The Nutty Professor

A professor (who, rather aptly, bears a vague resemblance to Eddie Murphy's Nutty Professor) is giving lectures moaning and complaining about the "inequality" of blacks to whites, etc. Of course, he doesn't actually give any examples of this inequality. He then goes on to outline four rationalisations, or "frames", that whites apparently use to explain away racism: abstract liberalism, naturalisation, cultural racism and minimisation of racism. I will leave you to read the explanations of these four frames for yourself - they are shockingly inane.

The professor also discussed "people’s hesitance to openly discuss racism in public". As if that is remotely true. He gave an example of an interview with a white person who said minorities use racism as an excuse “if things didn’t go their way,” and that whites suffer from reverse discrimination. I agree with this mysterious white person.

Other examples taken from his interviews with many white people showed similar responses, which indicates many whites’ firm belief that blacks are playing “race cards” to gain preferential treatment. And where could they possibly have got that idea from?

The article concludes: "Bonilla-Silva concluded the lecture by suggesting 'five things we [minorities] ought to do,' including developing counter-arguments for the four frames..." Yes, I suggest you do that, professor. Because you haven't actually come up with ANY kind of counter-argument so far.

Outrageous Dhimmitude

You may have heard the story of Hussein Zorkot, a young Muslim arrested in Dearborn with a loaded AK-47 in his possession. His personal website showed him to be a Hizballah supporter and he had a picture declaring: "The start of my personal jihad", dated on the 8th September - the same day he was found with the AK-47.

It has now been revealed that Dearborn officials deliberately withheld this kind of information because they didn't want to "stir anti-Muslim sentiments". And this at a time when people are meant to be on high alert for terrorism threats.

Make you want to puke, doesn't it?

Islam 101 - Part 3

Here's part three of my Islam 101 series - the subject this week is the difference between the Qur'an's violence and the Bible's violence. Bear in mind that although I here defend Christianity, I in no way condone its violent passages and do not agree with everything espoused in the Bible. I am an atheist, but I believe that Christianity more often than not is fundamentally good, and has brought much good to the world - far more than Islam.

--------------------------------------------------------------

THE QUR'AN VS. THE BIBLE

Islamic apologists, after steadfastly asserting that Islam is peaceful in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, may eventually admit that the Qur'an sanctions warfare against unbelievers. But then they will invariably say, "But there is loads of violence in the Bible, too. Christianity is just as bad." But is this true?

They will often quote several passages from the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, to prove their case. However, there are big differences between such Biblical verses and Qur'anic violence. I am going to look at just a few of those passages, but most other passages one could find will be subject to the same principles.

Let us look at three passages from the Old Testament which we are told are "just as bad" as anything in the Qur'an:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them." (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

The context of this passage is easily discernible from the text. War was to be waged only against the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. As jarring to our sensibilities as it is that any merciful God would command such atrocities against anyone, this is different to Qur'anic violence because war was to be waged only against these tribes, which are extinct today. There is no way modern Christians can take these verses as commanding them to commit violence against the rest of the world in a modern context. This is in contrast to the Qur'an, which contains open-ended commands to fight non-believers, with nothing to specify certain peoples or a certain time period, e.g. “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are ruthless to the unbelievers, but merciful to each other.” (48:29); "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them." (9:5) etc.

“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:10-17)

This sounds pretty open-ended like the Qur'an, right? Wrong. The very next sentence reads: "Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Again, we can see here that violence was commanded against particular people at that time and only until the Israelites had taken back the land given to them by God. There is nothing in the text which encourages Christians to imitate this behaviour today.

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18)

This sounds quite a bit like Muhammad's example, and is admittedly pretty vile. But its saving grace is the fact that surrounding verses clearly identify this passage as referring to war against the Midianites only. Also, as with many other such passages in the Bible, it is written in the past tense, and so it is a historical account, not a command for all Christians to follow for all time.

The Old Testament also contains several rules which appear to command the execution of pagans, as well as the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals. However, most Christians today believe that these rulings have been superceded by later covenants, as well as by the teachings of Jesus (e.g. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), which is why even the most fundamentalist Christians today, such as Fred Phelps, who despise homosexuals, aren't calling for them to be killed (unlike in the Islamic world). Or else they have developed non-literalist ways to interpret such passages.

Perhaps grasping at straws, some apologists even attempt to quote passages that "prove" that the New Testament also encourages violence. Passages such as:

"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)

However, these are not the words of Jesus but of a king in one of his parables.

"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)

Even if this passage were calling for any literal violence, it would seem to be primarily a jihad against mothers-in-law, and so can't be remotely compared to Muhammad's exhortations to fight all non-believers. As it happens, though, the passage is not literal. The sword is clearly metaphorical; Jesus is referring to the fact that for one to convert to Christianity will often cause division within one's own family. It isn't a command to fight or kill anyone.

And in this we see one of the most important differences between Islam and Christianity: that is, the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. One was clearly a man of peace, who taught that Christians should "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek", that "blessed are the peacemakers" and that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", and who practised what he preached. The other was a warlord who, it is estimated, participated in 27 battles during his career, commanded his followers to commit violent acts in his name, and had his enemies assassinated. No one can credibly argue that Jesus preached jihad or anything like jihad. Those who try to create moral equivalence between the two religions will be found wanting.

And even if Christianity was just as violent as Islam, it is a simple matter of fact that there are no armed Christian or Jewish groups today who are committing violence against non-believers and quoting scripture to justify their actions. By contrast, jihadists quote the Qur'an all the time. Osama bin Laden, to use the most obvious example, has in his communiques quoted Qur'an 3:145, 47:4-6, 2:154, 9:14, 47:19, 8:72 and 9:5. Meanwhile, violent passages from the Bible have never been used to justify violence. Even the Crusaders at their most grasping and venal did not invoke passages from the Bible to justify warfare against non-Christians. Christians may have done violent and even evil things, but never presented on a platform of scriptural backing. That is because violence in the Bible has always been understood by Christians as being descriptive, not prescriptive.

This is also largely because of the influence of centuries of interpretive traditions which have moved away from literalism regarding these passages. For example, Christians have attempted to spiritualise violent Biblical acts such as Joshua's sacking of Jericho by seeing them as symbolic of inner rather than physical destruction. Biblical violence is also seen by many Christians as purely historical. For example, the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard edition of the Bible says that the physical destruction of an enemy in obedience to the deity "must be seen in light of the imperfect stage of moral development reached at that time". Such violence is also often directly rejected, as by Reverend David Holwick of First Baptist Church in New Jersey, who in a sermon about the morally problematic passages of the Bible said: "Too many atrocities have been done in God's name. God doesn't need human armies or politicians to win."

By contrast, there have been no comparable traditions in Islam. While individual Muslims may have similar ideas, no major Muslim sect or leader has ever renounced or apologised for the idea of jihad violence, and throughout the centuries such teachings have been interpreted literally by Muslims, to the point that they are still enshrined in Islamic law today. I will be exploring this further next week.

Next week: Islamic law's attitude towards jihad warfare and why this is not simply a matter of forgotten history.

Not Doing Enough

Muslim communities are not doing enough to help security authorities fight Islamic terrorism, according to the German authorities.

This is a point I will be bringing up later in my weekly articles about Islam: that is, that despite all the pious platitudes we hear from Muslim front groups such as CAIR, the so-called "moderate" Muslim community really doesn't seem very willing or motivated to actually prevent their fellow Muslims from becoming jihadists and giving their religion a bad name. Now why is that?

Hamas Legislator: Jews "Brothers Of Apes And Pigs"

And I'm sure this has nothing to do with the time when Muhammad called the Banu Qurayza "you brothers of monkeys" right before slaughtering 700 of them. Notice also the references to the Crusades and the fact that they lay claim to Jerusalem even though Muslims weren't the ones who built or originally inhabited it. That's because Muslims believe that if a land has previously belonged to Dar al-Islam (House of Islam), it belongs forever.

