Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Muslim carnage over a religous radio show???

2 Dozen Killed In Pakistan Radio Battle

March 28, 2006

BADSHAHKILI, Pakistan -- A battle for the airwaves between two Islamic clerics with their own FM radio stations in Pakistan has escalated into fighting that's killed at least 24 people.

The violence in Pakistan's northwestern frontier with Afghanistan raises new doubts about the government's grip over the lawless region, where Islamic radicals wield growing influence.

The fighting broke out late Monday and continued into Tuesday as the rival Islamic factions traded fire with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, assault rifles and hand grenades. Posted by Picasa

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Today's phony enragement of the perpetually enraged

Shia fury as Americans are blamed for murders at mosque
By Oliver Poole,

The governor of Baghdad have severed all local government relations with the American military as outrage spread over claims that American troops attacked a Shia mosque, killing 20 worshippers and the 80-year-old imam.

The bodies were laid out in a community hall in east Baghdad and throughout the day mourners shouted abuse at the United States, despite American insistence that its troops were not responsible.

Bodies lie on stretchers in a morgue in Baghdad

Further condemnation was expressed by a spokesman for the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and the populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose supporters predominate in the mosque area.

Negotiations on the new government were suspended for the day as Shia politicians issued a statement attacking the Americans for perpetrating such a "cowardly" act.

The breakdown in American-Shia relations occurred as Iraq suffered another bout of bloodshed. At least 40 people were killed by a suicide bomb near the north-western town of Tal Afar and 21 bodies were found, many with nooses around their necks. They were believed to have been the victims of sectarian violence.

The suicide bomber struck at an army recruitment centre. In a speech only last week President George W Bush cited Tal Afar as a counter-terrorism success story since it was recaptured from rebels last November.

Sunday, March 26, 2006

What will the next enragement of the perpetually enraged?

The perpetually enraged ones haven't been enraged for several days now. What are your guesses as to this week's enragement?
a Little or nothing
b Almost nothing
c Nothing at all Posted by Picasa

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Progress starts with self examination and the truth (not blaming others)

Gadhafi lashes out at 'backward society' in Middle East
Asharq Al-Awsat / AP ^ | 3/24/06

NEW YORK (AP) - Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, in a rare moment of self-criticism, lashed out at what he described as "backward" societies in the Middle East, arguing that government heavy-handedness in dealing with political opposition stemmed from the violent nature of that dissent.

"You ask us, 'Why do you oppress opposition in the Middle East?"' Gadhafi told attendees at a Columbia University panel discussion on democracy Thursday, speaking in Arabic during a live video appearance. "Opposition in the Middle East is quite different from opposition in advanced countries. In our countries, the opposition takes the form of explosions, assassinations, killing."

"Because opposition in our country is different from opposition in your country. Our opposition resorts to bombs, assassinations, explosions, subversive acts, trains in military camps -- in some cases before the Sept. 11th events," said Gadhafi, whose country for years was accused of being a state sponsor of terrorism.

Gadhafi's comments came in response to several questions by the Columbia panel asking him to comment on shortcomings in Libyan society. Gadhafi said he was proud of what he considered a complex society and what he says is the world's only true participatory democracy. But he argued that the political and social mind-set of the region had failed to adapt to a changing world. "How many countries have seen this form of opposition. This is a manifestation of social backwardness," said Gadhafi, who appeared on the screen wearing a plum-colored robe.

Why does Islam contribute nothing to the arts

Teaching art in a Muslim nation

The Moathen begins chanting the afternoon prayer from the mosque across from the college. Even though the doors and windows are closed in the air-conditioned painting studio, it is difficult to carry on conversation over his amplified and undulating voice. Within 15 minutes I will break the class so they may pray. Abeer does not go with the others to the prayer room, two flights below the studio. She is eight months pregnant and performs her prayer on a rug, facing Mecca, behind painting easels. The other students take the elevator down to the prayer room, although I know some also worship Burger King across the street because they return to class with French fries.

This is the first time an American woman arts instructor has stood before this class of young women, most of whom are veiled in hajeb (headscarves) or covered from head to toe in black robes called abaya, and bosheya or negab, face coverings which leave a slit only for the eyes. I feel as if I’m in Catholic school again, only in reverse – it is the students who look like nuns. When I teach I wear dresses or skirts just above or below the knee and have my elbows covered. When the desert temperatures reach into the 130s, I fail to understand how some of my students can tolerate being covered from head to toe in black.

