Category Archives: Oriana Fallaci

Why Islam Is Different

Islamic Protest
Typical Islamic Protest
"This is America. That means that if a religious organization legally sets up shop it must be accepted. Why the hate against Islam alone?"

Such is often the earnest query put to those who work in the American Resistance to stop the Islamization of our republic. The following is another excellent retort posted orginally at Jihad Watch by the eminently learned Hugh Fitzgerald:

OH, I CAN ANSWER THAT, as an atheist—just like Pat Condell, Oriana Fallaci, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and many others— just like you. Only, not like you, Pat Condell, and Oriana Fallaci, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, understand perfectly well that Islam is not only, and not even mainly, about providing an explanation for the creation of the universe and for describing a Creator and setting out some rituals for worship of that Creator.

No, Islam is a Total Belief-System. Islam provides a Total Regulation of Life, and a Complete Explanation of the Universe. Islam discourages free inquiry and encourages adherents—requires them rather—to be slaves of Allah. Islam sets out rules of conduct that are not based on morality, but are simply rules according to what Muhammad, a seventh-century Arab, is said to have transmitted from Allah, and those rules are not subject to questioning, moral or otherwise, or re-interpretation, but are simply divided as to What Is Commanded and What Is Prohibited. And among the many things Prohibited are most forms of artistic expression, including all paintings of people, statues, and music, so that if one finds Muslims practicing this, it is only because they choose to ignore Islam at the edges, and have no defense if other Muslims come along and insist that they halt that music or that painting. Prohibited too is the kind of skeptical inquiry that so threatens the brittle structure and hold of Islam over the minds of its adherents, and in discouraging that, Islam discourages mental freedom of all kinds.

Muslims owe their entire allegiance to Islam, and to fellow members of the Umma (that loyalty is one that becomes real mainly when Infidels are involved, for as the behavior of the Arabs toward non-Arab Muslims makes clear, Islam is also a vehicle for Arab supremacism), and as the behavior of rich Muslim states toward poor Muslim states also makes clear, there is no real sharing or help among Muslims; the only help is that provided against Infidels.
And above all, what is so worrisome about Islam is that it lays claim to the whole world. There is not only a Dar al-Islam and a Dar al-Harb, but between the two, there must be a state of permanent warfare. It is the duty of all Muslims—a duty not tangential but central—to win ever-greater amounts of territory for Islam, for Dar al-Islam. And that must be done by removing all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, but the struggle, or Jihad, to remove those obstacles must go on forever. It is not a case of recovering this or that sliver of territory once possessed by Muslims, though theoretically—and emotionally—priority in the To-Do List of Islam is given to such places that were once under Islam. These include not only Israel, whihch gets such exaggerated attention, but Spain and Portugal, Sicily, Greece, the Balkans (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia), Rumania, Bulgaria, much of Hungary, most of Russia, almost all of India, and more besides. But if the Sudan, or Nigeria, or southern Thailand, or part of the Philippines, or countries or parts of countries in Western Europe, fall to Islam before some of the lands on the To-Do List, that is fine with Muslims.

The main point is that Islam uncompromisiingly divides the world between Believer and Unbeliever, Musliim and Infidel. And Muslims owe their entire allegiance to Islam, and to fellow members of the Umma (that loyalty is one that becomes real mainly when Infidels are involved, for as the behavior of the Arabs toward non-Arab Muslims makes clear, Islam is also a vehicle for Arab supremacism), and as the behavior of rich Muslim states toward poor Muslim states also makes clear, there is no real sharing or help among Muslims; the only help is that provided against Infidels.

I could go on, but why should I? Your question has been answered sufficiently.

There is no comparison between the Total Belief-System of Islam—called, faute de mieux, in modern times, a "religion," (earlier Western men called it not a "religion" but a "faith" or "a fanatical faith"—this "great religions of the world" business started mainly in the early 20th century, with American Protestant schoolbooks of the "Different Peoples of the World" type, with a unit on "The World's Great Religions."

Islam is a threat to me and to you. Christianity is not. Judaism is not. Hinduism is not. Buddhism is not. But Islam....Islam is quite different. And more and more people, despite the best efforts of those in authority to try to make us believe otherwise, are examining the evidence of their senses (including the daily Jihad news from around the world, but also books on Islam, and the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira themselves) and discovering this, disturbing and unpleasant as it is, to be true.