Video here

Islamic Finland

Europe's first Islamic political party has formed in Finland.

The Finnish Islamic Party platform supports a ban on alcohol sales, the option for Muslim children to be excused from school music classes and outings to swimming pools, legal status for ritual animal killing and male circumcision, and the eventual introduction of shari'a law in Finland.

They of course have the temerity to suggest that the purpose of shari'a is to "prevent crime". The Finns may soon find out that it's a lot worse than that.

Unconscious Segregation

I enjoyed this short piece at The Citizen by Father David Epps, regarding the human tendency to unconsciously segregate ourselves. Epps tells a story of a meeting of various chaplains, several of which were black. Eventually Epps noticed that the blacks were mostly sitting together and the whites were mostly sitting together. Epps, however, does not believe this is racism as, if asked, either group would have been perfectly happy to have members of the other group sitting with them.

I think this is 100% right. Such things are not "unconscious racism"; they are merely human nature. It is not unusual for people to group with other people who are "like them". They have to consciously make a decision to do otherwise. And in any case, I'd be willing to bet that liberal commentators would be inclined to somehow paint this as white racism, even though the blacks are equally to blame. Such is the way they distort all truth and common sense when it comes to racism.

But the best line of all from Epps, the one that sums it all up, is this one: "Sometimes, breakfast is just breakfast."

Who And What Are We Celebrating?

You may know that on select anniversaries and holidays around the year, Google modify the logo on their homepage to celebrate various things. Recently, they have not done anything to mark the US Memorial Day or 9/11. But today you will see that they are celebrating Roald Dahl's birthday.

Why does this matter? Because, while Dahl wrote some nice books for children, he was a self-confessed anti-Semite.

Round-up

1. The Swiss government says that while racism is unacceptable, it stands by freedom of speech. This comes in response to the controversial "black sheep" campaign by the "rightwing" Swiss People's Party, which calls for foreign criminals to be expelled from the country. It is not clear to me, however, how this is remotely racist in the first place. They didn't call for all FOREIGNERS to be deported, only foreign CRIMINALS.

2. This is a sensible and level-headed post by a blogger who describes herself as "a short Asian girl" on the subject of unintentional racism. I don't agree with the author's label of racism for the case she describes, but it is good to see that she advocates NOT being offended by every little thing that appears racist and that actually racism is "not necessarily bad". Interesting stuff.

"Religion Of Peace And Tolerance" Alert

Islamic scholars in Egypt have called for a reinforcement of Islamic death penalty laws for apostasy and for a criminalisation of inter-faith marriages. Tolerant religion, innit?

Islam 101 - Part 2

This is a couple of days late due to a combination of factors, including some computer problems. But it's here at last, the second article of six detailing why Islam is not a religion of peace. This one looks at incitements to violence in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE QUR'AN AND THE HADITH

We have seen that there were a lot of violent events in Muhammad's life. But is violence enshrined in the Qur'an and other Islamic texts?

The answer is emphatically yes. The Qur'an contains over 100 passages which incite believers to commit violence against non-believers. Also enjoining much violence are the hadith, the collected traditions of Muhammad, a vital companion to the Qur'an (which is often incomprehensible without them) and the most respected of which are considered by Muslims to be almost, if not as, holy as the Qur'an itself.

The Qur'an contains verses such as the following:

"O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." (9:123)

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (9:5) The "poor-due" referred to in this verse is zakat, a charity tax which can only be paid by Muslims - therefore the verse is saying that the "idolaters" should only be left alone if they become Muslims.

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (9:29) The People of the Book are the Jews and Christians. The jizya was a tax that was inflicted upon non-Muslims when the Muslims conquered them. This was part of the system of the dhimma, which relegated Jews and Christians in Muslim lands to second-class status as dhimmis and imposed a series of humiliating rules and regulations on them so that they "feel themselves subdued".

The Qur'an also promises a place in Paradise to those who fight in the name of Allah: "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth" (9:111)

These are just a fraction of such verses in the Qur'an.

You may be thinking: "OK, so the Qur'an commands war in some places. But that's just a small part of the religion, isn't it? There's more to it than that, isn't there?"

While war is of course not the sole focus of Islam, Muhammad made clear, particularly in the hadith, which were collected to explain various passages of the Qur'an and answer followers' questions, that there was nothing better or holier that a Muslim could do than fight jihad warfare. When asked what was the "best deed" one could do besides becoming a Muslim, he replied: "To participate in jihad in Allah's cause" (Bukhari v.1, b.2, no.26, and others). On other occasions he told followers that those who did not fight in jihad would be punished by Allah (Abu Dawud b.14, no.2497) and that jihadists would go to a higher level of Paradise than others (Muslim, b.20, no. 4645).

The hadith also contain some words of Allah regarding warfare which do not appear in the Qur'an; these are considered by Muslims to be just as holy as anything in the Qur'an. In one such tradition, Muhammad tells Muslims that they should offer three choices to non-Muslims:

"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." (Muslim b.19, no.4294)

So the choices are:

1. Convert to Islam

2. Pay the jizya and be dhimmis under Islamic hegemony

3. Fight and die

Note that unbelievers AREN'T given the choice to coexist peacefully as equals with the Muslims.

Another tradition repeated many times in the most reliable hadith collection, Bukhari, has Muhammad saying: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah" (Bukhari v.1, b.2, no.25, and others)

The message of Islam presented by these passages is that non-believers must be fought in jihad until they either convert or accept dhimmi status under Islamic rule. Allah's marching orders to all Muslims.

At this point Islamic apologists will typically accuse critics of Islam of "cherry-picking" violent verses from the Qur'an and convenienty ignoring all the more benign and peaceful ones simply to make Islam look worse than it really is. This cherry-picking, however, is consistent with Islamic theology, due to the principle of naskh, or abrogation. This says that Allah can change his mind about what he tells Muslims, and that when he does this, the new verse abrogates - i.e. cancels and replaces - any earlier passages which it may contradict. The Qur'an itself lays out abrogation: "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?" (2:106).

The implication of this is that violent verses abrogate peaceful ones, because they were revealed later chronologically. You may have noticed that all of the violent verses I quoted earlier are from the 9th sura (chapter) of the Qur'an. There are many others elsewhere, but I did this because the 9th sura was the last to be revealed and therefore represents the Qur'an's final word on jihad.

Let us take, for example, verse 9:5, also known as the Verse of the Sword: "slay the idolaters wherever ye find them". The classic twelfth-century commentary on the Qur'an by Ibn Kathir says that this verse "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty and every term". Another commentator, Ibn Juzayy, says that the purpose of the Verse of the Sword is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an". Some scholars believe that this verse abrogates as many as 124 other verses in the Qur'an.

As with everything in Islam, there is disagreement about abrogation among Islamic scholars. But these interpretations were written by mainstream commentators and have been studied and believed by Muslims for centuries. It is generally agreed among Muslims that sura 9 was the last sura to be revealed and that therefore all other suras should be read in light of it.

So the message of Islam and the Qur'an appears to be anything but peaceful. These are the aspects of Islam that jihadists today use to justify their actions. Moderate Muslims must either find non-literalist ways to explain these passages, or else reject them altogether - and convince the jihadists that what they are doing is wrong. As it is, most Muslims seem content to make asinine excuses for such material, instead of finding positive ways to deal with it. With more and more jihad attacks occuring around the world, they can no longer afford to do this, or the jihadists will edge ever closer to victory.

Next week: The Qur'an vs. the Bible. Islam vs. Christianity. Are they really just as violent as each other, and just as likely to incite violence in their followers?

Too Much Black DNA?

This article at the BBC by and large isn't about race. It details the idea of Lord Justice Sedley that everyone in the country should have their DNA filed by the police.

But then he suddenly says this:

"We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven't, it isn't.

"It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database."

Here is yet another who seems unwilling to consider the fact that more ethnic minorities might end up in the database because they commit more crime.

