These are all the Blogs posted on Thursday, 8, 2007.
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Islamophobia: the height of common sense...
...and not in any sense the equivalent of racism, which is plain stupidity.
Stop the Islamification of Denmark (SIOD), which knows well the distinction, is branching out:
Stop the Islamification of Europe (SIOE): "SIOE exists to combat legally the overt and covert expansion of Islam in Europe."
Demonstrations are planned to take place outside the European Parliament on September 11th 2007. Read all about it at GoV.
Posted on 03/08/2007 5:41 AM by Robert Bove
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Hassan Abujihaad, 31, was arrested today in Phoenix on federal charges of terrorism and espionage. The former U.S. Navy sailor went by the name Paul Hall. The federal complaint alleges that he gave classified information about Navy battle group movements to a London-based group that supported Islamic terrorists including Al-Qaeda. The Navy battle group was engaged in anti-terror operations.
Federal prosecutors say Abujihaad was stationed on the U.S.S. Benfold in the Middle East which was one of the ships that’s movement was revealed. --from this news item
From a posting five weeks ago, one will see in the last sentence of the second paragraph mention of "other stories, less-publicized, of a Muslim sailor, on a ship in the Persian Gulf, through an intercepted communication offering to reveal secrets about the ship to make it more vulnerable."
Quaere: is this Abujihaad ("Father of Jihad") that sailor, or is there yet another Muslim sailor out there?
Here is that post:
1. The fact that some Muslims say it is alright to "join the army" should not be a source of Infidel satisfaction, but worry. "Joining the army" in order to find out about how the enemy (that is, the Infidels whose Infidel army it is) operates, or to learn certain skills that be applied against Infidels, or even to commit acts of sabotage and betrayal while in the army, might be the motivation.
We have every evidence of this, from the American Muslim soldier who threw a grenade into a tent of sleeping American soldiers, killing two; the Marine who slipped away, apparently to Lebanon (but who knows exactly what he was doing, or what information he gave out, or secrets he betrayed?), was caught, in America gave a press conference in which he declared his complete innocence, ending "Semper Fi" (quite a performance it was, like so many Muslim performances), just before somehow eluding capture and making it out of the country, presumably back to Dar al-Islam, and still the American government has been unable to locate him or bring him back, or perhaps isn't really trying. There are other stories, less-publicized, of a Muslim sailor, on a ship in the Persian Gulf, through an intercepted communication offering to reveal secrets about the ship to make it more vulnerable.
Then there is the evidence of a lack of patriotism of an identifiable group that, one would think, under all the circumstances, would be moving heaven and earth to prove itself, and has done nothing of the kind. A few years ago, while happening to be at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, I visited its military museum, and on the desk at the entrance there are bound volumes of World-War-Two era copies of "Stars and Stripes." I opened one volume at random and read all about the unit we all know about --the 442nd Regiment, the one in which Senator Inouye served, during World War II, and about its exploits. The contrast struck me then, and has struck me since: where are the Muslims clamoring in the United States, in Western Europe, to prove themselves? If, despite the constant efforts to recruit, the British government can only come up with 330 Muslims out of 180,000 people in the armed forces, that is approximately 1/500th of the force, while Muslims make up 1/30th of the population, then this tells us something.
But it shouldn't surprise us. Islam teaches that loyalty is owed only to Islam and to fellow Believers. The danger is twofold, for Infidels. One is the absence of any feeling of loyalty to the Infidel nation-state, and a belief that the land on which Muslims live by right, by Allah's divine right, belongs in the end to them, and the Infidels are merely temporary in charge, sojourners who have no permanent right to any part of the world, which belongs to Allah and therefore to the best of people. The refusal to take Muslim ideology serious, the refusal to study it in depth and to accept the most transparent and flimsy of apologetic versions, whether offered by Muslims or by the non-Muslim apologists who are all about us. The Muslim apologists are full-time practitioners of every kind of evasion and lies and half-lies and half-truths, of taqiyya and tu-quoque, and we can see examples of this every day, on talk shows, and in the press, all over the Infidel lands. It takes a while, it takes experience and practice, to detect and then to be able to see through, and then to be able to piercingly reveal and at the same time answer, such a fog and pettifog of nonsense and semi-nonsense.
Why is there so much of it? Many reasons. Some do it it out of some blend of leftist hatred of The System, of the West, of the White West, of Amerika, of Kapitalism, and find that Islam is now the vehicle of choice to express resentment. Some, like Karen Armstrong, resentful of Christianity, and suffering long-term mental desarroi and of course from terminal stupidity, find not the reality of Islam -- she hasn't a clue about the reality of Islam --soothing. Many are apologists out of cupidity (so many are on the Arab take, so many academics are supported directly or indirectly by Arab money for their "centers" and their "chairs" and so many want to ensure that they do nothing to antagonize their Muslim colleagues, who are eternally vigilant in monitoring their work, and can cause them all kinds of trouble. And others are ignorant, willfully or lazily ignorant, and do not want to think for themselves, do not want to connect the dots of observable Muslim behavior by abandoning their false model, their Ptolemaic model of a "few extremists" for the true, Copernican theory that can both explain all the data, in Bangladesh, Sudan, Nigeria, Thailand, and also Paris, London, Amsterdam, and Beslan, and have predictive value: can predict, for example, what would happen, necessarily, in Iraq, and what will happen, necessarily, in Iraq if the Americans withdraw (hint: it won't be good for the Camp of Islam, and will give America that "victory" about which Bush and Cheney prate without ever understanding, or recognizing, in what such a true "victory" for the West would consist -- nor do any of their critics).
Muslims and Western Armed Forces: what a paradox. What do we want? We know Muslims are taught not to offer any loyalty to the legal and political institutions of the Infidel nation-state. Don't expect it. Don't squander resources trying to make Muslims forget, or never know, what Islam is all about because it will not work. They will find out. The Infidel states -- England, France (Sarkozy is disastrously intent on "affirmative action" for Muslims in the organs of the state --he is not nearly well-versed enough in Islam, even if he appears, by optical illusion, to be sufficiently comprehending of the matter, and appropriately sober in his supposed "hard line" that is not nearly hard enough) -- have to give up pious hopes for "integration" that rely on a shared game of Let's Pretend: Let's Pretend that Islam does not inculcate what Islam inculcates. Let's Pretend that Islam is not Islam.
