadis, and identify it as a Death Cult, a religion that sacralises and ritualises murder, rape and robbery so long as the victims fit the approved profile (non-Muslim, or the wrong kind or degree of Muslim). - CM

"I ask anybody to name any Western country in the world where there had been a large influx of Muslims where they have seen an improvement and have not seen social issues."

'Pakistani-born Justin Albert (who, to judge from his name, is a Pakistani Christian - CM) warned of experiences of oppression in his native country.

Oppression of non-Muslims, by the circumambient Muslims. - CM

"Chopping their heads, it is their Jihad", he said.  "I know their deeds.  No more mosque in Australia.  One day, you will see, they will kill you."

He knows, this Pakistani Christian who now, with dismay, sees his safe and peaceful refuge, Australia, being invaded by the very same Muslims who made his life and that of all other non-Muslims a misery, in Pakistan. He knows. He's trying to tell us, to warn us.  If only the likes of Premier Campbell Newman and all the other fools, not excluding Fr Duffy of the Stella Maris Catholic Church in Maroochydore, would be willing to listen to him, and believe him. - CM

'More than 50 pro-mosque demonstrators tried to shout down the anti-mosque group, calling them bigots and ignorant.

How dare these Useful Idiots say things like that about someone like Justin Albert! (And, as we shall see from another of the Sunshine Coast Daily reports, Mr Albert was by no means the only non-Muslim refugee from a Muslim-dominated land, who was present at the rally, opposing the mosque and trying desperately to raise the alarm.) - CM

'They riled their opponents further by singing the national anthem and other iconic national songs.

"You've never read anything", one pro-mosque protestor taunted the angry mob.

S/he did not, and does not, know that.  In fact, as we shall see, more than one among the opponents of the mosque were quite familiar with the contents of the Quran.  It is precisely because they have read things, and used their intelligence, that they are opposing the mosque. And because they are willing to heed the warnings of people like Justin Albert. - CM

'Another promoter, who did not release his name, said there needed to be more education.

More pro-Islam propaganda?  Really? We've had a gutful of that already; the ABC falls over itself to supply us with sugar-coated nonsense about Islam and Muslims. Articles full of half-truths, evasions and outright lies about the sharia; doe-eyed hijabettes telling us how wonderful it is to wear the Slave Rag; puff-pieces about Ramadan...  - CM

"The Sunshine Coast Muslim community has existed here for over 30 years, guys, and no-one has even batted an eyelid" he said.

That's because there are, I would say, a lot more Muslims on the Sunshine Coast in 2014 than there were in 1984.  And I'll bet that back in 1984, or 1994, most people - unless they were church people involved in Christian mission work in Muslim-majority lands - didn't know enough about Islam, to be worried.  This protest, here, in 2014, is happening because a paradigm shift is occurring; as the Global Jihad accelerates and comes ever closer to home and becomes ever more pervasive and violent, as one gets attack after attack after attack, plot after plot, the most curious and intelligent and independent-minded non-Muslims, in Australia and all kinds of other places, have gone off and done their homework. They've found out about Islam. They've read the Quran.  Some will have visited sites like MEMRI, or just watched Muslims - lots and lots of Muslims, from all over - ranting on Youtube. They've been listening to the testimony of people like Justin Albert; and some, because of the increased and increasingly aggressive presence of Muslims in the area, will have had bruising personal experiences of Muslim duplicity, Muslim aggression, Muslim antisemitism, Muslim conspiracy-mindedness. They've been joining the dots, and they don't like what they see. - CM

 "I think it's just a lack of education at the end of the day, guys."

No, mate, not necessarily. Sometimes, the more you learn about somebody or something, the less you like them or it.  And that is the case, with Muslims and Islam, if the person doing the learning has even a modicum of commonsense. - CM

"Education, if people could sit down I would have a chat with every single person here at the end of the day, if they would love to, and I could teach them a few things on the truth of Islam (sic: is this person a Muslim?  CM), the truth of these Muslim people."

Good luck with trying to fool Justin Albert, Christian, formerly from Pakistan, into believing that he has nothing to fear from Muslims, and Islam. - CM

'The protest comes just days after a mosque was rejected by the Gold Coast Council, which cited a lack of parking, noise issues, and community concern."

From what I could discover from googlemaps, quite apart from everything else parking is going to be a very big issue at the Maroochydore site, too, although it isn't mentioned in the articles I've seen. 

And now to personages no less than the Queensland Premier and the leader of the Opposition, telling those opposed to the mosque that they shouldn't be opposing it, and to stop bothering their pretty little heads.  ABC again, Andree Withey and Saskia Edwards reporting. (And then we shall have a look at some interesting stuff from the local paper). - CM

'Sunshine Coast Mosque Protest Condemned by Premier Campbell-Newman".

'An anti-mosque protest on Queensland's Sunshine Coast has been condemned by Premier Campbell-Newman and the Opposition Leader.

Fools. Dhimmis. - CM

'On Saturday more than 200 anti-Muslim demonstrators descended on the site of the planned mosque on Church Street, Maroochydore, yelling abuse (most of the statements I read in the assorted articles read less like "abuse" and more like attempts to describe and warn against what Islam does and has done to non-Muslims - CM) and shaking placards such as "Islam is plotting our destruction" and "Australia we have a problem"...

"The outpouring of concern came just days after a mosque further south, on the Gold Coast, was rejected by the local council.

'Supporters of the mosque (who were, I am pleased to say, greatly outnumbered by its opponents - CM) also went to the site yesterday to try to counter the protest, and the warring groups (my dear ABC: why the inflammatory language?  could you not write "the opposing groups" or, "the two sides" ? - CM) had to be separated by about 20 police.

Note. This paragraph tries to suggest that a full-scale riot or brawl was barely avoided.  However, the reports in the Sunshine Coast Daily, which see below, and certain of the reader comments, by persons who were in fact present, make it clear that  physical violence was not threatened; that although the language may have been somewhat heated and voices loud, basic civilities were preserved.  I do not like what the ABC is doing in this report; because it borders on outright misrepresentation. - CM

'Premier Campbell Newman said the protest was unacceptable.

Really? Why?  You may think that preventing a mosque from being built, is an offence against freedom of religion.  But what if there were a lethal religion, a religion that held that all non-members qua non-members were fair game, and that if they would not join, they could be subjugated, robbed, raped, enslaved, or even killed, at will, as means and opportunity presented?  What then? - CM

"This is a time when we should all be rallying together", he said.

While ISIS grows, and grows, and grows, uttering ever more blood-curdling threats against the entire non-Muslim world, and Boko Haram rampages through northern Nigeria burning down churches, and the number of raped-and-pimped infidel girls in the UK runs into the thousands, and Al Shabaab is beheading Christians in Somalia, and Asia Bib sits on Death Row in Pakistani because she said she liked Jesus better than Mohammed?  Is this a time to be rallying round the Muslims in our midst, and pretending that people whose scripture tells them they can lie to us, and whose Quran tells them repeatedly that they must not befriend us, except feigningly and temporarily, are wonderful folks, and just like everybody else? - CM

"This is a wonderful multicultural nation, a wonderful multicultural state, and people have lived in harmony here for over 150 years.

I think that's a bit of an overstatement, myself.  But certainly the past 100 years haven't been too bad.  And the one thing that is quite, quite clear is that there were - considered as a percentage of the population - really very, very few Muslims in the mix in Queensland, or in Australia in general, right up until the late 1970s, which was when we foolishly admitted thousands upon thousands of Lebanese Muslim 'refugees'. And the general absence or wholly minimal - and therefore low-profile - presence of Muslims is one of the reasons why we've all been able to rub along.  Because all the other cultures and ethnicities present in Queensland, and in Australia generally, have a basic grasp of the principle of reciprocity, and of Agreement, they can manage to find a modus vivendi.  But Islam seeks total domination, refuses reciprocity, and reserves the right to break all Agreements made with Infidels. The Ummah is therefore unable and unwilling to accept to live peacefully side by side on merely equal terms with anybody not-Muslim. - CM

"That's the way it should continue".

It won't, Premier Newman, if we keep on importing more and more and more Muslims. - CM

'Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk said migrants helped shape Australia and respect should be shown.

The overwhelming majority of all previous migrants were not Muslims.  Muslim migrants have been an entirely different kettle of fish.  And if Ms Palaszczuk knew anything at all about the contempt with which the Quran, Sira and Hadith speak of the dirty unbelievers, not to mention the fact that there are many, many Muslim preachers who urge Muslims to actively hate non-Muslims, she might think again about who and what should be shown respect. - CM

"We have been built on migrants coming to our country, and building the country that we stand on today", she said. "We must have respect and dignity for everyone".

Respect and dignity is just what non-Muslims in majority-Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, do not receive from Muslims.  Indeed, the dhimma system was and is expressly designed to degrade and humiliate non-Muslims, vis a vis Muslims.  And these Muslims who have settled on the Sunshine Coast read exactly the same Quran, Sira and Hadith, and admire exactly the same warlord and slave-taker, Mohammed, as do the Muslims of Pakistan, or anywhere else. 

"And we need to make sure we create an inclusive community".

I don't see much signs of inclusiveness in Iraq these days, as the revivalist Sunni Muslims of Islamic State set to work to drive out the Christians and every other kind of remnant non-Muslim or wrong-sect Muslim.  Nor do I see it in Pakistan or Bangladesh, or Malaysia, as the numbers of indigenous non-Muslims steadily drops due to ongoing harassment and bullying - and worse - from the Muslims.