A Religious Post

I am an atheist, and while I do not agree with everything espoused in the Christian Bible, I have always defended the religion from critics who would equate it with Islam, and I have a deep respect for what my Judeo-Christian ancestors brought to the world. One aspect of Christianity that has always struck me as highly suspect is the notion that God will cast essentially good people screaming into Hell simply for not believing in him. This always seemed to me to go against the notion of a just, loving God.

Today I stumbled upon this website: The Universalist Christians Association. One of the primary issues they cover, reading their essays, is this very issue, and they contend that in fact God would not torment sinners and heathens for all eternity. While there are no doubt problems with some of their arguments, and while they are not exactly mainstream yet, their site does reflect something that I will be touching on in a couple of weeks in my articles about Islam: that is, that now and throughout history Christians have seen the morally problematic portions of the Bible as a problem to be solved, and thus Christian interpretive traditions have changed. But in Islam this is not the case. While there is a small smattering of reformist Muslims out there, the general tenets of violence and intolerance in Islam have remained unchanged for 1,400 years. While Christianity isn't perfect by any means, it has still got a history of development which makes it far more moral than Islam ever has been, or is now.

More on this in a couple of weeks, here at Race Relations.

C**ts Of All Kinds

I randomly started thinking about this today when going out to buy a newspaper. I remembered the time last year when I went to see Jimmy Carr live. One of his gags involved something to do with immigrants, then he said something like: "the kind of thing that would annoy Daily Mail readers - or as I call them, cunts".

I myself am a Daily Mail reader (and cunt, apparently) - although admittedly this is somewhat begrudgingly as I don't in fact think that ANY national newspaper accurately reflects my own views. But I don't take offense at this joke. I see it as fairly ignorant, a manifestation of a leftist hatred that demonises anyone right-of-centre as inherently evil. But that's all part of freedom of speech, baby.

But it got me thinking. This joke was perfectly fine. But read the joke again - the implication of it is not even that the Daily Mail promotes an ideology that leftists depise; it is that ALL Daily Mail readers are "cunts". It may well all be a joke, and that's fair enough. However, why is it, then, that if one was to make a joke which ended, "Muslims - or as I call them, cunts"; or "blacks - or as I call them, cunts", they would be denounced and probably imprisoned? Why does making the same joke, only this time racially framed, make a difference to how such jokes are received? What makes the two things different, apart from the baseless PC multiculturalist dogma espoused by our mainstream media?

And the implications are more troubling still. It is fairly common now to see criticism of a race in general, or of Islam in general - NOT against all people belonging to those groups - STILL being singled out as taboo, offensive, hateful, or whatever. We live in an age and a society which has one set of standards for something, and another set for others, with those others largely being races.

This should NOT continue. People should stand up for free speech. They should not be afraid to make jokes which offend the most offendable of people. As a shout-out, I would recommend to anyone a comedian named Paul Eastwood, who performed on our cruise ship on our recent holiday, and made one or two Muslim jokes and a couple of other racially-charged ones. There is no hatred involved; in his own words, "This is the great thing about being British; we can laugh at ourselves and we can laugh at everyone else". I could not agree more. We need to stand up for these kinds of values more often.

We can't have the Guardian-readers ruling the country, after all.

Racism On Steroids?

In this piece, American conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is accused of "racism on steroids" because he said that the Democrats want to stop the Darfur genocide because many of the victims are black, and the Democrats rely on a lot of black votes.

The author doesn't mention anyway what exactly is racist about this comment, but he/she also won't find any disagreement from me that the genocide there must be stopped.

Islam 101 - Part 1

Here it is then, as promised: part one of my series of six articles about Islam, and why it is NOT a Religion of Peace (TM). Learn and enjoy:

-----------------------------------------

THE EXAMPLE OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD

Hearing and reading the comments of Islamic apologists, one would be forgiven for thinking that Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was a kind and gentle soul, like Gandhi, who abhorred violence and was a champion of democracy and equality of rights for all. This characterisation, however, is mostly fictionalised. Such apologists are unlikely to tell you about the war and bloodshed in Muhammad's life, and how his example is a key inspiration for jihadists today. This article will explore some of the main developments in Muhammad's life which resonate among his followers today.

Why does the life of Muhammad matter? He was, after all, alive 1,400 years ago; why should his words and actions have any relevance today?

In Islam, Muhammad is seen as al-insan al-kamil - "the Perfect Man". The Qur'an calls him uswa hasana: "an excellent example of conduct" (33:21). Anything that he said or did is seen by Muslims to be good, something that they can legitimately admire and emulate. Muhammad's behaviour was typical of a seventh-century Arabian warrior, but because of his status as the ultimate model of human behaviour, this presents a problem in the modern day where Muslims still believe that his example is a flawless one and should be followed. That is why none of the things I'm about to write about are simple matters of forgotten history: Islamic tradition makes no distinction between then and now - what was good in Muhammad's time is just as good now, especially since it was sanctioned by the Perfect Man.

Muhammad began as a relatively benign man who genuinely respected Jews and Christians. He was a member of the pagan Quraysh tribe in Mecca. Then, in 610 AD, he began to claim that he was receiving revelations from Allah, the one true God, who had made him his Prophet - the latest and last in a line which had included Abraham and Jesus. He began preaching, trying to win his tribe over to his new religion. However, many of them rejected and mocked him, and he became increasingly frustrated. After years of this frustration, Muhammad fled with some loyal followers to another town, Medina, where more followers, the first Muslims, joined his cause. From this new position of strength, the Muslims began to launch raids on Quraysh caravans, stealing booty. Such actions served not only as revenge for the Quraysh's rejection of Muhammad, but the money also kept the Muslim movement solvent.

In Medina, Muhammad also came into contact with several Jewish tribes and Christian groups, whom he tried to convince to become Muslims. He told them that he and they worshiped the same God, and that they had corrupted the true teachings of Abraham and Jesus, who were really Muslim Prophets. He called them back to the "true faith" of Islam. They, of course, rejected him also, and more frustration ensued, later followed by violence. Non-believers would come to be known as "the vilest of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).

The raids on the Quraysh caravans eventually led to greater resistance from the pagans, resulting in the Battle of Badr in 624. The Muslims were victorious despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered. In the aftermath of the battle, one of the Muslim soldiers cut off the head of a Quraysh leader, Abu Jahl, and brought the grisly trophy to Muhammad - he was delighted.

Tensions with the Quraysh continued for many years after, however, and at one point a Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, allied themselves with the Quraysh to oppose Muhammad. After dealing with the Quraysh again, Muhammad reaped his revenge on the Banu Qurayza. He went after them, calling them "You brothers of monkeys" (leading to modern jihadists' likening of the Jews to apes and monkeys) and besieging them. When they were defeated and thoroughly subdued, he had the men of the Banu Qurayza brought to him one by one, where he personally assisted in beheading them. Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's first biographer, whose works are widely read and respected in the Islamic world even today, puts the number killed in this fashion at "between 600 and 700". Ibn S'ad, another biographer of Muhammad, goes for the same number.

Such incidents as this and the aftermath of the Battle of Badr explain why modern-day jihadists are so into beheading their victims: they are merely following their Prophet's example. After the American Nick Berg was captured and beheaded in Iraq in 2004, the jihad leader Abu Musab al-Zaqarwi said: "The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered his army to strike the necks of some prisoners in the Battle of Badr and to kill them...And he set a good example for us". The Qur'an verse al-Zaqarwi is citing here is 4:74 - "When ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks". This is just one of many examples of how jihadists today use Muhammad's specific example to justify their actions.

Another morally problematic event in Muhammad's career was an attack on the Jews of the Khaybar Oasis. Muhammad was reacting to no provocation, and the attack seems to have been committed simply to collect the Jews' booty, and even women. Ibn S'ad says that 93 Jews were killed in the raid. Muhammad had one of the Jewish leaders tortured to extract information about where the treasure was being hidden, and soon after married one of the Jewish women - a widow of one of the men killed in the raid - against her will. Today, "Khaybar, O Khaybar" is still a popular chant, particularly among Palestinian jihadists, who see their ambitions of destroying Israel as inflicting more of the damage that the Khaybar raid inflicted on the Jews.