The numbers of Muslims in the British Armed Forces are telling. They tell us what, if we knew about Islam, would come as no surprise.
But what if the British government manages to increase the number of Muslims in the army, and the police, say five-fold or ten-fold or twenty-fold? Would that be good? Would that be considered a "success"? Not if one understood Islam. Not if one understood the reasons why people were joining up at this point -- not out of a sudden loyalty (the time for that was five, four, three, two years ago) but out of something which those with long experience of the problem (J. B. Kelly, for example, to me just a week ago), have worried about: the slow and steady infiltration into the army, security services, and police, all over Europe, of Muslims intent on what, by their Total System, they should be intent on.
Worry, every which way.
[Posted by: Hugh at February 2, 2007 09:22 AM]
Posted on 03/08/2007 6:41 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 8 March 2007
‘Well, at least we don’t have that tiresome competitive thing men do about whose is bigger!’ (The Spectator)
Do Americans say “handbags at dawn”? Generally this expression means a “cat fight” – do Americans say “cat fight”? – that is a fight or argument between two women, but recently it has been extended to mean any spat about something fairly trivial.
Americans and their bags confuse me. Sue Grafton’s detective Kinsey Millhone talks about her “pocket book”, which sounds to me like some kind of notebook you would keep in a pocket. However, since Kinsey puts things in it, it must be some kind of bag, perhaps a small duffel bag. Americans also talk about “fanny packs”, seemingly with a straight face.
In Lady Bracknell’s day, “a haeeendbag?” was big enough to hold a foundling. Perhaps it was a small version of what we would now call a hold-all. (Question: how big is a tote bag? Did Mary Poppins have one, or was that a carpet bag?) Since then, sizes have fluctuated, but handbags are generally smaller, certainly smaller than the ones pictured above, but not so small as to become a clutch bag.
Handbags, Lady Bracknell notwithstanding, are unimportant, and not something to be earnest about. So why do some women spend so much money on them? Mary Ann Sieghart in The Times discusses handbags, making a valid point about “consumer resistance”:
Can I talk to you about my handbag? It’s very nice. The editor of this section likes it, too, and she has good taste. It’s — let me see — at least three years old, pale blue leather, and it cost me less than £100. It doesn’t have a brand and I don’t know (or care) who made it.
It amazes me to think than anyone would spend more than £100 on a handbag. On jewelry, perhaps, or a really good – I mean really good – restaurant dinner, but a handbag? A …. (imagine Dame Edith Evans) …. handbag?
I got it in a little leather shop in Italy and one day, when it finally dies, I’ll have to concoct an excuse to stay with my friend who lives there again and try to track down another.
You see, to me a bag can be a thing of beauty and a joy very nearly for ever. But it doesn’t have to be an expensive thing of beauty. And once I find the one I like, I stick with it until it falls apart. Why would I want to buy a new one until then?
Yet every season I am regaled by the fashion pages to buy the latest “must-have” handbag. It will cost hundreds, even thousands, of pounds.
These entreaties leave me completely baffled. I don’t want to put my perfectly good bag in a corner to gather dust while I transfer my affections to another. It would be a betrayal of my feelings for it — and a dreadful waste of money.
Yet the designer brands are apparently more desirable. So it’s worth disentangling the concept of a “must-have” thing. Who says that you must have it? Why are they saying it? In whose interest is your purchase? Yours or theirs?
Clearly the manufacturers benefit much more than you do. To get you to abandon your handbag or coat long before it is functionally obsolete, they have to persuade you that it is fashionably obsolete. But unless you are a fashion editor attending the Paris shows or a vapid model, are your friends really going to judge you by those standards? Are they going to turn up their noses because your bag has zips rather than buckles? Or like you more because it has Prada embossed on it? If so, you’d do better to change your friends than your handbag.
Next time you read about a “must-have” item, just try saying to yourself: “I don’t need to have that. You need to sell it to me. And I’m not going to play your game.”
Keep it up and you could save yourself a fortune.
Indeed. And you can give it to the New English Review instead. The New English Review is much more durable – and there is much more in it.
Ladies and Frenchmen: don’t buy that handbag. Give the money to us. Now. (Please.)
Posted on 03/08/2007 7:04 AM by Mary Jackson
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Kareem Isn't Backing Down
Kareem Amer who sentenced to four year in prison for blogging after being turned in by his former professors at Al-Azar, writes about his experiences here:
..I joined Al-Azhar to study in accordance with my parents’ desires. In spite of my complete rejection of Al-Azhar and religious thought (at a subsequent time), and despite my writings that strongly criticize religion’s infiltration into the public life, its control over human beings’ behavior and dealings with each other, and its directing them in conduct, getting rid of these fetters, which were in the form of my (formerly) being a student at Al-Azhar University, was not something easy or trivial as I had envisioned it would be...
The mere existence of legal provisions that criminalize freedom of thought, and punish to prison whoever criticizes religion in any way, is considered to be a grave defect in the law. The law was supposed to be founded to regulate the relationships of the individuals in the society, not for suppressing their freedom for the benefit of religion, the law itself, or the social order. The human being – the individual – is the first, and his existence preceded everything. On that basis, criminalizing the human being for criticizing the social order, religion, or authority – which are things that came following the appearance of the first human being – is considered to be a grave defect in these laws. Such laws greatly transgress their powers to intervene in matters pertaining to the freedom of the personal individual, which is the sanctified area that no human being, regardless of who he is, has the right to transgress.
I hereby declare, in all frankness and clarity, my rejection and repudiation of any law, any legislation, and any regime that does not respect the individual’s rights and personal freedom, and does not acknowledge the absolute freedom of the individual in doing anything – as long as he does not affect anyone around him in a physical way –, and does not acknowledge the individuals’ absolute freedom in expressing their opinions, whatever they may be and whatever they cover, as long as this opinion is merely an opinion or words coming from a person, and is not coupled with any physical action that harms others. At the same time, I declare, in all clarity, that such laws do not obligate me in any way, and I do not acknowledge them or their existence. I detest, from the depths of my soul, whoever works on implementing them, whoever uses them as a guide, and whoever is satisfied with their existence or benefits from them. And if these laws are forced upon us, and we have no power or strength in changing them because that is in the hands of those in power with agendas, who are more than satisfied for the existence of such laws and are making use of it: Nevertheless, all of this will not push me into submission, or into waiting for relief and appeasement.
