‘Confrontation is a good thing’

“Bush is a polarising figure because these are polarising times. But, when the dust settles (metaphorically, I hope), his designation of Iran as part of an ‘axis of evil’ will seem a shrewder judgment than that of the Euro-appeasers or the snob Islamophiles. Facing profound challenges, most political leaders in the western world have shirked confrontation on everything from Islamism to unaffordable social programmes – and their peoples will live with the consequences of that non-confrontation long after those leaders are gone.”

Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph, 1 November 2005

Chesler calls for ‘culture war’ against Islam

Phyllis Chesler“… if you try to discuss the Islamic religious and gender apartheid and its dangerous proliferation into Europe and North America (i.e. there have been honor killings in Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago, Jersey City, Toronto, as well as all over Europe and in the Muslim world), this is what will happen to you: If you tell these truths in the Arab and Muslim world, you’ll be beheaded, probably tortured, certainly jailed, exiled if you are lucky…. If you are a North American intellectual, you may not be imprisoned or beheaded but you will be heckled, mocked, and shunned. You might need security in order to speak.”

Phyllis Chesler bemoans the appalling oppression suffered by Islamophobes.

Front Page Magazine, 31 October 2005

‘Selective Muslim silence’

“Where is the sane moderate peace loving Muslim world? Why is its voice so rarely raised in condemnation of Islamist atrocities? It is a question which has been raised in ever increasing urgency since 9/11 and not only by Westerners…. As human rights activist Abu Khwala explains, ‘fighting infidels until they either convert to Islam or submit to Muslims as “Dhimmis” is still considered by Islamists to be a religious duty’. Hence, any actions undertaken by Muslims towards that end must be vehemently defended with a total disregard of the means used and that is precisely what supposedly non Islamist Muslim leaders do.”

Judith Apter Klinghoffer, History News Network, 31 October 2005

Prince Charles – pawn of the Islamists

Prince Charles and Yusuf Islam“The fact is that Islam is not a religion among religions. Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism do not advocate killing off all those who do not agree with their tenets. Islam advocates that all non-Muslims, being ‘infidels’, must be slain. Cowardly Muslims who do not enter into the slaughter are to be slain by zealot Muslims. Therefore, Islam is not a religion. It is a killing cult. Civilized nations close down killing cults…. It is abhorrent that Charles, with the power attending his position, has been so duped by Islamic leaders he has courted. Yet it is so. And the world is in extreme danger because of it.”

J. Grant Swank at FaithFreedom.org, 31 October 2005

See also Dhimmi Watch, 29 October 2005 (“Richard the Lionheart is rolling in his grave”)

Thank Christ for Charles Martel

What if Charles Martel had failed to defeat the Muslim hordes at the battle of Tours in 732? Paul Akers considers the appalling consequences.

“Without the Christian quickening of conscience that helped abolish slavery in England, the United States, and elsewhere, the Quran-sanctioned institution might be the global norm. An Emir Ibrahim al-Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation…. Women the world over also would be permanent second-class citizens. Many if not most – observe Saudi Arabia – would be forbidden to drive a car, own property, or vote. Battered females might well lack legal or other recourse….

“Regular church attendance is very low in most European countries…. Meanwhile, the continent’s growing Muslim communities are united in faith if not fervor. Soon one in 10 Frenchmen may be Muslim, writes Jenkins, while Frankfurt alone contains 27 mosques. Pray for Europe. But save a few prayers, too, for a band of bearded, coarse, but faithful men who stood shoulder-to-shoulder in a cold dawn and faced proven death galloping full-speed toward them – only to unhorse that grim rider and break his bones to bits.”

Free Lance-Star, 30 October 2005

Guardian interviews Qaradawi

Qaradawi ban“Qaradawi and western governments have a strong mutual interest in the struggle against Islamic extremism; he is as anxious as any western government to ensure young Muslim men don’t blow themselves up on tube trains, or hijack planes. He abhors the traducing and corruption of the faith that such actions expose, and says so to his audience of millions of young Muslims. The fact that the audience is still listening to this ageing scholar, is due to his independence of mind – and it is precisely that which, to western sensibility, can make him an uncomfortable ally.”

Madeleine Bunting meets Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Guardian, 29 October 2005

Ex-Marxist and darling of the US neocons Norman Geras is not happy. He expresses his revulsion at Qaradawi’s support for Palestinian militants who resort suicide bombings that kill innocent people.