And they will continue to do so, and the race is on: will enough people have grasped the meaning, and the menace, of Islam in time to take the measures necessary to adequately protect themelves, or will the crazed squandering of resources, including the transfer of vast sums from the Infidel peoples to Muslims—even beyond the fantastic sums, the trillions, that have gone to Muslim oil-rich states, battening on an accident of geology—stop, and reasonable, effective, and much less burdensome measures, be taken in time?

One hopes. One keeps on hoping.

—Hugh Fitzgerald

Mohammedan Quotes Islam Over Time (Or Old Habits Die Hard)

HISTORICAL QUOTES FROM A FEW GREAT OBSERVERS throughout the ages are uncannily in agreement about the ruthless and ugly nature of Islam.

“The West must understand the terrorists’ point of view.”

Pride of Islam, Embraces Nazi Makeover
Actually, I do understand their point of view. I have read the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira. This so-called “religion of peace” is nothing of the sort. I think the founder of CAIR (the Council of American-Islamic Relations), Omar Ahmad, summed it up best when he said, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” This statement has been widely reported over the years, but it appears Mr. Rauf is counting on the ignorance of many people to win this argument. Ahmad’s statement reflects nothing more than a fervent wish for domination, pure and simple.

So who is this man, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who now wants to dominate Ground Zero in the shadow of a $100 million, 13-story mosque?

Imam Rauf was born in Kuwait in 1948 after his parents fled (or were thrown out, depending on which report you read) from Egypt. His father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf, was a known member of the Muslim Brotherhood which is why some say he was thrown out of Egypt in 1948. The Muslim Brotherhood, for those of you who don’t know, was founded in 1928, only four years after the Ottoman Empire ended. It is the oldest terrorist organization in the world and has over 70 different offshoots which include al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, just to name a few. Interestingly, the Muslim Brotherhood is not only banned here in the U.S., but it was banned in Egypt as well.

“The word ‘Taqiyya’ literally means: ‘Concealing, precaution, guarding.’ It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralizing any criticism of Islam or Muslims.”
People need to know history in order to understand Islam and what they are really out to achieve. At its height, the Islamic Empire covered more of the earth than the Roman Empire. The Ottoman Empire ended in 1924 and the Muslim Brotherhood came about only four years later. This is no coincidence; it was established to bring back the world domination that Islam once had. Aside from Islam conquering a huge part of the world, Islam also conquered most of Spain in the year 711 from Tariq ibn Zayid’s invasion and held it through 1248; it controlled parts of Spain until its full liberation in 1492. Spain was renamed Andalusia. So why is this of importance?

The name of the organization planning the mosque is the “Cordoba Initiative,” and this name itself is a full affront to Americans. Cordoba was the seat of the Islamic Caliphate that ruled Spain and the name is often used today by Islamic militants when recalling the glory of the Islamic Empire from the years when they occupied Spain.

Muslims are allowed, no, they are commanded, to lie. This is called “Taqiyya.” Taqiyya can be used in interaction with any non-Muslim so long as it furthers the interest of Islam. According to Islam Watch, “The word ‘Taqiyya’ literally means: ‘Concealing, precaution, guarding.’ It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralizing any criticism of Islam or Muslims.”

The website also explains, “Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.”

Is Imam Rauf just practicing Taqiyya? Is the mosque planned at Ground Zero nothing more than another mosque built out of the quest for global domination? Muslims have been destroying houses of worship built by every other faith since the rise of the Islamic Empire. The world over, Islam has ransacked tens of thousands of churches, synagogues, monasteries and holy archaeological sites, not to mention Buddhist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Hindu temples and others. After this occurs, they build a mosque over it and claim it in the name of Allah. Domination, pure and simple.

Read it all.

A Learning Opportunity For Honest Peaceniks

Western Woman
Proud Woman of Nuance

The group called Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) will be holding a Washington DC rally on March 8 at the front of the Capitol Reflecting Pool beginning at 1 PM to address the global challenge of women oppressed and killed in the name of Islamic supremacism. Word is that the leaders of this group will demand that our legislators recognize the threat to women around the world by this supremacist ideology.

