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
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



















These are all the Blogs posted on Wednesday, 6, 2009.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
The Copts: Persecuted Christians of Egypt

This is a useful short article on the history of the Copts of Egypt and the persecution they face currently from Catholic on Line.
The word “Copt” is derived from the Greek word, “Ai-gypt-os” meaning Egypt. The middle part of the word “gypt” was later pronounced as “Copt” and used to mean Egyptian. From the time Egypt embraced Christianity in 54AD to the time Islam invaded Egypt in 642 AD, all people of Egypt were called Copts, After the Islamic invasion, some Copts embraced Islam and excluded themselves from the name. Those who remained faithful to their Christian faith clanged to their Coptic identity, and still do.
Christianity was introduced to Egypt in 54 AD by St. Mark, a North African Jew and one of the 70 apostles of the early church. St. Mark is the writer of the Gospel of Mark, one of the four gospels of the New Testament. He was the first Patriarch of an unbroken 117 patriarchy of the Coptic Orthodox church. St Mark was the first martyr of many Coptic martyrs who gave their life for the faith.
In the year 642 AD the Arabs led by Amre Ibn El As invaded Egypt under the banner of Islam thus ending the Coptic era. Islam soon spread in Egypt as a result of imposing a high tax on Copts (People of the Book) called Jizya. Those among the Copts, who were able to pay the tax, did so and remained as Christians. The poor Copts were offered two choices, either to convert to Islam or be killed. Many Copts were martyred. Those Copts who remained Christians were reduced to the Dhemmi status, a third class citizenship, after the Arab Muslims and the Egyptian Muslims. It is a class of people who are allowed just to exist with little or no rights. Soon the Arabic language was forced onto all Egyptians and the Coptic language was restricted until it completely disappeared except in church liturgy.
The Copts in modern Egypt are suffering from discrimination and persecution. They are frequently subject to terrorist attacks on their persons, homes, businesses and churches. Not a month passes by without a major assault taking place.
Hundreds of Coptic young girls, including many under aged, are being kidnapped, raped, forced to convert to Islam and marry Muslim men.
A Muslim writer predicted that Christianity will disappear from Egypt within 100 years. Humanly speaking, some may look at that with concern. However, Christianity in Egypt went through much harsher periods than that, under Islam in the last 1400 hundred years, and still stands strong as the great Pyramids.
It is the other way around, with the help of modern technology, we are seeing many Muslims inside Egypt and all over the Islamic world are hearing the message of Jesus and embracing the Christian faith. We are confident that the Lord has established His altar in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof. (Isaiah 19:19) God will continue to have His presence in Egypt. The Copts of Egypt will continue to be God’s people, and they will continue to be blessed. (Isaiah 19:25)
But they will need our support, in prayer and practical things to achieve this.

Posted on 05/06/2009 3:57 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Not so clever Trevor back on the streets of Leyton and Islamic centre in Luton gutted by fire.

From The Telegraph
Abu Izzadeen, a radical Muslim preacher who was jailed after footage was uncovered of him calling for the beheading of any Muslim in the British army, has been freed early from jail. Of all the traitorous spouters of hate out there he is the one I take the personal exception to, from the time he stood in the youth centre when I did schools PE, and declared the borough where I was brought up to be a Muslim area where John Reid the then Home Secretary was not welcome.
Izzadeen, 34, whose real name is Trevor Brooks . . . walked out of jail on Saturday because of the amount of time he has already spent in prison. He had one year cut off his sentence by the Court of Appeal, reducing it from four-and-a-half to three-and-a-half years.
A number of his fellow activists could also immediately walk free.
Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said the men were a danger to society.
"Abu Izzadeen and his organisation publicly call for attacks against those whom they see as enemies of Islam," he said. "Their ideology not only glorifies violent jihad but teaches their followers that taking part in suicide bombings is their duty as Muslims. The early release of a hate preacher like Abu Izzadeen demonstrates that the British courts are still far away from understanding the very clear and present danger that this country is facing from militant Islamists."
Supporters of Izzadeen have celebrated his release on extremist Islamic websites.
One supporter wrote: "This is absolutely wonderful news. May Allah reward you for sharing this with us. 'The man is a modern day Muslim hero! Just look at the wisdom and generosity of Allah - he really does relieve those who stand up and are firm in his cause."
Unfortunately the failure of the authorities to deal firmly with those who promote jihad, violent or otherwise, has led some to take the law into their own hands. Thankfully nobody was hurt as the attack occured at midnight when one could reasonably suppose a public building to be empty.
This is from the BBC, but the Daily Star, a less measured publication is describing the incident as a potential race war. And as the Daily Star is read abroad and their stories are sometimes used by the Indian press their coverage is significant.
An Islamic centre in Bedfordshire has been gutted by fire in what police believe was an arson attack.
No-one was injured in the blaze, which started just after midnight at the centre in Bury Park Road, Luton.
A police spokesman said there was "considerable damage" and the road was likely to remain closed while forensic teams investigated the cause.
The Daily Star has these details
The Call To Islam Education Centre was gutted in a blaze which local Muslims have called an act of terrorism. And they claim the attack in Luton, Beds, was revenge for a protest by a Muslim hate mob against returning Brit soldiers in the town in March.
Farasat Latif, the centre’s secretary, said: “We strongly condemn this violent Islamaphobic attack on our mosque. We believe that this attack was carried out by far-right extremists, an attack that could have led to many deaths. Over 90 children attend our centre daily. Had this happened at a different time, the results would have been catastrophic.”
Detectives have examined CCTV footage of two hooded men running to a car seconds after the midnight explosion.
The centre had received threats last week and a committee member said: “We pray here five times a day and often the last session goes on past midnight. Members sleep over, so people could have been in the room when the bomb was thrown through the window.” I am not sure that "bomb" is an accurate description although police do say that an accelerant was used.
The attack will inflame the town gripped by race tension since riot cops broke up a “Reclaim The Streets” rally aimed at police and council inaction over the taunting of the troops.
Controversial cleric Anjem Choudary, who lectures to Luton Muslims, said: “We don’t want to have a battle in the streets, but there’s no telling how young extremist Muslims will react.”
Facebook site member Mikey Birch, who opposes both BNP right-wingers and Muslim extremists, said: “I think this centre was firebombed because these Muslim extremists tend to hang out nearby.”  It should be pointed out that the Call to Islam centre is not the main Luton Central Mosque. 

