Obama And Race Relations

A good piece on Obama's contribution to race relations here. The conclusion: Obama could do for race relations "what the Clintons did for Feminism".

Round-up

1. I ignored the rest of this article, but what I did pay attention to was the fact that it at last reveals what happened during an allegedly racist incident in the House of Commons, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. Back then I was dismissive of the incident based on the limited information we had, but now having read the full account (see article for details; account starts in paragraph 7), I've changed my tune and it does indeed appear racist. I condemn this attitude expressed by the Conservative MP.

2. Formula One's governing body launched a "subdued" anti-racism campaign today at the same track where Spanish fans taunted black driver Lewis Hamilton. Yes, that's right - they're wasting lots of money on campaigns to combat three people who wore black face make-up and T-shirts saying "Hamilton's Familly" - people who deny they are racist, as it happens. I *heart* political correctness.

UK bomb plotters "had jihad papers"

In a further update on this story, which I have previously covered in the kind of detail the mainstream media won't touch, we now learn that the plotters "had material supporting jihad and martyrdom operations".

I won't spoil it for you, but try playing a game at home: see how many of the words and ideas quoted in the BBC article can be directly traced back to the Qur'an and the words of Muhammad in the hadith.

Really, this case contains virtually everything you need to understand the global jihad all in one place. That's what makes it so galling that the MSM remain so clueless.

South African Round-up

1. "We need national discourse on race, racism" - While at first this article might sound like another pointless "racism awareness pack", it in fact tells the very interesting story of various South African groups which are devoted solely to black people; whites are banned from being members. The article asks whether this is unconstitutional.

I would add one extra caveat: it seems to me that many of the blacks and ethnic minorities who vehemently complain about "racism" and "apartheid" are quite happy to willingly separate themselves from whites, to cause division in their own way. And no doubt, anyone who suggests they come out of their little cliques and join with the rest of us is just another racist.

2. A brand new RAW Watch: "White racism alive and well" - It's the usual drivel you'd expect from the title, and in fact simply doesn't say very much of importance or relevance.

Fitna In Context

The other day you'll remember that I responded, very briefly, to the contention of a commenter that the Qur'an verses used in Geert Wilders' film Fitna were "taken out of context", and that if you look up the true contexts of these verses you will see that they are all referring to defensive warfare.

Well, at the Telegraph website, someone has written an excellent blog post going into more detail on this matter, and showing just how painfully "in context" all of the verses used in the film are. I'm not sure how long the post will stay up, so check it out while you can; it totally embarrasses the claims of all Islamic apologists and verifies the accuracy of the film.

Round-up

1. This opinion piece is intelligently written and contains some valid points, but at the end of the day I simply cannot accept the author's thesis that "there is simply too little respect by our white compatriots for black people's sensitivities to colonialism and racism." Is the author unaware of such activities as Tony Blair's groveling apologies for the slave trade last year? And it seems to me that any analysis of the media will demonstrate that whites are all too quick to bemoan white racism against blacks, even when no such racism actually exists.

Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya writes eloquently, but his piece reads too much as a victimhood session, even though he insists that's not what it's supposed to be. I found myself only truly agreeing with one statement he made in the article, and that's this one:

"Newsflash: racism, the slave trade, colonialism and apartheid are just as evil as the Holocaust and other forms of behaviour based on the assumption that your own people are more human and thus deserving of greater respect than others."

2. In the Unbelievable Story of the Day, a nineteen year old boy with Down's Syndrome who has a mental age of five was accused of "racism" after he allegedly attacked a girl - who is "Asian" - at college. I'm thinking that perhaps it was the Motherwell authorities, and not the boy, who truly has a case of severe mental retardation.

Banned In Vermont!

I was checking through my referrals a moment ago, and I found a link from a strange address. I Googled this address and found that it refers to the website blocking system. Therefore, it was clear that someone, somewhere, probably running a network, had banned this very website, blocked it. So I tracked down the exact IP address. Turns out that I was blocked by a company called "Comcast Business Communications Inc." in Vermont, USA. I can't believe it! I have a good mind to email them and ask the reason for the blocking. You haven't heard the last of this!