Excellent development. It's time to unshackle the minds and the spirits of these slave masters who are unfit for Western civilization, as imperfect as she is. While it is our opinion that Islam will never experience an Enlightenment under current conditions, and will resist all social overtures from the West as long as it has the upper hand provided by its current economic prowess. But as one particular conservative radio host might say, this is shaping up to be a fabulous "learning opportunity" for many of the homegrown peace junkies and other assorted pavement stompers to actually discover that not everyone thinks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the way they think, not even close, and that strong and principled opposition to those people might actually be a good thing.

Even unto war.

[A Learning Opportunity For Honest Peaceniks]

That Patrick Henry Expression

Patrick Henry
Patrick Henry

IET'S TURN TODAY to the brilliant and informative interview of esteemed author Robert Spencer, founder of the popular but often misunderstood Jihad Watch website, in an article prefaced here by Spencer himself, published in an Italian journal.

In addition to his role as founder and principal contributor to Jihad Watch, Mr. Spencer is a contributing editor to online Front Page Magazine and author of numerous scholarly books on Islam, its founder Mohammed, and the implications of contemporary jihad in the context of its own history. Do not be fooled by cheap imposters and hired fools who shill for their new masters in the trojan horse guise of multiculturalism.

Read it all, starting with Mr. Spencer's introduction:

ITALIAN MAGAZINE—Polizia e Democrazia—interviewed me for their August/September 2008 issue, in which they describe me as "un neocon americano che ha raggiunto una notevole notorietà con i suoi libri (sette) e un sito estremamente combattivo aggiornato quotidianamente." That is, "an American neocon who has gained remarkable notoriety with his books (seven) and an extremely combative website updated daily."

Neocon. Extremely combative. You get the idea. Here is the English text of their questions as I received them, and the answers I sent them. This was an email interview, so bear in mind as you read it that all the questions were sent to me beforehand in the order in which I answered them -- none were formulated in response to anything I answered. So the question about whether my gay or feminist friends ever suggest I build bridges was not talking about Chesler or Bawer, but about the hypothetical gays and feminists appalled by my work that the interviewer had in mind.

PD: In your website you say you are from the muslim world and that you were impressed by your own grandparents tales. Could you tell more?

RS: My grandparents were exiles from the Ottoman Empire. They used to describe their life there in glowingly positive terms. My grandmother spoke of the beauty of the muezzin’s call to prayer when she heard it in the early morning. These stories fascinated me and awakened a hunger in me to know more about that part of the world.

PD: How this childhood memory impact your actual work?

RS: It led to my study of the region in general and ultimately to my study of Islam.

PD: If you can say, what is actually your faith, if you have one?

RS: I am a Melkite Greek Catholic.

PD: Have you ever thought in the past that the jihad/Islamic problem was going to become so important? Were there in the past some warning signs even you didn’t read?

RS: In 1979, during the Iranian hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran, I was a freshman in college. This was the first indication I had that the inchoate political forces (as I understood then) that had led to my grandparents’ exile may have had something to do with the dominant religion of the region as well. It appeared to me then that this problem was very large and was going to grow. But I did not at that time fully grasp the import of this “warning sign” or others that occurred in those years.

PD: Were you, in the past, interested by other kinds of religious fundamentalisms?

RS: I was and remain interested in religions in general.

PD: You speak a lot about “moral equivalence”. Could you better describe what you mean by that?

RS: I do not believe that the teachings of all religions are equal in their capacity to inspire violence – or in their capacity to inspire anything else, for that matter. Yet it is a common claim that the problem we face is one of “fundamentalism” in general, not of the Islamic jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism in particular. Yet where is the Christian Al-Qaeda? The Christian 9/11 hijackers? The Christian preachers exhorting their followers to murder? That is what I mean by moral equivalence. It saps our will to face the real challenge and diverts our attention to problems of far less importance and scope.

PD: Can you drive a distinction between groups and individuals who says every religion can be right-wing and totalitarian but do nothing against it and those ones who actually denounce and fight against all kinds of religious extremisms?

