Bridging the Gap

In this post we review 'A clash of perceptions, not civilisations' by Imam Feisal Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, 09/06/2008:

Today in Malaysia, representatives from the West and the Muslim world will meet to discuss what many consider the seminal issue of global concern – the supposed "Clash of Civilizations".

We all see symptoms of the divide between the Muslim and Western worlds but many struggle to understand it. Some say we are indeed locked in a "Clash of Civilizations"; others attribute differences between societies to little more than a series of misunderstandings. How can we make sense of problems that we observe so that we may try to solve them?

The misunderstanding is that the Islamic community is growing radicalized, and wants to destroy the West's culture and cause its people to either submit to Islam or become dhimmis, but too many people in the West misunderstand this, and talk about things like poverty and skin color, when it is a hateful, imperialistic ideology being passed off as a religion that is causing the problems.

And, to my Muslim readers, don't try to tell me that what the radicals preach isn't hateful, imperialistic ideology, because you know as well as I do that it is; just like I know that NOT every Muslim is like those guys.

In Kuala Lumpur today and tomorrow, religious scholars, academics and government and business leaders will try to do just that. By defining the breach in perceptions that exists on both sides, they will lay the foundation for bridging the gap.

Some might ask: how can such a bridge be built when so much violence, protest and misunderstanding seem to dominate headlines on both sides of the Muslim-West seam?

To start, let's be clear in asserting that dialogue can take place. What we have today is much less a "Clash of Civilizations" than a clash of perceptions. Little about our cultures, religions or ways of life—though these are certainly different—suggests coexistence to be impossible; rather, it is our perception of this impossibility that drives discord.

Dialog can only really take place with the jihadists after they have been militarily defeated.

The greatest misunderstanding, therefore, is that we imagine the problems that separate the Muslim and Western worlds to be larger and more formidable than they actually are.

Yeah, like calling the West the House of War, calling for the destruction of Western culture, and the enslavement and rape of its people, combined with efforts to make these things happen -- this is really not as big a problem as we make it out to be.

Some in the Muslim World, for example, perceive Western military invention on their soil as a vestige of a malignant narrative stretching from the Crusades to the era of colonialism, whereas many Westerners view current events, such as the American invasion of Afghanistan, strictly in terms of a struggle against international terrorism.

As long as the Crusades -- a terrible chapter in human history -- came up, let me ask a question: Who started it?

That militants often justify acts of violence with Islamic vocabulary only distances Muslims and Westerners from mutual understanding.

Wait a minute: Gina Khan is a Muslim and a Westerner.

And, there are many people like her.

Let's call it jihadists versus infidels and takfir.

It is the militant extremists of every creed, in fact, who bear the greatest responsibility for exacerbating negative perceptions. The atrocities of Christian and Jewish extremism should be on display alongside those perpetrated by their Muslim counterparts: from the Ku Klux Klan to Baruch Goldstein to September 11th, religious fanatics of all faiths perpetrate violence that aggravates intercultural tensions and widens the perception gap.

The Ku Klux Klan is indefensible.

But, it has caused only a tiny fraction of the suffering that militant Islamists have.

Incorrect perceptions in the West about Muslims need fixing too, including the oft-heard charge that Muslims categorically practice violence and abuse women. As we know, however, Muslim-majority countries are more tolerant and diverse than many in the West suppose.

The impressive plurality of ethnicities, languages, beliefs and opinions among today's population of more than 1.2 billion Muslims does more than validate the Prophet's tradition that "Differences of opinion in my community are a blessing"—it puts to rest the notion that Muslims are a homogenous and insidious group, naturally opposed to dissent from within or without.

And Saudi Arabia and the Taliban's Afghanistan have been such shining examples of progressive, multicultural tolerance, where the right to any belief is honored.

Issues of perception are key in debunking the sense that cultures are clashing. Lately, it has become clear just how carefully religious scholars, politicians and commentators must choose their language to avoid making the problem worse.

To illustrate, the current US Presidential election has seen both John McCain and Barack Obama distance themselves from former spiritual guides—Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who famously blamed the US for the September 11th terrorist attacks and Reverend Rod Parsley, the notorious defamer of Islam.

Though both candidates have rightly disavowed such comments, they recognize that more work still needs to be done, and have sent representatives to Kuala Lumpur to help repair the damage to the public's perception of the Muslim-West divide.

Yes, there is certainly a divide, a set of real problems that often fan the embers of misunderstanding until they flame up into something far more sinister and threatening. But the breach exists only because we have created it through government policies, academic discourses, media relations and other interactions that feature pessimistic rhetoric. Regrettably, enough leaders from all walks have spent so much time brooding on the factuality of the Muslim-West divide that many no longer consider the gap bridgeable.

We can indeed bridge this gap. What we need first, however, is to measure its width so that our engineering won't go to waste. In Kuala Lumpur, for the first time ever, practical-minded leaders will meet to begin this task by setting down a concrete definition for the divide, to be encased in the "Kuala Lumpur Accord."

Then will they will tackle the issue of how to construct positive policy, academic and media initiatives that will help future leaders span the gulf of false perception.

It is not a "clash of civilizations" -- it is civilization, which most emphatically includes some elements of the Islamic world, clashing with barbarians.

The gap that needs to be bridged is the gap between this reality and the political newspeak that refuses to acknowledge the truth.

Hat tip to my email tipster.

UK: Newspeak Has Arrived

A link to the following article was in my email inbox: Whitehall draws up new rules on language of terror.

Phrasebook designed to avoid blaming Muslims for extremism

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Monday February 4, 2008

A new counter-terrorism phrasebook has been drawn up within Whitehall to advise civil servants on how to talk to Muslim communities about the nature of the terror threat without implying they are specifically to blame.

Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.

The official Newspeak handbook is here!

It warns those engaged in counter-terrorist work that talk of a struggle for values or a battle of ideas is often heard as a "confrontation/clash between civilisations/cultures". Instead it suggests that talking about the idea of shared values works much more effectively.

The guide, which has been passed to the Guardian, is produced by a Home Office research, information and communications unit which was set up last summer to counter al-Qaida propaganda and win hearts and minds.

Shared values: "You want me to convert to Islam or feel subdued, and my government wants me to be a dhimmi. See? We have a lot in common."

It shows that the government is adopting a new sophistication in its approach to counter-terrorism, based on the realisation that it must "avoid implying that specific communities are to blame" if it is to enable communities to challenge the ideas of violent extremists robustly. The new lexicon of terror surfaced briefly last month when the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, made a speech on counter-terrorism declaring violent extremism to be "anti-Islamic".

There is absolutely no connection between Islam and terrorism, people.

(Hey, stop thinking that, you racist!)

But the internal Home Office guide shows just how far a new official language, to use when talking about terrorism, is being developed. "This is not intended as a definitive list of what not to say but rather to highlight terms which risk being misunderstood and therefore prevent the effective reception of the message," says the Home Office paper. "This is not about political correctness, but effectiveness - evidence shows that people stop listening if they think you are attacking them."

"This is not about political correctness...."

What's scary is that they may actually believe that!

While the leaked Whitehall papers show a new sophistication in the government's approach to talking about terrorism they reveal that their profiling of those most likely to prove vulnerable to violent extremism remains very vague.