Posted on 05/06/2009 4:23 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Are Muslims In Europe The New Jews? Part One (In Dutch)

De nieuwe Joden en hoe we hen moeten beschermen.
(deel 1: het probleem zien)

Hugh Fitzgerald (jihadwatch.org), vertaling Cornelis de Deugd.

We horen steeds vaker dat Moslims “de nieuwe Joden” zijn. Moslims zijn geen “nieuwe Joden.” Het zijn in West Europa zowel de autochtonen alsook alle niet-Islamitische immigranten die de “nieuwe Joden” vormen – met een speciale vermelding voor alle Europese Joden die bij uitstek tot “de nieuwe Joden” behoren.

Het antisemitisme in Europa is immers grotendeels een Islamitische aangelegenheid. 50% van al het antisemitische geweld in West Europa wordt toegeschreven aan Moslims, die overigens gemiddeld maar 5% van de bevolking vertegenwoordigen. Arabieren hebben dan ook vele malen blijk gegeven van Nazi sympathieën – van Rashid Ali in Irak, die een pro Nazi coup pleegde, tot Anwar Sadat die door de Britten is vastgezet voor pro Nazi activiteiten (terwijl Nasser’s zwager zichzelf na de oorlog onsterfelijk gemaakt heeft door Mein Kampf in het Arabisch uit te geven), tot de groot-mufti van Jeruzalem, Amin al-Husseini, die Hitler heeft ontmoet en bijzonder gecharmeerd was van de Endlösung en bovendien mede-oprichter was van een Islamitische, Bosnische SS divisie.

Moslims hebben alle vrijheid gekregen zich in elk West-Europees land te vestigen, dank zij de onwetendheid, de nalatigheid en het simplistische geloof van de politieke en journalistieke elite dat “iedereen in essentie hetzelfde is en ook hetzelfde wil.” Het is de gewone man die als eerste een hoge prijs betaalt voor deze gekte; de elite volgt later. Moslims wijzen de juridische en politieke instituties af van de landen waar ze terecht gekomen zijn, ondanks dat deze landen veel hoger ontwikkeld zijn en, in alle opzichten, veel beter bestuurd worden dan de Islamitische landen van herkomst – landen waarin alle mislukking een direct gevolg zijn van de Islam, mislukking in zowel politiek, economisch, sociaal, moreel en intellectueel opzicht. Eigenlijk vluchten zij van de Islamitische wanorde en wanbestuur, maar in tegenstelling tot degenen die de Nazi’s en de Communisten zijn ontvlucht, zijn zij in het geheel niet dankbaar. Meer nog, zij brengen in hun mentale bagage precies de oorzaak mee van alle mislukking in hun maatschappij van herkomst. Met name het despotisme, het (inshallah) als-God-het-wil-fatalisme, de slechte behandeling van vrouwen én alle niet-Moslims. En al dat andere dat in de praktijk zorgt dat Islam is wat het is én wat wij Ongelovigen wel degelijk herkennen als de tragische puinhoop die het in werkelijkheid is. Ook al begrijpen we de relatie niet helemaal tussen Islam en het gedrag en mentaliteit van Moslims.

Lees hier verder: De nieuwe Joden en hoe we hen moeten beschermen (deel 1).

Posted on 05/06/2009 5:13 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Prof. Hans Jansen On Stopping The Advance Of Islam

Prof. Dr. Hans Jansen is a Professor in Leiden, the Netherlands, and a specialist in political Islam. He was Houtsma professor for Contemporary Islamic Thought in the Department of Arabic, Persian and Turkish at the University of Utrecht until his retirement in 2008.

The essay “De opmars van de islam” (“The advance of Islam”), was published in: Profetisch Perspectief, Volume 14, Spring 2009, Number 62, pp. 45-50; and on the Dutch website HoeiBoei, March 20, 2009. Though highly skeptical of Islam, Dr. Jansen makes an unusual argument on tackling the advance of Islam. From the International Free Society:

In less than four centuries Christianity was able to win the Roman Empire over to itself. This happened from the bottom up, without force or violence, without government intervention or support. On the contrary, the government of the Roman Empire, by persecuting Christians from time to time, hindered Christianization with force and violence.

During the period the Roman Empire was being Christianized, the process occurred more or less in what is now known as the Middle East, plus in Europe up to the Danube and the Rhine. That doesn’t mean to say that there were no Christians outside that area. By about 300-350, to the east of the Roman Empire in Persia, a fair number of Christians could be found (later known as the Nestorians). Also just outside the borders of the Roman Empire there lived the Armenians and Georgians, who by about 300 were not only majority Christian, but had adopted Christianity as a state religion. In the Roman Empire that happened shortly thereafter.

The Muslims managed to conquer roughly the same area as that of the ancient Roman Empire in about a century, with the exception of Western Europe, where they were stopped in France by Charles Martel (732), and with the exception of Turkey and the current Balkans, where the Muslims were stopped by the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantines, until the middle of the fifteenth century.