Another Rebuttal

After responding to Jackson Free Press' "ladd" earlier today, I'm feelin' in a rebuttin' sort of mood, and it turns out that I now have the chance. Although my opponent may never read this, I think my responses will be instructive to others and so I feel it's worth doing.

I was browsing back through my review of Fitna, and I noticed I'd got a comment there. The anonymous commenter says this:

"As you said geert wilder doesn't know the quran.

You seem to know nothing yourself nethier.

Those verses don't relate to the incidents because they are quoted out of context.

If you read those verses then read the few verses before it and the few verses after it you will see muslims are told to strike fear/kill non muslims in self defence if they are attacked first.

All his out of context verses in the film has an innocent explaanation like i said you know nothing of the quran yourself and the extremists are not proper muslims just using out of context verses like geert for political goals and are not really religously motivated."

The "out-of-context" line is a common staple among Muslims and their apologists, but does he have a point?

I just looked through the passages "before and after" 8:60 in the Qur'an, as my anonymous commenter suggested. And they say nothing about self-defense.

And what about the historical context of this verse? Sura 8 was revealed in the aftermath of the Battle of Badr. This was fought between the Muslims and the Quraysh, the pagan tribe Muhammad had left after they rejected his message. In the wake of the Hijra (Muhammad's emigration from Mecca to Medina), he launched a series of raids against Quraysh trading caravans. These were not defensive actions; they were designed specifically to steal the wealth of the Quraysh, which was partly an act of revenge for their rejection of Muhammad, and partly a way of financing his new religious and military group. The Battle of Badr was started when Muhammad heard about a new wagon, laden with money and goods, that was coming from Syria. "This is the caravan of the Quraysh possessing wealth," he said. "It is likely that Allah may give it to you as booty." (Ibn S'ad v.2, p.9) The Muslims marched against the Quraysh, 300-strong, and were met by the Quraysh with 1000 men. After the battle, in which the Muslims were victorious, one of the Muslims beheaded the Quraysh leader, Abu Jahl. Muhammad did not admonish him; in fact, he was delighted, and gave thanks to Allah for the death of his enemy. (Ibn Ishaq p.304) None of this was defensive on Muhammad's part, except by his own weak justifications.

But even if it was defensive, and even if 8:60 is only talking about defensive jihad, this makes little difference, since most jihads today are justified as defensive. Bin Laden justified 9/11 by saying: "The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates." Such an action would be defensive, and the elastic definition of defensive warfare in Islamic law makes it fairly easy for jihadists to justify just about anything in the name of self-defence. So any Muslim who quotes the verse wouldn't be doing so outside of the canons of Islamic law.

As for the suggestion that these preachers are using Islam purely for political and not religious reasons, this is something I hear quite a bit also. To an extent it may be true, although it must be noted that since Islam itself treats political warfare as a religious matter, the two are a lot harder to separate than you might think. But the point is that it is the religious part of the appeal which is so successful in winning Muslims over to the jihadists' cause. It would be wrong to assume an absence of religious motives, especially when doing so does nothing to stop religious "window dressing" being used as the main driving force behind jihad recruitment.

"The truth is that the bigger problem might be the disembowelment of the word "racist" to mean anything that people want it to mean"

The above quote comes from a discussion at Jackson Free Press about the story I covered yesterday, in which publisher Michael Lacey was excoriated for referring to a white colleague as "my nigger" (and no, I WILL NOT censor that word). In the thread, poster "ladd" expresses his disagreement with the idea that the use of the phrase is acceptable because blacks use it, too, and he quotes me in the process.

After selecting the relevant quote from my post, "ladd" says:

"I guess we should thank the rappers? (Ducking from the chair Kaze is about to throw at me.)