I hereby declare that I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of my summons to investigate a matter like this, which is within the realm of my freedom to express my opinions. This freedom was stipulated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Egypt has supposedly signed. Moreover, setting this declaration aside, and even if it did not exist, and even if Egypt did not sign it, human rights are very self-evident matters that do not require legislations or laws to regulate them or to define their essence.
To every gloating and spiteful person among those who envision that the likes of these primitive measures might change my positions, affect me, or force me to stray from walking in the path that I have set for myself, I say: Die in your rage and hide in your burrows. I shall not recant, not even by an inch, from any word I have written. These restrictions will not preclude my dream of obtaining my freedom, for that has been my wish ever since I was a child, and it will continue to run in my imagination in endlessness.
And to Al-Azhar University, its professors, and its Islamic scholars, who stood and are still standing against anyone who thinks in a free manner, far away from their metaphysical aspects and superstitions, I say: You will end up in the junkyard of history, and when that time comes, you will not find anyone to cry over you. Rest assured that your grasp will disappear as has happened with others like you. Happy is he who took advice from others!
Posted on 03/08/2007 7:35 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Thursday, 8 March 2007
An ex-Catholic seminarian, just as Karen Armstrong is an ex-nun, Chris Hedges has been most famous for his intense dislike of Israel, a dislike he gave vent to in his every dispatch as the chief correspondent in Israel for The Duranty Times. In lectures, his complete indifference to the fate of the Jews, his palpable coldness, is expressed with a facial expression bespeaking a kind of languid indifference. But he is not languidly indifferent; he dislikes Israel with a steady fervor too great, and too impervious, to any new information he might acquire, as to be explicable as anything other than a manifestation of the usual mental derangement with which we are all familiar.
Here is a previous post, from 2004, with the bit about Hedges, toward the end, in bold:
"This is significant, and with its accompanying gloss ought to be studied, for several reasons.
First, it brings to everyone's attention the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, which should be emphasized in every discussion about Islam – and in particular, about the value of Israeli “negotiations” or “treaties” or that disingenuous, or still worse, idiotically native, “two-state solution” (even though that it is a “solution” should be obvious, because of course, it would not have been called the “two-state solution” if it weren’t, would it? – as has been said before at this spot). The New York Times is not going to engage in anything so important as actually attempting to educate its readers as to the tenets of Islam, and it certainly has to use, much less explain, such words as “taqiyya” (or "taqiyya/kitman" as is often put so as to anticipate, and dispense with, the hollow objection that "taqiyya" is a concept in Shi'a Islam alone). And when you use that word “taqiyya” you force others to ask what it means, which gives you the opening you seek to explain it to them, and then to continue into a whole little discussion of the vast army of apologists (Esposito, Michael Sells with his “Approaching the Qur’an,” Carl Ernst, and the rest). And if you are debating a Muslim, and raise the issue of taqiyya/kitman, and then begin to quote from Qur’an and hadith, he is brought up short, and quickly reduced either to silence, or to hysterical sputtering (which comes on rather quickly, one notices).
And here is why the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya was invoked in Dubai – the speakers, Yusuf Islam and Yusef Hamza, sense, as do other Muslims, that in too places, people are beginning to wake up (forget about France – Chirac is on the take, Dominique de Villepin is a poseur and fool, and the court “experts” on Islam such Gilles Kepel – do look up Taheri’s review of his latest product in The London Telegraph – are guides to nowhere and nothing). They are worried, just as Osama bin Laden is worried. Maybe the Americans are just a bit too tough. Maybe their uncompromising approach will wake up the Europeans. Perhaps we need to help everyone go back to sleep, by proceeding nicely-nicely (with apologist to Damon Runyon).
Remember that the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya was concluded in 628 A.D. with the Meccans, and lasted until Muhammad, having greatly increased the number of his followers, felt strong enough to attack the Meccans, and did so on a flimsy pretext. Muhammad knew exactly what he was doing, and even at the time of the Treaty, while his followers were disheartened, he spoke of it as a “victory” and it has always been treated as such by Muslims – an example of his cunning statecraft, of “war as deception.” It is the model, as Majid Khadduri has pointed out, for all subsequent treaties with Infidels. It is NOT possible to make a permanent peace treaty with any Infidel polity. Only a truce, that can be renewed if the Infidel remains too strong, is possible – sulh and not real peace, salaam.
But, you ask, surely Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk and all those people in the State Department who are supposed to be experts on Islam understand this, and explained this to Clinton, and Carter, and all the others who felt it so very important for the Israelis to “negotiate” and sign a treaty with the Arabs. Don’t they? Could they possibly not understand thoroughly all of this? And if the Arab leaders and smiling diplomats assure them that those who talk about the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya are – eyes rolling heavenward in mock outrage – simply people who do not believe, as we do, in the “possibility of peace.” Oh, you have no idea how little they know, the Indyks and the Rosses and the rest of them. Just look at Tom Friedman, with his Pulitzer Prize, and his platitudes, and his plongitudes. He is the Middle East “expert” at the New York Times. And he knows nothing.
Treaties with Muslim states are worthless. But one thing is not: overwhelming and obvious power, so that Muslim rulers have an excuse, a face-saving excuse, not to go war. The doctrine of necessity, of “darura,” justifies failure to attack. Egypt does not attack Israel right now for the same reason Syria does not – darura. That has to be kept in mind. To be effective the deterrent must not only be overwhelming in reality, but must appear overwhelming, so that Muslims will know it. That is why the further reduction in Israel’s size, even if Sharon, in his current obstinate dementia, believes is valuable (an obstinate dementia which some Israelis seem, out of an ignorance of Islam, inclined to treat as serious statecraft, when it is nothing of the sort), will lessen the force of darura, and make war, not peace, more likely. Of course, if it is simply a means to let the “Palestinians” have at each other in Gaza – the “Somalia solution” – well then it may be worth it, as long as outside Infidels do not idiotically enter to keep the peace.