 

Nevertheless it was a tremendous military achievement for the Muslims to conquer in such a short time a territory that stretched from Toledo to Gibraltar, Tunis, Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Mecca, and beyond. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad, who was the beginning of this wave of violence, died in 632. Exactly a century later, a temporary end came to the military expansion of Islam because of the defeat of the Muslims at Poitiers in central France.

There is not a single Muslim who is unaware of this century of conquests. The military successes of that time are generally perceived by Islamic theologians as proof of the truth of Islam and the correctness of the statements made by Muhammad about himself and his mission. This century of conquest plays a major role in Islamic apologetics. If Islam were not God’s own religion, Muslims reason, and if Muhammad were not the messenger of God, they think, then these conquests would not have taken place and would not have been so successful. These conquests can be considered as akbar dalaala alla Sidq muHammad, “the best proof of the sincerity of Muhammad,” as a comment in the Qur’an at one point expresses it.

Europeans who are not used to employing this kind of reasoning in a debate are sometimes left mute when they are for the first time confronted with this assertion. At some of the meetings that purportedly contributed to the dialogue between Christianity and Islam, this argument was used. Perhaps that is, after all, a good thing, because what is the use of having a quarrel?

But it is a ridiculous Islamic fallacy. When Christianity was able to win the Middle East and Europe over, it was without using violence. Should the Christians then be impressed that others, namely the Muslims, have managed to conquer such an area using brute military violence? No, of course not. On the contrary.

We should not enter into silly contests of miracles, but may establish that a religion like this needed to make use of the force of arms to achieve approximately the same thing that Christianity managed to achieve without violence. This of course proves nothing, but does make one think, and takes away from their hands one of their main “pieces of evidence” for Islam. In their propaganda, therefore, Muslims are eager to point to the later violent nature of churches and Christianity, in the centuries after Emperor Constantine, the emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. That of course is true. Man is inclined towards all kinds of evil. Once the power of the state during the fourth century AD came into Christian hands, it was obviously made use of in a way that was considered normal in those days. But that was only after the triumph of Christianity.

Those who wish to may apologize for the later Christian violence, even though their personal share in the mistakes that were committed during those centuries is small. Because of the “confession” that is part of the Christian liturgy, Christians are perhaps trained too well in the confession of guilt, and that contrasts with the views of most Muslims, who are in fact proud of the warfare of Islam against the Christians, and of the military triumphs that were achieved, at least in the early days. Later the balance of power changed in favor of Christianity. But we need to understand fully that the Muslims could have stayed at home in Medina. They did not do so; they marched out to battle. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad settled in Medina in 622, and since then the Muslims have increasingly engaged their neighbors with the use of arms. Time and again, the Muslims declared war on their neighbors at the borders of their ever growing empire.

That is their choice. It might also have turned out differently. They could have tried the same way which allowed Christianity to flourish in its first three centuries. That is what the Muslims did not do, instead following Muhammad as example as they went into one after another armed conflict with their neighbors, to increase the area where Islam rules. The imperialist wars of conquest these fights and battles have been part of are not something for which Muslims will ever pardoned for. To this day they consider — and this is what modern people find the strangest — that the success that the early Muslims were able to obtain on the battlefield is a proof of God’s favor. Oddly enough, the defeats suffered by the Muslims are not seen by them as a proof to the contrary. For if God is interfering with their wars, then, for example, in the conflict between Israel and the Arabs he is on the side of Israel.

Once the Muslims were the masters of the Middle East, they started — and it can not be said otherwise — to the harass and bully powerless Christians who were in the majority in their captive nations. For the Christians of Egypt, for example, this has been defined in the History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church, a book in many parts, attributed to Bishop Severus ibn al-Mukaffa. How unfortunate, sad, and incomprehensible that no one at the top of the Christian Democratic parties is prepared to read this book (which is translated into English). Did not the Romans state that the gods first blind those they want to pervert?

For the Jews in Egypt this bullying is demonstrated beyond any doubt by the so-called Genizah documents, a vast collection of correspondence, fragments of accounts, receipts, etc., from the medieval Jewish community in Cairo. Israeli intellectuals and politicians are to some extent familiar with this so-called Cairo Genizah; they at least consider it a part of the history of Judaism, unlike Christian intellectuals, theologians, priests, bishops and politicians who have never even heard of Severus ibn al-Mukaffa.

The Muslims themselves write very openly about this harassment in the manuals of the sharia and in fatwas. Historically therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever. The literary tradition in chronicles of the victims (Severus), archeology (Genizah), and the administration and reporting (Sharia) of the perpetrators totally agree. That is not often so, and therefore you might think that a crowd of scientists would have focused on this episode in history.

But that seems not to be the case. Research with a scientific approach that might anger the Muslim elite is usually ignored by Western scholars. Not because the members of that elite might raise arms themselves, for they are all nice civilized people without blood on their hands. For the bloodshed they have radicals like Mohammed B. at their disposal. They do not need to do that themselves. Light and in all ways civilized pressure on Western researchers and colleagues (to whom half a word will do) is enough to create a wall of silence.

What does the harassment consist of according to the Muslims themselves? The core of it is summed up on a list that is known as “the Pact of Omar”. There were two Caliph Omars; the first from 634 to 644, the second from 717 to 720. Both are mentioned as the monarch under whom these rules were issued. In Arabic, this list has a bit clearer name: the “conditions”, shuruuT of Omar. These are on the conditions under which the Christians, the Samaritans, and the Jews within the areas that are conquered by Islam may hold on to their religion. They must distinguish themselves by the color of their clothing or headgear as non-Muslim. This is where the yellow star for the Jews derives from. They are not allowed to carry arms or own them (and are therefore completely helpless). Riding horses is prohibited. In combination with the prohibition on possession of weapons this obviously made a trip of any magnitude impossible in the early days.