The loose use of the word "racist" simply drives me crazy, folks. While we're all grousing about the n-word, the truth is that the bigger problem might be the disembowelment of the word "racist" to mean anything that people want it to mean. In a sense, that's more insidious."

I'm a little confused by what exactly "ladd" is saying here, but let's examine it briefly.

"ladd" talks of the "loose use of the word racist". In this I assume he is questioning the last sentence of my post, in which I asked whether blacks deciding that a certain word is acceptable for them and not for others is in fact racist. And I stand by such a statement. After all, in any other circumstances, a group of people deciding that they are allowed to use a certain word while all other races are not would be deemed racist, regardless of the history of that word. These days, the word "racist" is almost synonymous with the word "white", so would it be fair enough to say that only whites can use the word "racist" since it is always used as a slur against them, and all other racial groups must not use the term lest they possibly be arrested for hate speech? The fact is that calling a white person "my nigger" is no more offensive than calling a person a fool even if they aren't a fool. Should fools be offended?

"Nigger" is just a word. It is not a nice word, and it is not one that I would use under any normal circumstances, but nevertheless it remains only a word. I would suggest that if blacks find it that offensive that it blows all reason out the window, they need to simmer down and chill, perhaps with a spliff (OK, that last bit was deliberately offensive, just because I think it will be funny to see people's reactions). I do not believe it is ever justifiable to ban a word. Racism is more than just a word. All words are harmless; it is the way that people ACT upon those words that is dangerous. And especially when someone is using a word in a context that is OBVIOUSLY not meant to be offensive, no one should raise an eyebrow. I support freedom of speech, including speech which I find repugnant. It's a shame many people don't.

Earlier on, "ladd" asks the question: "If you're a member of a historically disciminated [sic] against group, how would you feel if a word for your culture (k*ke or sp*ck, g**ks or even f*g) was used in this way?" My answer is simple: I would not care, because it is only a word.

Anyway, the second part of "ladd"'s response to my post is the most telling: "While we're all grousing about the n-word, the truth is that the bigger problem might be the disembowelment of the word "racist" to mean anything that people want it to mean. In a sense, that's more insidious." Exactly! And what you will find is that more often than anything else, the word is used to mean "you talked about a black person". You don't even have to talk about a black person negatively anymore to be considered racist. For example, there was this story about a TV ad starring Stephen Fry which was accused of racism because it depicted a black man as a stud. The intention of the ad-makers was quite OBVIOUSLY to present the young, attractive black man as the opposite of portly old "square" Stephen Fry, but some idiot complained that the ad was designed to maliciously present black men as sexually promiscuous and only there to serve the whims of white women. Is this what "ladd" means by the use of the word racist "to mean anything that people want it to mean"? If so, then yes, I would consider such political correctness to be a very insidious creep on our rights of free expression.

Round-up

1. On May 7, Canadian North Park Collegiate's Anti-Racism Committee(ARC) and Gay/Straight Alliance(GSA) are hosting their first Pride and Diversity Day. That'll show 'em!

There is a telling paragraph near the beginning of this article. In a discussion about verbal abuse students starting high school are likely to receive on the average day, it says this:

""That's gay," seems to be one of the most popular phrases heard today. Students use the word gay as a negative term meaning bad and stupid and this is the type of discrimination that students at North Park Collegiate are trying to eliminate."

Did you catch that? Despite admitting that the word "gay" has been removed from its context by today's youth and used to mean something different, it's still insisted that this is a "type of discrimination" against gays.

2. The American Thinker is usually pretty good, but I did not appreciate this piece from them, in which they bemoan the mainstream media's lack of attention paid to newspaper owner Michael Lacey, who recently referred to a deceased African-American journalist as "my nigger".

But here's the thing. "My nigger" isn't a racial slur. It is a common phrase used within black culture itself. Does the AT mean to suggest that some words are acceptable among blacks but not among whites? And does his suggestion have its roots within the black community - i.e. was it blacks who decided that whites aren't allowed to use the word "nigger" while they are? And if so, how racist is that?