But now to the local paper, to see what the ABC left out.

First, from 20th September, Mark Furler and Kathy Sundstrom reporting.

'Mosque Protestors Warn of "Beheadings" At Rally".

"A dozen police had to keep anti-mosque protesters and supporters apart at an emotion-charged rally on the Sunshine Coast today.

"More than 500 people - about 80 percent of them against the Islamic mosque - converged on land near the Stella Maris Catholic Church, to protest the mosque plan.

'Supporters of the mosque sang iconic Australian tunes, prompting outrage from a few of the anti-mosque movement.

'Streets around the protest were blocked off by police, while plain-clothes and uniformed police had to repeatedly warn anti-mosque  protesters to tone down their comments and anger.

'An equally vocal contingent of young people defended the right of Islamic people to set up their own church (sic - CM) saying that Australia was a democratic country.

These foolish youngsters need to read ex-Muslim Sam Solomon's little book "The Mosque and Its Role in Society" and get a clue. A mosque is nothing at all like a church. It is closer to being a fort or military base, than anything else. - CM

'But protesters accused the youth of being "bussed in" from the Gold Coast, with some even resorting to insults over their university fees.

'The situation became repeatedly heated as supporters of the mosque tried to convince opponents that most Islamic people were peace-loving and represented no threat to Australia's way of life.

They were obviously not paying attention to the Pakistani Christian. - CM

'Opponents, however, warned of beheadings, the introduction of sharia law, the loss of rights for women, and the undermining of the Australian way of life.

All real and valid fears. Again, it is the ex-Muslim, Sam Solomon, who explains the danger most clearly, in his book "Al Hijra: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration", outlining how Mohammed's infiltration and takeover of Yathrib (now known as Medina) is the template for Muslim infiltration, subversion, Islamisation and erasure of non-Muslim "host" societies. Ex-Muslim Patrick Sookhdeo's book "Islam in Britain" is a case study of that very process at work in real-time, today, in modern Britain.  And anyone in Australia or Canada or New Zealand or any other non-Muslim society that, as yet, has an as-yet relatively small - but expanding - Muslim presence, and who has taken the trouble to observe what is going on in France and the UK should be deeply disturbed.  - CM

'Those supporting the mosque were told to 'go back where you came from' repeatedly by the more vocal minority in the crowd.

Not on point, as most of the supporters seem to have been local non-Muslim Aussie Useful Idiots.  But possibly in this context 'go back where you came from' was meant to imply that they were not Sunshine Coast locals but do-gooder outsiders pokiing in noses where not wanted. - CM

'At one point police were booed as they ordered a protester to get down from a stage as he spoke of beheadings and his fears over a mosque.

'Protesters questioned what happened to freedom of speech in Australia.

'The crowd cheered as supporters lifted the man onto their shoulders so he could continue speaking.

Why was his name not given?  In one of the ABC reports I have discussed above it is the Pakistani Christian, Justin Albert, who speaks of Muslims engaging in "head chopping" during Jihad.  So was this speaker, whom the police tried to silence, Justin Albert, from Pakistan? - CM

'Among those protesting the mosque were One Nation, Christian bikie gangs, opponents of halal meat certification, as well as representatives from some local churches...

In other words, quite a mixed bag, really. - CM

"Some of those supporting the mosque accused Christians of showing more hate than love, while opponents said it was their right to defend Australia's Christian heritage.

'One elderly man brought with him a Koran, challenging the young people to read it, asking whether they really knew what was in it, or what the Islamic faith stood for.

Was he for or against the mosque?  This is very bad reporting, in that we are not told which. - CM

'Supporters challenged the Christians to get to know more Islamic people, saying they would realize they were peaceful people.

'Many protesters though voiced fears that those setting up an Islamic church [sic; why not just write - "those setting up a mosque"? - CM] would be "nice now" but would "stab people in the back" before long and try to take over the community.

And from 6 am on the Saturday:

'While a Catholic priest has welcomed the idea of a mosque in Maroochydore, at least one other Sunshine Coast pastor will be joining Saturday's protest.

'Benny Tan from History Maker Church at Kawana has urged people to oppose the mosque as he warns it is "just the thin edge of the wedge".

"Pastor Tan grew up in an Islamic country and says "don't allow apathy and complacency to rob you for [sic: of - CM] your future liberty and dignity.

'He posted on his Facebook page urging people to "wake up".

"As the old saying goes, this is just the thin edge of the give them an inch and they will grab a mile", he said.

"Pastor Tan said it wasn't about what Muslims believed, it was about "do we want Islamic prayers blaring all over the Coast five times a day, starting from around 5 am and finishing around 7 pm daily?"

'This is in response to reassurances from the Muslim Organisation of the Sunshine Coast that there would be no loudspeakers used for the call to prayer, as is the case at other mosques.

"That's just a ploy to win us over and because they are smaller in numbers. But as they grow in numbers and in confidence, you try to stop them then, "Pastor Tan said. "You'll be bulldozed over like dust.

"On what authority do I say this?  I lived over 20 years in an Islamic country and have experienced all this first-hand".

It is a very great pity that the local Maroochydore Anglicans, Catholics, and Uniting Church appear unwilling to heed the warnings of Pastor Tan, or of the other non-Muslim escapee from a Muslim land, the Pakistani Justin Albert. They are quoted next, and it is plain they have not done their homework. - CM

'Father Joe Duffy, the Maroochydore parish priest, called for calm as tension between protesters was already running high on social media.  "People can protest, and if Muslims want to get together and pray, that's their right" he said. "I believe protesters are not objecting froma  religion point of view, but from a political point of view. People are mixing the religion and political together".

That is because they are having to work out how to deal with Islam.  In Islam there is no separation at all between the religious and the political. It is a total and totalitarian system. - CM

"Anybody who comes tomorrow and doesn't behave in a calm and peaceful manner is denying Christ."

"I still think the Muslims have done the right thing. They bought the block of land in the CBD.  Nobody can object to them praying according to the by-laws of the regional council."

They are going to build right next to your church, mate, for much the same reasons that a bully sits down right next to the skinny-looking guy in the bar and mugs in his face.  Here's a Jewish geographer, Seth J Frantzman, in an article entitled "Minarets, Geography and Power", discussing the placement of mosques in the landscape; and projection of power vis a vis the non-Muslims has a great deal to do with it.

"A survey of historical placement of mosques in important cities and newly-conquered Muslim lands, as well as a survey of the placement of mosques in diverse neighbourhoods, shows that their placement is anything but random, and that strikingly often they are built next to the houses of prayer or the neighbourhoods of non-Muslims.."

"The mosque and its minaret are symbols of power...(It would be interesting to know whether the Muslims in Maroochydore plan to instal a minaret, and if so, how high it will be - CM).

"The building of mosques is not always an expression of power, but historically and today in mixed communities mosques are constructed with a view toward the non-Muslim other....Many of them have a history and geographical placement that is not coincidental and which serves as an expression of political Islam and its aspirations." END QUOTE.

'The Anglican Church, which also worships in Church Street, said the issue was "a local council planning matter that should not be confused with problems overseas".

But the Muslims who will gather at that mosque will read from and take deeply to heart exactly the same Quran - and Sira and Hadith - as do all those Muslims who are busy oppressing and persecuting non-Muslims - notably Christians - overseas. - CM

'Australia is a place where religion can be practised freely, and we should always support people in our community who want to live as good neighbours", the spokesman said.

Can you be 100 percent sure that the Muslims in your midst will always be and live as good neighbours? - CM

"The best way to move forward as good neighbours is to respect each other, include each other, and work together for the good of the community".

But what happens if what the Muslims define as good is not what everyone else defines as good? - CM

'The Uniting Church in Brisbane, who sold the land to the Muslim Organisation under the hammer at auction, explained the property was a "professional office space". 

"The new owners can use it how they see fit", Queensland Synod moderator, Reverend Kaye Ronalds, said.

"The Uniting Church is active in interfaith work".

I do not think you should have sold that land to the Muslims.  You should have sold it to anyone else but.   And if the opposition is overridden, and if this mosque is built, then I think that one day you and the people in Maroochydore will bitterly regret that sale. 

The Sunshine Coast Daily permitted Comments.  

Here are probably the pick of the bunch. First, "Stu 777" replying to a useful idiot who thinks that those opposed to mosques are fear-mongers and ignorant - "Have you been to Lakemba recently? Have you ever lived near a mosque?  Here's a little challenge for you. Take a trip to Sydney, and walk the streets of Lakemba and adjoining suburbs where the Islamic population is growing.  Take out a notebook, and make some observations, comparing Lakemba to Maroochydore. Then come back and tell us more about "hatred from the media, and fear mongering".

And "dazzat", of Sippy Downs, "Went to the rally and the amazing thing was the utter diversity amongst those who oppose the mosque.  Young, old, teenagers, tradies, professionals, rich,not-so-rich, people from Asian countries, people from Middle Eastern countries, white skin, dark skin, bikies in full leathers, ex-servicemen, long-time locals, those new to the area, parents, singles, all represented and unified.  You see, the press, including the Daily, attempt to pigeon-hole all those who oppose this totalitarian ideology from establishing a foothold in such a strategic place on the Sunshine Coast. But you can't.  People of all persuasions have seen what is happening around the world, have seent he impact of mosques in places like Sydney, and have made a rational, informed decision. The most interesting aspect of those who support the mosque, is (that) there seemed to be very few Islamic people. (They were standing back and letting their dhimmi proxies do all the heavy lifting - CM)  From what I could see, those who support the mosque are mostly younger people - and I believe most are university students (as they liked to tell us who educated they are)."

