Category Archives: Islamophobia

Defanging the Islamic Beast, Taming its False Prophet

Robert Spencer
Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch

ROBERT SPENCER SUGGESTS GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR'S brilliant solution to defang the Japanese Shinto machine could work again, this time, defanging the Islamic terror machine. By all accounts, we, in the slumbering, economically weakened West are not prepared to take such a formidable step against this current foe, but as more and more concerned Westerners awaken to the facts of core Islamic aggression, whose prime directive has been supremicist and militaristic since its founder Mohammed issued his first orders to invade, lie, cheat steal, multiply, agitate, convert, slay, and conquer, we might do well to consider the MacArthur strategy. All we are saying, is give might and muscle, law and order, peace through strength a chance...

The implications of what I'm saying are very bad. There's no way to sugarcoat them. But there are precedents. And there are useful ways forward—if we have the courage to face this problem as it truly is.

This is a problem within Islamic teaching, within core Islamic teaching, founded on the Quran. As such, wherever there are Islamic communities, there will be terrorism and efforts to impose elements of Islamic law through peaceful means, to assert the precedence of Islamic law over the laws of the state in which the Muslims happen to be residing. That will always happen.

Now, in 1945, the McArthur government—the occupational government in Japan—issued an edict saying that Shinto (the religion of the Japanese that had fueled Japanese imperial militarism in World War II) would have no interference from the United States' occupying forces as an expression of individual piety, as the religion of any Japanese citizen. No interference whatsoever from the government. However, Shinto would have no role in the government or in the schools.

The distinction was made—it was imposed from without—that Shinto would have no way to express the political militarism that had led to World War II in the first place.

Now, the United States, Great Britain, Europe, are all facing a very similar problem, with growing Muslim communities asserting political and societal notions that are at variance with our ideas of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women with men, the equality of rights of all people before the law.

If our governments had the courage to stand up and say that any assertion of these political aspects of Islam that are at variance with our existing laws will be considered to be seditious under existing sedition laws, there would be a tremendous amount of progress made on this problem.

But of course we're nowhere near that, because we can't even admit that there are such initiatives going on from the Islamic communities as such.

And so as long as this unrealism persists, then the cognitive dissonance will continue to grow. And as long as the cognitive dissonance continues to grow, so also will the assertiveness and beligerence of the Islamic communities in the West, because they will see that we are not able and not willing to take the decisive steps necessary to do anything serious to stop them.

If America has no other role in the world than minding its own business, as a nation handicapped by its own first amendment in offering freedom of religion, it should be involved in defanging the Islamic beast, and taming its false prophet. After all, we took on Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, each in their time of self-indulgence. We can handle Islam. After all, we should have an app for it by now. Spencer speaks at the Vienna Forum, May 8, 2010.

Past Observations On Present Problems

Thomas Jefferson

IT'S ABOUT TIME YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS were made aware of the plethora of remarks we have coming from the likes of Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams, John Wesley, Theodore Roosevelt, Sri Aurobindo, William Gladstone, Arthur Schopenhauer, the Nazis themselves and the rest of those who made famous quotes about Islam, and on top of this, make them aware of what of Ayatollah Khomeini and other Muslims have to say about Islam and how its adherents are to handle infidels. They ought to be damned shocked. Past observations on present problems with this moribund religion should be a starting point for those Westerners naively sympathetic to today's jihadists.

  • "Hatred of the non-Muslim is the pivot of Islamic existence." —Anwar Sheikh
  • "Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain... "Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them." — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1970.
  • “The most successful lecherous man who used religion for his personal gain is Prophet Mohammed. Islam is a cult with its complete irrational belief in Allah created by Mohammed who was a liar, thief, murderer and rapist till his last breath”. —Dr Khushwant Singh
  • ”Allah is a cruel tyrant, a barbaric killer and a violent despot. Islamic Umma is the biggest criminal gang on earth and Allah is leader and guide of that criminal gang and is trying to establish himself as the God of the world (not of the universe) with the help of the mujahidin through terror and bloodshed”. —Dr R. Brahamchari
  • "The sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and the truth which the world has yet known." —The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905)

Lan Astaslem!

THE TITLE OF THIS POST means—I will NOT submit! This phrase should become part of every Westerner's walking around tongue.

And upon every Muslim mouth with an instinct for love and charity as well...

Q & A Masking On A Summer Day

Muslim Rank And File
Someone named Willie questions with jarring simplicity:

The Bellicose Augur? This all seems very alarmist. Countless men before you have made the same sort of statements about other immigrant groups and each time they have been wrong. What makes you so certain that you're right in this case?