More Saudi-Funded School Hatred

A former teacher at an Islamic school, who alleged that it taught an offensive and racist view of non-Muslims, has been awarded £70,000 by an employment tribunal after winning his case for unfair dismissal. The King Fahad Academy is funded and run by the Saudi Arabian Government.

Mr Cook told the hearing that after leaving the school another member of staff gave him extracts from an Arabic textbook, which encouraged students to believe that all religions other than Islam were worthless. This is probably drawn from the traditional Islamic theological concept of jahiliyya, the "pre-Islamic period of ignorance", which denigrates all non-Islamic cultures and achievements as ultimately worthless.

The books referred to “the repugnant characteristics of the Jews”. This is similar to the anti-Semitic writings that are prevalent among scholars in the Islamic world, such as "The Jews' Twenty Bad Traits as Described in the Qur'an" by Sheik 'Attiyah Saqr. Similar things were written by the grand imam of Al-Azhar University, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the nearest Muslim equivalent to the Pope, in a lengthy treatise he wrote back in the 60s. Here's an extract:

"[The] Qur’an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word….[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims, the bad ones do not. (Qur’an 3:113)"

And so on.

Another passage in one of the text books at the school said: “Those whom God has cursed and with whom he is angry, he has turned into monkeys and pigs. They worship Satan.” This is based on three Qur'an passages - 2:63-66, 5:59-60 and 7:166 - which do indeed depict Allah as transforming mischievous Jews into apes and swine. And of course, if you've seen Fitna you'll remember the scene in which the three-and-a-half year old girl invokes these passages live on Egyptian TV.

And so on.

It is not surprising to see such anti-infidel and anti-Semitic hatred being taught at a Saudi-funded school - which makes you wonder why British authorities aren't doing anything to stamp this kind of thing out.

Oh yeah, I remember why: "racism"...

It's good to see that it was a Muslim who exposed this hatred. Mr. Cook went on to say, "Islam teaches peace and honesty." You may believe that, Mr. Cook, but unfortunately the Saudis and their numerous jihadist spawn don't. So I hope you, as a peaceful Muslim, will continue to expose their hatred and work towards defeating their ideology and teach "peaceful Islam" to your students. You've already taken one important step in doing that; and I hope you take many more. For all our sakes, and for the sakes of young British Muslims.

Round-up

1. "Racism was given a red card" by hundreds of people at a Furness fun day. Around 500 children and adults attended the Unity in the Community event in Ormsgill on Sunday, which aimed to stamp out racism. The event included food tasting from around-the-world, multi-cultural dancers and a climbing wall. There was also an audio-visual exhibition by Sedbergh artist Trevor Avery, called From Auschwitz to Ambleside, which tells the story of young Jewish boys who fled to Cumbria from the Nazis.

That'll do it!

2. An IT technician who claims he was racially harassed at a Bradford school has told an employment tribunal that his treatment was "in line" with that of Caribbean pupils there. Peter John-Charles, 46, claimed there was a "disproportionately high" number of Caribbean children expelled from Thornton Grammar School, where he says he was the subject of "persistent and unrelenting" racism. He also told the hearing he had been bullied by his head of department, Karen Kingston. Mr John-Charles is claiming race discrimination, breach of contract and unfair dismissal against headteacher John Weir and the school's governing body.

Once again it seems no one stopped to think that maybe there were more black Caribbean boys outside the headteacher's office because they were simply more naughty children. It will be interesting to see what happens at the hearing, but I expect that Mr. John-Charles will not be able to substantiate his claims of racism - those who play the race card rarely can - and the case will be thrown out.

Alicia Keys: Conspiracy Theorist

Alicia Keys tells Blender magazine: "'Gangsta rap' was a ploy to convince black people to kill each other. 'Gangsta rap' didn't exist." Keys, 27, said she's read several Black Panther autobiographies and wears a gold AK-47 pendant around her neck "to symbolize strength, power and killing 'em dead," according to an interview in the magazine's May issue, on newsstands today.