In this connection one should recall that Arafat was fond of invoking the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, but only to Muslim audiences, first in May 1994 in Johannesburg -- it was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to his audiences (See, he was saying, don't worry -- all of this stuff is just to win concessions from the temporarily more powerful Israelis, and when we eventually are strong enough, with Muslims from Capetown to Cleveland, we will go in for the kill, just like Muhammad did with the Quraysh of Mecca -- so relax.)
With non-Muslim audiences Arafat would of course never mention the Treaty, but you know -- there was not the slightest reason why American reporters could not have reported the several occasions on which he did so, and attempt to find out about this Treaty. Wouldn't you think that the Washington Post, the New York Times, or 60 Minutes, just might have one reporter -- just one -- who would see mention of this curious "Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya" and want to find out about it, and perhaps even take a book out of the library, to see what it was all about? And wouldn't have been important, during the past decade, or five, to have enlightened readers about Islam? If you are a steady reader of the Times, or the Post, or of whatever Daily Scream you happen to read, have you learned a thing about Islam in the past few years? Have you ever seen the word "dhimmi" not merely thoroughly explained, but even mentioned?
And it is hardly surprising that not once did the most notoriously anti-Israel reporters from Israel – such as Peter Jennings, now the star in an expensive A.B.C. campaign to make Americans like him, with his decades of sly narrow-eyed nastiness about both the United States and Israel (as for his Great and Good Friend Hanan Ashrawi, who can ever forget Jennings’ interview with her on September 13, 2001, such good friends, as she went ahead and blamed, with Jennings’ evident approval, you know who – and there is so much more that one could say about Peter Jennings), or H. D. S. Greenway, the man who with his bowties and driving up to work at the Boston Globe’s offices in what seemed to be a different car every day, apparently making him a Big Man on Campus, who only within the last year or two, seems to have gotten a hint that all might not be right with the Copts in Egypt – it is clear that he never bothered, in more than two decades of covering the Middle East, ever to learn about dhimmitude, or the persecution of the Copts – he knows nothing, and seems never to have made the effort to begin to study the tenets, the history, the significance of Islam on the Middle East – two decades of mere reporting, and nary a word that makes any sense, that is informed with any understanding of history. What a monument to leave behind. Do you think he has ever heard the words, or could easily define, dhimmi and dhimmitude? Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya? Do you think he knows about the various recensions of the hadith, and precisely how their “authenticity” is judged? Do you think he knows anything about the history of Muslim conquests and the subjugation of non-Muslim peoples? And do you think, if you explained why the relentless Jihad against Israel, disguised as a “struggle for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” has far deeper sources in the canonical texts of Islam, that he would even try to understand, to realize that all these years he’s gotten the story, his main story, completely wrong because he never did his homework?
My, my, how incurious and how almost willfully ignorant some people can be. Neither Jefferson, nor John Quincy Adams (see what he wrote about Islam), nor a real journalist – of the Peroncel Hugoz school – would have spent years of semi-retirement among those inherited Chinese vases in that Needham comfort, without at least beginning to read around in the relevant texts.
And along with Jennings and Greenway, this unholy trinity of the unlearned and unteachable should include the former New York Times correspondent in Israel, the languid Chris Hedges, the one who famously accused Israeli soldiers of "killing Palestinian boys for sport,” published a jejune account of his work that became a pacifist manifesto, based on the idea that everyone is exactly the same as everyone else, and War Is Always A Bad Thing. Now Hedges has been interviewing, still for The Times, the likes of – you may have guessed – Tariq Ramadan.
If the Times wonders why people are going to bloggers for information, perhaps it ought to begin with the likes of Chris Hedges. What are the reporters sent to the Middle East asked to learn in advance? Anything? Have they steeped themselves in Qur’an and hadith? No? Why not? Have they read anything about dhimmitude? No? Why not? How can one report on Iraq, on Israel, on Saudi Arabia, on Egypt, on Algeria, on the Sudan, without knowing what it is that Muslims are taught, endlessly, to believe and to act upon? If reporters do not know these things, then their reports on any Muslim country, or any clash between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Infidel world, are virtually worthless.
And the mention above the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya is one occasion when the newspapers cannot make sense of the meaning, for they do not explain what the whole thing is about – they can’t be bothered to learn about it themselves. Extraordinary.
The Dubai Conference described above points out another development that must disturb many Muslims. For now, when they address fellow Muslims, their words will be reported, or the proceedings filmed. Once upon a time they could be secure in their knowledge that Westerners would not pay much mind, and certainly not that they would study every word. MEMRI.org did not exist. Websites where people could easily retrieve the Qur’an and the most authoritative recensions of the hadith (Bukhari, Muslims) did not exist. Until a year or two or three ago, how many in the Western world were paying attention to Da’wa and demographic invasions? Who knew about dhimmitude? What sages were available to monitor Muslim demands, Muslim hostility, Muslim aggression world-wide? All that has changed, permanently. There may well be people who now come to this site who, in the fall of 2003, innocently went out and bought that little guide to nothing, Karen Armstrong’s meretricious “Islam,” or perhaps some picture-book by Esposito. How far you have come – you know in your own case. And you also know how important it is to educate others. This cannot be stopped; it can be slowed down, or hastened, depending on the resources available – but not stopped.
Everything now appears in the Arab-language press can be read, and translated, by Infidels. Everything that appears on Arab television can be seen, recorded, and translated by Infidels. Every picture of the mutilated body of a dead female shahid that appears in a magazine for “Palestinian” Arab children can circulate – does circulate – around the world. It is having its effect.
And that is why, when reporters in Dubai now see mention of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, it is important not merely for them to report its mention, but to explain what it means – what it portends, what connection it has to real treaties, now being negotiated or at least discussed.