Another poster had this to say: "Mr Tan grew up in Malaysia and has first-hand experience of how a mosque and the leaders of Islam seek to dominate and control a region.  I spoke with other people from countries where Islam is more dominant who say the same...they were present and against the building of the mosque".

And, providing a counter to the sensationalised reporting from the ABC and even the Daily, this poster, who had attended, said, "I was at the demonstration and it was generally pretty peaceful but very vocal at times.  There were quite a number of uniformed police and surprisingly also plain clothes detectives..I don't know why so many police were rostered or remained there...So the anit-mosque folk way outnumberred the few opposing this...[i.e pro-mosque opposing anti-mosque - CM]. One [pro-mosque] displayed a banner suggesting "tolerance" which I found completely ironic as there is not much of this shown in Muslim countries...So there we are, the proposed location of the mosque is very provocative in between 2 Christian churches and on the main road.  Perosnally I don't think it should be built there, and to be honest, I don't think the coast should have any mosque until the local Muslims can guarantee that no sharia law and anti-western preachings will take place, as has been happening in Sydney and elsewhere. I don't think they will be able to give that guarantee".

Finally, another piece from the Daily, the day after, as reported by one Scott Sawyer.

"Weekend clash just the beginning: anti-mosque protesters".

It wasn't a 'clash'. It never came to blows, not anywhere near. It was, shall we say, going by accounts of those who were there, a very loud argument. - CM

'Anti-mosque protesters have vowed to escalate the campaign, following ugly clashes between them and pro-mosque campaigners on the streets of Maroochydore yesterday.

"Insults were traded and tempers flared (Insults? So far as I can see, those opposing the mosque issued strong - but fact-based, experience-based - warnings about the nature and goals of Islam and the Ummah, or Mohammedan mob. - CM) as about 500 people - most of them opposed to the mosque plans - faced off outside the proposed site in Church Street.

'Restore Australia chief executive Mike Holt said the protest was not a one-off and more action would be taken until the mosque proposal was scrapped.  "There'll definitely be more protests", Mr Holt said.  "There will be more. We're just deciding what to do next. We won't stop until we stop the mosque".

I wonder whether they have visited UK campaigner Gavin Boby's "Law and Freedom Foundation" website?  In a way, they are starting from behind.  The time to stop this mosque was back before the Muslims bought the land.  I wonder when the local Council became aware of the plans to use the site as a mosque?  - CM

'Uniformed and plain-clothes police officers kept  a close eye on the crowd, at one stage ordering an anti-mosque protester from the stage as he began to speak of beheadings and fears over a mosque.

'The pro-mosque crowd was predominantly younger people, some students, who took to the streets to vent their frustration at perceived narrow-minded attitudes towards Muslims, while the anti-mosque group was more of a cross-section, with many older members of the community joined by a large number of young people eager to preserve the Coast's identity. 

The presence of those other, wiser young people, joining their elders to resist Islamisation, is very heartening to see. - CM

'Among the most vocal was born-and-bred Sunshine Coast man Greg, 22, who warned a mosque would threaten the Coast's way of life. "This is the Sunshine Coast and this is Australia and I'm not going to stand by and let a mosque be built here, where they degrade our women and our culture, " he said. "This is Australia. This isn't a place for them to come and take over our culture and our country.  I just think it's disgusting that people stand here and support a religion they have no idea about.  They obviously haven't read the Koran. The Koran states that any infidels should have their heads chopped off, that our women should be raped, stuff like that, you know. That's disgusting."

'Coast resident and New Zealand native Peter, 74, who did not want to provide his surname, said the site had to be opposed as it posed a threat to the Coast community. "I think having a mosque here is a threat when you look at what is happening around the world today - they're still killing Christians, burning churches, killing Jews, and I believe that if you trace back the life of Muhammad, you'll see that he destroyed, killed, and everything else", Peter said.."No, I just think that deep down the religion (Islam) itself teaches hatred.

True dat. - CM

"It's a disgusting religion. I'm in the Catholic church over the road and I'd hate to think it was opposite. It's evil and I'm totally against it".

Let's hope that Peter can manage to educate his parish priest, Fr Duffy!  But now, cue a Useful Idiot.

Passions ran just as high in the pro-mosque camp, where David Knobel, 29, was adamant Australia had the capacity to be a tolerant, multicultural nation.

Sure. So long as Islam isn't in the mix. - CM

"I believe that this (protest) isn't about Islam, this is about bigotry", Mr Knobel said. "They're (the anti-mosque group) protesting because they're bigots, and we don't like bigots".

So Mr Tan and Mr Albert, of Malaysia and Pakistan respectively, warning non-Muslim Australians on the basis of their own extensive and bruising experience as members of persecuted minorities within Muslim lands, are bigots? - CM

"We believe that Australia should be a tolerant nation. We believe that it should be a multicultural nation, and we wanted to stand up in counter-protest to what they're having to say, because it's really just ignorance".

Ignorance? Mr Knobel, I've read the Quran, and I've read a good modern account of the life of Mohammed, referenced at every point from canonical Islamic texts, and I've read Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Nonie Darwish and Patrick Sookhdeo, and I say that what the opponents of the mosque were saying all has a basis in cold hard fact. The facts of the content of Islamic scriptures and doctrines; the facts of Islamic history; the fact of what Muslims do to non-Muslims wherever and whenever they gain ascendancy over them. - CM

'What's been proposed here (the mosque) is not anything to do with terrorism, it's not anything to do with the beheadings, it's not anything to do with ISIS."

Really? It's a mosque, mate. It's a Muslim meeting place, and they will be reading and teaching from the same Quran as ISIS does.  Ever read Surah 47.4? That's the one that tells Muslims to "strike at the necks" of the non-Muslims; beheading is normative Islamic practice during jihad.  I don't suppose you ever heard about the UK documentary, Undercover Mosque? Or Undercover Mosque, the Return? Or about a Czech doco called "I, Muslim"??  In all of those, a bit of basic undercover reporting showed that what goes on inside a mosque, what is said inside a mosque, by Muslims to one another, when they think no prying unbeliever can hear what they say, is very different from - and much uglier than - what they might say in public to the likes of you, on a mosque "Open Day" when they're busy doing dawa and Damage Control.  In every Muslim land, the mobs that attack the non-Muslim minority neighbourhoods, issue from the mosques and are directed from the mosques. Are you 100 percent sure that a jihad plot will not be hatched in this Maroochydore mosque, sooner or later?  Are you 100 percent sure that it will not, one day, be a safe house for someone setting out to mass-murder Aussie infidels?   - CM

'They are whipping up frear and hatred in the community, and we want to stand up in solidarity with our Muslim friends".

Your Muslim friends? Are you sure - 100 percent sure - that they are your friends?  You do know that the Quran - and other Islamic texts - repeatedly warns Muslims against befriending the unbelievers? 

And another useful Idiot, one Rhea Abraham:

"Rhea Abraham, 26, an atheist, was brought to tears by yesterday's events, and said the Muslim community needed support, not further alienation.

Oh, poor little persecuted petals...cry me a river, silly girl. You'd do better to cry for those 200 Nigerian schoolgirls who've been kidnapped and are being raped, force-"married", tormented, abused, degraded and murdered, all of it in strict conformity to the practice of warlord and slave-trader Mohammed and his companions and successors.  Or for the 1400 English girls, many of them as young as 11 or 12, who've been systematically "groomed", raped, tormented and prostituted by Muslim gangs in Britain.  Muslims who felt entitled to do as they did because of the misogyny - and the boundless contempt for non-Muslims qua non-Muslms - that is hardwired into Islam. - CM

"By protesting and showing them (the Muslim community) so much hatred, you are doing exactly that (driving them to radicalism)" she said.

So resisting Jihad causes...Jihad? - CM

"You're pushing any moderates who are sitting on the fence the other way. You're pushing anybody with a good heart and a godo mind on them away, and you're showing them that they're not welcome.

"If we don't associate the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) with Christianity, why should we associate ISIL or ISIS for that matter, with Islam?"...

Because the analogy doesn't apply.  It is easy to see, from looking at the person of Jesus in the gospels, and his teachings, and comparing them with what the deeds and sayings of the KKK, that the actions and teachings of the KKK are not consonant with the person and teachings of Jesus. Whereas the actions and sayings of the Islamic State jihadis are - if one looks closely into the subject - perfectly consonant with the figure of Mohammed as depicted in the canonical texts of Islam, and with the core doctrines of Islam as also set down in those texts.  That is: the KKK are not Christian, but the Islamic State is, well, Islamic. - CM








Posted on 09/26/2014 2:05 AM by Christina McIntosh

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Predictably, assorted Useful Idiots are horrified, but many ordinary Aussie non-Muslims are supporting him.  So far he has refused to retract what he said and I sincerely hope he stands firm - he has said, after all, nothing but the truth.  It is all the more impressive because he was born in Egypt and came to Australia as a child of ten with his parents; it appears that his family on leaving Egypt left the dhimma behind them.

As reported by Brittany Shanahan for the Herald-Sun and local paper the Berwick Leader.

"Casey Cr Sam Aziz Rebuked for Facebook Post on Muslims.

"Readers have overwhelmingly backed Casey Councillor Sam Aziz's controversial Facebook post that tells Muslim leaders who feel "alienated in Australia" to go home.