Another of her theories: The bicoastal feud between slain rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. was fueled "by the government and the media, to stop another great black leader from existing."

Someone should tell her AK-47s were invented by George W. Bush to make R & B stars look like idiots.

Debating With Dhimmis...Again

Earlier today I had another debate with an Islamic apologist. It was fun.

All the usual stuff was there. I quoted the Qur'an and Sunnah. He told me that I was misrepresenting it, and that I was endorsing the views of a Tiny Minority of Extremists. I quoted him a raft of Islamic scholars, jurists and spiritual authorities who teach jihad according to the Qur'an. After that, he continued to assert that only a Tiny Minority of Extremists believe in jihad according to the Qur'an.

The next stage, following the predictable pattern, was the usual bunch of quotes from the Bible. When I explained why these quotes were not equivalent to violent passages in the Qur'an, and challenged him to give me an example of where such quotes had been used by Christians to justify violence, he came up empty, but continued to insist that Christianity was just as bad as Islam. After all, what about the Crusades and the Inquisition?

The best part was his attempts to convince me that Hitler was a Christian who based the Holocaust on the Bible. I pointed out to him that Hitler's writings actually show that he despised Christianity and planned to eradicate it after he had finished with the Jews. He ignored this and proceeded to provide me with a bunch of quotes from Hitler which he claimed showed that Hitler was a Christian who based the Holocaust on the Bible. But virtually every one of these quotes was shorn from its original context or otherwise completely misread, and most said the exact opposite of what he thought they said. In one particularly amazing case, he printed a quote from a book about Hitler which was not only misrepresented, but on the very same page of the book there was another passage in which Hitler spoke of his dislike of Christianity!

There was, of course, also the usual projection in which I was accused of "lumping every Muslim in the world together", even though I had said half a dozen times prior to that it would be wrong to lump every Muslim in the world together.

This level of cognitive dissonance is unsurprisingly common among Islamic apologists. So wafer-thin are their arguments that they will resort to absolutely anything. They ignore the most blatant evidence, make assertions without their own evidence, and generally misrepresent virtually everything you say to them. In the end, after I showed him how callously he had bastardised the facts, he gave up. It is quite fitting that after his attempts to beat me into silence with disingenuousness and unsubstantiated claims, he was ultimately the one who retreated with his tail between his legs.

These people are little more than intellectual cowards.

Round-up

1. The only two black women in the British lower house have complained of racism in the mother of parliaments. Dawn Butler, at 38 one of the younger MPs in the House of Commons, said she had suffered explicit racism from politicians, lobbyists and police. Although, perhaps unsurprisingly, she can't give any examples, except for this:

"In one incident of alleged racism recounted by Butler, a white MP - David Heathcote-Amory of the opposition Tory party - questioned her presence at a members-only section on the terrace."

Gasp! That's racism if ever I heard it! And from one of the evil bigoted Tories, too!

2. The president of an Australian football team, Jeff Kennett, has slammed a proposal for anti-racism announcements at footy games, calling it another sign of the AFL's "thought police".

The idea was suggested by Football Victoria chief Peter Schwab, a former Hawks player and coach, who proposed pre-game announcements promoting the message that racism was unacceptable and encouraging crowd members to dob in spectators who racially abused players.

"Now there's going to be some announcement before football matches, I can't believe this is right, telling us all how crowd members should refer to players on the ground, in case there's any racism and bad language," Kennett said at a pre-fame function ahead of the Hawks' clash with Adelaide in Launceston today.

"The thought police from the AFL are telling us what we should be thinking during a round of football."

Round-up

1. Uh-oh! Watch out! That "subtle racism" is sneaking around again.

2. A letter from Harrisonburg, Virgina:

I'm not a racist. But if I were running for public office and it was discovered I had attended a church that spewed hate against black people and gone on TV and said I attended this church for 20 years and allowed my children to hear this ranting and raving and then said "typical black people," there would have been riots from D.C. to LA.