RS: I don’t believe, as I just stated, that all “religious extremisms” are equal in their capacity to incite their adherents to violence and mayhem. There have been over 11,000 violent attacks worldwide committed in the name of Islam and jihad since 9/11. How many violent attacks have been committed by other “religious extremists”?

PD: What are your personal opinion about antiabortion terrorists or about Hindu extremists?

RS: I oppose them, and observe that they are useful in promoting moral equivalence arguments that distract people from the reality of the global jihad. The disparity is particularly glaring in connection with the murders of abortion doctors, when one puts the handful of these murders and the universal condemnation of them by Christian leaders against the thousands of jihad attacks and the vague and loophole-ridden condemnations of terrorism (not jihad or Islamic supremacism) by Islamic leaders, and claims that both are examples of equivalent “religious extremisms.”

PD: Do you support the separation of religion from politics and if so do you support it only when Islam is involved or in any case?

RS: It depends on what you mean by the separation of religion from politics. If you mean the banishment of all religious principles per se from the public debate, I do not support that when it comes to any religion. In a pluralistic republic religious people should have as much right as anyone else to put forward their views in the public square. If, however, you mean that the state should not establish a particular religion, I very strongly support the principle of non-establishment of religion as enunciated by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the particular case of Islam, there is no traditional sacred/secular distinction, and a denial of the proposition that government should be organized along anything but religious lines. This is a threat to the principle of non-establishment of religion, which I believe has been uniquely valuable in enabling people of differing views to live in harmony with one another without trying to establish hegemony over one another or do violence to the other’s way of life. It should be recognized as such.

PD: You say you want to protect the judeo-christian civilisation. May I assume you don’t like so much secular states or you just think secularism is not strong enough?

RS: I like secular states, i.e., ones in which there is no governmental establishment of religion, very much. This idea in itself is a product of Judeo-Christian principles going back to Jesus’ saying “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.” It is no accident that this principle did not take root in the Islamic world except under Western influence. I have written that Westerners, even atheists and secularists, need to regain an awareness of their being the children and heirs of a civilization – a Judeo-Christian civilization – that has value and is worth defending and preserving. In contrast, if by “secularism” you mean the thoroughgoing relativism and cultural self-hatred that pervades so much of the West today, then yes, certainly, I do not believe it has the slightest chance of standing up to the Islamic supremacist challenge.

PD: Many people and among them many politicians, expecially catholics and evangelicals are re-descovering their faith identity now. Do you think it’s genuine gesture or just another way of mixing religion with politics, a sort of “my identity against your identity”. Wouldn’t it be better if religion was just an intimate personal thing?

RS: It is impossible to generalize without knowing to which politicians you are referring. In any case, the main obstacle, albeit still generally unrecognized, to religion being “just an intimate personal thing” is not Western identity politics but the Islamic supremacist ideology.

PD: What do you think about the French strict secular laws? At least you can admit the islamist problem there is less strong than in Holland or in the Uk.

RS: I don’t think that would be an accurate admission at all, given the simmering violence of French “youths.” France’s strict secular laws have done nothing to end that violence – although the failure of France to deal adequately with this problem actually has nothing to do with French secularism as such.

PD: Do you believe that human rights are universal?

RS: Yes.

PD: From the comments on your websites you accuse women’s and gay rights supporters of being busy with “petty causes”. Why equal pay at work, child care, reproductive freedom or civil unions should be petty causes? And, once again, wouldn’t be more positive to incite these movements to broaden their agenda without giving up the domestic issues?

Since that is not language that I use and I don’t recall saying it, I just did a search at my websites for the phrase “petty causes.” It does not, in fact, appear in anything I have written.

PD: Do you have feminist friends?

RS: Yes.

Gay and lesbian friends?

RS: Yes.

PD: If so what do they think about your work?

RS: They are uniformly supportive. Allow me to refer you to the work of my friend and pioneering feminist Phyllis Chesler. In her book The Death of Feminism she offers a harrowing personal narrative and a unique feminist perspective on women and Islam. She and I cowrote a monograph last year, The Violent Oppression of Women In Islam. I was also deeply honored to count as my friend the great Oriana Fallaci, who was a feminist in the truest and best sense. For a gay perspective on Islamic jihad supremacism, I can recommend the work of Bruce Bawer, especially his maginificent book While Europe Slept. I do not know him well, but he and I have been in friendly contact over the last few years after meeting at a conference in The Hague, and I am a great admirer of his work.