"Cr Aziz took to Facebook to vent following the fatal shooting of Narre Warren terror suspect (sic: Narre Warren-resident would-be jihadi assassin - CM) Numan Haider, 18, at Endeavour Hills police station last night (this article was published on 25 September - CM) after he stabbed two officers and allegedly made terror threats against Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

"Dear So-Called Muslim Leaders: 

"I am sorry you feel alienated in Australia.

"Perhaps you would be far more comfortable leaving Australia (with its liberties and welfare system) and go back to somewhere in the desert in Arabia, where you can engage in oppression, violence, and any other 7th century activity that does not belong in a civilised country in our time", he wrote.

"AS FOR THE REST OF US we love it here in our country, even though many of us were not born here we love Australia with all our hearts, and we have far more important things to do in our lives than to put up with your constant crap.

Hear! hear! - CM

"Our thoughts are with the injured police officers, who put themselves in harm's way to protect us from scum".

He delivered this resounding - and resoundingly accurate - broadside in response to the attempts by not a few Australian Muslims to claim victimhood in the wake of a young jihad-minded Muslim man's attempted assassination of two Aussie infidel police officers. - CM

'Despite rebukes from Multicultural Affairs Minister Matthew Guy, and Casey and Greater Dandenong Interfaith Network leaders Jim Reiher and Helen Heath, readers (I assume, readers of the FB post - CM) were in agreeance with Cr Aziz.

'"Aaron" wrote he stood by Cr Aziz.  "Good work and keep it up", Aaron wrote.  "I hope the so-called Muslim leaders are listening. We give you ('you', here, being the Muslims in Australia - CM) freedom and protection.  Remember that".

'"Shane" wondered: "Why should he be slammed for that post?  Pretty sure the majority of the country agreed with him on this."

'"Johanna" said Muslim leaders had "chosen a very inappropriate time to talk about alienation, and should look at their own teachings rather than blaming government."

'"Sheila" said it was "nice to hear a public figure speak his mind and not follow the PC nonsense being spruiked by most politicians."

'But Multicultural Affairs Minister Matthew Guy said Cr Aziz's comments were divisive.

I am growing very tired of this business of pretending that fact-based critique of Muslims is "divisive". Haven't any of these fools who burble about "social cohesion" and attack critique of Muslims as "divisive" ever heard about Islam's grim division of the world into Believers (the Best of People, with the divine right to rule over all others, planet-wide) and najis kuffar, dirty unbelievers, who are 'the worst of beasts'?  Into dar al Islam and dar al Harb?  Have they ever realized that the dhimma system, as historically practised, is nothing but a religion-based, or ideologically-based system of apartheid (combined with an extortion racket - the exaction of jizya) with the express aim of degrading, humiliating and exploiting the despised Others, the non-Muslim untermenschen? -  CM

"All leaders - including those from our three tiers of Government - have a responsibility to provide leadership and to unite all Australians", Mr Guy said.

Mr Aziz has given a lead.  He has said what very few other Aussie politicians have yet been brave enough to say. As for this business about 'uniting'...see what I just said above, about the way in which classical Islam, orthodox Islam, divides up the world into dar al Islam and dar al Harb, the former being divinely required to wage war upon the latter until the latter has been converted, subjugated, or erased from existence. How can one have "unity" with an ideologically-defined human gestalt - the Muslims - that does not recognise one's right to say No to their belief system, and that does not recognise one's right to reject their demand that you should submit to their dominance and allow them to impose their theo-political system upon you and rule over you, absolutely?  Does one want "unity" with a Gang that claims the right to attack and to kill you if you refuse either to join their Gang or to accept the role of exploited, degraded, abused and continually-imperilled dhimmi near-slave? - CM

"No community should be targeted from this event".

By "this event", Minister Guy is primly alluding to the attempted Muslim assassination of two Australian infidel policemen, which ended in the would-be assassin getting shot dead by one of his badly-wounded victims. - CM

"Cr Aziz, as a local councillor, should be uniting residents in this municipality, not dividing them".

Methinks he is uniting residents.  He is uniting all Aussie non-Muslims - indigenous or non-indigenous, of whatever ethnicity, and of whatever non-Islamic faith or of no faith at all - who are getting heartily sick of the way in which, every time an Australia-resident Muslim does something awful to a non-Muslim Aussie, or is caught plotting or attempting to do something awful, far too many other Australia-resident Muslims instantly begin whingeing and squawking and trying to represent themselves - and usually the Muslim perp/s - as poor little persecuted victims. - CM

'Casey Multifaith Network President Jim Reiher condemned Cr Aziz's comments.

Predictably.  Absent the Muslims, such multifaith networks would be harmless and might even be of benefit. But throw Muslims into the mix and they become a means by which naive and well-meaning Jews and Christians - and sometimes, too, Buddhists and Hindus - are relentlessly "groomed" for dhimmitude. - CM

"It is simplistic and offensive to suggest that people who feel alienated and disengaged (sic: but what if they are deliberately alienating themselves, deliberately segregating themselves, deliberately refusing to engage, except on their terms and for their benefit only or primarily? Further: what if those claims of "alienation", those attempts to pose as innocent victims of discrimination and persecution, are entirely bogus? - CM) should leave here and go back to a backward desert country.

Really?   Right now lots and lots of Muslims, many of them well-off and well-educated and from apparently-assimilated western-resident Muslim families, from all over the western world, are leaving the West - and other infidel countries, all of which even if poor and badly governed are usually still ahead, in human terms, of anything in the dar al Islam - and are leaping feet first into the maelstrom of jihad in the desertified Muslim domain of Syria and Mesopotamia.  And there are those who have gone to Somalia, or Yemen, or Afghanistan.  And there are not a few statements made, by those who have done this sort of thing, loudly proclaiming how wonderful it is to live in places where all there is is Islam, Islam, Islam.  So Cr Aziz's suggestion is not unrealistic at all.  - CM 

"Rather, the better thing to think about, is working out ways how our multicultural community can better embrace the members of all ethnicities and faith groups".

Dear Mr Reiher: how do you propose to "embrace" a man who, upon embracing you, is likely to a/ detonate the explosive vest concealed upon his person or b/ shove a knife into you?  (Neither of these examples is fictional.  The first happened in the dar al Islam, where a Muslim of one faction greeted and embraced a deemed-insufficiently-Islamic fellow Muslim of another faction; and as he did so, detonated the bomb he had attached to his person, killing himself and his target.  The second happened in the UK: a British MP was greeted by a smiling behijabbed young Muslimah who offered a hand for him to shake.  When he took her hand, she used her other hand to shove a carving-knife into his stomach.) - CM

'Greater Dandenong Interfaith Network president Helen Heath OAM said public figures should not inflame the situation.

And those Muslim leaders who are crying "alienation" and discrimination and hinting darkly that the police are lying about what happened and that the deceased unlamented would-be assassin was an innocent victim of unprovoked police brutality, or that he was provoked into attacking the police, because the nasty non-Muslim Australians are being sooo mean to the poor widdle Muswims and it made him mad, are not inflaming the situation? - CM

"It's a delicate situation, people can have an opinion, but we all have to live here and get along with each other", Ms Heath said.

Ms Heath. You and every other non-Muslim person in that Multi-Faith Network would do well to read, and re-read, Mark Durie's book "The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom".  Submitting to Muslim bullying is not "getting on with each other".   It is dhimmitude, and it is the death of the soul. - CM 

"People need to be aware that if they are going to make a comment, it will have an effect on people, particularly if you are a public figure".

One almost expects to hear her screaming, "Blasphemy! Blasphemy!". - CM

'Casey Mayor Geoff Ablett refused to comment on the Facebook post.

"I will not be commenting on the individual comments of other councillors", Cr Ablett said...

"Cr Aziz stood by his Facebook comments.

"We've had two injured police officers hospitalised in Melbourne after they were stabbed by someone (a Muslim someone - CM) who was under investigation (for flying the sinister Islamic State flag in a shopping centre, among other things - CM) yet the Islamic Council of Victoria are coming out and talking about alienation", Cr Aziz said.

Nail. Head. Hit. - CM

"I don't see how a society like Australia fosters alienation, when we have all the liberties, the great welfare system, and amazing opportunities that many other people in the world aspire to have.

"I have every confidence in our police and security agencies that they will always do what is absolutely necessary to keep us safe".

His parents were Coptic Christians in Egypt. He was ten years old when, in 1983, the family made their escape from de facto dhimmitude in Egypt and made their way to Australia, where they have flourished.  Ten years old, is old enough to have had a sense of what Egypt was like, and to have understood what was said by parents and kin and other Coptic emigres, about Egypt and why it was that they left.  One can hear, breathing through every sentence of that final paragraph, the relief and joy of someone who has experienced the difference between being a Christian minority in a Muslim-dominated society - in which the police cannot ever be relied upon to assist a non-Muslim who has suffered harm from a Muslim, and in which being a Copt, a non-Muslim, guarantees that one will be, to lesser or greater extent, discriminated against and mistreated - and living in a decent, free, well-run majority-nonMuslim society.  Not a perfect society, but a whole lot better than wretched, chaotic, increasingly-violent addled-by-Islam Egypt.  And now he sees Australia - where his family, fleeing from Islam and Muslims, were welcomed and given safe haven -  being itself threatened and bad-mouthed by Muslims within the gates; and he is speaking up in its defence. Good on him. - CM


Posted on 09/25/2014 11:31 PM by Christina McIntosh

Thursday, 25 September 2014

America was defeated in Iraq, and can't win anywhere. In the Levant, ISIS will spread its wings -- the two wings being Iraq and Egypt. And "we" -- Muslims -- "will rule the world." Tomorrow Belongs To We. Possibly starting with some Byzantine blondes.