Muhammad did not just fight wars and battles against his enemies - he had them assassinated, too. After the Battle of Badr, Muhammad was incensed by a Jewish poet, Kab bin al-Ashraf, who, according to Ibn Ishaq, wrote insulting songs about Muslim women. Muhammad had him killed for this, and gave the assassin permission to use deceit to achieve the murder. Other enemies also suffered his wrath, including a Jewish merchant, Ibn Sunaya, and 'Asma bint Marwan, a poet who had mocked the Prophet in rhyme.

In the aftermath of contemporary Muslim terrorist attacks, Islamic spokesmen in the West today often maintain that Islam forbids the killing of innocent non-combatants. However, this is not as certain as they seem to believe, as demonstrated by one incident during the early raids on Quraysh caravans. Muhammad was asked whether the Muslims could mount an attack at a time which would put the Quraysh's women and children in danger. He replied, "They [i.e. the women and children] are of them [i.e. unbelievers]", which seemed to imply that because they were not Muslims, they could legitimately be killed (Bukhari v.4, b.56, no. 3012). I will be explaining the position Islamic law holds on this matter in a few weeks.

The final incident from Muhammad's life which I see as relevant today concerns the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. This was a treaty which was concluded between the Muslims and the Quraysh. The treaty astounded and angered many of Muhammad's followers, for it seemed disadvantageous to the Muslims. It declared that Quraysh who left the tribe to join Muhammad must be returned to the Quraysh, but any Muslim who left to join the Quraysh would not be returned to the Muslims. Despite his followers' surprise and indignation, Muhammad insisted that they had won a great victory.

Two years later, a Quraysh woman joined the Muslims. Her two brothers came to Muhammad and asked that she be returned, in accord with the terms of the Treaty. However, Muhammad had received a revelation from Allah, which told him not to return the woman (Qur'an 60:10). In refusing to send her back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the Treaty and tensions resumed.

Since then, Islamic jurists have built upon this to create the principle of Islamic law that peace treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims should only be concluded for a maximum of ten years, and only in order to allow weakened Muslim forces to regain their strength. When Westerners today assert that we can "negotiate" with the terrorists, they do not realise their own naivity - Islam has no interest in indefinite peaceful coexistence; its only concern is its own well-being.

As you can see, the example of Muhammad which jihadists invoke today is not a peaceful, tolerant one. All of the deeds of Muhammad described above are seen as virtues in Islam, and jihadists today, as throughout history, use them to justify acts of violence not just against military targets, but against innocent civilians. Moderate Muslims must be aware of these examples and actively reject them as being admirable or compatible with modern society. Ignorance or denial is not an excuse. Muslims must work hard to reject the idea that Muhammad is the Perfect Man in these and other instances. If they don't, the jihadists will continue to have the theological upper hand, and violence in the name of Muhammad will continue.

Next week: Incitements to violence in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, and why jihad is such an important part of Islam.

Raisin-Head

Since I'm going to start my six-article series on Islam tomorrow, I thought I would post this gem of a quote from the mouth of Muhammad himself. It is somewhat related to racism, as should become clear:

"You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin." (Bukhari v.9, b.89, No.256)

Round-up

1. Here's a piece at the ominously titled "Race In the Workplace" website in which a woolly self-righteous liberal explains how we should respond to a racist joke. The most important part of it, we're told, is that we should not do anything to damage the working relationship between ourselves and our "racist" colleague. But inside we're allowed to hate them. Feel the tolerance.

2. Norway's health authority has admitted to racism in the ranks of its emergency services after widely publicized case involving a severely injured dark-skinned foreigner. The admission follows on the case in which medics called to attend to a dark-skinned immigrant injured in an Oslo park on August 8, had refused to help him and left him lying on the ground.

Of course, no one should take this as meaning that the WHOLE Norwegian health authority is racist. And I strongly urge against any initiatives being set up to teach "diversity" to every Norwegian ambulance crewman.

Time For Some Laughter

Round-up

1. Jews in Melbourne feel physically unsafe due to rising violent anti-Semitism.

2. There is not too much fundamentally wrongheaded in this article about the concept of a "racist bone" - that is, people of the older generation passing down their racism to the younger generation. But I did take major exception in particular to the first paragraph:

"Is there such a thing as a racist bone? You hear the saying a lot – “He didn’t have a racist bone in him” – and it’s usually associated with someone who has murdered someone else. In all honesty, it’s usually associated with some white someone murdering some black someone. So it begs the question – is there a racist bone?"

Here the author seems unwilling to consider the fact that there may also be a "racist bone" among black people. Why is this? Does the author subscribe to the tired PC assumption that only white people can be racist? Does she believe that racism is genetically woven into white people rather than black or any other race?

Islam Round-up

1. "Islamophobia" and the defamation of Islam are the most conspicuous forms of racism and intolerance today, and a global U.N. conference on racism planned for 2009 should come up with practical solutions to deal with them, an Islamic bloc representative told a preparatory meeting in Geneva yesterday.

Of course. What race is Islam, again?

2. This opinion piece rehashes the multiculturalist dogma and disparagingly quotes a few right-wing American shock-merchants such as Ann Coulter to make the case that Muslims are the most hard-done-by people in America, and probably the world. It also makes the baffling claim that the mainstream media ignores cases of discrimination against Muslims. Spare me.

This line caught my eye, though:

"The most deafening silence comes from liberals and conservatives who seek true understanding and espouse American values of human rights, freedom and tolerance for multiculturalism"

Apart from the multiculturalism bit, most critics of Islam DO care about the "American values of human rights, freedom and tolerance" - that is why they are opposed to an ideology which is totally intolerant of all but itself, and denies basic human rights and freedom to women and religious minorities. But if you're a multiculturalist, even such blatant human rights abuses and intolerance by Islam pale in comparison to the cardinal sin of suggesting that our culture may be better than another.

Coming Soon...

Several months ago I wrote a piece about Islam, explaining why it is not a Religion of Peace. Looking back on it, it was fairly rushed, generalised, and, unfortunately, contained a few errors, too.

Which is why I'm gonna try it again next week. Next Monday I will publish the first of six articles which look in detail at the aspects of Islam which jihadists use to justify their actions. Such examinations of the actual motives and goals of Islamic terrorists are alien to the mainstream media, who continually pretend that the "terrorists" who kill innocent people today don't share any common ideology, and that those who do are "twisting" what their religion actually teaches. My intention with these articles is to bust these kinds of myths, and to call for Muslims and non-Muslims alike to examine these issues honestly and come up with positive ways to deal with them.

The first of the six articles will look at some key incidents in the life of Islam's Prophet, Muhammad, that resonate among his followers today and inspire jihadists to commit violent acts in imitation of him. Tune in this time next week to read it.

Round-up

1. Channel 4 is axing Celebrity Big Brother (about time) because of the Jade Goody incident. Imagine that: axing a whole show just because of one innocuous incident that happened last season. While I am glad that such tripe has been removed from the airwaves, Channel 4's reasoning is pathetic and politically correct. A great shame from a channel that has produced such excellent and un-PC documentaries as The Great Global Warming Swindle and the Dispatches episode about Islamic hate-preaching in mosques.

2. The co-creator of hit BBC1 drama Life on Mars has revealed that politically incorrect character DCI Gene Hunt was given a make-over prior to filming because he was deemed to be too racist. One example that was in an early draft script but never made it to the screen was the character referring to the Caribbean barman at the bar frequented by Hunt and his police squad as "chalky".

The silliness of this is touched upon typically briefly later in the article:

Mr Pharoah described it as a slightly "bizarre conclusion" that the sexist and homophobic elements of the character were found to be acceptable while only racism was "a step too far".

He suggested that this may have been because "two wars had been won" - meaning homophobia and sexism are at a point in UK culture that they can be featured, albeit carefully, in TV drama - but that racism is still a taboo subject.