PD: Do they ever suggest you to build bridges?

RS: Feminists and gays who oppose resistance to Islamic jihad supremacism do not realize how much it will victimize them.

PD: Do you support reproductive freedom for women? I mean, after all in almost all Islamic countries abortion is illegal or severely limited, pre and post natal care is not well funded, contraception is not widely known and maternal health is poor.
What I find very strange about this issue is that the same people (Vatican, evangelical groups) that denounce Islamic extremism ally themselves with Islamic states at the Un conferences just to keep abortion illegal. Is this issue so important for them that they forget everything and lie with the enemy?
What is your opinion about all this?

RS: I oppose abortion, but I believe that the survival of free societies is at stake, and have not hesitated to ally with those who support it in defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. The groups that ally with Islamic countries to defeat abortion initiatives may be entering into similar alliances with those with whom they disagree on other issues. In any case, Western abortion advocates are whistling in the dark if they think they will be able to convince large numbers of Muslims to get abortions if Islamic authorities forbid it.

PD: It’s been a decade or so that Islam is all the time in the media. Whetever in a positive or negative light everyone is obsessed by islam. Why so?

RS: Because there are violent Islamic supremacist movements dedicated to the subjugation of non-Muslims as inferiors all over the globe, from Indonesia across Asia and into Africa (particularly Nigeria), and of course Europe.

PD: Religion and cultural journalists also write about it all the time. One can ask if there is anything else worth of importance. Why what a Muslim girl says is considered more important or newsworthy than, for example, a Mennonite girl or a Lutheran lady?

RS: Because there are no armed Mennonite or Lutheran groups around the world dedicated to the subjugation of non-Mennonites or non-Lutherans under the rule of Mennonite or Lutheran law.

PD: Don’t you think that this importance of the so-called Islamic world has been shaped, at least in part, by western media?

RS: No. In fact, the mainstream Western media has done everything it could to downplay or ignore altogether the Islamic element of jihad violence.

PD: Speaking about the Islamic world, do you really think this is a sort of monolith?

RS: No, and I have never claimed otherwise.

PD: Moderate muslims. Once again I would say the press is to blame. Journalists and experts talk all the time about moderate muslims but no one has ever come up with a definition of sort. Why?

RS: Because all the orthodox sects of Islam and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. What, then, is a moderate? Someone who is not waging jihad at the moment? A jihadist who is practicing Muhammad’s dictum “war is deceit” and trying to lull infidels into thinking there is no jihad threat? A lax or nominal Muslim who doesn’t care to wage jihad? An ignorant Muslim who doesn’t know about jihad? A genuinely reformist Muslim who rejects the violent and supremacist elements of traditional Islam? Most journalists and experts use the term “moderate Muslim” imprecisely and without definition because they don’t even know enough about Islam to ask the proper questions of these “moderates” or even to know what they should expect from them?

RS: Personally I like more progressive Muslims. It’s not simply a matter of words. In my own experiences with them as a journalist they really are genuine and concrete.

PD:What do you think about them?

RS: You’d have to give me a specific example of whom you have in mind.

PD: In the forum of your website left-leaning people and progressives are attacked all the time. While it’s true many progressive are now inconsistent some actually are. So why throwing the baby with the water?

RS: I have stated many times that the anti-jihad resistance is not a liberal or conservative, Right/Left issue, but a matter of civilizational survival. However, the leftist/jihadist alliance we see in many places, and the general “progressive” refusal to see any problem beyond “American imperialism” has been noted.

PD: Even in politics democrats are depicted as bad guys far more often than republicans. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and John Edwards, for example, have a perfect record on Israel. What’s so wrong with them?

RS: None of the people have mentioned have demonstrated any awareness of the larger jihad threat.

PD: Speaking about politics I assume you like McCain.

RS: You assume wrong.

PD: Did you like Clinton?

RS: No.

PD: And why not Obama? If he was so dangerous for Israel would ever have he been at Aipac? Many Jewish who consider Israel important support him.

RS: I don’t think Obama has any greater awareness of the global jihad threat than McCain (or Clinton).