The unedifying (edifying!) -- a very pretty epanorthosis --spectacle here.

Posted on 09/25/2014 11:01 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Incest apparently is, for some, a "fundamental right." Don't be judgmental. That only makes you a figure of fun. Be tolerant. Anything goes.

Posted on 09/25/2014 9:46 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Thursday, 25 September 2014

John Quincy Adams:

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST:-- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men….


"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."


Barack Obama:

"...we have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.

So we reject any suggestion of a clash of civilizations. Belief in permanent religious war is the misguided refuge of extremists who cannot build or create anything, and therefore peddle only fanaticism and hate. And it is no exaggeration to say that humanity’s future depends on us uniting against those who would divide us along fault lines of tribe or sect; race or religion…."


Posted on 09/25/2014 9:34 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Thursday, 25 September 2014

From a news article about the American strike on the Khorasan group (part of Jabhat Al-Nusra):

"Ali Bakran, the commander of a more moderate, U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army-linked brigade based in Idlib, said he first heard of the Khorasani five months ago, in reference to foreign fighters from Afghanistan who had arrived to join Jabhat al-Nusra. There was confusion about their intentions, he said.

“We heard that there was a new unit inside Nusra and they were sleeping cells preparing to assassinate FSA,” Bakran said, referring to members of the Free Syrian Army. When a rebel commander with the 101st Division, a mainstream opposition group, was shot dead in his vehicle this year, some thought Khorasani were responsible, he said. There were also rumors they were plotting foreign attacks.

Although the embedded fighters have stirred controversy within the rebel ranks, the U.S. air attacks may cause a backlash on the ground, where Jabhat al-
Nusra garners popular support and has a higher proportion of local recruits than the Islamic State, said some activists in western Syria.

“If they hit Daesh and the regime, it’s okay,” said Bakran, referring to the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State, and to the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “But why are they striking Nusra? Nusra are from the people — they are the people.”

Posted on 09/25/2014 8:37 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Upwards of 400,000 Syrian Kurds, Turkmen, and Christians are besieged in Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) in Syria's north closed off from the Turkish border crossing. They are ringed by tanks, mortars and artillery, some of it American equipment which was captured when Iraqi forces fled before the ISIS assault on Mosul in Iraq. There is also Russian equipment captured from Assad forces. As we now know, the ISIS military command structure is led by former Ba'athist officers of the late Sadaam Hussein. Hence we are dealing with the equivalent of at least a reinforced division headed by experienced military. While the US and the coalition of five regional Arab sunni states have struck at targets in Raqqa, near Aleppo, the Deir es-Zor oil fields and refineries and the open Syrian border crossings, the possible fall of Kobani would create a massive humanitarian disaster surpassing Sinjar and Mosul in Iraq.  With no forward air controllers on the ground in the vicinity of Kobani, it is unlikely that US/Arab coalition air contingents, even with precision GPS guided weapons, could provide close air support to attack ISIS military strong points. Moreover, should ISIS forces penetrate Kobani, they would have the cover of an urban center to slaughter  the encircled population.   Syrian Kurds and other regional Kurdish fighters probably lack the anti-tank, counter-battery detection and weapons to stave off the siege. The surrounded population lacks adequate food and water as well. This is the air mission of the day. It is also the diplomatic mission of the day to force the Turks to open a humanitarian corridor to alleviate the looming debacle. However, as we come to learn with this White House, politics count. That along with support of the very extremists that the President spoke of in his UN address yesterday.

Buried in his remarks was a reference to a Muslim Brotherhood Cleric, Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, who you may recall visited the White House just before the July 2013 coup by now President Fattah el-Sisi that ousted former President Mohammed Morsi. On that occasion, Bin Bayyah was visiting the White House at the request of then National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and staff in to discuss 'messaging' to combat Al Qaeda, now it's ISIS. Lest we forget Bin Bayyah's and his anti-Semitic colleague al Qaradaw, arch Muslim Brotherhood preacher and chair of International Union of Muslim Scholars, in their 2004 fatwas condoning killing of American service personnel in Iraq and suicide bombing missions against Israelis. Al Qaradawi lives in exile in Qatar. His extradition  was  requested by the el-Sisi government in Egypt in February 2014.

The Qatar connection was also on display yesterday at the UN with the address by Sheik Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani the Emir of Qatar autocratic head of the energy rich Persian Gulf state, that many consider a 'frenemy' of the US. He used the bully pulpit of the rostrum before the UN General Assembly, yesterday, to accuse Israel of war crimes and request shunning of its leaders. This from a man whose government contributed hundred of millions of dollars to build the network of terror tunnels across the Gaza Israel frontier to have Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide commandos capture/ kill citizens of Israel during the current Rosh Hashanah holy day period. For these reasons, we question the resolve and intent of this Administration to commit forces to prevent the fall of Kobani to barbarous ISIS forces encircling the city in a siege with routes of escape closed off for the population within.

Posted on 09/25/2014 8:26 AM by Jerry Gordon

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Reading the New York Times account this morning of the sentence passed on Dinesh D’Souza—the filmmaker, writer, and outspoken critic of President Obama—for violating the laws relating to campaign finance, I was horrified to read the following: “As part of his probation, Mr. D’Souza . . . will also be required to undergo therapeutic counseling.” Assuming this to be an accurate report, one can only conclude that America is undergoing a gentle but nonetheless sinister cultural revolution.

From what illness is D’Souza supposed to be suffering? Is it of such a contagious nature that he needs state-mandated therapy, like Typhoid Mary? To judge by the comments left by New York Times readers, not everyone likes D’Souza, and indeed some of the hatred expressed toward him seems—well, almost pathological, at least in the metaphorical sense. Even the preposterous Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which makes patients of us all, could hardly find anything morbid in D’Souza’s conduct. The only justification for forcing him to undergo therapeutic counseling would be if crime were illness. (I leave aside the absurdity of the concept of such counseling itself, in the efficacy of which the judge must presumably have believed as others believe that walking under a ladder is unlucky). This idea has a long pedigree and is far from liberal in its consequences. In the year of my birth, C. S. Lewis published a brilliant essay titled “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.” In it, he wrote, inter alia: “Those who hold it think it is mild and merciful. In this I think they are seriously mistaken. I believe that the ‘Humanity’ which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end.”

If crime is illness, no limit exists to the treatment that may be employed to cure it and nothing inhibits the use of ferocious remedies to root it out. As Lewis intuited, cruelty may then be disguised as benevolence, and there is no cruelty like that which believes it is doing good.

True, therapeutic counseling is not hideously cruel, though it is likely to be agonizingly idiotic for any intelligent person. Moreover, it is also likely to invite dishonesty on the part of the “treated,” who will be expected to accept the counselor’s point of view without demur, however ludicrous or demeaning it may be. Contestation will be taken as a sign that the patient-criminal is not cured and therefore in need of yet more therapeutic counseling. To enforce therapeutic counseling as “treatment” for a criminal act is a violation of the integrity of the human personality. There are worse violations no doubt, but it is the beginning of a descent down a slippery slope.

Punishment is not therapy; crime is not disease. The Soviets thought that dissent was crime and crime was disease: therefore, with them, dissent was disease. We have not yet reached that point, but “therapy” for illegal campaign contributions is coming uncomfortably close to it.

First published in City Journal.

Posted on 09/25/2014 7:38 AM by Theodore Dalrymple

Thursday, 25 September 2014


Destruction of the non-Islamic past has been part of Islam -- or appropriation of buildings and sites important to non-Muslims (from Temple Mount in Jerusalem, that an early Umayyad caliph thought would be just the place to claim for Islam, or the most important temple complexes of the Hindus of India, upon which, and using their stone, mosques were deliberately built), and the impulse to vandalize or destroy whatever else remained from the time of Jahiliya (pre-Islamic ignorance), that destruction sometimes having to be delayed until certain technological advances from the West were introduced (the Turkish Muslims -- the Mamelukes -- who shot off the face of the Sphinx for malicious sport needed first to acquire guns; the Afghan Taliban who blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas had had to wait for the invention of explosives and for the technical knowhow supplied, according to reports, by Pakistani and Saudi engineers). 

And even sites that we might call Muslim are not necessarily exempt from destruction. The truest Muslims are those who despise any sites of historical interest, and those to which any pilgrimage might be made. Thus the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia have for years been destroying sites in Mecca and Medina, including an old Ottoman fort, even those associated with Muhammad (the Ka'aba remains the only place safe from such destruction). And when the True Believers came down from the fold, and attacked Timbuktu, they proceeded to blow up buildings, and what pass, in folklore, for the great "libraries" of Timbuktu's "university" (in reality, a glorifed and very large madrasa, with only the Islamic sciences taught).

The mosque that was blown up deserved such treatment because it was believed to house  the remains of forty of Muhammad's Companions:

"Similarly, Islamists planted explosives around the Forty Shrine mosque and surrounding tombs, located in the center of the city in Salahuddin Province, and detonated them, completely destroying the mosque. It is believed the Forty Shrine housed the remains of 40 of Muhammad's comrades, who took part in the Islamic conquest of the region during the reign of the second Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab in 638 A.D."