Annually every non-Muslim person had to pay a personal tax. When it was handed over, the tax collector had to strike a blow on the neck of the non-Muslim, which was meant as a symbolic beheading. The purpose of this was to remind the non-Muslim that he had been overcome by the superior Muslim armies, and even though he was spared from being a prisoner of war, enslaved or decapitated, this would only be as long as the Muslim rulers were pleased to do so. Whoever thinks that this is all a theory should read the books of Bat Ye’or, or the forthcoming book by the Australian theologian Marc Durie*. Whoever could not pay the tax had the choice between becoming Muslim or death. Even under all these humiliations the oriental Christians prefer to remain silent, and we in the West owe the greatest respect to all those who have managed to endure this century after century without becoming disloyal to their church.

The Sharia, the Islamic law, as revealed in the manuals written by Muslims for Muslims, adds a few nice things to this. Major maintenance to church buildings is no longer needed and therefore forbidden, because Islam is coming to replace Christianity. It is not permitted to build new churches and synagogues. When a Muslim accuses a Christian or Jew of “insulting the prophet”, the Christian or Jew in question usually can only be saved by becoming a Muslim. Children whose father is unknown are considered Muslim. Muslim children must be raised by Muslims, so the churches never had the opportunity to care for the children of unmarried mothers, for example, by hiding them in a monastery. The list is long, and nowadays can be found in many reference books, and it gives a pretty good idea of how false and mean people can be to one another, while always looking up piously and muttering that it is only about the implementation of the laws of God.

Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women, although Muslims are allowed to marry Christian women. This has led to many hormone-driven conversions of young Christian men. For Christian and Jewish girls who were married off to their Muslim lord and master, this brought a lot of humiliation with it. Christians cannot be a witness for the prosecution in court cases against Muslims. This has and had enormous consequences for criminal law in Sharia. The Muslim prohibition of music and wine also affects church music and the Eucharistic wine. It is almost unbelievable, but Christians and Jews who grew up under Islamic supremacy have usually fully internalized these rules. The Dutch also internalize these rules more and more and find it self-evident that the Muslim demands in this area must be met, and according to good Dutch custom, they sometimes are even ahead of the requirements that Islam demands.

What is nice about the game is that Islam does not even explicitly make such demands. That forces Christians who live under the authority of Islam to constantly ask themselves what is allowed and what is not allowed. The inhabitants of the Middle East have developed a good feel for that, but nevertheless sometimes get it wrong. Someone who has been raised in a free country may possibly never learn this; think of the British teacher in Sudan who gave a teddy bear the name Muhammad, and then only with the greatest difficulty managed to save her life. The wonderful Roman rule nulla poena sine lege, “no punishment without [clear] law” is obviously not the case under Islamic law.

This vagueness of the rules of Sharia is highly praised by the friends of Islam as the “flexibility” of the Sharia. From the Islamic perspective this flexibility is very effective, because it forces Christians to constantly ask themselves what their Muslim masters desire of them. And it’s bizarre to see how much trouble the Dutch also go to prevent their Muslim neighbors from feeling displeased. Islam, unlike most other religions, is capable of having a decisive influence on the lives of those who do not adhere to that religion. Just grab a newspaper and see the examples.

With so many juridical rules that favor the Muslims and Islam, it is a miracle that about the year 1000 AD Muslims and Christians were still equal in number in the Middle East. Only in remote areas has Christianity managed to survive, as with the Maronites in the mountains of Lebanon. After the Crusades the percentage of Christians in the Muslim world dropped further, to about ten to fifteen percent; it remained roughly the same until the eighties of the last century. Only in exile, in the United States of America and Australia, have the Christian traditions that formed under Islamic supervision managed to maintain themselves.

After 9-11 and the millennium a lot quickly changed in this respect. In Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Turkey, the last of the remaining native Christians are trying ho get out. The hurricane of Sharia fanaticism — mostly called Islamic fundamentalism or radicalism by us — was noted by many of them much earlier than by us in the West. It will not take more than a few years before the last Arabic, Turkish or Syrian Christians will have left Nazareth, Bethlehem, Greater Syria, Turkey and Iraq. In Muslim eyes this is a historically important development, which coincides with the peaceful conquest of Europe by Islam. To us here in Europe this doesn’t matter at all; on the contrary, with boundless naïveté we are building mosques for our immigrants from the Islamic world. While the elite plays the fiddle of multiculturalism, the suburbs are already burning.

Mosques play a central role in the rise of the Islam. The mosque is not only the prayer house, it is also the command center of jihad. The daily commands to order must be issued from the pulpit in the mosque. The stoning for adultery and beheading of apostates takes place in front of the mosque. The army that marches out on jihad departs from the mosque. Since the relief of Vienna in 1683, jihad against unbelief and unbelievers is no longer practiced by states, but by private organizations like the elusive Al-Qaeda, because a state that wages jihad would be destroyed by the Western military. In contrast, masked individuals who shoot from an ambush are harder to combat.

The shame about their own cowardice has disappeared; to come out in the open to fight is characterized as simply stupid. The hiding of the heroes of the jihad between defenseless citizens is a routine maneuver. Intense complaints if the enemy also happens to hurt those citizens belong to the daily game with the ignorantly stupid Western news agencies. Kamikaze-artists who in addition to themselves bring death to dozens of others receive from the hands of Islamic clergymen like Al-Qaradawi the crown of martyrdom. This Al-Qaradawi also preaches that God’s last punishment of the Jews was carried out “by Hitler against the Jews, but the next punishment must be at the hands of the Muslims” (January 30, 2009). This Al-Qaradawi is brought to Amsterdam by influential PvdA politicians [Socialists, Labour] and seen as their mentor. Deeper than this the Netherlands cannot fall, you maybe think. But then you are mistaken.