The conclusion is indeed bizarre, but then Mr. Pharoah goes on to give a completely cockamamie reason for this political correctness, which doesn't actually explain anything. Since when have homosexuality and sexism not been taboo subjects? And whoever fought, and won, any "wars" against such things? He doesn't explain WHY racism should still be a taboo subject and other controversial things shouldn't, or how removal of this taboo status could be achieved.

He then also lets loose with this stinker of a line:

Mr Pharoah also admitted, when asked in a Q&A about whether letters had been received about the character's actions, that he had been unhappy with the way the Daily Mail had made DCI Gene Hunt a "pin-up".

"He became the pin-up boy for the Daily Mail for a few weeks and that was deeply disturbing," he said. "They lost the irony... they knew exactly what they were doing."

The unspoken connotation here is that since the character is a racist (among other things), that therefore makes him extremely popular with the Daily Mail, which apparently shares the same vices. Any examination of the Daily Mail's "lionisation" of Hunt, however, clearly reveals that they appreciated the character's hard-hitting stance towards crime, and his ability to give criminals what they deserve and put them behind bars. This is in stark contrast to the current lily-livered PC police force, which is afraid of doing pretty much everything. But given such a chance to demonise the "evil right-wing" Daily Mail, the folks at the Guardian are hardly likely to shirk the chance, are they?

And Another Welcome Back

Yes, I am back again after my second holiday in two months (some get the luck...). This time I've been on a cruise around the Mediterranean. The ship was superb and we visited some marvelous, and famous, places. I think it's some achievement when I say that - in the space of one week - I saw the Roman Colosseum, the Leaning Tower of Pisa and the race track of Monaco. Not bad for sightseeing. The only problem was...STINKING WEATHER! I understand the weather's been pretty awful here in Blighty while I was away, but the Mediterranean climate was only marginally better (I blame all that global warming...ahem...). Much of the time it was cloudy and overcast, and on a Menorcan beach yesterday it rained! Still, I had a lovely time and would love to do something like that again.

On an unrelated note, while I was there I read and finished the second Deathstalker saga by Simon Green. I reviewed the first series here a while back, and heartily enjoyed it. This trilogy continues and completes the story and brings everything full circle. While I found it to not be as good as the first series, it still has its moments, including some absolutely mind-blowing twists and revelations towards the tail-end of the trilogy, coupled with Green's trademark humour and wit. Deathstalker has actually become my favourite sci-fi series. While many people will see it as pure popcorn fun (which is what it is and what it was primarily intended to be), I actually ended up finding it to be quite emotionally engaging. I would recommend it to anyone.

So that's it for now. Normal race-related blogging will resume on Monday. See ya around.

Off On Hols Again!

I won't be around for the next week and a bit because I will be on my SECOND holiday of the year, this one with my family (and completely free for me!). So, even though I didn't post yesterday, there won't be any more until next Monday, probably.

Just a warning to all my readers. You can go back to not existing now.

Round-up

1. This guy has written a long piece in which he argues that reverse racism - or positively discriminating in favour of blacks and minorities over whites - is completely justified because blacks used to be persecuted. This bizarre line of reasoning doesn't seem much interested in having everyone be treated equally regardless of race or colour, and his attempts to make comparisons with the Jews are extremely crooked.

2. Time magazine thinks baseball umpires are racist. The writers of the report think that anomalies in decisions made on 1% of pitches is an obvious sign of racism. Ludicrous.

Round-up

1. Young people from ethnic minority groups in Scotland believe some actions by the police amount to racism, according to a new report.

Well, they would think that, wouldn't they?

2. Does lurking racism affect the workings of our major institutions - government, the judiciary, medicine, and education? No, but someone thinks it does.

The "unconscious racism" test mentioned in the article may be similar to this one I wrote about a couple of months ago. It wouldn't surprise me if such studies were just as full of spurious science as that one.

Poor Scottish Muslims

"Racist" incidents across Scotland have soared following the attempted terror strike on Glasgow airport on June 30 this year. The idea is that those intolerant Scots have made a connection between Muslims and violence (which is totally unfounded, of course) and are thus being hostile to local Muslims.

Now, no one should be targeting innocent Muslims for hostility and verbal/physical abuse, but I wonder, how much are these Scottish Muslims doing to allay the violent image their co-religionists have created of Islam, and to prevent jihadists from making new recruits among their number? How much are they REALLY doing, and what does it entail?

Blacks Need Better Role Models?

A new report says that young black people need to find better role models, as all too often the best they have are rappers who glorify violence and the gun culture.

I don't disagree with this, but the report also suggests that poverty is to blame. Aside from the fact that blacks in these ghetto-like areas seem to do very little to make life easier for themselves, money isn't the real problem. The problem is the breakdown of the family unit within their society. The amount of single parents and teenage pregnancies is soaring. These traditional values used to be a big part of the black community and it is not surprising that when they are in decline, the society is, too.

CAIR Slanders Robert Spencer...Again

After recently making false claims about Robert Spencer on Fox News the other week, the Council on American-Islamic relations is at it again...attempting to defame him. This time they have posted a PDF document on their website which claims to expose Spencer's "lies" and reveal that he is in fact a conniving hatemonger.

As Spencer himself says at Jihad Watch:

"There's just one problem: as Mary McCarthy famously said about Lillian Hellman, "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the." This windy hit piece even gets my name wrong, and if there is even one true statement in it, I haven't found it yet.

By posting this ludicrous piece, CAIR has signed on to the contention that Hugh Fitzgerald and I are one and the same -- which will come as quite a surprise to all the people who met us both at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Restoration Weekend last year. CAIR has likewise signed on to the pdf's most glaring leap of logic: it contends both that I secretly support Osama bin Laden and the global jihad, and at the same time that I think all Muslims are terrorists who want to kill Americans. Can't have your cake and eat it too, Ibrahim."

Becoming A Minority

White people are a minority in almost 1 in 10 American counties. Black and Hispanic people are outnumbering the white population in once white-dominated areas and increasing numbers of residents are complaining, according to reports. Experts warn that the spread of immigrant communities from cities to the suburbs and beyond is fuelling resentment.

Greg Letiecq, who campaigns against illegal immigration in Prince William County, Virginia, said: "It's not about ethnicity, it's not about race. It's about lawful behaviour versus unlawful behaviour." But illustrating a prevailing resentment, he added: "It's the folks who come in and try to maintain the culture of the country they came from. They don't seem to embrace the American culture, the English language, the social norms of American culture."

Such statements will no doubt be construed as "racist" by liberals, who don't seem to think this kind of thing is a problem.

Given that whites are becoming a minority in these counties, do you think local authorities will enforce positive discrimination in employment and services to make it easy for them, as they do when other races are in the minority? Seems unlikely, doesn't it?

Round-up

1. A Congolese student is asking for the banning of a 1931 Tintin book in which the character visits the Congo, because it is "racist".

I absolutely agree with the book's publisher, which said that it "must be seen as a document of the time. In his portrayal of the Belgian Congo, the young Hergé reflects the colonial attitudes of the time. He depicted the African people according to the bourgeois, paternalistic stereotypes of the period." Should it be banned? I don't think so, but I can see how it could be offensive to the Congolese. Although as always with these things I wonder, do they have to be so thin-skinned? Does it really upset them THAT much that nearly eighty years ago someone drew some pictures which stereotyped their people? Seems an over-reaction to me.

2. The Finnish government are looking towards zero tolerance of discrimination in the implementing of immigration policy, stepping up action against racism and promoting good ethnic relations. "Even a racist joke meets the criteria of racism", said one of their politicians. Apparently the new immigration policy programme puts the focus on multi-culturalism and anti-discrimination measures. It is committed to "promoting good ethnic relations and preventing discrimination based on ethnic origin".

Stuff like this always sounds noble, but more often than not such measures are generally unnecessary and, as in this country, promote a suicidal hatred of a population's own culture and creates more division than it solves as immigrants are let in uncontrolled with no assimilation or integration. We'll see how such socialist policies work out for the Finns.