Other immigrant groups, unlike Islam, didn't and don't have a blueprint for militant supremacist expansionism made more dangerous by a trans-national sense of brotherhood and concrete ways to network internationally to facilitate plans to attack non-Muslims; nor do other immigrant groups have a totalitarian fanaticism expressed in myriad ways which all conduce to the various violent attacks on non-Muslims that have been reoccurring, after a respite of a couple of centuries, all over the globe.

Defining Irrational Definitions

The following essay was sent in from Brigitte Gabriel, founder of the anti-terrorist watch organization aptly called Act For America:

IOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, I've been traveling the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of radical Islam. I have often been accused of "hate speech" and "Islamophobia." The latest was in an article in the New York Times, where I was described not just as an "Islamophobe," but a "radical Islamophobe." This made me question what those terms really mean. What is the difference between "hate speech" and "free speech"? What is "Islamophobia" and who are the true "Islamophobes?"

"Hate speech" versus "free speech" is easy to define. All over the United States, so-called "progressive" individuals and groups berate the USA and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries. That's called "free speech." When others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of radical Islam, that's labeled "hate speech" by many of these "progressives."

But what is "hate speech" and what is "Islamophobia"? When I describe the threat presented by radical Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources. When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by radical Islamists, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do some of the facts about Islamist supremism manifest "hatefulness?" Certainly.

However, it's not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts is that they promote hate. I wish they didn't. But wishing doesn't make it so (contrary to the belief of the New York Times). The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate (terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter) the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'" (Koran 8:12)

The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys and apes. In the more than 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended or ameliorated. It is the Koran that is guilty of "hate speech." I merely am the messenger exposing this hate.

Which brings us to "Islamophobia" and "radical Islamophobes." According to the dictionary, the suffix "-phobe" comes from the Latin phobos, which means "fearing." Do I fear radical Islam? You bet. Do any of these locales ring a bell? London subways. Madrid train stations. Bali night clubs. Beslan elementary school. They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed. I can name hundreds of other locales, from all over the world. If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an "Islamophobe," then I am an "Islamophobe" in its healthiest manifestation. In light of recent history, I submit that it would be (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.

Things get a little more complicated when we get to "Islamophobia." The dictionary defines a "phobia" as "an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." Anyone who thinks that my fear of radical Islam is "exaggerated," "inexplicable" and/or "illogical" is invited to take the world terrorism tour referred to in the preceding paragraph, or read my two books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level. If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT "Islamophobia."

If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix "-phobia" can include "intolerance or aversion for" the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes, I am. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings? Yes, I do. According to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be "Islamophobia." However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a "Islamophobe," then I submit that my so-called "Islamophobia" is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word.

Will anyone on the staff of the New York Times admit that they fear radical Islam, and they are cowed by their fear? Almost certainly not. On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true. But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations. They are also Islamophobes, but of a different stripe.

The next question must be: what distinguishes a "radical" Islamophobe from a run-of-the-mill Islamophobe? Perhaps they should be distinguished by how their Islamphobia affects their behavior. My "Islamophobia" motivates me to stand up and speak out about the threat of radical Islam. My "Islamophobia" motivates me to tell-the-truth. This definitely makes me a "radical." Examples of conventional Islamophobes abound. Their fear of Islam motivates them to censor themselves in the face of Muslim threats and intimidation.

The best-known example is the craven failure of the major American media to stand up for freedom of the press during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Anyone who will read this will be familiar with the details. There was much hand wringing in the media about freedom of speech, but only three newspapers in the United States had the journalistic integrity to print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper which originally printed them. Only one newspaper in the United States actually had the integrity to admit that they were not printing the cartoons because of "fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do...." The rest declined to do so, usually offering as their rationale that the cartoons were "offensive," and they were being "respectful" of Muslim "sensitivity." Approximately two dozen periodicals in 13 European countries ran the Muhammad cartoons, "insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish."

The New York Times itself dutifully reported on various European newspapers printing the Muhammad cartoons in solidarity with and support of the Danish newspaper. The Times could have taken the hint and printed the cartoons, but was apparently oblivious to the irony of being taught a lesson in freedom of the press by a bunch of Europeans. Instead, the Times' fear of Islam, its Islamophobia, caused the great Grey Lady of the Fourth Estate, the most respected voice in American print media, to roll over and play dead. This is dangerous, craven Islamophobia.