Like Bin Laden in his last tape, offering a kind of hudna if only, only, people stop picking on him, the two “reverts” quoted above think it may be time, but of course only for a time, to cool it, perhaps even to put a brake on the more spectacular terrorist attacks because the Infidels are getting just a mite restless. They need to be lulled back into their previous attitudes, so that we, in turn, can continue to conduct Da’wa, continue to flow in unopposed to the Bilad al-kufr or Lands of the Infidels, and can really get our campaigns for “a Dialogue of Civilisations” (with lots of free trips to luxurious hotels in Morocco or Cairo, and the infinite pains we will take with our Infidel guests – those trips, with lots of other goodies thrown in, can do wonders for disarming grumpy would-be critics, and transforming them into promoters of that panacea, that dialogue of civilizations that is what the world needs now).
The operative sentence, the sentence which encapsulates the "war is deception" theme (see Bukhari, see Muslim) of Al-Hudaibiyya, is this by Hamza Yousef:
“There are times when you have to live like a sheep in order to live in the future like a lion.”
Any newspaper or television that fails to report this story, and to emphasise that line, and what it means, or fails to take the occasion of this story to use it as a vehicle for educating its own reporters, and its audience, is irresponsible and guilty of monstrous malpractice. One more reason to give one’s loyalty, and one’s custom, to trustworthy, amusing, altogether winning Jihadwatch, and sites linked to it.
Yusuf Islam follows up: terrorism just isn’t the way to go, it’s not working out. And surely the right way is to get the same results through Da’wa, the Call to Islam, and precisely because those people in the West are "taught to keep an open mind." (Making it all the more easy for us). It is amazing to see the clear understanding of the mental freedom available to non-Muslims, being invoked by Muslims who wish, through the Da’wa that will take advantage of that very freedom, to in the end deprive those Infidels of that freedom, as they are either subjugated by, or “revert” to, Islam. Even these speakers recognize that Islam is a closed mental universe, that would never allow such spiritual freedom to its own adherents. They, after all, can be killed if they give signs of apostasy from Islam. It does not seem to bother them. What a primitive cult this cult must be.
Yusuf Hamza conveys the same message that Arafat, in other contexts, conveyed. At the moment, he explains, we have made the Infidels just a bit too wary, and they are a lot stronger still (we haven't yet undermined them sufficiently from within). But we all know that demography in Europe is on our side, that those fools will never limit our migrants, never dare to even hint at expelling us. So for now, we must "live like sheep,” but only to “live in the future like lions.” Now, Infidels, what do you think he means when he says we should “live like sheep” now, in order to "live like lions" later? You know exactly what it means, and it does not, for you, mean anything good.
The two Yusufs – Hamza and Islam – express in their own ways what is preached, to his followers, by the smiling, plausible, and most sinister conductor of Da’wa in the “decadent” West, that possible future Thoughtful Scholar in Residence at feckless Notre Dame – Tariq Ramadan.
An indispensable article."
[Posted by: Hugh at November 3, 2004 11:13 PM}
Posted on 03/08/2007 8:26 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Radical Muslim clerics in media gag
FIVE of the nation's most powerful Islamic clerics, including Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, have been banned from talking to the media by Muslim leaders for delivering "anti-Australian" messages.
The Lebanese Muslim Association has gagged the imams from Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southwest from media commentary - especially to Arabic news outlets - because of the "immeasurable damage" they have caused the community.
A letter was yesterday sent by the Lebanese Muslim Association to its five imams, including Sheik Yahya Safi - the official Australian representative to the Mufti of Lebanon - Sheik Shady Suleiman, and Sheik Hilali.
The letter, obtained by The Australian, demands the imams "pause and desist" from talking to any media outlet, in particular Sydney's Arabic community radio station Voice of Islam.
The imams have been told they could lose their positions as spiritual leaders at the nation's largest mosque if they defy the LMA's orders.
LMA president Tom Zreika yesterday told The Australian the letter was issued to end the "perceived un-Australian viewpoints given by some clerics. One of the big issues is the double-speak by the various imams," Mr Zreika said, adding that the messages some clerics delivered in Arabic contradicted comments given in English while talking to the mainstream media. They go on to the Voice of Islam and talk about something which really isn't in accordance with our views ... as Australians. (While) most of our clerics are selected on the basis that they have Australian values and Australian characteristics ... some of them haven't (lived) up to that."
Mr Zreika yesterday said he no longer wanted the imams to let their political media statements interfere with their primary tasks of being spiritual advisers. "We want (clerics) to stay apolitical," he said. "If they're not going to shape up, they're going to be shipped out, because immeasurable damage has been caused to the community as a result of their media commentary and doublespeak. (I think the word he is looking for is taqyyia) Relations have been set back many, many years between the wider community and the Muslim community," he said. "And the reason that's come about is because ... (some) are saying the wrong thing."
Sheik Shady yesterday told The Australian that he supported the LMA's decision, saying it was in the best interests of the Muslim and wider community. I keep thinking of a local 70s band called Shady Lady, or that album of Eminem's, I am Slim Shady . . .
Posted on 03/08/2007 10:41 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 8 March 2007
N.Y. imam sentenced in terror sting
ALBANY, N.Y. — The former imam of an Albany mosque was sentenced Thursday to 15 years in prison for his role in a money laundering scheme involving a fictional terror plot set up as an FBI sting.
Yassin Aref professed innocence before his sentencing and criticized the government's treatment of Muslims.
Aref and pizzeria owner Mohammed Hossain were convicted in October for their roles in a money laundering scheme involving an FBI informant who pretended to be an illegal arms dealer. The informant asked Hossain to launder money from the sale of a shoulder-fired missile that would be used to kill a Pakistani diplomat in New York City. Aref, spiritual leader of Hossain's mosque, acted as a witness to the transactions. Though the assassination plot was fictional, prosecutors in 2004 accused the pair of supporting terrorism.
Aref was found guilty of 10 of 30 charges. In addition to counts related to the money laundering scheme, he was found guilty of lying to FBI agents about having known a terrorist leader, Mullah Krekar, when he worked for a Kurdish political organization in Syria.
Hossain, 52, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Bangladesh, was convicted on all 27 charges against him, including three counts of conspiracy, and was to be sentenced later Thursday.