Nightwish - Dark Passion Play: The Review

Towards the end of last week I downloaded a promo copy of Nightwish's upcoming album, Dark Passion Play, and have spent the weekend and the last couple of days listening to it. My conclusion: it's a good album, but it's not as good as I expected, not as good as Once and not as good as they are capable of. One of my main complaints is the lack of bombastic orchestral lines which made Once so brilliant. Moments such as the orchestral part of the intro to Dark Chest of Wonders and elements of Ghost Love Score are surprisingly lacking here. The fact that the album is so dark in comparison to the uplifting sound of most of the previous albums also makes it an unusual and different experience.

On the plus side, there are no problems with new vocalist Annette; she has a good voice and performs well in many of the songs. No criticisms there.

Below is a brief track-by-track analysis:

THE POET AND THE PENDULUM - Songwriter Tuomas billed this as his best ever song. I think it's good, but not great. The intro is exceptional and as good as anything on Once. The first four minutes in general are very good. After that, it's a bit hit-and-miss. There's a really cool dramatic violin part about seven minutes in, but apart from that it's nothing special. Also, the last four minutes of the song (which is fourteen minutes long in total) are a guitarless ballad, which to me seemed unnecessary. A good song, but not everything I thought it would be.

BYE BYE BEAUTIFUL - A song very much like Wish I Had An Angel, with a slight techno edge and bassist Marco singing the chorus. At least as good as WIHAA, maybe better.

AMARANTH - The first single. Catchy. One of the few happy songs on the album.

CADENCE OF HER LAST BREATH - The third fairly straight song in a row; much darker and heavier than I expected. Slight nu-metal influences. Another "good but not great" song.

MASTER PASSION GREED - A very angry, heavy song with some surprisingly blunt lyrics. It doesn't have as much headbanging appeal as Romanticide or Slaying the Dreamer, though, and the structuring is rather random; it jumps about between different parts haphazardly and messily, and some bits are totally unnecessary. Could have been better, but did have a cool orchestral bit at the end that reminded me of James Bond.

EVA - Your typical rock ballad. A nice song, nothing more, nothing less.

SAHARA - One of the best intros on the album, which goes on for much longer than you expect. Egyptian-themed, but not as obviously so as Tutankhamen from their first album.

WHOEVER BRINGS THE NIGHT - This song was written by guitarist Emppu, and is a fairly straight rocker with a dark edge. His songwriting inexperience shows through as this is one of the album's weaker efforts. The vocal parts are decent but there is no real good instrumental/guitar work to hold the interest.

FOR THE HEART I ONCE HAD - The straightest, poppiest song on the album; a typical gothic rock track.

THE ISLANDER - Written by Marco, this is a catchy, folky acoustic track reminiscent of Jethro Tull.

LAST OF THE WILDS - An awesome instrumental and one of my favourite tracks on the album. Riverdance with electric guitars. Celtic instruments vs. guitar solos. Exceptionally good fun.

7 DAYS TO THE WOLVES - An epic and powerful song with a good guitar solo and bridge instrumental section. Perhaps the ending goes on for a bit too long but this is a minor criticism.

MEADOWS OF HEAVEN - A soft ending to the album. The first few minutes are fairly nondescript but towards the end the guitars and orchestra blend with a gospel choir to produce a powerful climax.

In summary, this is a good album. It's just not a brilliant one, and not one that matches up to the, admittedly very high, standards Nightwish set for themselves with Once. The removal of the bombastic orchestras is somewhat puzzling since the orchestra for this album was bigger than the last one. But I recommend listening to it a few times before you make any final judgments. It grows on you.

Laughing At Racism

A Mexican company called NACO - that word itself being a derogatory term in Mexico - is printing T-shirts which are designed with slogans that mock the reputation the country is getting across the border. So they're essentially not taking racism too seriously and are in fact laughing at themselves.

It's nice to see that some "persecuted" minorities are able to manage it.

Jade The Bigot

Believe it or not, some people are STILL going on about the whole Big Brother Jade vs. Shilpa episode. Consider this piece of invective from the Sunday Mirror.

Now, there are many reasons to dislike Jade Goody. But this racism stuff has gone past the point where anyone should care. She has apologised for her actions; leave her alone - pity her if you must, but stop exhaling precious breath on an incident which is long gone, and does not prove anything except how uneducated and uncultured the woman is - something we all knew anyway. Take a lesson from how Shilpa Shetty herself dealt with the incident: with dignity and forgiveness.

Meanwhile, as I predicted when I first posted this, the question of whether Miss Shetty is in fact also a racist (and I don't believe she is) has never received the same media attention.

Round-up

Two ridiculous racism allegations today:

1. Religious newspaper claims 'Yemenites walk around with cloud of pungent odor' because of certain spices dominant in their cuisine. Two men of Yemenite descent demand apology and $11,500 in compensation.

"The characterization of the Yemenite sector through the smell of their sweat and the crass words used to describe that scent are outrageous and stain an entire, honorable community. The publication humiliated

the sector and made them the target of scorn and ridicule, it did so because of the color of their skin, their race and ethnicity and it has damaged their reputation," said the complainants.

Oh, come on! There is nothing in this article which either isn't true or isn't a simple statement of opinion: the writer didn't like the smell. To call it racist is beyond absurd, and so is the attempt to win money.

2. The Yellow Pages says it can not believe someone has found its latest television commercial racist. The advert which shows black hands doing the walking has been labelled as racist by The Herald's Sideswipe column.

The columnist says having black hands doing tasks for white people to an African beat is racist and rainbow hands should have been used instead. Yellow Pages marketing director Blair Glubb says the Yellow Pages' logo has always included a black hand and there's nothing racist about it.

I have not seen the ad but I agree with Blair Glubb that the charge is ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that, as he points out, the Yellow Pages logo has a black hand in it, and always has. And what on earth are "tasks for white people"? Are black people really this desperate to put down whitey these days?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - My View of Islam

Some bigoted Islamophobe is at it again; ranting about how evil Islam is. Vile, vile racism.

Wait a minute, this was written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali? And she used to BE a Muslim? And she left the faith because she couldn't reconcile its traditions with her conscience? And because she is an apostate, she now faces death threats from Muslims who are following Muhammad's command that, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him" (Bukhari vol.9, book. 88, no. 6922)?

Chances are it will be mostly ignored, then.

Welcome The Ghurkas

Given the unrestrained flow of Eastern European immigrants allowed into Britain in recent years, one would expect that the government would let any old Tom, Dick or Sergei into the country. But no, they are denying some people entry...

...and those people happen to be Ghurka veterans who have honourably served this country on the battlefield, and deserve to live here.

Talk about getting your priorities mixed up.

CAIR Slander Robert Spencer

If you want more evidence of how loathsome the Council on American-Islamic Relations are (aside from their numerous links to terrorism and their bully-tactics for silencing their critics), take a look at this video from CNN, which is about a recent incident in which someone put a Qur'an down the toilet, and is now facing TWO felony charges. Among the debatees is CAIR representative Ibrahim Hooper. Towards the end of the debate, he slanders Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer by attributing a comment from one of the site's readers to Spencer himself. He claims Spencer said that all Muslims should be killed.

In fact, the genocidal opinion was left in the comments field and Spencer immediately deleted it and banned the user upon finding out about it, as he has NEVER shared such extreme views.

But it gets worse when you consider the full implications. The comment was up on the site for about an hour before being deleted, and during that time someone from CAIR just HAPPENED to be looking at the website? Far more likely is that the comment was posted by a CAIR provocateur who deliberately did it in order so that Hooper could recite it on the news that night and try to damage the reputation of Jihad Watch. Such shenanigans aren't surprising to me. Such are the lengths this wolf-in-sheep's-clothing organisation will go to to slander their critics. Jihad Watch has experienced such things before. Disgusting.

And while we're on the subject of disturbing comments, still don't forget that Ibrahim Hooper himself once said: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." - Minneapolis Star Tribune, 1993

Racism Evil?