All of my students are Muslim, and some cannot sit facing the corridor window, where a passing male could glimpse her face if she has removed her veil in class. These students show their faces only to male members of their immediate family. Other students wear only hejab, with modified abaya, or tight designer jeans and T-shirt, high spiked heels, styled hair and perfect make-up.

The College for Women was inaugurated last year. Unlike the main campus, it is not segregated. Because only women attend, classrooms are not divided in half with partitions to keep the male and female students separate.

Teaching studio art in an Islamic society forced me to alter my Western-trained teaching practices. It is “haram” – bad or forbidden – to render in any form the human face or figure, the latter basic to all Western studio art classes. While some students adhere stringently to these beliefs, other students do not. I encourage the students to model, but because they wear abaya the human anatomy gesture drawings are reduced to drapery studies. Some of the students will not put facial features on these drawings. Others have no compunctions and pencil in eyes, nose, mouth.

Fatma, who removes her black gloves and face veil in the drawing studio, explains why she cannot draw faces. "When I was a child I did draw the faces. When I got older I was told it was haram. So I stop. You can draw faces if it is in cartoons or sometimes if it is serious, like in study. But then you must draw the face with a little line across the neck."

"You mean to indicate the head is cut off?" I ask.

"No like in the big shopping malls there are those people in the windows who do not move, the people that wear the clothes we buy." Fatma freezes in a pose.

"Oh, manikins."

"Yes. If you draw a line across the neck, then the drawing is not real. It is like a manikin." Fatma goes on to explain that to draw a face or human figure would be to emulate the work of God, the only entity righteous enough to create human and animal forms.......

something terribly wrong

There's something terribly wrong with a belief system that is so awful, it has to kill those who want to get away.

An Affront to Civilization

We should have no illusions that Afghanistan — in many ways the backwater of the Islamic world — will soon embrace Western-style religious pluralism. But the trial of Abdul Rahman, who faces a potential death sentence for converting to Christianity some 15 years ago, is an affront to civilization. If there is always a balancing act between accommodating the religious beliefs of a traditional society like Afghanistan and coaxing it toward reform, the Rahman case is not a close call — killing or jailing someone for his religious beliefs is always wrong, and is especially galling in a country so dependent on American military forces and aid.

Above all, this shows to the world how false and satanic is Islam

This is not the way that the God of the Bible is prayed to.

This is not the way that the God of the Bible is prayed to. The God of the Bible only accepts prayers of compassion and forgiveness of all on the planet.

Malkin: The Religion of Pieces / What are you Praying for? ^ | 3-24-06 | Michelle Malkin



Michelle Malkin

· March 24, 2006 12:39 AM


Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

..."Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

...On Wednesday, authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.

But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane.

"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed," Hamidullah said.

Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."

"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

...Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."

..."We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Raising young men to be sociopaths

The living hell of this young women's life\02\24\story_24-2-2006_pg7_40

Man ‘honour kills’ two sisters

MULTAN: A man shot and killed his two sisters on Thursday in eastern Pakistan because he suspected they were having love affairs – an affront to family’s name, police said.

The suspect, Muhammad Ashraf, 35, was arrested shortly after he opened fire on the women in Vehari, about 100 kilometres southeast of Multan, said Abdul Sattar, a police official.

Sattar identified the women only by their first names: Kaneez, 27, and Naveed, 25. Naveed had filed a court case seeking a divorce, and her sister was going to the court in connection with the case when the attack occurred, the police official said. “We have arrested this man who says that he killed his sisters to protect family’s honor,” Ashraf said.

Killing of women for honour is common in Pakistan, where men consider it an affront to the family when their female relatives have affairs or even choose a husband without the family’s approval.

The latest killings came weeks after Pakistan’s top human rights group in its annual report said that crimes against women had not dropped in this Islamic nation, although the government had taken some steps to address the problem. Posted by Picasa

Friday, March 17, 2006

Wafa wows the West (but not Muslims and media)

This is a perfect example of why islamofascism has to brutally subjugate it's women. And why banning headdress would have such a powerful effect in moderating islam.

Wafa wows the West (but not Muslims and media)

Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychiatrist, has been at the center of a journalistic blizzard ever since debating – and devastating – an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, on Al-Jazeera TV. The broadcast was made available on the Internet by the Middle East Media Research Institute, and has since been viewed over a million times.

Sultan could not have spoken any clearer about the religion that midwives terrorism. In a previous appearance on the station, she had come out of the blocks with this:

When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse: "They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off," ... you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist.