The advance of Islam can still go much further than is the case in Western Europe at the moment, and can only be stopped when we ensure that future victims of the jihad (i.e., the population of the Netherlands and the rest of Europe) retain their freedom of expression. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, always took special care to silence his possible critics first, usually by assassination, just like his namesake Mohammed Bouyeri who carried out the assassination of Theo van Gogh. The Islamic tradition itself teaches that only after Muhammad had silenced his opponents with violence could the process of Islamization begin. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we in the Netherlands (and anywhere else in the Free World) do not go any further towards the prohibition of criticism of Islam, because Islamic ideology is not resistant to the free word.

Christianity on the contrary, is. Christianity is the religion of the word, reason, love, and freedom. Islam on the contrary is the religion of violence, coercion, fear, and obedience. The nature of man is such that it will be a close contest as to which the two religions will win.

Posted on 05/06/2009 6:00 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Only 19 Days Left

To register for the New English Review Symposium in Nashville, Tennessee, May 29th & 30th.

Sorry, no walk=ins.

Posted on 05/06/2009 11:28 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Savage vs. Smith

Radio Talkshow host Michael Savage is making hay with the news that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has banned him from Britain.

Savage said he wants top First Amendment attorneys to represent him "in a major international case."

"I want to sue the British home secretary for defamation," he said, "for linking me up with murderers because of my opinions, my writings, my speaking – none of which have advocated any violence, ever."

This will be interesting.

Posted on 05/06/2009 12:14 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Could be worse?

From Samizdata:

Mary Riddell, who seems, as it was once said of Oxford University in the 19th Century, to be the home of lost causes, has a column with this glorious headline in the Daily Telegraph (WTF?) today:

"Brown is a better hope for Labour than his rivals".

In other words, all the other remaining senior figures in the party are even worse, even madder, more delusional, more statist, tax-grabbing, unpleasant, devious and venal than this guy.

That's the end of that lot, then.

Let's hope so. And the end of Socialism. Gordon, do your worst.

Posted on 05/06/2009 12:27 PM by Mary Jackson
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Don't Tell Us There Is Only One Islam, We Know There Are Two

Press Release:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) strongly condemns remarks made over the last few days at various appearances throughout South Florida by Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders.  In his speeches, he claimed that "Islam is not a religion" and "the right to religious freedom should not apply to this totalitarian ideology called Islam."  Mr. Wilders also stated that the Koran is a book of hatred, and that Mohammed was both "a pedophile and a warlord."

Andrew Rosenkranz, ADL Florida Regional Director, issued the following statement:

The ADL strongly condemns Geert Wilders' message of hate against Islam as inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals. 

This rhetoric is dangerous and incendiary, and wrongly focuses on Islam as a religion, as opposed to the very real threat of extremist, radical Islamists.

 

The battle against radical, political, militant (insert your adjective here) Islam is over, the real battle against Islam has begun.

Posted on 05/06/2009 3:27 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Noscitur a sociis

Noscitur a sociis is a legal term, meaning, approximately, that a word is known by the company it keeps. I have used it once before, in my piece on euphemisms for Muslims:

 

[Last] year, a student at Clare College, Cambridge produced an edition of a college magazine satirising religion, with some particularly irreverent comments about Islam and Muslims, including one of the “offending” Danish cartoons. The student, who cannot be named “for his own safety”, was forced into hiding and was compelled by the college authorities to issue a grovelling apology. The apology acknowledged the offence caused to  "various groups, including women, gays, Jews, Christians and Muslims.”

 

Does anybody seriously believe that the student or the college had anything to fear from combustible gays or exploding Jews? No. We all know what these words mean, and placing Muslims fifth in a list of victim groups, so that, by a perverted application of noscitur a sociis, they are rendered equally harmless, changes nothing. The reality is that the five groups whose offence concerned the college authorities, and whose reaction we all fear are: Muslims, Muslims, Muslims, Muslims and Muslims.

 

If you can’t mention Muslims, you certainly can’t ban them – unless you slip them in among a number of other “hate” figures to make it less obvious. And if you can find a “Jewish extremist” – tricky, I know, but where there’s a will there’s a way – so much the better.

 

This is what our execrable “Home Secretary”, whose mind is as tacqui as her name, has done. From The Guardian:

Michael Savage, who hosts far-right talk show The Savage Nation, called Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, a "lunatic" and said he was outraged that he had been named alongside hate preachers and a member of Hamas.

Smith said yesterday she had decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

[…]

Also "named and shamed" are American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Sr and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, who have picketed the funerals of Aids victims and claimed the deaths of US soldiers are a punishment for US tolerance of homosexuality.

Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe are also on the list released yesterday.

Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, the former leaders of a violent Russian skinhead gang that committed 20 racially motivated murders, are also banned from coming to Britain. Both are currently in prison.

Making up the rest of the 16 named by the Home Office are preachers Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi and Amir Siddique, Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), murderer and Hezbollah terrorist Samir Al Quntar and Kashmiri terrorist group leader Nasr Javed.

A further six who have been excluded in the five months to March have not been named because the Home Office said it was "not considered to be in the public interest" to reveal their names.

Half of those named “just happen to be” Muslims, but that’s pure coincidence. And if nobody finds out about the other six, Jacqui will have got away with it, and Muslim extremism will not be fuelled. Call me a cynic, but I somehow doubt that the six nameless ones are “Jewish extremists”. Still, community cohesion and all that….