Any mosque that houses the remains of particular people, whose remains then become the object of pilgrimate and a kind of worship, is against Pure Islam. Saints, relics, all this is the stuff of dangerous idolatry and even shirk, and gets in the way of the single-minded, index-finger-raised-skyward Oneness of Allah; it's all a dangerous distraction, and so it is perfectely right and proper  that such places,even Sunni mosques, be destroyed (Shi'a mosques, which are not even called mosques but hussainya, deserve to be destroyed because Shi'a are not real Muslims, but Infidels).

That's what will happen in Western Europe, if Muslims are allowed to remain, and breed, overbreed, in large numbers.

Posted on 09/25/2014 6:28 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Thursday, 25 September 2014


Mountain guide and randonneur, Herve Gourdel thought that in the Kabyle he might be left alone. But he wasn't. No Western doctor, no Western aid worker, no Western oil roustabout, no Western tourist, no Western "sans frontieres" employee of any kind, no Western journalist, ought now to go anywhere near a Muslim country. There's no need. They need us, we don't need them. And as for the Muslims already deep within our own lands, the less these vain and expensive and dangerous attempts at a false "integration," which merely helps hide the reality of Islam, the better. An alliance of non-Muslims, silent or stated, intent on making non-Muslim lands implacably unwelcomingb and hostile to those who carry with them the danger and contagion of Islam, is a perfectly reasonable and justified response.

Posted on 09/25/2014 6:17 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Over the summer, the 40th anniversary of the resignation of President Richard Nixon and President Gerald Ford’s pardon of him passed, not, unfortunately, without the usual clangorous outburst of self-righteous claptrap and exercises in pseudo-historical mind-reading and amateur psychoanalysis. Many years ago, I happened to have dinner with the former president a few days after the New York Times had run another speculation about his psychological make-up and, when I volunteered that he probably didn’t enjoy these pieces, though he must by then have been used to them, he replied that the first such published insight into his psyche was in a California newspaper when he was only a second-term congressman. Nixon said: “The author committed suicide a few years ago, which, though unfortunate, confirmed me in my original view that her mental equilibrium was a good deal less stable than mine was.”

Even my distinguished friend George Will got into the act this year, by suggesting that Nixon may have resigned to avoid having to deal with his recorded instruction to his chief aide, Bob Haldeman, to break into the liberal Brookings Institution and “clean out the safe.” This was, to say the least, a bad idea, and even Haldeman, who had no shortage of improvident brainwaves himself, ignored this particular instruction. But that is the point: It was never attempted; the release of the tape containing that order to Haldeman was certainly an embarrassment, and is a disturbing impulse from the holder of so great an office, but people are not impeached and removed from an office to which they have been elected (in this case by the greatest plurality in American history, 18 million votes), for voicing an insane thought, even when that thought, if enacted, would have been a very serious crime.

The same could be said of the so-called smoking gun, which precipitated Nixon’s resignation and was effectively the last straw to a public that had been whipped into a righteous frenzy by a media campaign that seized upon and magnified every instance of Nixon’s uncharacteristically inept handling of the whole series of revelations and allegations that started with the forced entry of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington. Aides suggested that they ask the director and deputy director of the CIA (Richard Helms and Vernon Walters) to intervene with the FBI to stop the Watergate investigation for the stated reason that it could back into CIA covert operations against Cuba in which some of the Watergate intruders had once been involved. It was a tawdry as well as an insane proposal, and even if successful would not have accomplished anything because the investigation was being carried out by District of Columbia ​police. But Helms and Walters said they would do so if ordered by the president himself to make that request, and when informed of this, Nixon declined to give any such order and told his aides not to proceed. This was a contemptible and foolish idea, but it was not pressed or acted upon, and did not constitute obstruction of justice, or anything that justified disemboweling a presidency.

One of the more irritating anniversary comments was a piece in the Wall Street Journal commending President Ford for pardoning Nixon. It was annoying not because its conclusion was mistaken, but because of the sanctimonious presumptions that were invoked in support of the intelligent conclusion that Ford was in all respects correct to issue the pardon. The op-ed piece, which was published on September 6, was written by Ken Gormley, dean of law at Duquesne University and author of a biography of Archibald Cox, Watergate special prosecutor and former solicitor general of the United States, and David Shribman, executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The authors claim that, in accepting the pardon, Nixon “acknowledged his guilt.” He did not; he maintained all his subsequent life of 20 years that he had made serious errors but had not committed illegalities. Their authority is a 1915 case that found that a presidential pardon carried “an imputation of guilt.” It may, but it does not necessarily do so, or at least not an irreversible imputation of guilt.

These authors also assert that President Ford had not made a deal with the president who appointed him vice president and then stood aside to elevate him to the presidency, trading a pardon for the country’s two national offices over ten months. Many pundits as well as the dense ranks of Nixon’s opponents (they almost completely overlapped for a long time), screamed this at the time, including relatively sober commentators such as Joseph Alsop, but there was never a shred of evidence of it and such a thought arose only in the perfervidly malignant atmosphere confected by the anti-Nixon media, with, it must be admitted, what amounted to the cooperation of Nixon himself in his incompetent handling of the issues from the Watergate intrusion of June 1972, right up to his resignation in August 1974. Of course there was no such arrangement, the suggestion of it was always scurrilous and defamatory of both presidents, and to proclaim triumphantly 40 years later that they are now free of that suspicion is fatuous.

These authors also claim that Ford acted to “preserve American history.” But there was never any suggestion that Nixon, having complied with the Supreme Court order to hand over the tapes of his private conversations, would destroy any documents. As was ultimately determined by the courts, when cant and emotionalism had finally subsided to manageable levels, Richard Nixon had the same right as other presidents to presidential materials, and the intervention of the Congress to deny him that access was illegal, just as the IRS’s revocation of its previous agreement on the tax treatment of his contribution of his vice-presidential papers, which mirrored what other vice presidents had done, was illegal, and was, in effect, an act of theft, as the government retained the papers. (Could anyone today imagine that the IRS had any lessons in ethics to give Richard Nixon or any other taxpayer?) Richard Nixon had to build his own presidential library, with the financial support of many thousands of admirers throughout the country and in every walk of life, and litigate to gain possession of papers that were his by right. The scandal in this aspect of the Watergate controversy is that it has taken 40 years for even a dean of law to realize that Gerald Ford was an honest man. But to judge from this piece, it may take some while longer for him to realize that Richard Nixon did not cease to possess any rights over what is traditionally a president’s property, with an obligation to preserve it, with or without a pardon for offenses of which he was never officially accused.

The authors are of course correct to endorse President Ford’s action, and it was to the Kennedys’ credit that Edward Kennedy and others awarded him the Profile in Courage Award in 2001 for granting Nixon the pardon (which Senator Kennedy, a renowned pillar of official probity, had opposed at the time). If even Teddy Kennedy figured that out 13 years ago, one wonders why it is still judged a ponderously weighty conclusion today. Mr. Gormley’s book about Archibald Cox was subtitled “Conscience of a Nation.” I think not. (That was the title of egregious former Irish prime minister Charles Haughey’s autobiography, with no more justification.) Cox was a well-qualified lawyer but he was a raving partisan Kennedy Democrat whose interest from beginning to end was the lynching of the man from whom the Kennedys probably stole the 1960 presidential election to put themselves in the White House (and install Cox as solicitor general). He was so far from America’s conscience that, when President George H. W. Bush obtained congressional approval for the great alliance that forced Saddam Hussein to disgorge the state of Kuwait that he had seized, Cox wrote to the governments of the member-states of the United Nations urging them not to cooperate with the U.S. Most U.N countries approved the alliance action and it has never been clear to me why Cox was not accused, even if only informally, of violating the Logan Act and trying to conduct American foreign policy as a private citizen without authority or standing to do so. (This first intervention in Iraq is almost universally considered to have been justified and successful; it lasted only a few days on the ground and the allies incurred very few casualties.)

At some point, even if it is the centenary or bicentenary of Watergate, America is going to have to realize that there was never an adequate reason to drive from office one of the country’s most successful presidents. Richard Nixon extracted the country from the Vietnam War while preserving a non-Communist government in Saigon, reopened relations with China, signed the greatest arms-control agreement in history with the USSR, founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended school segregation without recourse to the mad, court-ordered busing of schoolchildren all around metropolitan areas for racial ”balance,” ended the draft, stopped the endless riots and skyjackings, started the Mideast peace process, and calmed the nation, which rewarded him with a mighty landslide reelection. There is some legitimate question about his motives in advancing funds to Watergate defendants, but there has never been what a proper court of justice could call a clear case that Nixon committed crimes.

Watergate delivered Indochina to the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge; unleashed the USSR in Angola, Central America, and Afghanistan, poisoned the wells of American public life to this day; fragmented the national media; and undoubtedly helped reduce the quality of candidates for high offices, including the presidency (vide the last four elections). Forty years after this shameful travesty, and long after Woodward and his claque have been exposed as all-season mythmakers, much of American opinion is still sleepwalking through a stilted morality play and congratulating itself on the inexorable workings of its democracy. The distinguished British writer Muriel Spark was much closer to the truth when she allegorized it as the theft of a thimble in a convent in her book The Abbess of Crewe. As George Stade, head of the English department of Columbia College, wrote in the New York Times 40 years ago next month (October 20, 1974), Ms. Spark was the first writer to demonstrate that the Watergate affair was, in fact, “a farce.” The farce lingers yet.

First published in National Review.