It's thus of special significance that members of the American news media – not Al-Jazeera – have distorted what Sultan has said, introducing their bias into her unambiguous words. Equally intriguing is the fact that Al-Jazeera – not the American Fourth Estate – introduced Sultan to the world.

At the request of her Al-Jazeera host, Sultan proceeded to explain the origins of the "clash of civilizations" coinage. In sonorous Arabic, a salve to Western ears, which have become accustomed to associating the language with faces twisted in rage, threatening blood and fire, she explained that:

The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to [stop] this war, they must re-examine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

In a subsequent interview, she spoke as plainly, stating that "our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings." She herself was "questioning every single teaching of our holy book."
If this was insufficiently forthright, an earlier Al-Jazeera interview certainly was not:

In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources – I am referring to scientific sources – to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not [the terrorist] who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim. [Emphasis added].

Still, "ignorant people" will be ignorant. The New York Times modified what Sultan had said. Duly, Mahdi John M. Broder "reported" that "Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran for 14 centuries" [Emphasis added].
Sultan said nothing of the sort. Not a murmur did she utter about a noble religion that had been kidnapped by crazies.
Bin Laden, the genocidal Janjawiid of Darfur, the Saudi religious police (the Mutawaa'in) which barricaded girls in a burning school because their heads were immodestly uncovered (headgear incinerated, presumably, by the fire); the hundred thousand innocent women and men killed in Algeria, thousands of Syrian civilians, including the murder by the Muslim Brotherhood of Sultan's professor at the University of Aleppo; the massacre of Coptic peasants in Egypt, and terrorism in Indonesia and Turkey – all this is the handiwork of people who've heeded, not hijacked, Islam.
Or so says Sultan.
The Los Angeles Times' Islamic advocate, Teresa Watanabe, got Sultan's message loud and clear: "Islam is fatally flawed." To which the correspondent responded by deriding the psychiatrist: Sultan was no longer a Muslim, had "never been connected with progressive Islamic groups and does not know the writings of Islam's most respected voices of reform," she carped.
The little woman was out of line – Sultan had failed to defer to authority, and had offered up her own independent analysis instead. And she was unaffiliated with any Muslim organization. In short, an individualist who swims against the current. Where is a burka when you need one!
Hussam Eyloush of the Council on Islamic Relations, a shady outfit masquerading as moderate, was one of many Muslim representatives galvanized by the lickspittle media to put Sultan in her place.
At first, Eyloush smeared Sultan with the shopworn "Islamophobic" smear. He then further discounted her by telling CNN correspondent Chris Lawrence that "reform is alive and well within Islam, but it will only happen by those from within Islam and not those who hate Islam."
Lawrence, every bit as bright as Broder, disregarded Sultan's words, choosing to regurgitate what the "moderates" had fed him. Sultan was saying nothing new: "stop the suicide bombings and allow more rights for women," he fudged fecklessly, adding that she had compared "Muslim suicide bombers to the Jews who survived the Holocaust."
We can't expect CNN reporters to be burdened by fact, now can we?
Sultan's message is seismic – it departs radically from the warmed-over fare "moderates" have been dishing out to dhimmis in-the-making. She said the following to the cleric whose clock she cleaned: "You can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern ... These are personal matters that do not concern you."
var r = Math.round((Math.random() * 2000000))+ '-' + Math.round((Math.random() * 2000000))+ 10; var url = '' + '&ord=' + r; var frameContent = ''; document.write(frameContent);
Her take on the Jews vis-a-vis CNN's sainted suicide bombers was also almost unheard of hitherto. I can see why the network's apostles of Islam felt obliged to distort the following:

The Jews have come from the tragedy [of the Holocaust], and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. Fifteen million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

Actions speak louder than words

The Nobel prize


Najib Mahfooz 1988*.

1978 Anwar El-Sadat
1994 Yasser Arafat... A Joke!!! **
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2005 - Mohamed ElBaradei

1999 - Ahmed Zewail

Abdus Salam

* Najib was stabbed in the back by Egyptian Moslem fundamentalists in 1997 because he supported the Peace Process between the Arabs ("Palestinians") and Israelis. Najib was partially paralyzed as a result.

**The Norwegians played an ugly joke on the world by pretending Arafat was a Man of Peace.

Note: Elias James Corey (Chemistry 1990), Peter Brian Medawar (Medicine 1960) and Ferid Mourad (Medicine 1998) are Nobel Prize winners but are Arab-Christians, not Muslims.