And the Times is still playing dead. It has failed to report adequately on an even more egregious and harmful example of Islamophobia afflicting the American publishing industry. Random House has just cancelled the publication of a book about one of Muhammad's wives explicitly because of fear of a violent Muslim reaction. The major American media outlets, both print and electronic, have absorbed the lessons of the Muhammad cartoon riots, and the Salman Rushdie affair, and the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, etc., etc. They are intimidated into silence by their Islamophobia. They've become like slaves, so accustomed to the feel of the lash that they flinch at the mere thought of their master raising his hand. No one rings the alarm at the Times when a major American publishing house cancels publication of a book because they fear Muslim rioting.

Am I afraid of those Muslims who do not use the Koran as justification for murder and terrorism? No. Do I fear radical Islam? I already admitted that I did. Maybe that makes me a "radical Islamophobe." But am I cowed by my fear of radical Islamists? Absolutely not. I will continue to stand up and tell the truth. Will anyone on the staff of the New York Times admit that they fear radical Islam, and they are cowed by their fear? Almost certainly not. On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true. But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations. They are also Islamophobes, but of a different stripe.

If I were a New York Times Islamophobe instead of a Brigitte Gabriel Islamophobe, I could no longer say I come from the land of the free and the home of the brave.

—Brigitte Gabriel

Up for defining irrational definitions, anyone?

Big Brother's Islamic Shuffle

From Robert Spencer:

“We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.”
—Islamic spokesman, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Mark Steyn

That sounds like the statement of a victor in a war, dictating terms to the vanquished. And it may well be: free speech is under attack in Canada—the prosecution of Macleans Magazine and author Mark Steyn—and in the United States as well by Islamic governments and groups whose goal is to end free speech when it is aimed at exposing the truth about Islamic terrorism and its roots. Their goal is positively Orwellian. Replace “Big Brother” with the “Organization of the Islamic Conference” and you have the world the OIC wants to impose on us all.

Apparently Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, believes that his powerful, multinational Islamic organization has already won the battle over free speech. Last week he boasted that “the OIC has become an indispensable player at the international level, in many domains.” Notably, he said, the OIC, which comprises 57 Muslim governments in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Europe, and South America, has been actively “defending the image of Islam, and combating the phenomenon of Islamophobia.”

The OIC, said Ihsanoglu, has placed the issue of Islamophobia “at the top of our priorities and preoccupations, while conducting a large-scale worldwide effort to confront it.”

They’ve already accomplished a great deal. “We have been able to achieve convincing progress,” observed Ihsanoglu, at “the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.”

That is true: Associated Press reported Thursday that “Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticized during debates by the UN Human Rights Council.” Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained: “This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” AP noted that “while Costea’s ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.” And Ihsanoglu said: “The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.”

Now they’re setting their sights on the United States. “We have established an OIC Group in Washington D.C.,” Ihsanoglu explained, “with the aim of playing a more active role in engaging American policy makers.” This will involve agitating for laws restricting free speech: “And in confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna,’” (which showed Muslims acting on violent passages in the Qur’an), Ihsanoglu continued, “we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” Ihsanoglu says it’s already working: “As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

In other words, “irresponsible” speech—which is defined as speech he disagrees with—should be banned.

This is simple to comprehend. I can't say that I'm surprised. Merely a lowly blogger, I felt the push toward this awful direction heating up about 3 years ago. When I first voiced my concerns over this matter of freedom of speech, friends and family rolled eyes. Interestingly, few of them are rolling their eyes now, but they are still not willing to take any risks or to buck political correctness except over dinner in a hushed whisper even after a few drinks.

Ihsanoglu is right that such a “message” has found a receptive audience, even in the West. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey published in mid-June found that while 88% of Americans support the right to free speech (only 88%?), only 53% oppose banning “hate speech.” Significantly, however, only 11% support bans on “hate speech” when they’re reminded that “hate speech” is in the eye of the beholder, and that the government would be deciding what constitutes hate speech and what doesn’t. That is, the government, or the OIC making the government dance to its tune.

“Hate speech” is also a tool to prevent the dissemination of what have more of a claim to be called “inconvenient truths” than anything Al Gore has ever been involved with. Mark Steyn is on trial in Canada right now for telling the truth. The renowned Canadian journalist and politician Peter Worthington commented acidly about the Steyn proceedings: “Truth is no defence before a Human Rights tribunal. Steyn’s accuracy is not at issue, just his opinions. Under hate legislation, opinions are punishable if they offend a particular group. If you think about it, this is an abomination.”

Indeed it is—and Steyn is not the only victim. The contentious exchange at the UN Human Rights Council that led to the prohibition of criticism of Islam involved a presentation by David G. Littman of the Association for World Education of information about female genital mutilation, the stoning of adulteresses, and honor killings in Islamic countries. The first victims of the ban on such talk at the Human Rights Council will be those who suffer from such barbarities—and will now have no one who is allowed to speak for them without dissembling about the causes and extent of the problem.

It is telling that when Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC think of “defending the image of Islam,” they don’t mean working in Muslim communities to combat the influence of the jihad ideology or Islamic supremacism among Muslims worldwide. They don’t have in mind developing any large scale initiatives to combat Osama bin Laden’s version of Islam, and to teach Muslims how to resist the jihadist appeal. The organization hasn’t ever acknowledged the obvious fact that it could end “Islamophobia” right away by rejecting Islam’s doctrines of violence, supremacism and conquest and moving strongly against those Muslims who are acting upon those doctrines.

Instead, they have made themselves the enemies of honest men like Mark Steyn who have called attention to this supremacist agenda. They will be working with American policymakers to restrict free speech—that is, honest discussion of the elements of Islam that the jihadists use to justify their actions and gain recruits.

Can honest discussion really be outlawed? You bet it can. As long as free people do nothing to stop it from happening. As the OIC presses American politicians to use anti-discrimination and hate speech laws to “stem this illegal trend,” we need to stand up now with Mark Steyn and all the others who are on the front lines of this battle, and tell them that what they’re doing to Steyn in Canada must never happen here. We must tell our elected officials to stop this outrage, resist OIC lobbying, and reaffirm in no uncertain terms our commitment to free speech—particularly now, when so much depends on our being able to speak with honesty about the nature of the jihadist threat, and so many powerful entities want to make sure we do not do so.

So much depends on this—possibly even including our survival as a free people.

In other news explaining how the Jews and Christians must “feel themselves subdued,” Ibn Kathir quotes a saying of Muhammad: “Do not initiate the Salam [greeting of peace] to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” He then goes on to outline the notorious Pact of Umar, an agreement made, according to Islamic tradition, between the caliph Umar, who ruled the Muslims from 634 to 644, and a Christian community.

This Pact is worth close examination, because it became the foundation for Islamic law regarding the treatment of the dhimmis. With remarkably little variation, throughout Islamic history whenever Islamic law was strictly enforced, this is generally how non-Muslims were treated. Working from the full text as Ibn Kathir has it, these are the conditions the Christians accept in return for “safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion” – conditions that, according to Ibn Kathir, “ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.”

The Christians shall not:

  • 1. Build “a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk”;
  • 2. “Restore any place of worship that needs restoration”;
  • 3. Use such places “for the purpose of enmity against Muslims”;
  • 4. “Allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims”;
  • 5. Imitate the Muslims’ “clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names”;
  • 6. “Ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons”;
  • 7. “Encrypt our stamps in Arabic”
  • 8. “Sell liquor” – Christians in Iraq in the last few years ran afoul of Muslims reasserting this rule;
  • 9. “Teach our children the Qur’an”;
  • 10. “Publicize practices of Shirk” – that is, associating partners with Allah, such as regarding Jesus as Son of God. In other words, Christian and other non-Muslim religious practice will be private, if not downright furtive;
  • 11. Build “crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets” – again, Christian worship must not be public, where Muslims can see it and become annoyed;
  • 12. “Sound the bells in our churches, except discreetly, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets”;
  • 13. “Bury our dead next to Muslim dead”;
  • 14. “Buy servants who were captured by Muslims”;
  • 15. “Invite anyone to Shirk” – that is, proselytize, although the Christians also agree not to:
  • 16. “Prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.” Thus the Christians can be the objects of proselytizing, but must not engage in it themselves;
  • 17. “Beat any Muslim.”

Meanwhile, the Christians must:

  • 1. Allow Muslims to rest “in our churches whether they come by day or night”;
  • 2. “Open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby”;
  • 3. Provide board and food for “those Muslims who come as guests” for three days;
  • 4. “Respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them” – shades of Jim Crow;
  • 5. “Have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist” – these are so that a Muslim recognizes a non-Muslim as such and doesn’t make the mistake of greeting him with As-salaamu aleikum, “Peace be upon you,” which is the Muslim greeting for a fellow Muslim;
  • 6. “Be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.”

The Christians swore: “If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”

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!