PD: Besides that what would be the good running mate for both of them? [This interview took place before the running mates were chosen.]

RS: I don’t have any interest in this, and have no answer for it. Neither party in the U.S. has shown that as an entity it has any understanding of the global jihad, or any comprehensive plan to deal with it. No candidate does either.

PD: Let’s talk about the Middle East. Why the Islamic religious factor is so rarely taken into consideration by experts and diplomats? And why what is a low-level conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is considered the most pressing issue in the world?

RS: I suspect that most experts and diplomats don’t take the Islamic religious factor into account because they don’t understand the nature of religious appeal in general, and so they underestimate its power in the Islamic world. The importance of the Palestinian issue in world politics is a tribute to the massive propaganda effort the Palestinian Arabs and the Islamic world has undertaken with immense focus and intensity since the 1960s.

PD: Why people who really suffer such as Darfuri people and indigenous tribes all over the world receive so little attention? How Palestinians have become “the victims” who deserve all the attention and support?

RS: The Darfuris are victims of jihad—a jihad by “authentic” Arab Muslims against black African cultural Muslims. The victims of jihad have no advocates—the UN is in the hip pocket of the OIC, and the West doesn’t want to antagonize the Islamic world further by saying anything about Islam or acting on behalf of its victims, even if they themselves are Muslims. The Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, are the focus of a vast and immense, decades-long propaganda effort that has been undertaken by jihadists to further the cause of Islamic jihad.

PD: Is the Pro-Israel movement becoming effective? Or sometimes it’s over suspicious and paranoid?

RS: I don’t think it has been very effective in recent years, but would not accuse it of over-suspicion and paranoia. It is facing an extremely sophisticated, well-heeled, and little-understood opponent.

PD: Palestinians have the support of the entire Islamic world and numbers matter. Same goes with the jihadist activities or Islamic movements. One can say: “It’s the numbers, stupid!” What can be done to block or make less dangerous a way of thinking that has so many followers?

RS: First: expose it. Show Westerners what is happening. What to do then will follow from that.

PD: You got a lot of e-mails from muslims themselves. Aside from the hate-filled ones and the supporting ones, what the others say?

RS: Hate-filled on the one hand and supportive on the other covers it fairly well.

PD: Did you ever get hate mail from non-Muslims?

RS: Yes.

PD: Have you ever experienced dangerous situations?

RS: Yes.

PD: Is your safety protected?

RS: Usually I have a guard or two with me when I speak.

PD: How is affecting your personal and family life?

RS: I do not speak about my personal and family life in public.

PD: And, above all, is it worth it?

RS: Of course. It isn’t as if I am not going to die if I don’t do this. Have you ever heard of the adage, “Give me liberty or give me death”? Have you ever heard that the signers of the American Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to their cause? Have you ever heard that Dr. Martin Luther King stated that if you have nothing for which you are willing to die, you have no reason to live?

PD: How, according your experiences, are the ways of reacting to the Islamist problem of atheists and agnostics, of conservative Christians, of progressive Christians, Jewish and believers of other faiths. Do you see a similar reaction from each distinct group?

RS: Atheists and agnostics generally tend to think it is a generalized problem of fundamentalism, and are indifferent to it or think it can all be solved by adjustments of U.S. foreign policy. That goes also for progressive Christians and liberal Jews.
Conservative Christians and Jews, with some notable exceptions, generally have a greater awareness of the threat.

PD: Speaking about policy makers in Europe. Why they are so obsessed in accommodating radical Muslims demands? Sometimes they go even further than Islamists themselves. Is it a state of mind or what?

RS: They see the writing on the wall. They know what group will have electoral majorities before too long.

PD: Going at the foreign policy level, Islamic states can dictate the law because of oil and oil is an issue rarely mentioned by anti-islamists activists. Why?

RS: I mention it all the time. We have to get free of it. There should have been a Manhattan Project to find alternative energy sources begun years ago.

PD: Do you support the spread of renewable energies? Recently Israel is going in that direction. Good for the environment and good for our safety. Wouldn’it be perfect?

RS: I am in favor of anything that would free the West from dependence upon oil.

PD: Aside from fighting against Islamists, are there other issues dear to you? Which ones?