Posted on 09/25/2014 5:34 AM by Conrad Black

Thursday, 25 September 2014

From the Telegraph and the Daily Mail

Radical preacher Anjem Choudary is one of nine men arrested today as part of an investigation into Islamist terrorism. The men, who were all seized in London, were arrested this morning on suspicion of being members of, or supporting, a banned organisation, the Metropolitan Police said.

Choudary, 47, and eight other men aged 22, 31, 31, 32, 36, 38, 39 and 51 were arrested by officers in London this morning, and have all been taken to police stations - where they remain in custody.

Some 19 residential, business or community premises were also being searched today as part of the investigation, Scotland Yard said. Eleven of these were in east London, one in west London, one in north-west London and five in south London - while a residential address was also being searched in Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire.

Scotland Yard said the men, who are aged between 22 and 51, were arrested as "part of an ongoing investigation into Islamist related terrorism and are not in response to any immediate public safety risk". 

Posted on 09/25/2014 3:28 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Wahhabi Islam -- the favorered, practically Homeric, epithet favored is "austere" and "comes out of 18th century Arabia" -- is, according to this article by David Kirkpatrick in The New York Times, the "source" for what the Islamic State supporters believe in.

But what is Wahhabi Islam?hast is its source? Where does it come from?  Wahhabi Islam was an attempt to "reform" Islam by bringing it back to the purity of its beginnings. Wahhabi Islam is simply Islam tout court, Islam straight up, Islam without any softening at the edges, any attempt to account for the real desires even of Muslims, it is the Islam of Muhammad and the earliest Muslims, or at least the Islam of the Qur'an and Sunnah, taken literally, which is assumed by Believers to be the Islam of Muhammad and the earliest Musilms.

It's just Islam, without nuance, without ignoring parts of the doctrine. It's Islam uncomromised and uncompromising. That's Wahhabi Islam, and that's the Islam of ISiS.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if this could be pointed out,in the pages of The New York Times, by David Kirkpatrick if he's able, or someone else, if he's not?

Posted on 09/24/2014 9:33 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Why do they all rant so much? Why are their voices so loud, so crazy-sounding? Who could stand to live in societies where everyone seems to shout all the time?

This former general, who blames America for ISIS, yet doesn't want Jordan to join the campaign against ISIS, and denounces the Jordanian regime for supporting, however minimally, the American effort, wants the "Arab and Jordanian people" to concentrate on what matters: the Jihad to destroy, through military means -- he's a Fast, not a Slow, Jihadi -- the Infidel nation-state of Israel.

His rant. here.

Posted on 09/24/2014 9:23 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

To the Muslim manner born, in Turkey, he had found ways to live without slavishly accepting Qur'an and Sunnah. But his wife, from Kyrgyzstan (apparently raised in secular fashion though Kyrgyzstan has many Muslims), a convert to Islam, wanted to live the full Muslim life, and to have her children, too, grow up in the family-friendly Islamic State.

The story. here.

Shouldn't Dinesh D'Souza, who has written about how much American Family-Values Conservatives and Muslims have in common, be cheered up? Or was beating the jaiil-term quite enough for this sammy-glick and mountebank?

Posted on 09/24/2014 3:18 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Today Jews celebrate the New Year. At the family dinner table the Kiddush, or the blessing over the wine, will be recited. The Sabbath version includes the following verses, which are as relevant now as they were at the dawn of civilization and are worth bearing in mind when we think of the suffering of the Yazidis and Christians in Iraq, the land of Abraham and from where he went to the land of Israel. Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who sanctified us with his commandments, and hoped for us, and with love and intent invested us with his sacred Sabbath, as a memorial to the deed of creation. It is the first among the holy festivals, commemorating the exodus from Egypt. Here is the Kiddush sung by the late great cantor from Istanbul, Isak Macoro

Posted on 09/24/2014 9:33 AM by Geoffrey Clarfield

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Last week’s referendum on Scottish independence was an excellent illustration of the famous dictum of Frédéric Bastiat, the nineteenth-century French liberal economist, that the state is the means by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. The defeated leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, Alex Salmond, offered the Scottish people a vision of a fairer country (fairer than Scotland now, fairer than England ever), by which he meant larger subventions for more people, distributed by him and his party.

Not surprisingly, he did best in those areas where people had most to gain from the promised subventions and where they believed that they were not getting their fair share of Scotland’s heavenly manna—oil and gas from the North Sea. This is not to say that those who voted against him were all sturdy burghers, anxious to stand on their own economic feet; many may have calculated that, with the oil and gas running out, the subventions would be larger and safer in the long run if derived from England rather than from the North Sea. But certainly most of those in the population hoping for some degree of independence from the state would have voted against him.

It was widely reported in the press that fear motivated the “No” vote, as if fear in politics were always an irrational emotion. But Salmond, the Chavista of the North, said that he would repudiate Scotland’s share of the British national debt, a pronouncement more than sufficient to sound alarm bells among the better-informed. And those who rejected independence (who turned out to be the majority of voters) were probably fearful, too, of the very enthusiasm of the opposite camp, which often took a mildly intimidating turn, as enthusiasm for political causes is apt to do. There were reports of people opposed to the Nationalists being branded traitors; the majority was, if not silent, distinctly muted.

The majority was also fearful that Salmond had not been specific enough about the many problems that would arise in the breakup of a union that had lasted 307 years. For example, would an independent Scotland offer citizenship to the million Scots living in England? Since they had not been allowed to vote in the referendum (though recently arrived immigrants were), to give them citizenship would have rendered the referendum upon which independence was based invalid; but to exclude them from citizenship would have seemed illogical and vindictive.

But though the referendum was lost, in certain respects the Nationalists won. Based on a single opinion poll in favor of independence, they panicked U.K. prime minister David Cameron into promising more powers to the Scottish government. This is an excellent result for the Nationalists: Edinburgh will have the powers, London the responsibility, especially when things go wrong. Moreover, London will be the lender of last resort in the event of Scottish profligacy, so that the Nationalists will probably be able to distribute more subventions after all. And if they can make enough people dependent on them, directly or indirectly, they will have won.

Another victory for the Nationalists is the arousal of what has never previously existed during my lifetime, English nationalism. If the English are excluded from Scottish affairs, why should the Scots have a say in English affairs? After all, Labour governments have often been completely dependent on the Scottish vote, which explains why the Labour Party was so opposed to independence. But if England were to have its own government, the distinct possibility arises of near-permanent political conflict between the English, Scottish, and British governments. England might eventually want to break free from the Scottish millstone.

The Nationalists have also achieved the reversal of the generally favorable view of the Scots in England. For the first time since I can remember, a mild dislike and irritation with them has become if not widespread, at least quite common. This is excellent news for the Scottish nationalists, who speak of hope and rely on antagonism.

First published in City Journal.

Posted on 09/24/2014 7:36 AM by Theodore Dalrymple

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

It is gratifying that five Arab Middle Eastern countries have seen the enemy and acknowledge its danger. They now know what is this thing called the Islamic State (IS), formerly ISIS or ISIL, and have participated in or provided some kind of support for the U.S. launched air strikes on September 23, 2014 against the facilities of IS in Syria.

This collaboration marks widespread recognition that IS presents a serious menace to Middle East countries as well as to the homelands of the U.S. and other democratic Western countries. IS is a clear and present danger, both directly by its aggression and conquest of territory in the Middle East and indirectly from the many Americans and Europeans who have joined it.

The real nature of IS is that it is conducting a battle with those it considers its enemies, not only the West but also Muslim countries and even rival terrorist groups. IS’s cleverly produced magazine, Dabiq, has announced that the world is divided into two camps, the camp of Islam, the true faith, and the camp of the Jews, the Crusaders, and the rest of the nations led by the U.S. and Russia. IS, which has supplanted other Muslim entities as the voice of the true faith, is supposed to have come about to pave the way for the great battle, first against Saudi Arabia, then Iran, and then “Rome” (the Western world).

For the democratic West an immediate problem is who wields political power. By contrast with Western countries it is undeniably true that large majorities in Muslim countries believe that Islam does and should play a large role in the politics and life of their countries. The only Middle East country where a majority says that Islam has a small role in government is Jordan. For other Muslim countries, laws either strictly conform to the Koran, or as a minimum adhere to what are supposed to be the values and principles of Islam.

A dilemma faces Western democratic countries in the contemporary world.  How to explain what it is that makes Muslims more likely than adherents of other religions to accept and invoke their faith as the basis for political and social activity? Why is it that in some of the Muslim countries Islam is a more binding force and plays a stronger role than Western sentiments of nationalism?

The creation of the brutal Islamic State (IS) and the Caliphate in Iraq and Syria makes it imperative to understand the nature of that role. The question for the democratic West is whether the extremists of what used to be called ISIS or ISIL represent the true essence of Islam and are acting in accordance with the Islamic heritage.

A relevant immediate issue is the accuracy of the surprising statement of President Barack Obama, not known as a theological scholar, that ISIL is not “Islamic.” Yet by all indications ISIL or ISIS, now the Islamic State, illustrates a puritanical, austere, and the most violent form of Sunni Islam. That violence exceeds what has been witnessed in the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, notorious for its mass killings and violations of human rights. The even greater brutality of IS, shown in the beheading of innocent Westerners, and in committing mass murders, has horrified the world. Its imposition of Islamic austerity has included bans on public smoking, playing cards and dominoes, closing of music shops, and forcing women to wear face-covering veils.