The trailer for the new Xbox game Resident Evil 5 has caused some controversy because it is set in Africa, and the trailer depicts the game's (white) main character shooting black people who are zombies. The linked article quotes the hysterical reaction of a blog devoted to African women, but thankfully the article itself it a lot more reasonable. It points out that the previous Resident Evil games have taken place in different settings and not had black people as "the enemy", as well as disputing the idea that all computer games are created for impressionable young children.

It seems pretty clear to me that the reaction of the Black Looks blog is over the top and that this article is quite fair in its assessment. I would disagree that the trailer is going to give the game a bad reputation among those who are unfamiliar with the context and setting of the previous games - the violence and gore were always enough to draw complaints before.

A Chick Pic

Here's a racially-themed picture for a Tuesday morning:

Muslims Protest Over Pet Food

A group of Muslims have opposed plans for a pet food factory to be built as possible pork emissions will violate their religious rights.

Butchers Pet Care could shelve plans for a factory in Coton Park, near Rugby, because angry Asian families have complained to their residents' association about pork smells drifting into their garden.

Muslim residents in the area also claim the pork will effectively "rain down" on their homes and gardens after the factory's 100ft chimney has pumped the meat extracts into the atmosphere.

Note that this complaint is actually being taken seriously. We are so eager to cave in to Islamic intolerance these days that it can even deprive indigenous and local residents of employment opportunities, just so a small group of people don't have to smell pork sometimes.

I urge Butchers to stand firm and build their factory in the face of this intolerance, and not to grant the Muslims special privileges at the expense of the indigenous population.

1/3 British Asians Don't Feel British

Or so a BBC poll suggests. Note that it's "Asians"; I wonder if they could be a little more specific...

The wording of the question worries me. Why have they phrased it in such overly racial terms? "Do Asian people need to act and think white, in order to fit in or get on?" Why do they have to think "white"? What does whiteness have to do with it? The question is surely whether they feel that they should integrate into WESTERN values? And does the fact that they reacted so negatively to a question about whiteness indicate their own racist bias?

And note also that the BBC doesn't think this is a problem of any kind - except in the sense that all of this might be down to the fact that we as Brits are too "racist".

Also, isn't "coconut" kind of a racist term?

Laying Guilt On The Wrong People?

Racist attitudes by teachers may be condemning black schoolchildren to an inferior education, according to a Government-backed study.

Black Caribbean pupils are more likely to be expelled from school and less likely to be put in the top set compared to white British children, it said.

Staff may be guilty of "unintentional racism" by stereotyping black children as badly-behaved - and underestimating their academic ability, according to the controversial report.

It is telling how the report-writers give no thought to the fact that black Caribbean pupils on average may simply be worse-behaved and lower achievers than pupils of other races. The study may well be heaping blame on entirely the wrong people by blaming the teachers. One of the biggest problems with the PC mentality is that it strives with all its might to prevent people from taking responsibility for their actions. This is dangerous, and no one will learn anything from it.

Off-topic...

I do not like black metal, but as I have noted here before, I DO like Dimmu Borgir, who bring a more melodic edge to the genre. Check out this live video of them performing the song "Kings of the Carnival Creation". Even if you can't stand the growling vocals, I suggest you skip forward to about 4:45, when the bassist starts to sing clean vocals, immediately followed by a guitar solo. The power of this sequence of music is just awesome. This is one of the few songs I've ever heard that actually sounds MORE powerful live than on the studio album. Although Dimmu aren't to everyone's taste, at least there is POWER and PASSION in their music; compare that to most of the pop and rap crap that comes out today, and anyone with sense can see that even Satanic black metal is better than Usher or Kate Nash.

Round-up

1. The number of racially-motivated attacks in Ukraine has increased noticeably in the last two years, according to watchdogs. At the same time, the number of foreigners residing and seeking asylum in Ukraine has grown in the last three years.

2. A coffee mug which had the Confederate Flag on it is causing a stir in Connecticut, where some have accused its owner, A Commissioner for the Department of Public Safety, of racism.

As far as I can see, there is little to connect him with racism apart from the fact that the flag is used by some racist groups, no evidence existing to suggest that he belongs to any of them. It has also become an emblem of the American South. You know, the south, the part of America that liberals and PC types like to perpetuate lazy stereotypes about and level unfocused discrimination against on the basis of those stereotypes - it's OK because they aren't black or foreign, you see.

First we had the Horrible Ham Hate Crime, now we have mug-related incidents; whatever next - egg whisk racism?

Round-up

1. Complaints of racism at work have jumped 123% this year. I like this line:

"The tribunal said the growing number of foreign national workers in the labour force had contributed to an increase in the number of race-related complaints."

It does not draw the connection that the more foreign national workers we have in our labour force, the more sympathy-seeking whingers we have in our labour force.

2. This is ridiculous: a story by one of those lefty morally superior types who tells a story about how distressing it was to watch a white woman getting angry with a Sikh shopkeeper - there is no evidence of racism in there at all but she and he eight-year-old son seem inclined to make assumptions and then make judgments on the woman based on those unfounded assumptions.

3. The Rock Against Racism gig, which "rockers" such as Lethal Bizzle dropped out of (who was left???) was apparently a "success". Proof that it has little to do with race and is merely a political movement comes from the fact that one of its main objectives seems to be to defeat the "fascist" BNP.

4. RAW Watch: From the World Peace Herald

Buddhas and Blacks...

Richard Littlejohn's column in the Daily Mail was great today, and in particular what caught my eye was two stories in a small block near the bottom of the page. In one, a borough council has banned a Buddhist from calling his restaurant The Fat Buddha because it could offend Buddhists. And in the other, a black dustbin man is told that he can't wear a St George's Cross because it might be considered "racist".

Littlejohn concludes with: "You couldn't make it up".

Indeed.

Islam Is Peace.org

Oh dear. Here it is: islamispeace.org, an attempt to convince non-Muslims that Islam is actually a peaceful, tolerant religion, and has nothing to do with war or violence at all.

Note that for its header it cites the Qur'an:

"Whoever kills an innocent soul, it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind, And whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind" (Qur'an 5:32)

This is an attempt to demonstrate that Islam is peaceful. But it doesn't mention the fact that this verse is NOT addressed to Muslims; it is addressed to the Children of Israel. It comes as part of a warning to the Jews not to wage war on the Muslims or they will face terrible punishment. The site makes no mention of Mohammed's commands to wage offensive warfare in order to propagate Islam. It makes no mention of the attitude of Islamic law towards murder: namely that it punishes murder by Muslims against non-Muslims far less harshly than other forms of murder.

The whole site is laden with taqiyya: that is, Qur'an-mandated misleading of non-Muslims in order to cause them to let down their guard. Virtually every word of its "outline" of Islamic teaching is false. It says that the word Islam means "peace", when in fact it means "submission". It whitewashes Islam's bloody history, and pretends that the religion spread peacefully rather than by the sword. It peddles the myth that Islam specifically prohibits the killing of innocent civilians.

The bullet points on the main page spend all their time telling the Government and non-Muslims in general what they can do to cater for Muslims, vis-a-vis "bigotry" and tolerance. No mention of what the Muslims plan to do to stop jihadists from using Islamic tradition to justify their acts of violence. No sign of rejecting the jihad ideology - only excusing it and pretending it doesn't exist.

The whole effort is nothing more than taqiyya, a sham, designed to make it look as though these groups are moderate.

If the Peace Bus comes to your neighbourhood, don't board it.

Muslims Whine

A nice piece of anti-dhimmitude from Nebraska, where several Somalian Muslims were fired for praying instead of working.

And get this: the chairman of the Omaha Somali-American Community Organization is named Mohamed Rage. I kid you not.

Round-up

1. Apparently several "rockers" pulled out of a Rock Against Racism gig:

It's apparently a lot easier to get musicians to say they'll play Rock Against Racism than to actually get them up on stage.