RS: No other issue is as important to me, and I don’t spend any time working on any other issue.

PD: Could you describe your typical day?

RS: Typing.

PD: What are the things in which you find solace?

RS: I like music very much, although I no longer play.

PD: What is the opinion you have of Italy, according to news reports you get?

RS: The situation there is dire, as it is all over Europe, but not as bad as it is in northern Europe.

PD: What are the states that give you the most hope in the western world and the ones that make you despair? Choose the best and the worst from the Islamic world too.

RS: It would be oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy to provide any such continuum for either the West or the Islamic world. There are currents that are encouraging and discouraging all over—for example, in Turkey secularism is gravely threatened, but there has also been a significant demonstration of support for it.

PD: Are police forces answering correctly to islamists? Is there a difference between police officers who are on duty and see the real things and the upper police establishment? Do you see trends? What would you suggest?

RS: In general law enforcement officials do not recognize this problem and are learning from appeasers and stealth jihadists. The officers on duty in general have a better awareness than do their superiors. The trend in this, if anything, is toward even more political correctness and unwillingness to face the reality of the problem. I would suggest that law enforcement officials gain the courage to face reality, however politically incorrect it may be—and fire all their advisers on this issue, replacing them with people who actually know what is going on and will tell them.

Controversial Fallaci Exhibition In Norway

Oriana Fallaci
AN EXHIBITION DEDICATED to the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, known in her later years for a fiercely anti-Islamic stance, has gone on display at Nobel Peace Center exhibition hall in Norway's capital city of Oslo.

The exhibition includes an article by Fallaci titled "Islam as an Enemy," while movies screened within the exhibition hall portray Islam as a dangerous religion. The exhibition, in which the Quran is defined by Fallaci as "the most dangerous book ever written," drew immediate reaction from Muslim visitors.

Nobel Peace Center Director Bente Erichsen spoke to the Cihan news agency and explained that the exhibition had been held within the scope of freedom of expression. Erichsen said they welcome everybody's ideas and added: "We have hosted the ideas of many people, whether we liked their ideas or not, in our exhibition hall. This is the realization of our perception of freedom of expression."

Fallaci generated great controversy in the Islamic world when she wrote an article about Islam in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Erichsen noted freedom of expression was letting people say whatever they want to say and added, "We need to give this opportunity to Italian journalist Fallaci, too, even if we do not like her ideas."

Fallaci died on Sept. 15, 2006 at the age of 77. The Italian journalist was famed for her interviews and war reports but became notorious in later life for her Islamophobia. At the time of her death she faced trial in her native Italy on charges of vilifying Islam.

What a crock! To be put on trial for outing an enemy force in one's own native land. Free speech, watch your step!

Shredding Islamophobia

PatriotLook! No assembly required. No stereotypes allowed. Get back where you belong. No counter-arguments declarable. Absolutely no excuses, dirty infidel.

From the awesome Hugh Fitzgerald files, also known here at the Project as instant relief thanks to a battalion of word soldiers...

“When the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry—that is a sad and troubling development,” Annan said. “Such is the case with ‘Islamophobia.’ The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety.”

—Former Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan

The “world” was not “compelled to coin a new term”—it was Muslims who coined the word, and they did so deliberately. For that word so deliberately kept undefined is merely a weapon employed to deflect criticism, to label all those who may offer criticism of Islam and of its adherents, basing their criticism not on some blind prejudice, but on their own observations and study. Indeed, the entire Western world—its political leaders, its media, its university departments of Middle Eastern studies—have all been engaged in a massive effort to deflect criticism or disarm it. It is despite all that that Infidels everywhere are coming to some conclusions about Islam, and the more they study, and the more they observe, and the more “Interfaith” gatherings and little Muslim Outreach evenings they attend, all of which end up being dismal exercises in Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque argumentation, the more wary, and critical, and indignant, and sometimes more, they become. The game is up. From a Beslan school full of children to a Bali nightclub full of revellers, from Madrid subways to Moscow theatres, from New York skyscrapers to Najaf mosques (where Sadr’s bezonians tortured, killed, and stacked the bodies of Iraqis who had opposed their reign of terror), from Istanbul to India, the evidence just keeps piling up. And the evidence, too, of what is actually in the Qur’an and hadith and sira—and how many Infidels, a few years ago, even had heard of the “hadith” and the “sira,” or had any idea what was really in the Qur’an, or had ever heard of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya—now online, and it can easily be read. And all the excuses, all the nonsense, can no longer be offered up—for we Infidels, fortunately, have the guidance of defectors from Islam, ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq (whose own guide to debating Muslims, and how not to be intimidated or snookered, will for many prove invaluable).