Irrespective of the different interpretations of Islam, it is clear that most believers are deeply committed to their faith and want it to influence and perhaps control not only their personal lives and domestic issues but also their society and politics. Most hold that Islam is the one true faith, and many favor sharia, traditional Islamic law, to be made the official law of their country. A majority in most Muslim countries regards sharia law as the revealed word of God.

At the core of Islam is the concept of jihad, seen as a duty, which is interpreted differently for political reasons. On one hand, it is regarded as meaning an offensive war against unbelievers, in the name of Allah. Drawing on the heritage of the Prophet Muhammad it would entail a rejection of the modern world. Its crucial objective is the restoration of the Caliphate. On the other hand, and less explicit, is the definition of jihad as justifying defensive operations.

The current problem is the IS interpretation of jihad as an offensive tactic and its claim to be the inheritor of Islamic history. The self-proclaimed Caliph, Abu Bakr al–Baghdadi, is emulating the Prophet Muhammad, who was at once the founder of a monotheistic religion based on revelations he said he had from God for twenty years and also a skilled politician who brought warring Arab tribes together. Muhammad is regarded as the messenger of God, a God who is unlike the Christian version. Thus, for Islam, God is one…who has not begotten, thus denying the Christian divinity of Jesus.

The crucial relevant fact for our time is that Muhammad was a warrior who also built a state in Medina between 622 and 632. His followers quickly expanded their territorial conquests and their empire and the Caliphate that reached from Spain to Central Asia. The new Islamic ruler, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a ruthless killer who claims to be descended from the Prophet, and also wears $5,000 Omega or Rolex watches, is modeling himself on that old history and is similarly interested in expansion, in glory and conquest of the Sunni countries, and even in conquering the world in the future. IS emphasizes the continuity with the historical Caliphate. In its magazine Dabiq, IS also explains that “Allah has blessed it with victory, consolidation and establishing the religion.”

The Caliph’s role includes both political and religious leadership equally. IS has organized a political structure and executive functions, but it also administers sharia courts and religious schools. Unlike the gradual historic separation of church and state in the Western world, IS prescribes that true Islam must exemplify the opposite. It argues that leadership in religious affairs is accompanied by political control over land and people that has been first accomplished.

By its immediate policy of consolidating its territorial gains, the Islamic State has postponed the clash with the West. It is therefore even more imperative that it must be defeated. The West should pre-empt this ISIS strategy and react against it before it possesses an even more formidable arsenal of weapons and attracts a larger number of jihadist fighters from the West and other countries. Now that the West knows of stormy weather ahead it must not be irresponsible.

First published in the American Thinker.

Posted on 09/24/2014 7:30 AM by Michael Curtis

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

The point seems to be: you, the staff, should be so grateful for the opportunity to fulfill  the every need of the faculty:  "You have the opportunity to work with incredible people -- among them, world-renowned researchers, thought leaders, innovators, and problem"  and just to breathe the hallowed air of Harvard. W it not be fun to see what Jill LePore, who has worked at Harvard both as a secretary and, now, as a professor of history, , were to dissect, line by line, this hideous guided missive.

It's here:

Dear Colleagues,


The response to my previous email announcing the Engagement @ Harvard initiative was overwhelmingly positive.   Enthusiasm for this work is contagious and I am excited about our collective work to better understand and promote engagement at Harvard.   Many of you enrolled in the programs we are offering and as a result we have added new sessions because of the tremendous interest.


The topic for this month’s newsletter is Building Employee Engagement.  These bi-monthly newsletters are designed to provide resources and prompts to both stimulate individual reflection and spark a community dialogue.  With this newsletter, we are encouraging collective attention to questions such as: what engages us as a community and what role do we play in building an environment of engagement?


With the launch this summer of the new website, we collected stories from some incredible Harvard employees who spoke about what engages them in their work and in Harvard at large.  I encourage you to listen to or read their stories and reflect on your own answer to the question, “Why Harvard”?  Some answers to this question include:


1.       You are part of a vibrant community that advances Harvard’s world-changing mission in meaningful ways including advancing excellence in teaching and research.

2.       You join a caring and connected community.  You have the opportunity to work with incredible people -- among them, world-renowned researchers, thought leaders, innovators, and problem solvers.

3.       You become a part of educational history working at the oldest institution of higher education in the United States.  You are part of a dynamic story in which Harvard is shaping the current educational and global landscape.

4.       You are able to advance your education.  At Harvard, lifelong learning is encouraged.  Take a course through our Center for Workplace Development, attend the Harvard Extension School, or learn from Harvard online.

5.       You have access to unparalleled museums, libraries, and cultural opportunities.  Get a culture fix at Harvard’s American Repertory Theater, our newly renovated Art Museums and on-campus musical events and lectures; explore nature’s beauty at the Arnold Arboretum.


Global consulting firm, BlessingWhite, tells us that employees, managers, and organizational leaders each have a role to play in employee engagement.  Employees ask themselves, “What Drives You?” to develop action steps and engage others in conversations to foster their own engagement at work.  Managers work at building employee engagement in their departments and with their teams particularly by developing their coaching skills.  Organizational leaders build the case for engagement and create community, excitement, and significance for their employees.


We hope that the Engagement @ Harvard initiative contributes to each of these roles.  To become involved please visit our webpage and join the conversation on Twitter and LinkedIn.



Posted on 09/24/2014 7:12 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

The question is important because public health emergencies allow governments to ignore the usual restrictions or restraints upon their actions. In public health emergencies, governments can override property rights and abrogate all kinds of civil liberties such as freedom of movement. They can confiscate our goods and tells us where to go and where to stay. They do so only for our own good: health being the highest good, of course.

A recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine discusses the issue in the context of the declaration of a public health emergency in Massachusetts by the governor of that state, Deval Patrick.

In most people’s minds, no doubt, a public health emergency would be something like the Black Death, the epidemic of plague that wiped out a third of Europe’s population in the fourteenth century. A natural disaster of large proportions might also count, not only because of the death and injury caused directly by the disaster, but by the epidemics which often follow such disasters.

What, then, was the public health emergency that “obliged” Patrick to declare that it existed and that he could and should take uncontrolled administrative measures to halt it?

It was the epidemic of deaths by opioids in the state. For example, 140 people had died there of heroin overdose in the previous 4 months, which is a lot of people for such a means of death. It is between 6 and 8 times the rate of such deaths in Great Britain. But does this excess of deaths really constitute a situation so serious that normal legal procedures should be abandoned?

There are over 50,000 deaths annually in Massachusetts, and 140 is therefore a small addition to their number.  The raw number of deaths caused is not the sole determinant of whether a situation is a public health emergency or not, of course; a much smaller number of deaths in Massachusetts caused by Ebola virus would be a very serious crisis indeed (it would hardly take a governor’s decree for people to realize it). What has also to be taken into account is the capacity of the cause of death to spread uncontrollably, or uncontrollably other than by exceptional means.

In this case, limitless spread is very unlikely. The cause of the “epidemic” is not an alien force such as a virus or a volcano, but the bad practice of doctors and the behavior of patients. The authors of the article in the journal approve the measures taken by the governor under his self-declared emergency powers – the provision of an antidote, naloxone, to addicts, an increase of $20 million funding for addiction therapy, the closer monitoring of the prescriptions issued by doctors – but this is not really the point. The question is whether the situation is so serious that normal procedures have to be overridden.

Words such as “public health emergencycannot be defined so narrowly that there is a clear and unequivocal dividing line between an emergency and a non-emergency. We cannot demand of words more accuracy than they can provide, which is why human judgment will always be necessary. In my opinion, however, the governor’s judgment was wrong in this case. If this was a public health emergency, then a great deal of what goes on is a public health emergency and we are on the slippery slope to a purely administrative state.

Needless to say, the authors did not mention the possibility that there was a categorical difference between a viral epidemic and an increase of deaths caused by irresponsible human conduct, whether of doctors or of patients.

First published in PJ Media.

Posted on 09/24/2014 4:54 AM by Theodore Dalrymple

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

From ABC News Australia

Senior law enforcement officials have named the 18-year-old man who was shot dead after stabbing two officers from the Joint Counter Terrorism team outside a Melbourne police station last night. Abdul Numan Haider was the "person of interest" who was expected to attend an interview at the Endeavour Hills Police Station when the incident occurred, senior law enforcement sources confirmed.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Ken Lay said Haider, who was under investigation and had his passport cancelled, was allegedly seen last week with an Islamic State (IS) flag.

Haider, whose family are from Afghanistan, had also been associated with the radical Islamic group called Al-Furqan. It is understood he had recently moved away from the group.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Acting Commissioner Andrew Colvin said authorities had been monitoring Haider for three months. "A range of factors that gave us concern about possibly his intentions and what he may do, but again it wasn't specific," he said.

Leaders of Melbourne's Islamic community have criticised police over their investigation into the fatal shooting. 

Gaith Krayem from the Islamic Council of Victoria said police were quick to jump to conclusions. "I was disappointed with the immediate press conference police held last night. It was held three hours after the event, and they drew conclusions immediately," Mr Krayem said.

Mr Krayen said the public needed to reserve their judgement until a full and objective investigation has taken place. "Immediately, individuals such as this unfortunately are given these labels of a radical, or a terrorist, or an extremist," he said. "We don't know really what happened when this young man arrived at the police station. What we do know is that there's an 18-year-old young man who is dead this morning, there are two police officers in hospital, there is a family who is grieving."

Posted on 09/24/2014 4:39 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax


Guns, Germs and Steel in Tanzania
The Thinking Person's Safari
Led by Geoffrey Clarfield
Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30