Kaare Kristiansen was a member of the Nobel Committee. He resigned in 1994 to protest the awarding of a Nobel "Peace Prize" to Yasser Arafat, whom he correctly labeled a "terrorist."


1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer
2002 - Imre Kertesz
2005 - Harold PinterWorld Peace
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
1995 - Joseph RotblatChemistry
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1972 - William Howard Stein
1972 - C.B. Anfinsen
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Ronald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Herbert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1989 - Sidney Altman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1998 - Walter Kohn
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
2004 - Irwin Rose
2004 - Avram Hershko
2004 - Aaron Ciechanover

1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1973 - Wassily Leontief
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 Rober Fogel
1994 - John Harsanyi
1994 - Reinhard Selten
1997 - Robert Merton
1997 - Myron Scholes
2001 - George Akerlof
2001 - Joseph Stiglitz
2002 - Daniel Kahneman
2005 - Robert J. AumannMedicine
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - David Baltimore
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
1977 - Andrew V. Schally
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1994 - Martin Rodbell
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1997 - Stanley B. Prusiner
1998 - Robert F. Furchgott
2000 - Eric R. Kandel
2002 - Sydney Brenner
2002 - Robert H. Horvitz

1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1945 - Wolfgang Pauli
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1958 - Il'ja Mikhailovich
1958 - Igor Yevgenyevich
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1963 - Eugene P. Wigner
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1967 - Hans Albrecht Bethe
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - Leon N. Cooper
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Georges Charpak
1995 - Martin Perl
1995 - Frederick Reines
1996 - David M. Lee
1996 - Douglas D. Osheroff
1997 - Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
2000 - Zhores I. Alferov
2003 - Vitaly Ginsburg
2003 - Alexei Abrikosov
2004 - David Gross
2004 - H. David Politzer
2005 - Roy Glauber

There are a mere 12 Million Jews in the entire world, yet they have received 169 Nobel Prizes.The Muslims number 1.4 Billion (with a very big "B")... or 117 times the number of Jews! Based upon this 117:1 Muslim-to-Jewish ratio, one might expect the Muslims to have 22,260 Nobel Laureates.They have SEVEN! and one of them [Arafat] is a murderer (Allahu Akbar, indeed!).

Unless the Swedes and Norwegians start awarding Nobel Prizes for plane hijackings, pizza shop bombings, civilian bus attacks, Jihad suicides/homicides, drive-by shootings, throat-slittings, embassy attacks and other such acts of barbarism, the embarrassingly low level of contributions to the welfare of Civilization and Mankind by the [Arab] Muslim world will continue. The Jewish People, meanwhile, will continue being the Lights Unto All Nations. Posted by Picasa

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Schools of hatred, murder and suicideforsex


Miran Shah, 15 March (AKI) - Pakistani security forces have blown up an Islamic seminary or madrassa in the tribal region of North Waziristan which lies on the Afghan-Pakistan border. The privately-run school, known as the Khalifa Islami Madrassa, is believed to be linked with the fugitive Taliban leader Jalaluddin Haqqani. No one was in the school building when it was destroyed, according to a report by the Associated Press agency which also said that the soldiers removed books from the school before blowing it up. The school was used mainly by Afghan students.

The demolition of the madrassa is part of the continuing military operation by Pakistani security forces against pro-Taliban militants in the tribal belt. On Monday, Pakistan had ordered all Afghan nationals to return to their country. The demolition followed a bomb blast at an army security post near Miran Shah, the main town in North Waziristan. No causlaties were reported from that blast. Posted by Picasa

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

The Quiet-Spoken Muslims Who Turn to Terror

The Quiet-Spoken Muslims Who Turn to Terror

March 14, 2006

"Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers." I wrote those words days after September 11, 2001, and have been criticized for them ever since. But an incident on March 3 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill suggests I did not go far enough. That was when a just-graduated student named Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, 22, and an Iranian immigrant, drove a sport utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone. He struck nine people but, fortunately, none were severely injured.

Until his would-be murderous rampage, Mr. Taheriazar, a philosophy and psychology major, had a seemingly normal existence and promising future..........

Hysteria over the headscarf

Muna Shalabi accused of insulting the Islamic Hijab

The scene that has created the commotion features Egyptian actress Muna Shalabi while she is wearing a hijab, with her faced covered.  She goes to meet her lover in an impoverished neighborhood while covered, and the scene has caused Islamic scholars to go into a rage, claiming it is an insult towards all women who wear the hijab.