They also reveal the crude criteria under which the communities secretary, Hazel Blears, is distributing £45m over the next three years for local communities to build resilience to violent extremism.

If it goes the way of other government programs, he's probably giving it to the mosques.

In the first year the funds will only be distributed to areas with a Muslim population of more than 4,000 based on 2001 census data. "This data is now 6-7 years old and given high population growth in Muslim communities is likely to be fairly out-of-date," says the internal Whitehall correspondence adding that each qualifying local authority will receive a fixed minimum allocation with increments dependent on the size of its Muslim population.

Ah -- a good point! The way the Muslim population is growing in the UK, you could probably just hand out the money in the streets and be giving it away to people in places where there has been high population growth in the Muslim community.

Maybe they should try that!

(Perhaps the blogger Lionheart has some suggestions on where they could hand out that money.)

The limitations of this crude population approach suggest there is only a very limited official understanding of the geography of violent extremism in Britain.

There is limited understanding not just of the geography of violent extremism in Britain.

Officials admit this approach will mean that six areas currently funded for tackling violent extremism will not meet the criteria from April. That would include, for example, Crawley which was home to three of the five men convicted over the Operation Crevice plot to bomb the Bluewater shopping centre, in Kent, and the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London.

Translation: The more terrorists there are from your community, the more money your community will get from the government.

A separate joint Home Office/ Communities Department paper on the strategy to prevent people becoming or supporting violent extremists suggests a disturbingly vague description of those being targeted: "There is no single profile of those most susceptible to these factors but they are likely to be young (generally younger than 30) and male (although the number of women who support and participate in violent extremism is increasing)."

Maybe try to correlate the violence to the perps' politico-religious beliefs, and see what you come up with!

The same paper stresses that "grievances which ideologues are exploiting" to make new recruits should be addressed where they are legitimately based.

They will just find something else to screech about -- and UK society will never be perfect.

It's about killing infidels for Allah to get to those virgins, guys....

It says: "No perceived grievance can justify terrorism. But where concerns are legitimately expressed then we must be prepared to debate them.

There's a value we don't share with the terrorists!

"We are committed to better explaining existing policies, such as the UK's foreign policy, refuting claims made about them in the language of violent extremists."

Translation: We are losing, so we are going to play their game.

But it adds that where concerns are "legitimately based we must be prepared to address them."

However, it makes clear that this does not mean changes in British foreign policy but using existing programmes to tackle inequalities and unemployment of the Muslim community in Britain.

If they are going to use "existing programmes", then there won't be much change.

The "global opportunities fund" and overseas aid programmes would be used to "help address the real grievances of people in key countries overseas which can increase their susceptibility to the extremists' message".

The only way to do that is to give the "global opportunities fund" money to the SAS, and send them in to clean out Wahhabi mosques.

Hat tip to my email tipster!

Pak Sex Slave Ring in UK, Part 5

We continue from Part 4, concluding our review of Mothers of prevention:

A number of families affected by Pakistani pimping gangs have said that police inaction and the refusal of white liberals to acknowledge the problem has resulted in more girls being at risk than ever before. "We are still battling to get recognition that what we are dealing with is organised crime against children," says Kosaraju.

It is not just a refusal of liberals (who are not just white).

Sunny Hundal, editor of the online magazine Asians in Media, has followed the phenomenon of Asian pimping gangs. "Although it's obvious that it's young, lawless Pakistani boys,” says Hundal, “it’s tricky to make this an issue about race or religion when neither are contributing factors." However, he does believe some young Asian men "hold very disparaging attitudes towards white girls, thinking they're 'easy'".

There are various types of Asian organized crime. These pimping gangs are not just "Asian", they are Pakistani. Anyone who tries to speak politically-correct newspeak at the expense of accuracy is part of the problem

Jean is a lively woman in her forties, living with two of her three children in a neat terraced house in the east side of Blackburn. Her daughter Sally, coming up to her 16th birthday, is now estranged from her as a result of being brainwashed and abused by men from the Asian pimping gangs. "Sally was a shy girl before this happened," says Jean, "and dressed fairly demurely, but all of a sudden she was wearing heavy make-up and dressed like a prostitute. At that stage I had no idea what was going on."

Jean’s eldest daughter, Sally, was targeted at school at 13 by slightly older Asian boys. They were on the payroll of older men who run pimping operations in the town. The modus operandi of the gangs is that pimps employ school-aged boys to make the initial connection with suitable girls and befriend them. The girls are then introduced to men they are told are older relatives of the boys. The older men take them out in flash cars and buy them gifts. Soon, however, it is payback time, and the girls are sold to men from private flats, hotels and cars.

"All of a sudden Sally was only interested in hanging out with Pakistani boys," says Jean. "She started saying I was racist, and that is why I objected to her hanging out with them."

Another big part of the problem is the vicious way in which the PC elite (and others) attack as racist those who dare to question what is going on.

Consequently, people should not allow the name-calling to deter them.

Jean was soon to find out just how indoctrinated her daughter had become when she discovered Sally's photographs and profile were posted on a website. She was posing with the flag of Pakistan. There were 97 names of Asian men posted on it who had made contact with her. She was asking for Asian men to "date". She said she hated white people. There were other girls' photographs on the site, one of whom Sally had recruited, as were other girls who were being pimped. Jean's boyfriend went online, pretending to be a girl. One of the men asked: "Are you better than Sally?"

The real racists are those who taught a white girl to hate white people. Of course, in the false world of political correctness, where up is down, day is night and wrong is right, this will never be acknowledged.

Preying on her shyness and vulnerability, the pimps told Sally she was beautiful and would be treated like a princess if she showed them loyalty. They also convinced her that her family did not care about her, saying her parents would think she was a "slag" for having Pakistani boyfriends. "We parents are doing more to investigate these criminals than the police," says Jean. "My husband and I have sat for hours outside hot spots, taking down car-registration numbers. I have given the police dozens of names from my daughter's mobile phone, but they have done nothing."

The pimps are adept at trading on teenage rebellion and use similar methods, according to Crop, of convincing the girls all white people are racist. This is part of the controlling process, to instil guilt in the girls. "Like most teenagers, I was going through a phase of arguing with my mum," says Gemma. "Amir told me they didn't understand me and were racist and ignorant. I believed him." Gemma was given an Asian name by Amir, and told she had to read the Koran, a story support workers tell me is not uncommon. "They erode the girls' identities," says Kosaraju, "to make them more compliant and needy."

And the PC elite is every bit as naive as these girls being targeted -- assuming, of course, that the PC elite is not as evil as the criminals pimping the girls.

Few of the girls know, or are willing to acknowledge, they are being pimped. Because they claim to love the men, and think of them as their boyfriends, police often see that as an admission from the girls of consent. "As far as I was concerned, Amir was my boyfriend," says Gemma. "When he told me I had to sleep with his friends, I had no idea he was being paid for it. I was on a lot of drugs and he said I had to pay for them."

It is not just the girls who will not acknowledge the problem.