Assistant U.S. Attorney William Pericak argued during federal trial that Hossain wanted money, while Aref was drawn into the plot by ideology.
Posted on 03/08/2007 10:59 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Yvonne Haddad Slips
"Katz's positive take on the 'secular Islam summit' was not shared by some: A Georgetown University professor who teaches about Islam and Christianity told The St. Petersburg Times that the summit was a collection of extremists.
'Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup,' said Yvonne Haddad. 'Basically, it's everyone known for damning Islam.'-- from this news article
This is the single most self-damning thing that Yvonne Haddad, an islamochristian Arab in the pay of John Esposito, himself in the pay, directly and indirectly, of Muslim Arabs, has ever said.
Posted on 03/08/2007 11:17 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 8 March 2007
I’m a great believer in not fixing things that ain’t broke. There are so many things that are broke and badly need fixing that if something ain’t broke, or even if it’s a little bit creaky but manages to work, I say leave it alone.
The House of Lords is a case in point. This seemingly irrational institution has served us well – not perfectly, but well – for hundreds of years. And now they’re going to change it for something that probably won’t work.
Here’s Mary Ann Sieghart, whose sensible comments on handbags I quoted earlier. We both agree with Lord Lipsey - and not merely on Cockney rhyming grounds - that the House of Lords, seemingly a bastion of wealth and privilege, is a bargain:
Lord Lipsey, who is running a splendid one-man (one-Lord?) campaign against an elected House of Lords, has calculated that it would cost more than £1 billion. Each candidate would have to stand under a party banner and campaign professionally. Once in the Lords, they would expect a decent salary and loads of support staff.
But the main question is: what sort of people would be prepared to put themselves forward for election to the Lords? How high-calibre would they be? Given that the House will have far fewer powers than either the Commons or the European Parliament, our new “Lords” are likely to rate somewhere between local councillors and MEPs. And, as they will be standing on party tickets, they will be less independent-minded.
Is that really more appealing than the extraordinary array of appointed talent that we have there now, many of them crossbenchers and all willing to lend their expertise for a salary of precisely nothing?
Posted on 03/08/2007 12:12 PM by Mary Jackson
Thursday, 8 March 2007
'Elf' lingerie thief
From BBC Northern Ireland. A man who dressed up as Buho, a female elf, has been convicted by a jury at Belfast Crown Court of taking underwear from a shop in a knifepoint raid. Robert Boyd, 45, from Broadlands in Carrickfergus, held up staff at the Orchid shop in Belfast disguised in a wig, hat and glasses.
In court on Thursday, ten jurors dismissed Boyd's defence and two believed it.
During the three-day trial, the jury heard that Boyd wore a disguise of a blonde curly wig, reading glasses and a beany hat. What, no pointy ears? What kind of an elf is that?
He armed himself with a knife before stealing two sets of bras, pants, suspender belts and stockings from the lingerie shop on the Lisburn Road.
In his defence, Boyd claimed that due to pressures that he was suffering in his work and marriage (is that any surprise?) and his indulgence in a role-playing game called "Shadow Run", he thought he may have been playing the part of criminal elf Buho when he threatened the lone female shop owner at knifepoint after asking for a discount. He claimed he had gone to the upmarket lingerie shop to buy the two sets of red and black undies as a Christmas box for his wife.
Describing how Buho was a character he had assumed while playing the game, Boyd further claimed that he had blurred the lines between fantasy and reality and did not intend to rob the shop. "I didn't mean it to happen," he later told detectives.
A matter for 'elf and safety I suspect.
Posted on 03/08/2007 1:18 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 8 March 2007
You were expecting Mark Twain, perhaps?
Posted on 03/08/2007 2:00 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Live Free, or Die
MANCHESTER – The Islamic Society of Greater Manchester will host a renowned and, to some, controversial American Islamic scholar as keynote speaker at a fundraiser to help finance their continuing efforts to build the first mosque in New Hampshire. --from this news item
From Molly and John Stark, and Daniel Webster at Dartmouth ("A small college, but there are those who love her") and Robert Frost, to Siraj Wahhaj, in only two hundred years? Make it, please, at least another two hundred. Make it, preferably, never.
A little reminder to the farmers and computer programmers of New Hampshire --the words of General Stark at Saratoga:
"Tonight, the American flag floats over yonder hill, or Molly Stark sleeps a widow!"
And don't forget that other remark of John Stark, as he ended a toast, and lifted his glass to a veteran's reunion he was unable to attend in far-off Vermont, a remark now carried on cars on the highways and byways of Upper New England. In the starkness of its offered choice, those four words may once have offended, but for many do so no longer. And the poetic novahantonian license for those four words deserves to be renewed without interruption:
"Live Free, or Die."
Posted on 03/08/2007 1:58 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 8 March 2007
The Public Stock of Harmless Pleasure...
Posted on 03/08/2007 2:30 PM by John Derbyshire
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Oh, that Manchester
When I first saw the reference to Manchester, and Greater Manchester, I wondered if it was my old stomping ground in the north of England. I clicked on the link and saw this picture:
and reference to "Winnacunnet". Someone has hit the jackpot.
How unlike the home life of our own dear Mancunians.
Posted on 03/08/2007 2:26 PM by Mary Jackson
Thursday, 8 March 2007
It will ride up with wear
John Derbyshire links below to an item in The Telegraph about the death of actor John Inman:
John Inman, the actor who has died aged 71, became a household name for his performance in the television sitcom Are You Being Served? As Mr. Humphries, the wildly camp senior sales assistant in menswear at the fading department store Grace Brothers, his catch-phrase cry “I’m free!” became lodged in the popular lexicon.
For the pilot episode of Are You Being Served? in 1972, Mr Wilberforce Claybourne Humphries was conceived as a seedy individual in a shabby suit, and had only five lines of dialogue. But when David Croft, the co-producer and writer, suggested that the blond, gap-toothed Inman “camp it up”, it marked a turning point for the show and for Inman.
Always ready with a tape-measure, a waspish aside or smutty innuendo, Mr Humphries would mince across the floor and pounce on unsuspecting male customers, taking an inside-leg measurement before they had time to protest that they were looking for a shirt. The simple characterisations and unsophisticated humour made Are You Being Served? a huge success; it ran for many years, spawning a stage show and a feature film as well as a spin-off series.