So let's stop racism now. This is not the 1950's, '60's, ‘'70's; racism is not a white thing anymore. If you're white you must tiptoe around saying anything that may offend another race or culture, but if you are black, Latino, etc., and you make a racist remark it's allowed or was "taken out context."

Racism is alive and well in this country. I learned one thing when I was in Nam, we all bleed red! And no matter who supports racism, hold them accountable.

Gary Combs
Harrisonburg Va

Amen.

Round-up

1. There is a new bizarre and pointless "anti-racism" event in town: Intercultural and Anti Racism Week, taking place in Northern Ireland. There will also be a film night showing films about "the issue of racism and intercultural awareness". I can't think of anything more enjoyable.

2. This is a spoof story but I thought I'd post it anyway for a laugh.

Rag-heads?

I see that Muslim leaders have condemned a new war game where teams of soldiers shoot at enemies dressed as Arabs. The Muslim Association of Britain slammed the scheme as "short-sighted and foolish."

I have a question for the MAB: Would it have been "short-sighted and foolish" to shoot at enemies dressed in Nazi uniforms during World War II?

Positive Discrimination Alert

Grammar schools will be ordered by the Government to take more pupils from poor and ethnic minority backgrounds. They will be publicly exposed in area-by-area reports and told to adjust their intakes. They ultimately face being referred to admissions regulators who are being handed sweeping powers to demand 'fair' access.

Yes, yes, that's the spirit. Don't base your admission policies on how bright or promising young people are - if you work that way, you won't be able to fill your quota of migrants and "disadvantaged" minorities.

Those Martyrdom Videos Again...

Yesterday I analysed the news that six of the eight jihadists arrested for planning to blow up airliners had made martyrdom videos, and noted the conscious quoting and invoking of the Qur'an by the terrorists themselves, which has gone completely ignored in the mainstream media.

Well, now the contents of the other videos have been released, and there are even more examples to display.

Ibrahim Savant says: "You will class my case as suicide. I say never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead, rather they are alive with their Lord and receiving provision."

"And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah "dead." Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not." (Quran 2:154)

Waheed Zaman says: "The only solution to this current situation of the Muslims is by fighting jihad for the sake of Allah until the enemy is fully subdued and expelled from our lands."

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day...until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (9:29)

But of course, we all know it was Geert Wilders who invented the link between the Qur'an and terrorism, not these guys and their co-religionists.

MLK Anniversary

I couldn't go through today without mentioning the fact that on this day 40 years ago, Martin Luther King was shot dead. This blog is primarily about race and racism, after all, and so let us commemorate the man who did so much to end racial segregation. This was back in the days when people suffered REAL racism, not the imagined racism we read so much about these days.

Long live MLK!

More On That Muslim Bomb Plot

More interesting and important details emerge about that Muslim plot to bomb seven airliners.

Six of the eight men recorded videos justifying "revenge" attacks on non-Muslims, jurors were told. One man, said to be defendant Umar Islam, described his plans as "revenge" for the actions of the United States and its "accomplices such as the British and the Jews". He warned: "Martyrdom operations upon martyrdom operations will keep on raining on these kuffars [non-believers] until they release us and leave our lands." Another man, described as defendant Abdulla Ahmed Ali, was heard saying: "Sheikh Osama [Bin Laden] has warned you many times to leave our lands or you will be destroyed, and now the time has come for you to be destroyed."

Note the constant repetition of "our lands". By "our", they mean Muslim. This is another example of the fact these men's actions - and those of countless others like them - transcend nationalism and country boundaries: they are completely and specifically motivated by Islam. And yet Western analysts continually tell us this is not the case and downplay the role of Islam in such actions. They do so at our peril.

Umar Islam went on to argue British citizens were legitimate targets because they had paid taxes that funded the Army. And this is very similar to something bin Laden himself said to justify the mass murder of 9/11: "The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates." By such definition, there is no such thing as an innocent American. How are peaceful Muslims attempting to challenge these views?