Where there is pimping, there are other forms of serious and organised crime. Some Asian pimps in Rotherham are also involved in drug dealing and gun crime. Although shootings in the town are rare, the girls caught up with the pimps have disclosed that many of them carry guns. Pimps traffic the girls between towns and cities. The United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre (UKHTC) has appointed Amanda Palmer, a detective sergeant, to investigate trafficking within the UK. "There is no doubt that, according to current law, these girls have been trafficked,” says Palmer, “but to date, there has not been a conviction under this legislation."

Funny how the different kinds of crimes are related. When you're running drugs or women, you're running cash, and when you're running cash, you're running guns -- if for no other reason to protect yourself, your cash, your drugs and your women.

One of the many tragedies resulting from this phenomenon is how it is fuelling racism and mistrust of whites towards Pakistanis where little existed previously. Although racism can be rife in towns such as Blackburn, Jean claims that before her daughter's life was ruined she bore no animosity towards the Asian community. Things have changed. When ordering a taxi, Jean spends several minutes looking through the telephone directory, explaining she is looking for a "white-run firm". "If an Asian man came to my door, I might have a flashback, and go mad," says Jean.

A key point: refusing to acknowledge the problem, but rather calling "racist" those who point it out, is itself racism and is fueling racism where it has not existed.

In the meantime, organisations such as Crop continue battling with the police to act on the intelligence they have built up. Progress may be round the corner in the shape of the legal action the parents have started – and many parents I spoke to are feeling cautiously optimistic after the convictions of Hussain and Naveed. "This is just the beginning," says Maureen, "but I think it will have sent a message to other abusers that the net is closing in on them and they can no longer get away it."

Gemma's pimp tired of her when she turned 16, but she still has a drug habit and is irrevocably damaged from the sexual torture and degradation she endured. Although many young women do escape the clutches of these predators and go on to repair their lives, some will be drawn into street prostitution, violent relationships and self-harming lifestyles.

Why keep your 16-year-old, when you can trade her in on a newer (13-year-old) model? Consumerism at its best.

Of course, that is no doubt the West's fault, too, for contaminating these noble young Pakistani men with our shallow morals.

Jean’s daughter Sally is in foster care, but is still being picked up regularly by pimps and raped by men who do not even know her name. She is now totally estranged from her mother, whom she recently threatened to stab. "I keep having nightmares about what they have done to her," says Jean, "and about what her life has become. I want to kill them. I have told police to go and do something, or I might lose control and do something myself."

In all of these cities, victims such as Sally are facing an explosive mix of brutality and denial – from the authorities and the Pakistani community. It seems easier for many people to pretend it is not happening. The girls involved just don’t have that choice.

All of the names of victims and their relatives have been changed to protect identities.

The Free Muslims Coalition

We often hear (and perhaps say ourselves), "Where are the 'moderate' Muslims? Why don't we hear Muslims condemning terrorism?"

When we do hear such condemnation, we question the sincerity of some of those condemning the violence. There are those Muslims who condemn terrorism, but do so with a sneer; what they have in mind, and what they are condemning, are often American or Israeli acts which they describe as terroristic. Too often, naive Westerners miss the doublespeak.

I would like here to point out the existence of a Muslim organization that appears to sincerely condemn terrorism as we infidels understand it.

The Free Muslims Coalition is an organization of "Muslims against Terrorism and Extremism".

Specifically regarding terrorism [I did minor editing of punctuation where it looked like that had not been encoded properly -- YD],

The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism.

The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.

"The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world."

Among Islamic scholars, the concept of jihad ranges in definition from the personal struggle against temptation to holy war. All calls for jihad to create an Islamic state should be rejected as heretic and a threat to modern society. The Coalition feels that the concept of jihad should be reinterpreted for a modern day context in which holy war is obsolete. No holy war needs to be waged; there is no clear and present threat to Islam; the only war that needs to be waged in the modern world is one against terrorists and extremists. As militant Islamic fundamentalism increases, the Coalition will wage a battle of minds as we bring Islam into the 21st century and introduce a doctrine which is compatible with democracy and modern living.

We have heard this before, where Islamic scholars describe jihad as a personal struggle, but then we hear of Islamic scholars preaching violent hatred of infidels and advocating violent attacks against us. Often times, we again are left interpreting doublespeak.

Notice, however, how the FMC is calling for a reinterpretation of jihad for the modern world. Notice also the unequivocal statement of the absense of a threat in the world to Islam.

So far, the few Muslims who choose to speak up against militant extremist Islam have faced threats of violence and accusations of being anti-Islam. Even members of this Coalition face threats as they carry out their work. In effect, the message disseminated by radical Muslims is that merely discussing Islamic terrorism is to be construed as an attack on Islam.

This rings true, as it is a point that I have discovered and often made: decent people in the Islamic world are the biggest targets of the bad guys, some ideologically due to apostasy according to the Khawarij and other extremists, others for practical matters. For whatever reason, this is a major factor in why many Muslims keep silent: they are being targeted and intimidated from within their own community. Notice also the similarity of the threat they face -- "accusations of being anti-Islam" -- to the ideology of the Wahhabis and the Khawarij.

More effectively, Muslim extremists have quelled criticism against them from peaceful Muslims by adopting popular Muslim and Arab causes. A case in point is the adoption of the Palestinian cause. The issue of Palestine and the perceived suffering of the Palestinians is the single most important issue that unites the entire Muslim and Arab world. No issue evokes the passion of Muslims and Arabs as much as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so important to Arabs and Muslims that every terrorist group from Morocco to Indonesia that seeks legitimacy and a following, places the "liberation" of Palestine at the forefront of their agenda. For example, recall that Saddam Hussein responded to the world's request that he leave Kuwait by insisting that Israel first evacuate the West Bank and Gaza. Osama Bin Laden also invoked the Palestinian issue to justify 9-11. Iran has made the Palestinian issue its most important foreign policy priority since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. HAMAS, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad justify the murder of innocent Jews by adopting the Palestinian cause.

The corrupt governments in the Arab world also make hay from this issue. By constantly pointing an accusing finger at Israel, they keep their citizens' eyes off their own corrupt and foolish policies. It should be noted that if Saudi Arabia had spent a fraction of its defense budget on investing in "Palestinian" "camps" (two words, each in quotations), they could have given these people a great economy and turned some profit on their investment.

Instead, they foment the trouble by keeping their Arab brothers in the most miserable conditions possible, then inciting and supporting terrorism.

They need the "Palestinian issue"....

The clever adoption of the Palestinian cause has made it difficult for peaceful Muslims to attack terrorist organizations such as Islamic Jihad and HAMAS. The real aim of organizations such as Al-Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah and countries such as Iran is not just the "liberation of Palestine" but the creation of a fundamentalist Muslim empire made up of every Muslim nation. This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam and the idea that the Muslim community has strayed from God and if they were to return to a strict interpretation of Islam that the problems in the Muslim world would be solved. It is this exact mentality spurned of paranoia, ignorance and fear that inspired and supported the Taliban and the creation of a medieval society in Afghanistan.

The title of this blog is Stop Islamic Conquest.

What are we stopping?

Well, here are Muslims pointing out that it is an Islamic conquest that we are stopping: "...the creation of a fundamentalist Muslim empire made up of every Muslim nation. This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam...."