Posted on 05/06/2009 6:00 PM by Mary Jackson
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Meets With U.S. National Security Officials At Delaware Conference; U.S. Brotherhood Shifting To Coalitions

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report:

The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) has reported on a recent conference that brought together leaders of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with representatives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). According to the announcement :

The University of Delaware Center for Islamic Studies organized a conference on “The American Muslim Community and the US Government: the Need for Constructive Engagement”, on Tuesday, April 28th at the main campus of the University of Delaware.The conference – which was moderated by Professor Muqtedar Khan, Director of the Islamic Studies Program – brought together several Muslim community leaders from organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS Freedom ), and the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement (AMCE); beside representatives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The presentations by US government representatives focused on the law enforcement function on one hand, and the effort to reach out to the Muslim community on the other. Muslim community leaders pointed out to violations of civil rights, mistreatment of Muslims, Islamophobia, and prejudice in the media. Many expressed optimism regarding some of the steps that the Obama administration has taken, but demanded more focused attention and concrete and swift actions by the US government, both at the State and federal levels.

Both CAIR and the MAS have been identified as components of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood in a recent report published by the Hudson Institute. As previous posts have noted, the AMCE leadership is a Who’s Who of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood representing almost the entire U.S Brotherhood network including IIIT, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council for Islamic American Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a former executive of the SAAR Foundation and others. The AMCE appears to have grown out of an earlier relationship between IIIT, the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD), and the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), also discussed in earlier posts.

The IIIT announcement contains information about the proposed role of the AMCE in any future relationship between the U.S. Brotherhood and the U.S. government:

Dr. Abubaker al Shingieti, President of the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement (AMCE) shared with the group the pioneering work of AMCE which was established specifically to address the need for constructive engagement between the American Muslim community and the US government. He cited some of the recommendations of the conferences and meetings organized by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) during the past three years. Some of the examples presented include, the establishment of a USG Inter Agency Task Force which will meet regularly with Muslim community leaders and experts to discuss issues of common concern and how to work together to address them. Another recommendation presented is a deliberate policy of recruiting qualified Muslims to senior positions at the federal and state levels. A third is the enhancement of the bridge building function through the establishment of expert groups of Muslim professionals who would provide advice and direct assistance in USG efforts to support Muslim countries. Dr. Shingieti noted that some of the recommendations, such as the Directory of Muslim Experts, have already been implemented by AMCE and its partners.

The suggested enhancement of the role played by the AMCE is in line with the increasing visibility of another coalition of U.S. known as the American Muslim Taskforce (AMT) which recently issued a threat to suspend outreach efforts with the FBI over alleged agency “abuses.” The AMT statement also mentioned the recent FBI decision to disengage with CAIR on the basis of CAIR’s origins in the Hamas infrastructure in the U.S. It would appear that the shift by the U.S. Brotherhood to acting in coalitions would dilute the negative publicity attached at any point in time to any of it constituent groups such as CAIR.

Aside from his position at the University of Delaware, conference moderator Muqtedar Khan is also tied to the U.lS. Muslim Brotherhood as one of the founders of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID), an organization initiated by leaders of the IIIT together with Georgetown University academic John Esposito, and his service as an important leader in Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS) which,is also affiliated with IIIT. IIIT, in turn, was founded in the U.S. in 1980 by important members of the Global Muslim Brotherhood who wished to promote the “Islamization of Knowledge.” IIIT was associated with the now defunct SAAR Foundation, a network of Islamic organizations located in Northern Virginia that was raided by the Federal government in 2003 in connection with the financing of terrorism. The organization appeared to have withdrawn from public view following the 2003 raids and although a report in the Washington Post from June 2007 indicated that IIIT and the SAAR Foundation were still under investigation by the Justice Department, IIIT seems to be enjoying a renaissance of late. Previous posts have discussed visits by foreign Muslims to IIIT sponsored by the U.S. State Department, a relationship between IIIT and George Mason University, and the role of IIIT in working with a probably Pentagon subcontractor in Iraq. Another post discussed plans by IIIT to construct colleges in Bosnia and Lebanon.

Posted on 05/06/2009 6:09 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Reasons to convert to Islam

People convert to Islam for all kinds of reasons. Hugh has written scathingly of "spiritual searches" and "mental desarroi". Western men of a more primitive kind convert because it gives them power over women. Western women convert because it makes them seem interesting. And all Westerners convert because they can - easily.

Today I found a new reason. From Jacqui Smith's list of banned hate-figures:

Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams)....

Fair enough - if your name's Clarence, what can you do? This reminded me - what doesn't? - of Sellar and Yeatman's 1066 And All That:

DURING the Wars of the Roses the Kings became less and less memorable (sometimes even getting in the wrong order) until at last one of them was nothing but some little princes smothered in the Tower, and another, finding that his name was Clarence, had himself drowned in a spot of Malmsey wine; while the last of all even attempted to give his Kingdom to a horse.

Posted on 05/06/2009 6:12 PM by Mary Jackson
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Are Muslims The New Jews? Part Two ( In Dutch)

De nieuwe Joden en hoe we hen moeten beschermen.

(deel 1: het probleem zien)

Hugh Fitzgerald (jihadwatch.org), vertaling Cornelis de Deugd.

We horen steeds vaker dat Moslims “de nieuwe Joden” zijn. Moslims zijn geen “nieuwe Joden.” Het zijn in West Europa zowel de autochtonen alsook alle niet-Islamitische immigranten die de “nieuwe Joden” vormen – met een speciale vermelding voor alle Europese Joden die bij uitstek tot “de nieuwe Joden” behoren.

Het antisemitisme in Europa is immers grotendeels een Islamitische aangelegenheid. 50% van al het antisemitische geweld in West Europa wordt toegeschreven aan Moslims, die overigens gemiddeld maar 5% van de bevolking vertegenwoordigen. Arabieren hebben dan ook vele malen blijk gegeven van Nazi sympathieën – van Rashid Ali in Irak, die een pro Nazi coup pleegde, tot Anwar Sadat die door de Britten is vastgezet voor pro Nazi activiteiten (terwijl Nasser’s zwager zichzelf na de oorlog onsterfelijk gemaakt heeft door Mein Kampf in het Arabisch uit te geven), tot de groot-mufti van Jeruzalem, Amin al-Husseini, die Hitler heeft ontmoet en bijzonder gecharmeerd was van de Endlösung en bovendien mede-oprichter was van een Islamitische, Bosnische SS divisie.