Hysteria over the headscarf

Muna Shalabi accused of insulting the Islamic Hijab

The scene that has created the commotion features Egyptian actress Muna Shalabi while she is wearing a hijab, with her faced covered.  She goes to meet her lover in an impoverished neighborhood while covered, and the scene has caused Islamic scholars to go into a rage, claiming it is an insult towards all women who wear the hijab.

Stoned for not wearing a headscarf!

Journalist stoned for not wearing a head-scarf    
Sunday, February 12 2006 @ 09:42 PM Eastern Standard Time

Aliye Cetinkaya, a journalist from the Turkish daily Sabah newspaper, who was reporting on the recent protests over the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, was stoned in Konya for reasons demonstrators said were provocative – as she did not cover her head. Cetinkaya was taken away by male colleagues after stones hit her head and shoulders. The female journalist was attacked for being ‘sexually provocative’ for not wearing a head scarf at the demonstration organised by the Peoples Education Research and Support Group in Konya (He-Da-Der) and entitled ‘Loyalty to the Prophet’.

The cartoon wars reflect the impotent rage of muslims over the cultural failure of muslim societies

The cartoon wars reflect the impotent rage of muslims over the cultural failure of muslim societies,7340,L-3211839,00.html

Even in Europe, the penny has dropped about radical Islam
Dan Schueftan

The hysterical riots by Arab and Muslim thugs around the world following the publication of cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper are only the latest symptom of a serious disease.

They reflect the cultural failure of a society that prefers to base itself on the complete failure to stand up to the challenges of modernity, and to direct its anger towards objects of its extremism and hatred – to those elements of the developed, free, Western world that have created the image of modern reality and successfully acquired for themselves quality of life, social welfare and freedom.
  Posted by Picasa

Is America and Bush's great vision the only hope for Islam???

America: Islam’s Only Hope for Reform

Legendary radio commentator and writer, Barry Farber, in a recent editorial called “12th Century Thinking,”[*] asks an important question:

Is America (and Bush's great vision of a democratic world) the only hope for Islam???

Flemish costal towns ban Islamic burka

Flemish costal towns ban Islamic burka

15 February 2006

BRUSSELS — Three Belgian coastal municipalities are moving to ban Muslim women from wearing a burka.
The municipalities of De Panne, Koksijde and Nieuwpoort have drawn up a proposal that will be presented to town councils in the near future.

The proposal was drawn up on request from the police and will be part of a general ban on disguises.

The ban comes after several incidents in which residents raised alarm during end-of-school celebrations. Some youths had dressed up as gangsters.

The chief of the West Coast police zone, Johan Geeraert, said local officers had also complained about the Islamic burka.

Butchers who hate us, and wish to destroy us are lliving normally in our midst

Top al-Qaida figure lived in Lodi (California), witness says

Published 2:07 pm PST Monday, March 13, 2006An FBI informant testified Monday in Sacramento federal court that al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, lived in Lodi during parts of 1998 and 1999. Naseem Khan, who is a critical prosecution witness in the trials of two Lodi men charged with having terrorist ties, testified he was living in Lodi in 1998 and 1999 and "every time I would go to the mosque (al-Zawahri) would be coming or going" from the mosque.

Khan said al-Zawahri, known to the FBI as Osama bin Laden’s personal physician and top adviser, "disappeared" sometime in 1999.

All the bombers have been ordinary quiet appearing muslims:

All the bombers have been ordinary quiet appearing muslims:

Sudden Jihad Syndrome
by Daniel Pipes
Posted Mar 14, 2006

“Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers.” I wrote those words days after 9/11 and have been criticized for them ever since. But an incident on March 3 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill suggests I did not go far enough.

That was when a just-graduated student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, and an Iranian immigrant, drove a sport utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone. He struck nine people but, fortunately, none were severely injured.

Until his would-be murderous rampage, Taheri-azar, a philosophy and psychology major, had an apparently normal existence and promising future. In high school, he had been student council president and a member of the National Honor Society. A number of UNC students told the Los Angeles Times that he “was a serious student, shy but friendly.” One fellow student, Brian Copeland, “was impressed with his knowledge of classical Western thought, adding “He was kind and gentle, rather than aggressive and violent.” The university chancellor, James Moeser, called him a good student, if “totally a loner, introverted and into himself.”