Why is the FMC opposed to Islamic conquest? Because other Muslims will suffer at the hands of the rabid terrorist criminals every bit as much as we infidels will, and anyone with half a brain knows that!

The Coalition rejects the urgent desire by extremist groups to create a strict Islamic empire as a justification for terrorism. The coalition rejects the desire to help the Palestinians as a justification for terrorism. The coalition rejects the use of terrorism under any circumstances and will challenge the terrorists' propaganda machines head on.

The Coalition will seek to raise the peaceful voices of Muslims world wide. The terrorist and extremist Muslims will no longer go unchallenged. Their days of sympathetic leaching off the Muslim community are numbered.

Interesting.

These people are not "moderates"!

These people are not "moderates"!

They are just as dedicated to Islam as many Christians are to Christianity; they are just as dedicated to Islam as some of the terrorists are.

The difference is that their methods and goals may seem "moderate" when compared to those of a rabid criminal who wants to rape, pillage, plunder and kill his way to his seventy-two virgins.

But, their dedication to their vision of their Creator is no less enthusiastic than that of others; quite the contrary, they are willing to defy the insanity and risk their lives in service of their Creator. These are the true "Holy Warriors" who stand in sharp contrast to the Islamic mafioso criminals like Osama bin Laden.

Or so it would seem?

More to follow....

Meanwhile, explore the website of the Free Muslims Coalition, and tell me what you think.

The Valhalla Exchange, Part II

This post is the second of a multipart article where I interview a subject named "Reinhard". Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English).

Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first part of the interview.


14) Regarding your answer to Question 5, is it fair to say then that you, personally, make a distinction between a) Jews and Jewish beliefs on the one hand, and b) Israelis and Israeli politics on the other? Is it accurate to further say that the government does not share in making this distinction? Finally, what are your impressions about other Swedes -- do they make a disctinction between "Jewish" and "Israeli"?

I make a distinction between Jews in general, Judaism as a religion, and Israel as a state whose policies do not necessarily have anything to do with either of the first two factors. The problem is that certain segments of the Swedish population, including some left-wing politicians, as well as many Muslims and neo-Nazis, do not clearly make such distinctions. Criticism of Israel bleeds into anti-semitism, and little is done on the part of police and the government to hinder this. The general populace makes the distinction at least in theory; those who are anti-semites, do not state this, since it is not politically correct to harbour such thoughts.

15) Regarding Questions 4-6, is it accurate to say then that the government and Swedish society in general are very permissive of free speech regarding Judaism and Israel, going so far as to tolerate inciteful speech, but are very sensitive concerning what is said about Islam and the Islamic world? Please elaborate.

The main problem concerning Israel is that it is perfectly acceptable in Sweden to view Israel as an apartheid state which is engaging in ethnic cleansing and genocide. Basically anything can be said about Israel, except for pure anti-semitism. Criticism of Jews and Judaism as such is seldom expressed, since that would be seen as touching on anti-semitism. Hateful speech against Jews and Judaism is taboo, but these prohibitions are rarely enforced when Israel as a state enters into the equation. The situation concerning Islam and the Islamic world is very much different. Criticism of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic states is often seen as Islamophobic hate-speech. Even criticism of Islamic theology (jihad, sharia etc.) can be seen as hate-speech directed against Muslims. Muslims are so to speak even more protected than Jews by political correctness and laws about hate-speech. Muslims are fast becoming a group which it is impossible to criticize, which is a direct result of their conscious efforts to portray themselves collectively as victims.

16) Also regarding Questions 4-6, is it accurate to say that Christians who expound beliefs that are very much in contrast with what is accepted in Swedish culture are condemned, while Muslims who expound beliefs that are very much in contrast with what is accepted in Swedish culture are tolerated? In other words, there is tolerance for Islamic extremism, but not for Christian extremism? Why? Can you give any examples?

This is correct. We tolerate from Muslims what we do not tolerate from anyone else, since Muslims are ”protected”. Christians are the mainstream, and the mainstream is never a minority; all minorities, however, are seen by the rules of political correctness as victims who need protection. One example is when a famous (but often ridiculed) evangelical preacher, Runar Sogaard, called Muhammed a pedophile. There was general outrage against this, including from a Kurdish Muslim journalist, Kurdo Baksi, who defended Muhammed by saying that he wasn’t a pedophile, since pedophilia according to Baksi is limited to buying sex from children. In essence, Baksi said that Muhammed wasn’t a pedophile since he was married to the child he had sex with. If someone like Runar had made this argument in public, he would have been severely criticized. However, no one reacted against Baksi’s argument.

17) Following up on Question 8, would this mean that the government guarantees the freedoms of its citizens, but does not necessary act to protect their rights? Please explain your answer and give any examples you can think of.

A guarantee is worth nothing if it is not enforced. During the past few months several attacks have been made against politicians active in the Swedish Democratic party. Members of the extreme left anti-fascist group AFA for instance attacked a meeting held by SD:s members. The editor of SD:s party magazine was hospitalized. No one has been charged with this attack. SD works within the democratic system, and are often attacked by leftist agitators who work outside of this system and commit political violence. The government has done very little to stop this recent trend. Slightly less serious is the ruling system of political correctness, which can effectively end the career of anyone who speaks out against multiculturalism. Nothing whatsoever has been done by the government to combat this system of virulent censorship and self-censorship.

18) In Question 10, you mention women's rights. Can you define what is understood to be women's rights? Why are women's rights an issue?

Women’s rights are mostly defined as a woman’s right to equal terms and pay as men on the job market, and an underlying conviction that women are in every way worth as much as men. There has also been an increase in questions regarding honour killings during the past few years, mainly because of highly publicized cases of honour killings among immigrant families. Many feminists are loathe to stand up against oppression of women when it is caused by immigrants, since that could be seen as racism. Again, this could be caused by the view of immigrants as protected from criticism. If I were to point out in public that female genital mutilation has strong support in Islamic jurisprudence, I would be labeled as an Islamophobic racist and be shunned by polite society.

19) Also in Question 10, you mention immigration as a big issue for those in power. Later in Question 12, you mention that most Swedes feel too many immigrants have been welcomed into Swedish society. Do you feel then that immigrants have been welcomed faster than they can assimilate, and that this is a source of problems? What served to start the policy to welcome so many immigrants? Why does the government continue the policy of welcoming so many immigrants, if so many Swedes are against the policy? I have the impression that some situation caused the government to suddenly bring in many immigrants, but that this influx caused problems, and that the government and other of society's "elites" are now in a state of denial and cover-up regarding the problems they have caused. Is this accurate?

It is my opinion that the problems caused by immigration can be subdivided into three factors: we have welcomed too many immigrants; we have been unable to integrate those we have welcomed; and we have accepted immigrants from cultures which are radically different than our own (I am specifically thinking of Muslims), without asking ourselves if this could pose any difficulties. The first part has to do with economics and society: immigration is expensive, and can cause friction between immigrants and ethnic Swedes and resistance on the part of the latter. The economic difficulties can be overcome, but the shift in attitude is harder to come to terms with, since it often brought on by real or imagined differences in culture. I believe that everyone has the right to question immigration, and I will never call someone a racist simply because he or she prefers to live among members of his/her own culture (but all ideas about immigrants somehow being in any way worse people than ethnic Swedes I totally reject). I would prefer allowing people to dislike immigration, if the alternative is a society where "wrong thoughts" are punished.