Fans were left in the lurch last week at the 30th anniversary of the Rock Against Racism benefit concert when Lethal Bizzle, Wiley and ex-Specials front man Jerry Dammers failed to appear at the gig. While Bizzle pled illness, Wiley and Dammers simply flaked out.

Lethal Bizzle, Wiley and Jerry Dammers! The shame, that such high-profile musicians should pull out of this important gig! What kind of role model are they setting for the public?

Incidentally, two of the musicians above, Lethal Bizzle and Wiley, are black (and they are rappers, not "rockers"). Seems blacks don't care about racism anymore, either...

2. Here is a complex case involving white-on-black racism and the alleged false sentencing of a black boy in a violence case. It's interesting stuff and I hope the truth is finally outed, whatever it may be.

Bonjourno!

Hi, I'm back after spending my holiday inhaling the beauty of Lake Garda. We even went to Venice for the day. It was lovely, thanks for asking.

Anyway, my contribution upon my return is this: a review of the documentary, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know", which I saw just before I went out to Italy.

What a waste. It is tremendously boring. This documentary could not have been any less inspiring if it tried. The editing and pacing are chronic. Rather than flit about between details in a fast-paced and interesting way, the whole documentary is esssentially just a series of interviews with the various experts, interlinked occasionally with overlong archived news clips. The edits between each interview clip, rather than straight cuts, always slowly fade to black and then slowly fade back in again. It all moves at a complete snail's pace.

It's almost as if they TRIED to make it boring. The film offers nothing to hold the interest; just people talking at you for an hour in their most boring voices. Bat Ye'or, as brilliant a historian as she is, is intolerable. Her voice is witchlike and her English is so broken that all of her scenes have subtitles just so we can make it out...if we haven't lost the will to live already. Similarly, passages from the Qur'an and hadiths are read out by a man with probably the most atonal voice I have ever heard. It's just diabolical.

Once again, don't get me wrong. I have awarded the documentary two stars because its message is so important. Westerners really do need to know that Islam commands Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims, that these laws have never been revised by any Islamic authority, and how Islam spread by the sword. But this film will not persuade anyone of that. Of course, many people wouldn't have listened anyway, but I envision people being so bored while watching this that they will just lose interest and not listen.

This film, which features some brilliant and brave scholars of Islam, as well as ex-Muslims who as apostates are putting their lives on the line by being featured in it, is a huge disappointment. I want everyone to know and understand the film's message, but even so I would never encourage them to watch it. It's just too painful.

Normal blogging should resume tomorrow.

Taking My Leave...

This will be my last post for the next week or two as I'm going on holiday. Jetting out to Italia soon with my girlfriend. Should be fun.

Anyway, I thought my last post here at Race Relations before I fly away into the sun should be a completely vacuous, non-racial one. So here it is, one of the funniest BBC headlines I've read in some time:

Tummy Fat "Can Grow Breasts"

Now that's an image.

Arrivederci.

Round-up

1. Peru cafe closed, fined after racism complaints

2. Part of the cosmetics giant L'Oréal was yesterday found guilty of racial discrimination after it sought to exclude non-white women from promoting its shampoo.

I can see why L'Oreal might do this. It's all about aesthetics and wanting a particular image for your product. There is nothing bad in itself with wanting white-only women to promote their products on the basis of the image of the company. But as we've seen here it can go too far, to the point of what does seem genuine racism ("damn Arabs"). When you have to go to such lengths as deception in order to turn down non-white applicants, that's gone too far.

3. Patients at an Australian hospital have refused to be treated by Indian doctors after a couple of them were arrested in connection with the recent terrorist plots.

This is just stupid. The problem itself is not "Indian doctors" in the first place - it is Muslim doctors. Of course, that does not mean that patients should discriminate against all Muslim doctors either, but at least if they were discriminating under those pretexts I would be able to understand their suspicion.

Completely Misguided

Britain's new security minister, Admiral Sir Alan West, thinks that we can eradicate the 1,400 year old Islamic jihad ideology from Britain - in just 15 years.

Reading the whole article, it is clear that West has absolutely NO clue what he is talking about. A sad symbol of the entire Western leadership's outlook on the jihad problem.

Ebony And Ivory

I watched some of "Live Earth" yesterday and was astonished my the vacuousness and ultimate nonsense of it all.

Here's a clip of Ricky Gervais and Chris Rock in the studio with Jonathan Ross.



My favourite part:

Ross: Do you think events such as this can really change the world?

Rock: My hope is that this event will end global warming in the same way Live Aid ended world hunger.

*Gervais bursts out laughing*

I didn't see it, but I hear David Baddiel was just as critical, and as one might expect, Jonathan Ross got all defensive on him.

With the modern trendy liberal environmental position as it is, this does not surprise me.

Indian Doctors...

New terror raids were staged on two Australian hospitals today, in connection with the London and Glasgow terror plots.

And The Times thinks it's down to "Indian doctors".

Not In Our Name

The BBC is trumpeting the fact that British Muslims have supposedly united to condemn Islamic terrorism, but as usual with such cases it's all nothing more than weasel words.

The documents does little more than blame non-Muslims for provoking violence and causing British Muslims to feel uneasy. It does very little to refute jihadist interpretations of traditional Islamic theology and teaching, and certainly nowhere outlines what MUSLIMS plan to do about combating extremism. All its "advice" is directed towards what non-Muslims can do to accommodate Muslims in Britain. Until the Muslim authorities confront and reject Islamic theological incentives to violence, and work towards teaching Muslims the same, actions such as this are futile and hollow.

Round-up

1. Column: Subtle Racism? Here's Racism In The Raw

"Political correctness, to the best I can determine, is code for white people getting the shaft."

Nope. Political correctness is when wet, self-loathing white liberals bang on about how "diverse" and anti-racist they are, because their swollen ego derives satisfaction from the knowledge that as a result other people will look at them approvingly.

2. Student Fights Racism Through His Poetry

Good luck with that.

Round-up

1. Renowned clinical psychologist, Dr Shaun Whittaker has attributed the recent killing of a woman or women whose body parts were discovered next to the B1 road in Namibia to the country's inadequacy to address the problem of racism.

Without condoning that the perpetrator(s) might just as well be of the same color as the victim(s), Dr. Whittaker when approached for comment deduced that the perpetrator(s) were victims of race.

2. A Wigan MP is urging borough groups to come together for a week of action against racism in sport.The Kick It Out One Game One Community Week of Action will see organisations celebrate the contribution all communities are making to the game, while adding their voices to the call to challenge racism and discrimination in football.

What is the need for this? They already have the "Kick Racism Out of Football" campaign which has been running for several seasons, what do they expect another campaign, taking place over a single week, to achieve?

BBC Discovers Link Between Terror Suspects

The BBC has figured out that the recently convicted London and Glasgow terror suspects have something in common with each other...

... they're all linked to the NHS.

Is that all, Auntie?

Surely it's discrimination to suggest that doctors have anything to do with terrorism?

Neville Chamberlain Syndrome

Gordon Brown says we should not say that the terrorist attacks recently have been perpetrated by Muslims.

Yep, I concur. If we try to ignore it the jihadists will get bored and stop. Nothing to worry about.

Freedom of Expression Power

A Microsoft computer game is drawing attention because it allows players to modify the cars that they control in the game - and put racist or neo-Nazi slogans on them.

Big deal. It is not the fault of Microsoft that some players do this. And what's the problem anyway? If they're racist, so what? It just gives the other players an extra incentive to beat them!

Do I agree with "White Power" or neo-Nazis? No, not at all, but I will forever support their right to express themselves as long as they do so within legal boundaries.

Round-up

1. More investigations against racism are being launched against a fire department, for no apparent reason.

2. RACISM is creeping back into society in Suffolk to the point where it has become “almost acceptable” to “demonise” young black and ethnic minority groups, it has been warned.

Absolute rubbish.

Backlash Alert

I predicted it two days ago, and it has happened at last:

British Muslims Fear Backlash