In fact, no one who knew him said a bad word about him, which is important, for it signals that he is not some low-life, not homicidal, not psychotic, but a conscientious student and amiable person. Which raises the obvious question: why would a regular person try to kill a random assortment of students? Taheri-azar’s post-arrest remarks offer some clues.

· He told the 911 dispatcher that he wanted to “punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world.”

· He explained to a detective that “people all over the world are being killed in war and now it is the people in the United States[’] turn to be killed.”

· He said he acted to “avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.”

· He portrayed his actions as “an eye for an eye.”

· A police affidavit notes that “Taheri-azar repeatedly said that the United States Government had been killing his people across the sea and that he decided to attack.”

· He told a judge, “I’m thankful you’re here to give me this trial and to learn more about the will of Allah.”

In brief, Taheri-azar represents the ultimate Islamist nightmare: a seemingly well-adjusted Muslim whose religion inspires him, out of the blue, to murder non-Muslims. Taheri-azar acknowledged planning his jihad for over two years, or during his university sojourn. It’s not hard to imagine how his ideas developed, given the coherence of Islamist ideology, its immense reach (including a Muslim Student Association at UNC), and its resonance among many Muslims.

Were Taheri-azar unique in his surreptitious adoption of radical Islam, one could ignore his case, but he fits into a widespread pattern of Muslims who lead quiet lives before turning to terrorism. Their number includes the 9/11 hijackers, the London transport bombers, and Maher Hawash, the Intel engineer arrested before he could join the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Mohammed Ali Alayed, the Saudi living in Houston fits, the pattern because he stabbed and murdered Ariel Sellouk, a Jewish man who was his one-time friend. So do some converts to Islam; who suspected Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman, would turn up in Iraq as a suicide bomber throwing herself against an American military base?

This is what I have dubbed the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims. Who knows whence the next jihadi? How can one be confident a law-abiding Muslim will not suddenly erupt in a homicidal rage? Yes, of course, their numbers are very small, but they are disproportionately much higher than among non-Muslims.

This syndrome helps explain the fear of Islam and mistrust of Muslims that polls have shown on the rise since 9/11.

The Muslim response of denouncing these views as bias, as the “new antisemitism,” or “Islamophobia” is as baseless as accusing anti-Nazis of “Germanophobia” or anti-Communists of “Russophobia.” Instead of presenting themselves as victims, Muslims should address this fear by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of “infidels.”

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Respect must be earned.
Muslims once again demand respect.


Oh, I have certainly learned to fear Islam. Islamophobia is definitely a rational response to world events right now — just ask those Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia. Oh, wait; you can’t ask them: they don’t have heads anymore.

I have learned to be circumspect about Islam, to tread lightly around its outer edges. I have learned to be alert concerning it, and observe it carefully in all its different manifestations.

But I have no respect for Islam, and no amount of violence, extortion, and bullying threats will cause me to respect it.

Judaism has gained my respect. The heroic and humane actions of Jews in my own lifetime have caused me to respect them.

Hindus have gained my respect. They have developed a powerful and accomplished civilization whilst learning to accommodate widely disparate cultures in a democratic polity.

But in the past five hundred years Islam has added nothing to the general welfare of mankind. All the great accomplishments and advances that produced modern technological civilization occurred without the help of Muslims, and often in the face of their active resistance. When Islam emerges beyond its own parochial borders, the only things it gives to the rest of the world are fire, bloodshed, mayhem, and destruction.

To any Muslim or Islamic sympathizer: I invite counterexamples. Deliver them here, and I will post them.

But until there is a significant counterweight to the all the terror and backwardness, I have no respect for Islam or its Prophet.

Respect must be earned.

Are muslim women treated worse than blacks under apartheid

No cheer for Muslim women


In 1948, one of humankind’s most despicable ideas, apartheid, was made into law in South Africa where racial discrimination was institutionalised. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of “white-only” jobs. Although there were 19 million blacks and only 4.5 million whites in South Africa, the majority population were forced to be second-class citizens in their homeland, banished to reserves and needing passports to travel outside them, even within their own country. It was only in 1990 that apartheid began to crumble and South Africans of all colours were finally free to live as equals in every way. 

With the end of that racist system, people may be forgiven for thinking that apartheid does not exist anymore. While few countries practise any formal systems of discrimination, nevertheless you can find many forms of discrimination everywhere. In many cases, it is women who are discriminated against. In our country, there is an insidious growing form of apartheid among Malaysian women, that between Muslim and non-Muslim women. 