That said, the resistance against immigration is a relatively recent phenomenon. Large-scale immigration to Sweden was unheard of until we welcomed many Italian immigrants during the 60’s, to remedy a shortage in the work force. Germany had the same problem and welcomed Turks; the difference being that we welcomed members of a culture not far removed from our own. It was only during the 1990’s that we accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, following the Balkan war. We have since welcomed Iraqis, Somalis and members of other Muslim nations who have fled from conflicts and poverty. This influx is recent and began when multiculturalism was already an established ideology. That being said, there has never been any referendum on whether or not we should accept any immigrants at all; politicans during the 60’s simply decided for immigration, and no one in power has ever challenged the multiculturalist ideology which followed. To question this ideology is seen as racist, and therefore it continues, despite its having lost much popular support. Your analysis is also correct in this regard: today’s Swedes are suffering from the consequences of a choice made by the political elite of the previous generation. There is a strong opposition towards immigration today, which also explains the successes of SD.

I should also add that no real effort has ever been made to integrate the immigrants we have accepted. We have tended to allow them to settle in ethnic enclaves in low-cost suburbs outside our major cities. I believe that ethnic enclaves always cause problems, but when those enclaves are inhabited by Muslims, the problems increase manifold. (The unofficial European capital of Syrian Christians is in Sodertalje, south of Stockholm; this enclave causes much less problems than Rosengard, the largest Muslim enclave, in Malmo.) It is seen as racist to demand that immigrants accept Swedish values and traditions; instead we allow them to retain their connection to their previous countries to a high degree. Since we see them as victims who have to be helped by us, we refuse to demand anything from them. Combined with the Swedish welfare state, which ensures that anyone can receive enough money to live on, regardless of whether or not they even try to get a job, this encourages a lack of integration. We basically tell immigrants that they do not need to conform to how things are done in Sweden, and then give them money with no expectation of them doing anything in return. This failure of the integration policy – the failure in effect being that there exists no real integration policy – has created an untenable situation which only SD will discuss in public (and therefore they are of course labeled racists).

20) Some more pointed questions now... You mention in Question 13 a shift in public debate regarding Islam and Muslims in Sweden. Do you feel Sweden (as a nation-state with a culturally identifiable people) is dying? If so, is the presence and continued influx of unassimilated immigrants a symptom of this, or is it the disease? Why? You also state: "This shift does not bode well for the future." Do you feel Sweden is on the brink of civil unrest? Is Sweden headed for civil war?

I do not think that Swedes or Sweden are in danger of being eradicated anytime soon, but there is a strong sense that we have to be ashamed of our cultural heritage. We are so afraid of being called racists that we refuse to take pride in our heritage and display that pride in public. Swedes are told that we have no culture (even by our politicans), and that to insist that we do is racist. Immigrants, on the other hand, naturally have an identifiable culture; to say otherwise would be considered racist. This is of course untenable.

I believe that we have to restrict the influx of immigrants, regardless of origin, in order to give those we have already welcomed a chance to be assimilated. Muslim immigration is in part a separate question; I welcome immigrants from all cultures (in manageable numbers), but am totally opposed to all further Muslim immigration, since I believe that an unreformed Islam has no place whatsoever in the West. Continued Muslim immigration, violence perpetrated by jihadists, and the demands put forth by ordinary Muslims as well as Islamists to limit freedom of speech and impose sharia, are dangerous factors which are already causing considerable civil unrest. I don’t believe that Sweden is headed for civil war, since we do not have nearly the same amount of ordinary or radical Muslims as countries like France and the Netherlands. But it is entirely possible that the situation will deteriorate and approach that of those countries, if nothing is done about the rise of Islamism and jihadism. I believe that Western civilization is headed towards civil war, but I believe that Sweden (a country which is generally loathe to partake in armed conflict) will try to stay out of such a war as far as possible.


There will be further information on The Valhalla Exchange -- stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest!

An End to History

Out looking at the new blog, the United British Alliance, about whose existence I was alerted yesterday, I found they have added a new category, entitled Politically Correct News where I found a post, THE MADNESS OF BROWN TO REMOVE OUR HISTORY, which talks about how the new British government is changing the school curriculum, and eliminating studies of classic British history.

It references an article, THE MADNESS OF BROWN, which appears at a link that, to my American perspective, kind of has a tabloid feel about it. I've noticed that about journals from the UK, that many fairly good ones seem to have a look about them that, if they were in the US, I would expect to see them at the cash register in a supermarket somewhere.

Curious, I did a search, and found The Huffington Post has a page with some links on the topic of Winston Churchill, and one of those references a link at Michelle Malkin, Winston Churchill out, global warming in.

Finally, I found an article at Anorak News, another tabloid-looking journal, entitled Gordon Brown: Balls To Education Winston Churchill. So, I took a few quotes from there to tell the story about recent "improvements" in education in the UK:

"BY cutting waste and duplication in the curriculum, I am giving teachers time to concentrate on what is really vital," says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s Schools Secretary.

The greatest of evils are done in the name of the common good. In particular, cutting waste, promoting education and helping our children are three battle cries that, when you hear them, should make your hair stand on end.

Good then that the children will be given what they want: shorter classes with more range. Teachers will be free to introduce more topic-based lessons to the core curriculum.

And, without a doubt, children should be given what they want! They know best. After all, it is the adult world that is destroying the planet, oppressing people, and causing wars. Without a doubt, kids should be calling the shots! (Is my sarcasm dripping on the floor?)

Notice the buzz words: topic-based lessons.

It is what the Sun calls "TWO FINGERS TO CHURCHILL". And: "Schools axe Winnie from history lessons." There is talk of “fury” as Sir Winston Churchill is "axed" from school history lessons.

It’s "total madness" says MPs Nicholas Soames. "Sir Winston out, drugs lessons in," says the Sun. No longer will the nippers have to learn about Churchill, Hitler, Gandhi, Stalin, Martin Luther King, the Wars of the Roses, Elizabeth I or Henry VIII. Instead the kidz will learn more about "relevant" issues, "like sex, drugs, climate chance and GM goods".

It has been said that those who fail to learn from history will be condemned to relive it.

The history that children in the UK will no longer be learning from includes Britain's Finest Hour, as the UK stood essentially alone in the dark days of 1940, Western Europe's last bastion of civilized humanity facing the onslaught of Nazism. It includes the height of the Cold War, when the Man of Steel, Josef Stalin, ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist, the multitudes of his Red Army poised at the gates of Western Europe, and finally in possession of nuclear weapons.

Important lessons could be drawn from those turbulent, trying times in British history, lessons that could help the United Kingdom today as it faces calls for its political dismemberment, as well as a new "invasion" of immigrants, many of whom preach a very violent interpretation of a very violent religion, and call for the destruction of everything that has made the United Kingdom civilized.

But, the decision is being made that children in the schools there will not learn about this history; the decision is thus being made that those children will be condemned to relive it.