Oriana Fallaci
Kofi Annan, as Oriana Fallaci notes in her Fallaci Intervista Fallaci, looks, on the surface, to be far more presentable, and far more decent, and far more intelligent—grey hair, gravelly voice, grave mien—than in fact he is. The words quoted above are the words of a simpleton. Perhaps Edward Mortimer, that early admirer of Khomeini and Nazi-Zionist conspiracy theorist, who feels a special responsibility to protect Islam, is the main puppet-master here, or perhaps it is Ms. Rishmawi (the “Palestinian” behind-the-scenes operative who was so influential with Mary Robinson, she of the antisemitic lynch-mob meeting in Durban in September 2001).

Or perhaps it is Annan—the man on whose watch for more black African deaths occurred than anyone since Leopold III of Belgium—really thinks that the word “Islamophobia” came into use because it actually described a real, and deplorable condition; that it describes an unfair, unjust, prejudiced and irrational (i.e. without foundation, against reason and logic) phobia, or hatred, of Islam. What is unreasonable or irrational would be the opposite. That is, the continued ability of many Infidels to regard Islam as just another “religion” worthy of respect, perhaps at the edges a bit rough, but hijacked by a few extremists, or even many extremists, but having a decency at its core, a real religion of “peace” and “tolerance” as a number of Western leaders have insisted.

If, upon reading and studying Qur’an and hadith and sira, and if, after looking around the world over the past few years, and if, after having studied the history of Jihad-conquest and Muslim behavior toward dhimmis—Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists—you do not feel a deep hostility toward the belief-system of Islam and toward its adherents (for the category of “moderate” is nearly meaningless, given the dangerous use to which “moderates” can be put in continuing to mislead the unwary Infidels), then it is you who are irrational, and need to have your head examined.

The word “Islamophobia” must be held up for inspection, its users constantly asked precisely how they would define that word, and they should be put on the defensive for waving about what is clearly meant to be a scare-word that will silence criticism.

So let us ask them which of the following criticisms of Islam is to be considered “Islamophobic”:

1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9—because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advise as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya—would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?

4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.

5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels—all Infidels.

6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying marks on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law—and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”

7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.

8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.

9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.

10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.

11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty—and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.

12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here—would you like me to read it now for the audience?

13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.

14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known—and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.

15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.

16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.

17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want—whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.

18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses—and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.

19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete—with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.

21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform—except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.

22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages—for example, from Leviticus—that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”

23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.

24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves.

25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).

26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated." I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.

27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.

I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

If this is “Islamophobia”—show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Our Women Warriors Of The West

Posted originally at Jihad Watch by Bevc...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I am reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book INFIDEL currently. I too have noticed that where resistance to Islamic Jihad and Islamic ideology is strongest, it is women raising the call to arms. These include the late, great Oriana Fallaci, Ann Coulter, Diana West, Melanie Phillips, Debbie Schlussel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, countless "Persian" dissident women exiles. They seem to know what we are facing and talk in terms of IDEOLOGY while the men still talk in terms of countries.

The home health nurse's aide caring for my elderly Dad is a Catholic man from the Phillipines. One night I began pontificating about the nimrods in Congress, State Dept and the White House not understanding the world wide nature of Jihad. He was truly astounded to meet an American who KNEW of the islamic terror attacks on his country much less one that CARED about it.

Now I am just an actress and you know how sneeringly people speak of us stupid actors, so one wonders how it is that I can connect the dots throughout the attacks on Dar Al Harb and the other more elite "Harbies" cannot or dare not. Even if one has not accessed Mr. Spencer's wonderfully informative website, there are others on the web and in print trying to sound the alarm. To borrow a phrase from Patrick Henry: "Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle?"