At its peak the programme, which also starred Wendy Richard, Mollie Sugden, Frank Thornton and Trevor Bannister, drew 22 million viewers, but it was mauled by critics and attacked by gay rights groups, who objected to Inman’s stereotypical portrayal and picketed his shows. Inman maintained that the BBC was embarrassed by this reaction, and at the end of every series there would be a tearful goodbye party, as the actors never knew if the show would get the axe. Ratings prevailed, however, and they kept going for 69 episodes and 13 years.
The programme had only a small number of jokes, which featured every week:
“I’m free.” Said by Mr Humphries in a screamingly camp voice.
“Menswear.” Said by Mr Humphries in a deep voice in an attempt to sound manly.
“Inside leg please”/”That will be fine sir, fits just where it touches.”
“Don’t worry, sir, it will ride up with wear.”
“These cold mornings play havoc with my pussy/My pussy got soaking wet.” Said by blowsy old bat Mrs Slocombe, whose voice could go from posh to common in a split second. She was talking about her cat, of course. Americans did not believe this, however, and according to The Sun, suspected a double entendre. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
“Young Mr Grace” This was the younger of the two Grace Brothers. He was about ninety – that was the joke, you see - and a dirty old goat, always pinching his secretary’s hole punch.
That was pretty much it, so I don’t know why it was so funny, but it was. Here's to John Inman, an actor with many camp followers.
So farewell then, Mr Humphries
“I’m free!” That was
You are now
Posted on 03/08/2007 3:09 PM by Mary Jackson
Thursday, 8 March 2007
On the subject of John Inman
this snippet from YouTube sums up the show and the humour very well. I saw these at the time, the early 70s, in black and white.
Mr Humphries Famous Kung-Fu Kick.
Posted on 03/08/2007 3:40 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 8 March 2007
This is just a test
What does this register on your Offence-O-Meter?
Posted on 03/08/2007 4:10 PM by Robert Bove
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Mark Krikorian writes concerning selective exclusion of geographical or cultural regions:
"The problem is that this goes against Americans' basic moral universalism, which I share, and thus is, at the very least, politically untenable. Thus, the other option — reduce immigration overall (for which there are lots of other reasons, too), regardless of nationality. Non-discrimination and mass immigration are just not reconcilable."
I am curious to know just how "basic" that moral universalism is. In respect of immigration policy, it is a pretty recent addition to our "basics." Fifty years ago nobody would have known what you were talking about. Everyone understood that immigrants from some regions and cultures were to be preferred over those from others. Even Edward Kennedy, speaking in the U.S. Senate in support of the 1965 Immigration Act, took pains to assure the chamber that: "The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa or Asia..." Where is the moral universalism there? If Senator Kennedy had been a moral universalist, or believed that his voters were, why would he have felt the need to say those things? What would it matter what happened to the "ethnic mix," or which "country or area" immigrants came from?
So far as immigration policy is concerned, the moral universalism you write about is an innovation, and I doubt it has sunk very deep into the collective American psyche. I suspect that this recently-coined moral universalism in respect of immigration is actually:—
(a) An empty moral-status-claiming pose on the part of our money-sheltered elites, to whose ranches, gated communities, and doorman buildings the practical consequences of immigration policy are of no importance, except in so far as they affect the supply of cheap domestic servants.
(b) Vaguely understood by large sections of the middle class as something they "ought" to believe, though very few of them could tell you why.
(c) Hotly disputed by several tens of millions of patriotic and law-abiding U.S. citizens, with Republican voters a large majority among them.
I fear you are right about "politically untenable," though. A politician who came out for a total ban on all immigration from Muslim countries would be immensely popular; but he would never again hold public office.
I clearly recall the fuss over Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech in England in 1968. In the weeks that followed, you could hardly find anyone who disagreed with Powell. (A source of some distress to me: I was a 23-year-old love-the-word socialist at the time.) I half expected Powell to be swept into Prime Ministerial power by public acclamation. Instead, he was kicked out of the Shadow Cabinet and never again held government office.
Of course, all Powell's dire predictions have come true.
Funny thing, representative democracy.
Posted on 03/08/2007 4:26 PM by John Derbyshire
Thursday, 8 March 2007
I'm not quite sure what point Rick Brookhiser is making about Betjeman's poem "To a Lady Driver." I don't know it, and it's not in the 1979 "Collected," which is all I have on my shelf. However, most of Betjeman's poems were written in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Was it not common to poke fun at lady drivers in the U.S.A. during those decades?
Whatever, here is another of Betjeman's motoring poems. The lousy driver here is male, to restore the yin-yang balance.
—-Meditation on the A30
A man on his own in a car
Is revenging himself on his wife;
He opens the throttle and bubbles with dottle
And puffs at his pitiful life.
"She's losing her looks very fast,
She loses her temper all day;
That lorry won't let me get past,
This Mini is blocking my way.
"Why can't you step on it and shift her!
I can't go on crawling like this!
At breakfast she said that she wished I was dead—
Thank heavens we don't have to kiss.
"I'd like a nice blonde on my knee
And one who won't argue or nag.
Who dares to come hooting at ME?
I only give way to a jag.
"You're barmy or plastered, I'll pass you, you bastard—
I WILL overtake you. I WILL!"
As he clenches his pipe, his moment is ripe
And the corner's accepting its kill.
[A30=a major English road, southwest out of London; dottle=spittle; lorry=truck; jag=Jaguar (sporty car); plastered=drunk]
Posted on 03/08/2007 4:32 PM by John Derbyshire
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Foreigners may be unaware that New Hampshire is the best state in the United States. The best town in New Hampshire is Norwich, Vermont (Hanover, New Hampshire is a close second). That may puzzle some, but the late Goran Printz-Pahlson, whenever asked in Cambridge, England what was his favorite city in Sweden, always would reply: "Copenhagen."