Is it any wonder that in a nation heavily engaged in the War on Terror, a nation which is itself being increasingly targeted by rabid Islamic terrorists, there are calls to not use the words "Muslim" and "Islam" in connection with terrorist acts?

If the United Kingdom fails to meet the challenges it faces today, its civilization could collapse under the current onslaught of barbarity that it faces, and the people of the British Isles could be dragged back to the dark ages of totalitarian tyranny at the hands of those who violently preach and spread a dark age ideology.

Another domino falls, as an end to history in the schools of the United Kingdom takes us one step closer to an End to History for Mankind.

Blogosphere Bulletin

First up, there's a new kid on the block: the United British Alliance. Here's their header:

U.B.A … TERRORISTS OUT!

WELCOME to the Blog of the United British Alliance.

ALL INCLUSIVE

We are a multi-ethnic,multi-faith organisation with a passionate interest in reclaiming our once proud nation from the grip of international terror and political correctness gone-mad,with a view to re-installing some pride in our communities and way of life.We hope you enjoy our Blog and if you find you are like minded then please,feel free to jump to our FORUM from the links page and become a member.Many thanks for visiting.

DisclaimerThe views and opinions expressed on these pages are not neccessarily representative of the group as a whole. ANY remarks, comments or views left in public areas of this site and/or the forum that are racist, obscene or in any way incite hatred and condone violence towards any persons/groups/communities based on their colour, religion, political beliefs or social opinions will NOT be tolerated and will be instantly deleted by the Admin team and could result in you being banned and your IP address being passed over to the relevant authorities.

WE WILL NOT TOLERATE IT.

Here are some of the topics they have blogged about (language warning at the first link!):

Veiled protest as race-hate Muslims are jailed: The photo of protesters telling the police to go to hell, as a police woman stands there protecting their freedom to protest tells the whole story.

Former Mosque Leader Warns Britain Top Target for Extremists: "A former imam, or mosque leader, has warned that extremists are aiming to establish Muslim Sharia law in the UK - and that Britain has become the world 'number one target' for Islamic strategists."

Bombers Welcome To Stay: "The men who tried to bomb London and Glasgow will be allowed to stay in Britain at public expense indefinitely even if they are convicted of terrorism offences, according to a report issued today."

Eight Al Qaeda fanatics working for the police: "Up to eight police officers and civilian staff are suspected of links to extremist groups including Al Qaeda. [...] Astonishingly, many of the alleged jihadists have not been sacked because - it is claimed - police do not have the “legal power” to dismiss them."


For those of you who may not be aware, freedom of speech and of the press is very much under attack in the UK. In fact, it may not be accurate to say it still exists. Elements of a certain peaceful religion can advocate violence all day long, and that is okay, but if one dares to openly question the meaning of those violent words, one faces action by the government. It goes far beyond political correctness. At least, that is what I have come to understand by reading some blogs from over there. I believe it may be true, and that may explain the above disclaimer.

If you, dear reader, have some information on that topic, please enlighten me with your observations.


While you're out and about, check out Dope OpenTrackback Weekend over at Angel's blog. This post makes some excellent points, and, as usual, Angel makes the points with humor.

One of the things touched on is the desire in some circles to legalize drugs. They say it will stop drug crimes.

My question:

Why is it that drug-related crime can only be stopped by legalizing drugs, but gun-related crime can only be stopped by outlawing guns?!

By the way, Angel is a very classy blogger. She answers comments left on her blog with a thank-you for the visit (unlike Yours Truly -- sorry), and she's very good about visiting the blogs of those who visit her.

This is a hint for the UBA -- link to Angel and visit her often! ;)


Elsewhere, The Dhivestan Report is always a good read (don't let the top post in Arabic deter you).

Death and the Maiden tells you all you ever wanted to know about torture.

Chronicles Magazine has an excellent article by Dr. Trifkovic entitled Kosovo: Back to Square One, although for some reason it seems to have gone stealth on us.

Here's an interesting read: Gun owners, so you want to defend yourself??? over at Right Truth.

And, coming up soon here is Mirror, Mirror, a multi-part posting that will be the latest installment in the Gotham City series (see sidebar). Future installments beyond that will include The Detective and The Counterconspiracy.

The Libel Terrorist

Here again is a comment on the story of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld.

Briefly, Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and an author. One of her books connected a Saudi billionaire to the financing of terror. In the parts of the Islamic world where terror rules, terror (not truth) indeed rules, so the response was, naturally, an attempt to terrorize (legally, of course) Dr. Ehrenfeld into submission, so she would stop speaking the truth.

This Saudi billionaire, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, went to the UK to sue her, since the legal system there favors the plaintiff, and won a judgement. Dr. Ehrenfeld is fighting back. For background at my blog, see Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Robert Spencer on Dr. Ehrenfeld's Situation; you can also read Dr. Ehrenfeld's work, and read about her work, at her website, The American Center for Democracy, and at The Terror Finance Blog, both of which you should consider required reading if you are one of those who refuses to submit.

With that background established, you are encouraged to read From the British Courts: A strange libel case that gives pause to authors and comfort to terrorism over at History on Trial.

Pointing out that Terrorist Financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz (may Allah be pleased with him) makes the slimmest of connections between his case and the United Kingdom in order to be able to sue there, the blogger, Deborah Lipstadt, refers to bin Mahfouz as a "libel tourist" -- a comment which is as hilarious as it is true.

However, I would go Deborah Lipstadt one further: Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz is not so much a libel tourist as he is a libel terrorist.

Most of the jihadis foolishly blow themselves up, in the hopes of taking some infidels, or even fellow Muslims, with them. They fight their holy war with firearms and explosives, but they do make a personal sacrifice.

Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz is more of a manipulator: he doesn't actually go to Allah himself, he just sends others on that journey and makes sure their tickets get paid. I guess you could say that bin Mahfouz goes to Allah first class, while the suicide bombers go coach.

Through his financial and legal jihad, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz tries to silence people who seek to speak the truth. This is typical of much of the Islamic world today, because these people can't stand the truth; the truth about submission is ugly, and it hurts. So, they attempt to force us to deny the truth about their dysfunctional imperialistic agenda by intimidating us.

The first stop on the road to physical submission is mental and intellectual submission, and the first step toward that is causing us to have reservations about speaking the truth. After we stop speaking the truth, perhaps we will stop thinking it; and when that happens, we have already submitted, and it becomes just a question of wrapping a rag on our head or covering our face with a veil, and bowing toward Mecca.

Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz may be both a libel tourist and a libel terrorist, and he may be going to Allah first class, but he is, in the end, a terrorist, pure and simple.


Hat tip to a certain tipster for the heads-up!

Robert Spencer on Dr. Ehrenfeld's Situation

From The American Center for Democracy is an article by Robert Spencer entitled Battling Censorship. This article, which I have shamelessly reproduced in its entirety, provides some background and a bit of an update to my previous post about Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld.

One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship. And Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, stands today as one of the primary targets of this tactic - and, by her ongoing resistance, one of the foremost defenders of the freedom of speech against encroaching attempts at legal intimidation that, if successful, will effectively silence the anti-jihad resistance.

Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz sued Miss Ehrenfeld in the U.K. for libel: in her book, "Funding Evil," she wrote that he was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda. Mr. bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. Taking advantage of British libel laws that place the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, Mr. bin Mahfouz sued not in the United States, where Miss Ehrenfeld lives and published her book, but in Britain, where neither he nor Miss Ehrenfeld live and where his entire case depended upon a handful of copies sold in that country mostly through special orders from Amazon.com, and the appearance of one chapter of the book on the Internet, where it may have been read by British readers.

Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection in order to ensure a favorable ruling. Mr. bin Mahfouz had the good fortune of having the case heard by Judge David Eady, who has a long history of strange rulings in libel cases - rulings that generally ran in favor of censorship and against free speech. In connection with another of these rulings in May 2007, British journalist Stephen Glover wrote: "Mr Justice Eady is beginning to worry me. Is he a friend of a free Press? There are good reasons to believe that he isn't."

In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Miss Ehrenfeld must apologize to Mr. bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. This fine remains uncollected, and Miss Ehrenfeld sees no reason to apologize. Now she cannot travel to Britain, and her writing and research work has of course been banned there - thus preventing important information from reaching the public.

Miss Ehrenfeld countersued in New York, asking the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for a declaration that the British judgment was contrary to the First Amendment and hence unenforceable on an American citizen. And on June 8, the appellate court handed down a landmark decision, ruling that Miss Ehrenfeld's case was valid, and that she could appeal for relief from American courts in order to keep the British court order from being carried out in this country. Said Circuit Court Judge Wilfred Feinberg: "The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state." He also declared that the case had implications for all writers - since they, like Miss Ehrenfeld, could be subjected to harassment. This decision could also have great impact on the September 11 victims lawsuits, in which Mr. bin Mahfouz is also a defendant.

Lost, meanwhile, amid the legal wrangling surrounding Miss Ehrenfeld's case has been the release of a September 13, 2001, note from France's foreign intelligence agency, the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE). The French news site Geopolitique.com obtained the note in late June 2007, and has revealed that already in 1996 Mr. bin Mahfouz was known as one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the report claims that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew this. This is just the latest addition to the mountain of evidence from which Miss Ehrenfeld constructed her case in "Funding Evil." Even if this evidence is all mistaken, the British libel judgment against Miss Ehrenfeld appears all the more fantastic and unjustifiable in light of the fact that French intelligence agents had documents allowing them to came to the same conclusion she did.

This calls for open and thorough investigation, unhindered by legal intimidation. If Saudis or others who have indeed supported the global jihad are able cover their tracks using British libel laws to silence investigators, the only winners are the jihadists. "The British legal and political leadership's constant appeasement of the jihadists," says Miss Ehrenfeld, "facilitated the rise of terrorism." She sees consequences for both the United States and Britain in her legal struggle: "My fight against bin Mahfouz is not only to prevent the extension of that influence here - to defend our First Amendment from British laws. My success here would deter other jihadists from using the British courts to silence U.S. writers and publishers especially since it would - in similar situations - render U.K. court decisions useless."

For that reason, all who wish to remain free and resist the encroachments of global jihadism and Islamic supremacism should hope and pray that she prevails.

Don't just hope and pray; hit her tip jar! Contributions are tax deductible.

Unthinkable!

From EUROPE TELLS BRITAIN: DON'T SAY 'MUSLIMS', Thursday July 5, 2007, by Alison Little (boldface in original subtitle):

Secret EU guidelines have been drawn up warning governments not to link Islam and terrorism.

The politically correct directives are believed to be behind ministers not using words such as "Muslim" about Britain’s terrorism crisis.

Yesterday the Daily Express reported how Gordon Brown’s ministers had been told to avoid inflammatory language when speaking about the attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.

Neither the Prime Minister in a major interview nor Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the Commons referred to Muslims or Islam.

Last night critics pointed to a classified EU document sent out to all European governments offering "non-offensive" phrases to use when discussing terrorism.

Banned terms were said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

EU officials said the "common lexicon" aimed to stop the distortion of the Muslim faith and alienation of its followers in Europe. European governments had previously agreed on the need to develop a "non-emotive lexicon" for use in discussion to avoid "exacerbating division".

Gerard Batten, a UK Independence Party MEP, claimed Ms Smith’s statement was "evidence that the Government is now cutting its suit to suit the European Commission’s cloth". He is demanding that the full lexicon be published.

But the Home Office insisted: "The Home Secretary uses her own words. She did not draw on any other source."

Even Labour former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane said yesterday that “Islamist’’ was an “accurate description’’ of the ideology behind the terror attacks.

And Conservative MP Philip Davies said: “Whatever your view on particular words, surely everyone should agree it is completely unacceptable for people in Brussels who have already interfered too much in our lives to start to tell us what words we can and can’t use.

"If we believe in anything in this country we should believe in free speech. If we are allowing the EU to dictate to us on this, most people would find that horrifying."

Hugo Robinson, of Open Europe thinktank, said: "Brussels has no place telling national governments how they should deal with the real and immediate threat of terrorism: The EU’s so-called non-emotive lexicon won’t do anything to stop dangerous extremists targeting Britain."

A Foreign Office source insisted the "common lexicon" was not an exercise in "political correctness" but an attempt to find a "common vocabulary and definitions" for statements about terrorism.

If they can change the way you speak, they can change the way you think. By eliminating some words, and introducing others, they will manipulate communication about reality until reality itself becomes manipulated, and unwanted thoughts become, quite literally, unthinkable.


Hat tip to English Rose!

Liberalism

It has become the system that it sought to destroy.

(Part of my comment on a post over at The Barefoot Bum.)

An Invitation to Muslim Readers

Welcome!

I am happy and excited that you are here.

At this blog I write some things that will likely offend you. If so, too bad!

There are a great many statements coming out of the Islamic World that are offensive to non-Muslims, comments that go so far as to call for the violent extermination of non-Muslims, and I hear little (there is some) criticism of such comments from the Islamic community. And don't think I'm not listening for it!

I do not wish for all offensive statements necessarily to cease.

As an American, I know my country is not perfect. We have a great deal of room for improvement, a great many problems that need solving. But, we can't solve problems if we don't know they exist; we can't improve things if we don't know improvement is possible. Sometimes it takes the voices of those who hate us to point out what is wrong. Indeed, improvement seems nearly impossible in the absence of criticism; homogenized, pasteurized praise paves the road to Hell.

To hear those voices, we have to get past our sensitivities. To make progress, we have to get over our offensiphobia. This is why the United States has a First Amendment: so even people who seek the destruction of our Republic can help us improve it! Perhaps once they unwittingly help improve it by calling attention to its deficiencies, they will find it far more tolerable; instead of hating it, they might even grow to like it!

As a result of that, I am in favor of Freedom of Speech and of the Press, and of Religion. These fundamental liberties should be given a wide berth; they are the treasures of civilized society, and we should suspect anyone who draws near to them.

In this same light, I feel Islam should not be immune to criticism.

There are many, many different traditions and communities in the Islamic World. Some of them are very old and historic.

A trend that I see in the Islamic World, however, is one of increasing radicalization. This is a violent trend, a totalitarian trend, aimed at the elimination of Free Speech, Free Press, Free Religion, and even Free Thought. This trend involves the destruction of peaceful, historic cultures and beautiful places inside the Islamic World -- and, of course, outside it -- to make room for a takeover by radicalized, violent, totalitarian Islamic elites. This trend is nothing less than the establishment of Hell-on-Earth, a gateway to a more eternal place of torment.

If this trend continues, not only will we infidels be in danger, but so will you: whoever you are, whatever you believe, sooner or later someone will label you takfir or apostate, and that label is no less dangerous than the tattoo on the arm of a prisoner in a Nazi death camp from decades ago.

With this in mind, I invite you to join the conversation here.

If you have a comment, make it. If you have a question, pose it.

If you think I'm wrong, say so!

Don't be overly concerned about being polite and civil. Yes, we all appreciate politeness and civility, but if you don't know how to phrase it, just blurt it out! I will try to look past my offensiphobia and take it positively. In the very same light, if you see something that someone has blurted out, look past your offensiphobia and try to take it the way you would want others to take your comments. Remember, no one here is without sin.

All readers here should please keep in mind that English may not be the native language of the blog's guests. If someone is having difficulty communicating a thought, for any reason, try a little harder to understand that person; perhaps you can even help that person communicate the thought.


Having said all that, I, as the blog administrator, do, as a matter of principle, reserve the right to delete comments (or even entire posts) for any reason, or for no reason at all.


Think! That is why your Creator gave you a mind -- and your Creator didn't make junk!

And speak out -- before it is too late!

I will keep you all in my prayers, that our Creator does as He sees best for all of us, because He is merciful, loving and wise.

Thank you for visiting, and God bless you all!

Study of Islam Improves Vocabulary

The study of Islam is improving my vocabulary.

I thought I had invented two new words yesterday, but, alas, I hadn't.


Freedophobia: An irrational fear of freedom or liberty. Related words: freedophobic, freedophobe

(I googled it and found ONE return: See link.)


Gynophobia: An irrational fear of women. Related words: gynophobic, gynophobe


(Google that and see what you come up with.)

Here are some more I found:


Judeophobia: An irrational fear of Judaism or Jews. Related words: judeophobic, judeophobe


Christophobia: An irrational fear of Christianity or Christians. Related words: christophobic, christophobe

Birmingham (UK) Terror Plot: Look Who's Talking

In the ongoing investigation into the alleged terror plot in Birmingham (UK) to capture and behead Muslim members of the UK's armed forces, nine suspects have so far been captured, of which three have been released. See Man accused of plot to kill soldier.

After two of the men were released last week, the local Muslim community accused the police of stirring up racial tension.

One of the released men, Abu Bakr, later said: "These laws are designed specifically for Muslims. We are feeling the brunt of it all. We are the ones that are being locked up, detained, and then told to go back to our lives."

Mr Bakr told BBC2’s Newsnight the episode would live with him for the rest of his life.

Mr. Bakr's key point: the government, not the terrorists, are stirring up tension.

Newspeak: Notice also how the tension is described as "racial". Islam is an ideology. Even if you insist on calling it a religion, it is still a cultural trait of a person, not a physical trait; hence, it cannot be "racial". The attempt here is to try to get the government to back off by name-calling.

However, a racist crime is being committed here -- by the radical Islamic community. It is responsible for the terrorism, but is also aiding and abetting racism, because, by "crying wolf" about racism all the time, society is being desensitized to the word "racism"; when true racist acts occur, they may not get the attention they need. The blame for all this goes right into those radical mosques, and the Saudi connections that are funding and training those mullahs who are preaching hatred.

In another article Terror suspect tells of time in detention, Mr. Bakr says:

"I'm not playing the race card, but people seem to think you don't have feelings for your parents or your child; if you're Muslim you're like a race from another planet. There's a difference in this country between a Muslim and a white person."

Oh, really? "There's a difference ... between a Muslim and a white person." What about if a person of European descent becomes a Muslim?

You can't help but "play the race card", Mr. Bakr, because you are a racist; you think in colors.

"Prejudice is natural, but taken to the next level it can ruin people's lives."

No, prejudice is not natural, Mr. Bakr. You have to be taught to hate people without knowing them. Who taught you?

"I think the justice system here did prevail, because the judge said 'you've had enough time, charge him or let him go home'," he said.

"I think the justice system here did prevail...." Please repeat that a few more times, and maybe it will sink in. While you're doing that, consider what happens daily to people accused in the Islamic world of something far less serious.

Sky News also has a recap of the situation, minus Mr. Bakr's viewpoints.

Further information on the plot can be found in local Birmingham (UK) sources: Man charged with kidnap and murder plot.


The UK is finally starting to do something about the cause of all this. In an article entitled Muslim preacher arrested over Birmingham speech, the story begins:

Abu Izzadeen, the radical Muslim who barracked Home Secretary John Reid last year, has been arrested for allegedly encouraging terrorism.

Other key quotes from the article include the following piece of Newspeak:

Radical Muslim leader Anjem Choudhury responded to news of his arrest by saying that Muslims were now the subject of a "witchhunt".

A legitimate investigation into a serious situation is a "witchhunt"; the radicals know they can't win with the truth, so they have to redefine the way we think about things by redefining the terms we use to think. Only by changing the meanings of words can they suppress the truth enough to stand a chance.

Izzadeen allegedly praised the July 7 bombers and mocked victims of suicide attacks while speaking at the council-owned centre, according to reports.

Of course, if you draw a picture of his prophet doing that, then that is unacceptable and will provoke a violent reaction.

He is a well-known Islamic extremist who came to public prominence after refusing to condemn the 7/7 London bombings. Instead, he described the attacks as "mujahideen activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee".

Thank you, Mr. Izzadeen, for bringing up some good points: This is "mujahideen activity", and perhaps (and hopefully) it will make people "wake up and smell the coffee".

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Abu Izzadeen is a character who has made some incendiary remarks in the past. He is someone who the mainstream Muslim community has kept at a distance because of his attempts to create mischief."

Is this true? I bet many in the Muslim community appreciate life in a more secular country, and don't want their community radicalized, which is the clear objective of the Saudi-funded and -supported efforts. But, this could just be al-taqqiya (official Islamic legal permission to lie to and mislead infidels, since a lie to an infidel isn't really a lie).

"This arrest does not come as a surprise to many, I expect, however he is entitled to a fair trial and if police believe he has broken any laws he is entitled to due process."

Actually, what is surprising is that somebody is finally doing something about the cause of all this, rather than just cleaning up after the terrorist acts are committed. And, this may be a surprise among the radicals, who perhaps thought they had the government dhimmied-down already.

And, yes, there must be an investigation and "due process", the implied request for which contradicts all the spouting about "witchhunts".

In September last year, Izzadeen hijacked Mr Reid’s attempt to connect with British Muslims. Amid anger over Mr Reid’s call for Muslim parents to look out for the signs of brain-washing in their children in the fight against terrorism, Izzadeen interrupted the Home Secretary and launched into an angry tirade.

"How dare you come to a Muslim area when over 1,000 Muslims have been arrested?" he said. "You are an enemy of Islam and Muslims, you are a tyrant. Shame on all of us for sitting down and listening to him.

"State terrorism by British police."

Terrorism? Racism? Look who's talking!