Moslims hebben alle vrijheid gekregen zich in elk West-Europees land te vestigen, dankzij de onwetendheid, de nalatigheid en het simplistische geloof van de politieke en journalistieke elite dat “iedereen in essentie hetzelfde is en ook hetzelfde wil.” Het is de gewone man die als eerste een hoge prijs betaalt voor deze gekte; de elite volgt later. Moslims wijzen de juridische en politieke instituties af van de landen waar ze terecht gekomen zijn, ondanks dat deze landen veel hoger ontwikkeld zijn en, in alle opzichten, veel beter bestuurd worden dan de Islamitische landen van herkomst – landen waarin alle mislukking een direct gevolg zijn van de Islam, mislukking in zowel politiek, economisch, sociaal, moreel en intellectueel opzicht. Eigenlijk vluchten zij van de Islamitische wanorde en wanbestuur, maar in tegenstelling tot degenen die de Nazi’s en de Communisten zijn ontvlucht, zijn zij in het geheel niet dankbaar. Meer nog, zij brengen in hun mentale bagage precies de oorzaak mee van alle mislukking in hun maatschappij van herkomst. Met name het despotisme, het (inshallah) als-God-het-wil-fatalisme, de slechte behandeling van vrouwen én alle niet-Moslims. En al dat andere dat in de praktijk zorgt dat Islam is wat het is én wat wij Ongelovigen wel degelijk herkennen als de tragische puinhoop die het in werkelijkheid is. Ook al begrijpen we de relatie niet helemaal tussen Islam en het gedrag en mentaliteit van Moslims.

In Engeland, net zoals in elk ander West Europees land, vormen alleen de Islamitische immigranten – en geen andere – een permanente bron van problemen. Problemen die ook niet verdwijnen ongeacht hoeveel tedere bezorgdheid men biedt, ook ongeacht met hoeveel geld men hen subsidieert, en ongeacht hoe zeer men door het stof gaat om zelfs aan de meest buitensporige eisen tegemoet te komen of anders deze eisen in elk geval niet openlijk als buitensporig te bestempelen waar deze eisen voortdurend en steeds weer gesteld worden. Bijvoorbeeld aparte tijden in openbare zwembaden zodat mannen en vrouwen apart kunnen zwemmen, of om zelfs maar te voorkomen dat tijdens het mannenuurtje het zwembad niet verontreinigd wordt door niet-Moslims. Of bijvoorbeeld eigen gebedsruimten op vliegvelden, bij taxistandplaatsen, op scholen, op de werkvloer enz. De eisen omvatten veelal een speciale behandeling voor Islamitische werknemers, studenten en zo meer zodat zij steevast iets niet meer hoeven (tijd vrij om te bidden, iets niet aan hoeven te raken, dit niet hoeven te doen, dat niet hoeven te doen).

Deze eisen omvatten pogingen, soms met succes, om studieboeken te herschrijven zodat de geschiedenis van de Islam niet alleen opgeschoond wordt, maar zelfs omgevormd wordt tot een aantrekkelijk en glorieus verhaal terwijl de geschiedenis van het Christendom degradeert tot een monstrueus overdreven en verkeerd voorgestelde weergave van de kruistochten alsof dat het wezenskenmerk is van het Christendom. Zodra het om Joden gaat, omvatten de eisen het negeren of beperken van enige studie van de Holocaust, zoals dat met deze aan inflatie onderhevige term wordt aangeduid. Islamitische studenten hebben geweigerd dit onderwerp te bestuderen, overigens net zoals zij weigeren de geschiedenis van Frankrijk te bestuderen onder het mom dat het voor hen niet relevant is – alleen Jahiliyya (onwetendheid) telt.

De essentie van al deze Islamitische eisen – je kunt zo je eigen, altijd groeiende lijst maken – is dat deze eisen nooit ophouden, zelfs niet als de autoriteiten in een verstandige bui deze eisen afwijzen. De reden is dat, in Islamitische ogen, Islam en niet-Islam volledig onverenigbaar zijn. Het wezen van de Sharia is simpelweg en fundamenteel strijdig met niet alleen de Amerikaanse constitutie, maar ook met alle belangrijke principes en verworvenheden van ontwikkelde westerse democratieën, zoals daar zijn, met name, individuele uitingsvrijheid en gewetensvrijheid.

Kijk naar Islamitische pogingen om willekeurige discussies of kritiek in te perken. Verschillende vertalers van Salman Rushdie zijn fysiek aangevallen, tenminste een is er vermoord. Theo van Gogh is vermoord. Een Nederlands parlementslid, Geert Wilders, en een Italiaanse journalist, Magdi Allam, en de gevierde Islam-verlaters Ayaan Hirsi Ali en Wafa Sultan, leven allen onder serieuze Islamitische dreiging. Een dreiging die hen dwingt hun dagelijks leven aan te passen, of zelfs helemaal onder bewaking permanent onder te duiken. De hele Deense bevolking werd met de dood bedreigd als de regering niet het meest heilige recht, uitingsvrijheid, op zou geven ten koste van de Mohammed cartoonisten. De gehele Islamitische wereld dreigde Deense producten te boycotten, zoals ook met Nederlandse producten vanwege Fitna. Een film die overigens op één vraag na uitsluitend bestaat uit citaten uit de Koran en de Hadith, met daarin geen enkel woord aangepast voor effectbejag. Deze citaten worden begeleid met videobeelden van nieuwsitems met Islamitisch “activisme” dat correspondeert met, en ongetwijfeld gebaseerd is, op juist die teksten – en honderden andere gelijkaardige teksten.