I also found this interesting: in what the jury was told was Tanvir Hussain's suicide video, a man said he wished he could "come back and do this again, and just do it again and again until people come to their senses and realise, you know, don't mess with the Muslims". I am sure Hussain is well aware of the hadith which reads:

"The Prophet said...I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred." (Sahih Bukhari v.4, b.52, no.4)

This case is a great example of the overall problem: these Muslims planned to commit their acts "in the name of Islam". They imbued all their actions with religious significance and invoked mainstream and reliable (from an Islamic standpoint) religious traditions. And all the while, Westerners attempt to downplay the role of religion or leave it unexplored. Meanwhile, peaceful Muslims are mounting no significant or vociferous challenge to the jihad ideology these men embody. Instead, they are spending all their time protesting against non-Muslims who make films in which they point out that men like Umar Islam and Abdulla Ahmed Ali exist.

War Is Deception

You will have heard by now about the plot by a gang of British Muslims to blow up seven passenger airliners in one go, in what would have been the worst act of Islamic terrorism since 9/11. They planned to do all this "in the name of Islam" (but I thought Islam had nothing to do with terrorism!).

But what is most interesting about this story to me is the fact that the plotters "hoped to hoodwink airport security officers by putting pornographic magazines and condoms in their hand luggage to indicate that they could not be Muslim zealots".

This is important. Muhammad himself said, "War is deception." (Bukhari v.4, b.56, no.3030, and others) That is, one of the most important tools Muslims can make use of when waging war is deception of the enemy in order to make him let down his guard. This led to the doctrine of taqiyya, or religious deception, which was largely development by the Shi'ites, but the basis for which is grounded in sources that Sunnis consider sacred and reliable. We've seen it in action before. In the days prior to 9/11 the hijackers were seen at strip clubs and bars, which may have been an attempt to appear to onlookers as if they were not strict Muslims.

Non-Muslims should be aware of things like this. The terrorists didn't get away with it this time, but until we have a better understanding of important Islamic concepts such as religious deception, they always have a chance. And similarly, Muslims themselves should be finding ways to deal with this. But you can be sure that they probably won't.

Round-up

1. Morrissey, who you will remember was accused of racism last November, has been offered a formal apology by monthly music magazine The Word over the allegations.

2. In this bizarre story a black man has written an alternative history novel in which whites are the victims of racism and oppression from blacks, just to show us "what it's really like" to be on the receiving end. The suggestion here is that most whites "don't understand racism" - another unsubstantiated charge which is in itself racist because it suggests that white people are either too stupid or too self-absorbed to understand, and as if white people haven't apologised enough for the slave trade (still no large-scale apologies for the Islamic slave trade, though). Author Adam L. Perkins says, "The reviews from whites have been positive and are a good indication that this is what the country needs. It is bitter sweet, but necessary." Gee, whites are accepting? I guess they aren't as bigoted as you make out, then.

Stoning...eep; Fitna...RAAARGH!

Religion of Peace:

"A man and a woman have been stoned to death by militants in Pakistan's north-west border region after an Islamic 'qazi' court found them guilty of adultery. A qazi court is an Islamic court, parallel to the Pakistani judicial system."

I'm sure all those Muslims who told Geert Wilders that he doesn't understand Islam when he pointed out that Muslims do things like this will now be on their way to Pakistan to vehemently protest against such barbarity and inform the qazi court that they also misunderstand Islam, which is a Religion of Peace, don't you know.

Stop laughing. It was April Fools Day yesterday! On second thoughts...yes, I see why the suggestion is quite funny.

Islam Watch

1. A senior Church of England member called yesterday for the building of mosques to be banned. Alison Ruoff said more construction would lead to Islamic no-go areas dominated by exclusively Muslim populations living under sharia law. Mrs Ruoff, a member of the General Synod, the Church's parliament, added: "If we don't watch out we will become an Islamic state. It's that serious."