We are unique in that we actively legally discriminate against women who are arguably the majority in this country, Muslim women. Non-Muslim Malaysian women have benefited from more progressive laws over the years while the opposite has happened for Muslim women. 

For instance, since the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, polygamy among non-Muslims was banned. Previously men could have as many wives as they wanted under customary laws. Men’s ability to unilaterally pronounce divorce on their wives was abolished and, in its place, divorce happens by mutual consent or upon petition by either spouse in an equal process where the grounds are intolerable adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion of not less than two years, and living separately for not less than two years. Compare that to the lot of Muslim women abandoned but not divorced by their husbands. 

Other progressive reforms in the civil family law in the late 1990s were amendments to the Guardianship Act and the Distribution Act. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 was amended to provide for equal guardianship for both father and mother, rather than the previous provision where only the father was the primary guardian of the children. In contrast, the Islamic Family Law still provides for the father as the sole primary guardian of his children although the mother is now allowed to sign certain forms for her children under an administrative directive. 

The Distribution Act 1958 was also amended to provide for equal inheritance for widows and widowers, and also granted children the right to inherit from their mothers as well as from their fathers. Under the newly proposed amendments to the Islamic Family Law, the use of gender-neutral language on the issue of matrimonial property is discriminatory on Muslim women when other provisions in the IFL are not gender-neutral. Muslim men may still contract polygamous marriages, may unilaterally divorce their wives for the most trivial of reasons and are entitled to double shares of inheritance. 

These differences between the lot of Muslim women and non-Muslim women beg the question: do we have two categories of citizenship in Malaysia, whereby most female citizens have less rights than others? As non-Muslim women catch up with women in the rest of the world, Muslim women here are only going backwards. We should also note that only in Malaysia are Muslim women regressing; in every other Muslim country in the world, women have been gaining rights, not losing them.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

The courage to speak the truth

Wafa Sultan, an Arab woman practising psychology, now living in the States. A self-professed “disbeliever in the supernatural”, she has posted essays on the Internet in Arabic, including research into the fate of women under various Islamic regimes. She has willingly and ably confronted Muslim fanatics on Arab TV, most recently on Feb. 21st, when she debated Dr Ibrahim Al-Khouli on Al-Jazeera. A transcript and video clips with English subtitles were made available this week by the Middle East Media Research Institute (“Memri”) -- an indispensable institution, based in Israel, that distributes hard information and accurate translations of documents from the Arab world. (It is useless to condemn it as “Zionist” -- everything Memri publishes is sourced and checkable.)

With great bravery, Dr Sultan confronts the “tu quoque” (“you too”) arguments of the apologists for Islamic terror -- refusing to let them change the subject from what they have done, said, and approved, to misty rhetoric against Zionists, Yankees, Imperialists, Crusaders. Boldly on Al-Jazeera, last week, she said what our Western politicians, media flaks, and academic celebrities won’t say, from cowardice in its many forms. Excerpt:

“The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. ... It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.”

The sparkling TV host interrupts to ask if Dr Sultan insinuates the clash is, “between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims”. Dr Sultan replies, “Yes, that is what I mean.”

The host reminds her that this phrase, “clash of civilizations”, came from Samuel Huntington, not Osama bin Laden. Dr Sultan reminds him that Islamic books and curricula, going back to the Koran, are full of calls for “fighting the infidels”.

When her opponent, Dr Khouli, claims he never offends people, Dr Sultan reminds that among other things he calls Westerners “al-Dhimma” (i.e. the Muslims’ natural slaves), that he routinely compares them to apes and pigs, that he calls Christians “those who incur Allah's wrath”, and so forth.

He asks if she is a heretic. Dr Sultan says, he can call her what he likes. He continues, “If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran!” She replies, “These are personal matters that do not concern you. ... Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me.”

And after the usual banter about Zionism, she notes that since the Holocaust, the Jews have made the world respect them by their work and knowledge, not their crying and yelling. “We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church.” Likewise, though professing Muslims turned ancient Buddha statues into rubble, “We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim, or torch an embassy.”

Since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, many thousand other barbaric acts have been reported, around the world, each one performed explicitly in the name of Allah. This is fact, not prejudice, and our refusal to make Islam an issue plays directly into the fanatics’ hands.

It is not our business to “define Islam”, as so many Muslims aver. It is the Muslims’ duty to define it, in such a way that we will not mistake it for a sword held to our own throats. For when it is presented as a sword, it becomes our business.