Het is ronduit walgelijk dat Moslims slachtoffer claimen te zijn van deze film en de cartoons, terwijl juist zij in het Midden Oosten zich de heilige missie toegeëigend hebben om Israël te vernietigen en alle Joden hetzij te vermoorden, hetzij te verdrijven, of anders te vernederen tot de status van permanente dhimmi. Het zijn in West Europa precies deze Moslims die de grootste bron zijn van passief, actief en gewelddadig antisemitisme. Zij zijn het ook die graag misbruik maken van het al aanwezige antisemitisme om legitimatie te vestigen voor de Jihad tegen Israël en tegen Israëls pogingen zichzelf te verdedigen tegen een kwaadaardige, onuitputtelijk kwaadwillende en wrede vijand.

Er zijn geen andere immigranten – geen Hindoes, geen Chinezen (Christen of Confuciaans), geen Vietnamese Boeddhisten, geen niet-Islamitische zwarte afrikanen, geen indianen uit de Andes, geen Siberische Tunguz uit het hoge noorden en ook geen Aboriginals van Down Under – die in dezelfde dimensies een probleem vormen. Het is een probleem dat niet verholpen of verkleind kan worden. Immigranten die tevens Islamitische gelovigen zijn, zijn tevens lid van de Umma, waaraan zij als enige loyaal zijn, precies zoals hun geleerd is.

Er zijn er die zichzelf “Moslim” noemen maar daar alleen maar mee bedoelen dat zij zich niet openlijk zullen afzetten tegen de Islam. Terwijl zij de Islamitische ideologie wel afwijzen en ook niet de intentie hebben ook maar iets te willen veranderen aan hun Ongelovige Omgeving. Deze Moslims vormen mogelijk zelf geen bedreiging – mogelijk omdat je niet weet wanneer enig bewustzijn van deze “identiteit” leidt tot een terugkeer tot wat de Islam hun leert. Er kunnen zelfs “gematigde” Moslims zijn met een oprechte en diepe afwijzing van de Islamitische dogma’s die Islamitische suprematie verkondigen en daarmee de behandeling van Ongelovigen als Minderwaardigen steunt. Niettemin kunnen, het is onaangenaam maar waar, zelfs deze mogelijk “gematigde” Moslims (waarbij “gematigdheid” van waarde kan zijn voor Ongelovigen) alleen al door hun aanwezigheid in steeds grotere aantallen de macht van de “echte” Moslims verder vergroten. Deze “echte” Moslims kunnen aldus hun aantallen overdrijven en hun vermogen vergroten om laffe politici te laten buigen voor de Islam. Politieke weekdieren die weigeren de Islam te zien als de permanente dreiging die het is voor de wetten en gebruiken van een ontwikkeld land, voor de kunsten, voor de wetenschap en voor de individuele vrijheid en autonomie. Gevaarlijk politiek opportunisme gebaseerd op de verwachting dat de Islam en bloc stemt.

Moslims hebben zich gevestigd in West Europa op een manier zoals geen enkele andere groep van migranten dat heeft gedaan. Als deze Moslims een probleem zijn voor de Westerse Ongelovigen en nog steeds een probleem zijn in de tweede en derde generatie, of zelfs steeds militanter worden (zoals zichtbaar in Duitsland, Frankrijk en Groot Brittannië) dan is het ook waar dat zij al tientallen jaren enorm veel krediet hebben in officiële kringen. De BBC, en speciaal de BBC World Service, heeft bijvoorbeeld een grote groep Arabische en Islamitische medewerkers en, uiteraard, niet-Moslims die om ideologische redenen – linkse opvattingen, antisemitisme of beide – graag meewerken aan het streven de Islamitische visie te verspreiden, in het bijzonder de apert onjuiste voorstelling van de Jihad tegen Israël. Deze kleuring heeft zijn effect gehad. Elders in de Britse pers, en radio en televisie, zijn de Islam apologeten (die doorgaans overlappen met de anti-Israël brigade) sterk in getal en invloed, zoals in alle West Europese landen.

Het is Israël en zij die Israël steunen niet gelukt het bovenstaande te herkennen als wezenlijke oorzaak van het, in de laatste tientallen jaren, steeds donkerder worden van het West Europese beeld van Israël. Dit heeft vanzelf consequenties, niet alleen voor Israël. Het heeft ook geleid tot veel verwarring bij Ongelovigen die continu heel verkeerd geïnformeerd zijn over de Arabische en Islamitische Jihad tegen Israël. Deze Jihad is mede hierdoor geaccepteerd geraakt als een legitieme “nationalistische strijd” van zogenaamde “Palestijnen”, dit in plaats van wat het is, is geweest en ook altijd zal zijn: een niet mis te verstane poging om een niet Islamitisch volk het recht op een eigen staat te ontnemen. Zulks ondanks de beperkte afmeting van deze staat, ondanks het totale gebrek aan provocatie aan het adres van hun buren en zelfs ondanks hun herhaalde bereidheid hun buren economisch te steunen. Zelfs opvolgende Israëlische regeringen hebben zich niet gerealiseerd dat het niet mogelijk is aldus een vergelijk te bereiken, nu niet en nooit niet.

Wordt vervolgd.

23.7.2008

Posted on 05/06/2009 7:18 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
The College-Application Advisor's Final Advice To His Clients

In your essays, have fun. Remember to follow your bliss. And for god's sake, whatever else you do, don't make fun of Nelson Mandela.

Posted on 05/06/2009 8:11 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald

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
31       

Subscribe
Via: email  RSS