Normblog, 29 October 2005

Others of us might prefer to express their revulsion at the hypocrisy of a man who supported the invasion of Iraq and the consequent deaths of perhaps a hundred thousand innocent people. But, then, when have the cheerleaders for US imperialism ever shown the slightest concern for its victims?

Meanwhile, over at Harry’s Place we find the usual ignorant diatribes against Qaradawi. (See here and here.) David T and his friends pour scorn on the notion that Qaradawi is “some kind of moderate seeking tolerance and understanding between Muslims and the outside world” (sic), claiming that he “endorses the punishment of homosexuality by stoning” and is “the leading theoretician and spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood”. Ah, the wonders of “Enlightenment values” – so clearly superior to the irrationality of religious belief!

And Paul Hampton of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty complains that “Bunting is typical of the post-modern left in her softness on Qaradawi”.

AWL website, 29 October 2005

Through the looking glass: nine danger signs of militant Islam

Sheila Musaji, editor of The American Muslim, responds to the list of “danger signs” of Islamic extremism drawn up by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch for an organisation calling itself the United American Committee:

“You can find numerous examples of militants, fundamentalists, extremists, criminals and even mass murderers among every religious group. Although counting numbers is pointless, I am certain that Slobodan Milosevic was responsible for more deaths than Osama bin Laden. I haven’t seen any demands that Christians sign some sort of a statement to prove that they don’t have ‘militant intentions’….

“The voices that have us looking to what it is in Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism to find the answers for why criminals carry out violent acts in the name of those religions are only creating polarization, decreasing any chance for dialogue, and leading us down a path that can only lead to a clash of civilizations that might end all civilization.”

alt.muslim, 27 October 2005

For earlier coverage see here. (Since then, the danger signs have increased from seven to nine!)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali supports Netherlands ban on veil

Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk has proposed a ban on the wearing of Muslim burkas – full-length veils covering the face – in certain public places, to prevent people avoiding identification. Alarm about Islamist terror has increased in the Netherlands since the Van Gogh murder.

A Dutch MP who campaigned with him against radical Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, defended Mrs Verdonk’s plans in a BBC interview. She told the World Today programme that CCTV cameras, used to help track down terrorists, must continue to reveal suspects’ faces. The CCTV operators “need to see their faces and if you cover your face you cannot be identified”.

She said Muslim women were not obliged to wear the burka, and denied that some burka wearers would be confined to the home.

BBC News, 14 October 2005

See also “Women in burkas face benefit cuts”, Times, 14 October 2005

Continue reading

‘The folly of apology’

“The stories about the video of US troops burning the bodies of dead Taliban are disgusting – but not because of anything our troops may have done to the corpses of fanatical murderers. What’s disturbing is the groveling reaction of our government and military officials, who are falling all over themselves to apologize to people who cheer every time an American is killed….

“I know all the rationales for the apologies and investigations and anxious assertions of how much we respect Islam. We need to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of all those alleged ‘moderate’ Muslims who hate us only because they don’t understand us, don’t realize how much we admire their wonderful religion…. The millions of Muslims who support jihadist murder do so not because they’re ignorant of our beneficent intentions and enlightened tolerance, but because of spiritual beliefs that validate jihad, beliefs ratified by 14 centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and theology.”

Bruce Thornton at VDH’s Private Papers, 26 October 2005

Tariq Ramadan and Inayat Bunglawala – Al-Qaida supporters!

“Britain’s submission to Islamic will … did not help stop the July 7 bombings or the later bombing attempts. But even after the attacks, the Prime Minister appointed to the new anti-terror task force, which they call ‘the working group on tackling extremism’, Muslim advisers who are known to support Radical Islam, including Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan’s U.S. visa was revoked last year, and he is believed to have connections to al Qaeda. Furthermore, last August, to enable Ramadan to speak at a gathering of Muslim youth in London, Scotland Yard contributed $15,000 of taxpayers money. Ramadan, who is also believed to have organized a meeting between Ayman al Zawahiri and Sheik Abdel Rahman currently teaches at St. Antony College, in Oxford. Another advisor to the Prime Minister’s task force, Inayat Bunglawala, was appointed despite his public praise of bin Laden as a ‘freedom fighter’.”

Rachel Ehrenfeld in Front Page Magazine, 26 October 2005

This in the course of an article complaining that Britain’s libel laws are too restrictive. You can see why Ehrenfeld might have a problem with those laws, can’t you?