I don't know how Manchester, New Hampshire compares to Manchester, England but both have a history of dark satanic mills, the American ones on the Merrimac, the English ones on something a lot less local-colorful, and I presume that in the English Manchester those old mills have been preserved and, just like those on the Merrimac, turned to other commercial uses or condominiumized.
Posted on 03/08/2007 4:38 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Tirant lo Blanch
This business of Muslims having discovered California is of a piece with the attempt to get Americans to believe that Muslims were along on Columbus' voyage, when in fact there were none, but there were several Jews, and Columbus's angel was a Jewish financier, Santangel. But was it not our very own State Department that, during a recent Columbus Day, issued some kind of remark about the Muslim participation in the discovery of America -- la scoperta dell'America -- that was utterly false, and when called on it, that State Department suddenly went silent (see the JW Archives for more on this).
And the claim about California being discovered by Muslims is of a piece with the attempt to convince black Americans that the tribal stock from which they came was Muslim, when in fact there were few Muslims, before the 1904 Jihad that began in Sokoto, in that coastal part of West Africa from which the slaves for the Atlantic Passage were taken. The Arab slavers conducted their business in East Africa (based on Pemba and Zanzibar, thence by dhow to Muscat), and in the interior of Africa. They made it to what is now northern Nigeria, but not to the coastal regions.
And it is of a piece, as well, with the attempts by that Muslim group in Great Britain that a few weeks ago issued a paper demanding enormous changes in the British school system to accommodate Muslim demands, in which one of the astonishing claims is that Muslims have been "interacting" with Britain for a thousand years. We know what they are trying to get a naive public to believe, and by dint of repetition, this Tariq-Ramadan idea that the civilization of the West -- which civilization always existed in fear of, and in opposition to, the world of Islam -- somehow owes its everything to its polar opposite, the Camp of Islam. But really, this re-writing conducted in East Africa and the interior.
Now about that toponym "California;" The first appearance of that placename is in a Spanish, or perhaps more accurately Catalan epic, Tirant lo Blanch.
And who was the author of "Tirant lo Blanch" and what was that epic all about? Well, why don't you do a little research.
Posted on 03/08/2007 4:49 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Thursday, 8 March 2007
New Hampshire the best?
Best what? State? Mark Steyn agrees with Hugh, of course, because he lives there. Or is it in Vermont?
New Hampshire is beautiful. It has a great motto: Live, Freeze, and Die. It is also the best of New England, mainly because it ain't as liberal as the rest and taxes only "moderately" by New England standards.
Problem is you have to get there via Boston if you want to fly in from foreign ports economically. Not a good start to the journey. I recommend flying into Halifax and driving around and over and under if you have the time and money.
Posted on 03/08/2007 4:53 PM by Robert Bove
Thursday, 8 March 2007
The Gates of Ijtihad
As to the gates of ijtihad being closed, it is those Bright Young Reformers who, having failed to keep us from noticing that they are indeed closed, and have been for almost a thousand years, now go on to tell us that if we only give them money, money, money (and the Carnegie and other foundations, and universities, and Western governments, have been shelling out like crazy to every Muslim "Reformer" with his hand out) they, those Bright Young Reformers, will just swing those gates wide open, wide enough for the quadrivas of these brave gladiators (oops, those details come from the time of Rome, and therefore of real universal and deep-seated Jahiliyya or Ignorance) straight on through.
As to the arrangement of the suras, the point on which Trifkovic caught out Dinesh D'Souza (who promptly wrote about it as a mere matter of "Trivial Pursuit"), why do they matter? Well, if you are attempting to find out which suras are unlikely to have been subject to "naskh" or "abrogation," you will naturally wish to find out which are later in time. And in finding out which are later in time, you might think, if you did not know differently, that those suras with low numbers -- such as Sura 9, the most violent of them all -- were surely the ones that had been abrogated by later ones.
But you would be wrong. Sura 9 is numbered 9 not because it is one of the earliest, but because of its length. In fact, Sura 9 is either the last or second-to-last of the Suras, which means it is of very great authority indeed.
That's why it matters. And that's why D'Souza's attempt to dismiss his lack of such knowledge, as "trivial," is so wrong. That he then goes on to say that Trifkovic didn't answer his, D'Souza's own question in reply -- "When did Iran become Shi'a" -- though Trifkovic was singlemindedly at this point pursuing his quarry, and was not going to let go of his hot pursuit until D'Souza had, for god's sake, answered the question, in truth the answer to that question is not nearly as important as questions about the Qur'an, the alpha and omega of Islam.
The question of when Iran became Shi'a is of interest, but it is not indispensable to one's understanding of Islam, as is a comprehension of how the Qur'an works, how it is arranged, what parts of it can be taken as immune to abrogation, and which parts subject.
No doubt when one first reads, as D'Souza did, somewhere in Bernard Lewis that Shi'ism begins with Arabs, not Persians, and was embraced late by the Iranians, is of interest. But what does it tell us? How does it affect, say, our understanding or appreciation of the Shi'a-Sunni split in Iraq, and beyond Iraq, today? In fact, it has no bearing on the matter. But if Infidels thinking that because there are 114 Suras numbered consecutively, a certain Sura 9 must surely be among the earliest and therefore among those most subject to abrogation, then we have a problem, and not only in Houston, but everywhere that Innocent Infidels may reside.
Shi'ism could once be found in places where it is now virtually extinct, and in the earliest centuries was not dominant in Iran (Persia) as it now is. But knowing or not knowing that is not more important than knowing exactly when Calvin and Zwingli existed, or where, or finding out when this or that place became predominantly Protestant during or after the Reformation. Or it might be akin to not knowing exactly when the Gallicanism came into the French church, or when Henry VIII destroyed the monasteries, and got his divorce. Not knowing when the Council of Nicaea took place is no doubt a fault, and so is not knowing exactly in what century Christianity was brought to England, or for that matter to China, but it would be far more scandalous if someone were teaching in a divinity school who did not know the most elementary doctrines of Christianity. D'Souza doesn't see that, because he can't make sense of Islam, Islam as a belief-system, Islam as a politics and geopolitics, Islam as a working-out, in time, by Muslims of the exigencies of their demanding, and dangerous-to-Infidels faith.
Posted on 03/08/2007 4:56 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald