Category Archives: Atheist

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

Alinsky's Rules For Radicals: Unraveling The Marxist Candidate

Obama18
The President of the United States of America
IN THE SAUL ALINSKY MODEL, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted—a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation.

Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse—to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed.

But Alinsky’s Chicago brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” Alinsky advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform.

One of Obama’s early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama:

“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

Read it all in the UK Spectator. And then there is the old gray elephant in the room—the concern over Obama's religious base.

But let's be honest about all this high octane gutter sleuthing. As the always insightful Max Publius puts it, "That his paternal family is Muslim or that his maternal family were communists is not the problem. After all, some of the harshest critics of Islam are ex-Muslims (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq), and some of the harshest critics of communism were "red diaper babies" like David Horowitz.

"What is very disturbing is that Obama decided on his own to join a genuinely racist, anti-semitic, psycho-led "Christian Identity" church for African Americans, and now he is the chosen Democrat for president."

Disturbing indeed. To paraphrase what Duh Swami writes elsewhere in another online comment, "I don't think Obama is a Muslim in crass legalistic terms, but I think he is a sympathizer of the Islamic agenda. Anyone who believes, that Allah is God, and Mohammad is his messenger, is a Muslim by sympathy if not actuality. And we cannot take this admission lightly, and more than we could accept Nazi sympathy last century when at war with Nazis.

This is why the key questions we must press this presidential candidate on this topic, just as Jack Kennedy was inspected with regard to his allegiance to the Pope. Is Allah God? Is Mohammad his messenger? We deserve to know EXACTLY what Obama thinks on this topic.

If one believes that Allah is God (we all worship the same God), and acknowledge Mohammad's messengership, he has given Islam credibility as an authentic religion, he believes the Quran, even if he has not read it, even if there is no prayers, no jakat, no jihad, he is a sympathetic Muslim just the same, and Allah is his god.

For a President Barack, God help us all, how deep this sympathy goes will directly effect his behavior toward everything Islamic while he is in office.

There is a branch of magick called sympathetic magick. The magician enters into a state sympathy with the target and exerts some kind of control. In Gene Roddenberry's fictional treatment the Vulcan mind meld technique would be an example, where Spock enters into a state of sympathy with the subject and can read his mind.

It appears that most of the chattering Muslims of the world seem to agree that candidate Barack is already in a state of sympathy with them. However, despite all of his talents as a community organizer, he will not be able to control this magical act because he is not the magician. Entrenched Islam and its "true" sons are the magicians, and they will play Obama's magical sympathy like a symphony...

There is a thief in the house. We will not be silenced...

The Theatre Of Political Desire

The following is a comment from a PUMA named Janis. The topic is Obama's 2004 speech. Her perspective is quite close to my own, even though I do not consider myself a member of the Democratic Party as does she. In fact, I have been a declared independent, thus, bypassing the primary slate, for all of my adult life. But I am thankful to Janis for sharing her POV in this theatre of political desire.

I CAN QUOTE from the speech myself, from the parts that struck me as good speechwriting. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like people poking around in our libraries in the red states. It was good—but it wasn't that good. It wasn’t the goddamned second coming.

gobama
The Reality Of Obama's Kenyan Half-Brother

I recall a short comment from Howard Dean about how the Dems lost in 2004; he made a comment about how the Dems consistently underestimate how deeply religious Americans are. We do. I’m atheist; I’ll openly say that I tend to find organized religion rather laughable and sad.

But what they did was they figured if they could whip up a religious messiah-figure, they could capitalize on that. They still didn’t get what the religiosity of Americans was; they thought they’d come to a brilliant strategic realization that “most Americans are religious,” and then they filled in the blanks with the worst of their own stereotypes of what “religious” meant: chanting and falling to the ground in front of a messiah, like a cult following.

To most Americans, religion is a sort of quiet, rock-solid, hard little thing underneath their lives that they like to rest on but don’t like to think about or talk about all that much. They allude to it, make proclamations, and then go about their lives. Most American religious types are not swooning snake-handlers. *shakes head*

And what they got instead was exactly the opposite; they didn’t woo the fundies over from the other side; they created a shitload of unrevealed fundies on their own side, young kids who were DYING for their own chance to weep oceans at the sight of the Radiant One’s golden halo.

Just as was planned. After the destruction...

"I shall stand astride the wreckage a colossus."

—Karl Marx

Americans may be religious, but we also don’t like phonies. Dog whistles are one thing, but once we feel like someone’s bullshitting us, we turn red. We’re not that bright a lot of times, but once we clue in, we don’t clue OUT.

1001 Tales of Purchasing Power

Freedom and personal liberty is rarely lost by a culture in a single blow from an enemy perfected with the arts of permanent destruction, but instead, culture is more often chastised to death by a thousand cuts. Militant Islam, in its natural role, has perfected this latter technique of warfare, using surprise and deception tactics, lies built upon lies, trojan horses and social manipulation, all practiced in the sometimes snarling, sometimes smiling spirit of oppression while busy with the replacement of the host culture in the service of global domination.

Here is an intelligent piece from the Washington TimesThe Camel in the Tent—by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen on the strategies of power acquisition which is inherent to Islamic fundamentalism:

islamic fundamentlaism
Western stupidity with endgame analysis...
Objections to Borse Dubai's proposed acquisition of 20 percent of Nasdaq last week prompted Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank to quip, "In the ports deal, the concern was smuggling something or someone dangerous... What are we talking about here—smuggling someone onto a stock exchange?"

It is not "who" Dubai will smuggle into the stock exchange we should worry about. It's the arrival of the world's first Islamic stock exchange exerting unprecedented Islamic influence in the heart of the U.S. and Western economies that should raise our alarm. Dubai's handsomely paid Washington lobbyists see nothing wrong with that. Rather, they claim the deal benefits U.S. financial markets, giving "Nasdaq access to rich Mideast pockets." Unfortunately, the deal also increases the appeal and influence of Islamic financing in the West.

What is "Islamic" finance? Islamic, or Shariah-based finance, is the 1920s invention of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. He ordered the Muslim Brothers to create an independent Islamic financial system to supercede the Western economy, facilitating the spread of Islam worldwide. He set the theories and practices and his contemporaries and successors developed Shariah-based terminology for "Islamic economics," finance and banking. Attempts by Muslim Brotherhood members in the early 1930s to establish Islamic banking in India failed. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser shut down the second attempt in 1964, after only one year, later arresting and expelling the Muslim Brothers for attempts to kill him. Saudi Arabia welcomed them and adopted their ideas.

In 1969, soon after a mentally deranged Australian Christian fundamentalist, Michael Dennis Rohan, tried to set fire to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Saudis convened the Conference for the Islamic Organizations (OIC) to unify the "struggle for Islam," and have been its major sponsor ever since. The 56 OIC members include Iran, Sudan and Syria.

Most Arab and Muslim states publicly denounced bin Laden. But the impending Nasdaq acquisition, the purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange and 47.6 percent of OMX (Nordic exchange) and the vigorous expansion of Shariah financing apparently follow the Muslim Brotherhood-bin Laden script.
Based in Jeddah, "pending the liberation of Jerusalem," the OIC mandates and coordinates actions to "support the Palestinian people, assist them in recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories." The OIC's first international undertaking was the 1975 establishment of the Islamic Development Bank "in accordance with the principles of the Shariah," marking the beginning of the fast-growing, petrodollar-based Islamic financing market. From 1975 to 2005, the bank approved more than $46 billion in funding to Muslim countries. Since 2000, it has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars raised especially to support the Palestinian intifada and suicide bombers' families—and has channeled United Nations funds to Hamas. Yet the bank received U.N. observer status in 2007.

Overseeing Shariah finance are the 1991-Bahrain-registered and -based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), which laid the groundwork for the global Islamic financial network and the "de facto Islamic Central Bank"—the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB), established in 2002 in Kuala Lumpur "to absorb the 11 September shock and reinforce the stability of Islamic finance." Chairing the meeting, then-Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir stated: "A universal Islamic banking system is a jihad worth pursuing to abolish this slavery [to the West]."

According to Saleh Kamel, president of the Saudi Dallah Al-Baraka Group and the Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI), more than 400 Islamic financial institutions currently operate in 75 countries. They now hold more than $800 billion in assets—growing at a rate of 15 percent annually. All investments with Islamic financial institutions are subject to the minimum zakat (Islamic charitable wealth tax). On April 30, the OIC, the organization that initiated global Muslim riots after the Danish cartoon publications, established the clerical International Commission for Zakat, replacing more than 20,000 organizations that previously collected the money. Islamic clerics' "expert committee" in Malaysia now supervises and distributes those funds. The new committee will shortly distribute to Muslim charities roughly $2 billion collected during Ramadan.

But not all charities are equal. In 1999, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi decreed: "Declaring holy war [and] fighting for such purposes is the way of Allah for which zakat must be spent." If past zakat distribution is any indication, all Muslim jihadist-terror organizations (including Palestinian Hamas, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and the many al Qaeda offspring) will benefit.

Shortly after September 11, Osama bin Laden called upon Muslims "to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means. Look for the key pillars of the U.S. economy. Strike the key pillars of the enemy again and again and they will fall as one."

Most Arab and Muslim states publicly denounced bin Laden. But the impending Nasdaq acquisition, the purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange and 47.6 percent of OMX (Nordic exchange) and the vigorous expansion of Shariah financing apparently follow the Muslim Brotherhood-bin Laden script.

President Bush on Sept. 25 at the United Nations called on all nations to open their markets. Surely, he did not mean opening the markets to domination by Shariah.
_______________

Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center of Democracy and a board member at the Committee for the Present Danger. She is also a member of the American Congress for Truth Board of Advisors. Alyssa A. Lappen is a senior fellow at the American Center of Democracy.