Predictably, Muslims are getting in a tiz over this. Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, known terror-sympathiser and supporter of Saudi hate-mongering, said: "These are very narrow-minded and bigoted remarks. As a Christian, she surely ought to be working to build good ties between different communities."

And of course, we all know that the best way for her to do that would be to start paying the jizya immediately.

2. The Taliban said today that two attacks on Dutch forces in Afghanistan were in retaliation for Geert Wilders' film Fitna.

That'll prove Islam is a Religion of Peace if nothing else will!

3. Comedian Ben Elton has said the BBC is too "scared" to poke fun at Islam. He accused the broadcasting company of allowing programmes to run jokes about Christianity and vicars such as The Vicar of Dibley. However, he claimed bosses were too politically correct and worried about a negative backlash to do the same about imams.

And he is 100% correct. Although, that said, I am quite certain that Elton knows little to nothing about Islam and would contend heatedly with the idea that Islam is itself radical. Still, this is a nice piece of anti-dhimmitude from him.

My Review of FITNA

I thought I'd post a bit of a longer review of Geert Wilders' movie Fitna. Here it is:

Fitna has some flaws - the main one being that it has obviously been made by a man who doesn't actually know that much about the Qur'an. But at the same time, the film is accurate and contains an important message. What grabs me most is the way criticism directed against Wilders almost seems to suggest that he made up the connection between Islam and violence. But in fact, he did not: that honour belongs to the Muslims he depicts in the film. Wilders is simply reporting on what they say.

One example will suffice. If you've watched the film you'll know that its main structural theme is passages from the Qur'an interlinked with footage of atrocities committed by Muslims. The first of these Qur'an quotes is 8:60: "Make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies." This is followed by footage of 9/11. These are not two unrelated things that Wilders has unfairly linked to each other. Jihadists time and time again invoke such passages to justify their actions. Acts such as 9/11 were designed to strike terror into the hearts of Allah's enemies. And most telling is some footage that follows soon after this first Qur'an quote. An Islamic cleric is shown saying: "Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists, your (Allah’s) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one…" His language here is clearly borrowed from this very verse of the Qur'an.

This is evident in other places, as well, and if Wilders had been more knowledgeable about Islam he could have demonstrated it better. One instance of this is when we see a three-year-old girl on Palestinian TV saying that the Jews are apes and pigs. If Wilders had had a little more nouse about him, he could have contrasted this with the three places in the Qur'an where Jews are depicted as being transformed - or akin - to apes and pigs (2:62-65; 5:59-60: 7:166). And elsewhere we hear an Islamic preacher declaring that at the end of the world Muslims will kill all the Jews. His speech is an almost word-for-word copy of the infamous genocidal apocalyptic hadith tradition: "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him." (Muslim b.41, no.6985)

Other examples are abound, of course, but the point here is that it is not Wilders who has created these connections. Muslims do that themselves every day, and Wilders is simply reporting on them. It is telling that there has been widespread Muslim condemnation of the film and Wilders himself (much of it coming before the film was even released), but little to no condemnation of the very men depicted in the film, who are the actual ones linking Islam with violence. This is a widespread problem: Muslims do not vociferously condemn their fellow co-religionists who equate Islam with violence, but they do condemn those non-Muslims who report on the fact that these Muslims exist. Consider when you last saw rioting Muslims burning an effigy of Salman Rushie, for instance, and then compare that with your memory of ever seeing those same Muslims burning an effigy of Osama bin Laden. Case in point. And where, oh where, is the worldwide Muslim condemnation of this film: a Palestinan puppet show for kids in which a child is depicted as killing George Bush with a sword and converting the White House into a mosque. Will the UN intervene on this one? If not, why not? Isn't this just slightly worse than Fitna, which does not call for the death of anyone?

But no Muslim condemnation is coming forth for things like this. Instead, all the blame rests on non-Muslims who exercise their free speech and report on the fact that some Muslims make a very strong connection between Islam and violence. If those preachers stopped doing so, Muslims would find that "Islamophobia" - as far as it even exists at all - would vanish completely.