Friday, March 10, 2006

  Posted by Picasa

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Negative Perception Of Islam Increasing

Negative Perception Of Islam Increasing

Poll Numbers in U.S. Higher Than in 2001

By Claudia Deane and Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 9, 2006; Page A01

As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, ....snip........ Posted by Picasa

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Why the cartoon war is a critical part of the culture war

Muslim Cartoons: Publish or Perish
By Robert W. Tracinski
The Intellectual Activist | March 7, 2006

The central issue of the "cartoon jihad"—the Muslim riots and death threats against a Danish newspaper that printed 12 cartoons depicting Mohammed—is obvious. The issue is freedom of speech: whether our freedom to think, write, and draw is to be subjugated to the "religious sensitivities" of anyone who threatens us with force.

That is why it is necessary for every newspaper and magazine to re-publish those cartoons, as I will do in the next print issue of The Intellectual Activist. Click here.

This is not merely a symbolic expression of support; it is a practical countermeasure against censorship. Censorship— especially the violent, anarchic type threatened by Muslim fanatics—is effective only when it can isolate a specific victim, making him feel as if he alone bears the brunt of the danger. What intimidates an artist or writer is not simply some Arab fanatic in the street carrying a placard that reads "Behead those who insult Islam." What intimidates him is the feeling that, when the beheaders come after him, he will be on his own, with no allies or defenders—that everyone else will be too cowardly to stick their necks out.

The answer, for publishers, is to tell the Muslim fanatics that they can't single out any one author, or artist, or publication. The answer is to show that we're all united in defying the fanatics.

That's what it means to show "solidarity" by re-publishing the cartoons. The message we need to send is: if you want to kill anyone who publishes those cartoons, or anyone who makes cartoons of Mohammed, then you're going to have to kill us all. If you make war on one independent mind, you're making war on all of us. And we'll fight back.

But the issue of freedom of speech is too clear, and too well settled, in the West, to be worth spending much time debating it. What is far more interesting is the fact that such a debate is occurring, nonetheless.

This is a fact from which the Western world can draw some crucially important conclusions.

The West has long been aware that, while we hold freedom of speech as a centerpiece of our liberty, the Muslim world does not recognize this freedom. Before now, however, our worlds have rarely collided. The Muslims have not usually dared to extend their dictatorial systems to control our own behavior within our own cities. The Salman Rushdie affair—the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 death edict against the "blasphemous" novelist—was an ominous warning, but Americans did not take it seriously.

Now, seventeen years later, the Muslim fanatics are making it clear: you don't have to come to our country, you don't have to be a Muslim. Even in your own countries and under your own laws, you will not be safe from our intimidation.

For the whole Western world, this is an opportunity to learn an important truth about the goal of the Islamists. Their goal is not to achieve any specific political demand or settlement. Their goal is submission: our submission to their will, to their laws, to their dictatorship—our submission, not just to one demand, but to any demand the Muslim mobs care to make.

Europe particularly needs to learn this lesson. The Europeans have deluded themselves into thinking that this is our fight. If only Israel weren't so intransigent, if only the U.S. weren't so belligerent, they told themselves—if only those cowboys didn't insist on stirring up trouble, we could all live in peace with the Muslims. And they have deluded themselves into thinking that they can seek a separate peace, that having the Danish flag on your backpack—as one bewildered young Dane described it—would guarantee that you could go anywhere in the world and be regarded as safe, as innocuous.

Now the Europeans know better. With cries of "Death to Israel" and "Death to American" now being joined by cries of "Death to Denmark", every honest European can now see that they are in this fight, too—and they are closer to the front lines than we are. Threats against American cartoonists, when anyone bothers to make them, are toothless; there is no mob of violent young Muslims in the United States to carry them out. European writers and filmmakers, by contrast, are already being murdered in the streets. The first people to find themselves living under the sword of a would-be Muslim caliphate are Europeans, not Americans.

The lesson here is not just that the Islamist ideology of dictatorship is a threat to Europe. It is also that the dictatorships themselves are a threat. The advocates of cynical European "realpolitik" deluded themselves into thinking that, if they just made the right kind of deals with Saddam Hussein, or with the Iranian regime, or with the Syrian regime, then the dictatorships over there would have no impact on us over here.

But we can now see that the anti-Danish riots did not explode spontaneously: they were instigated by the dictators, by the regimes in Iran and Syria. To their credit, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and now US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have been pointing out this connection. The lesson for Europe: if you accommodate and appease the dictators, they won't leave you alone. Having gotten some of what they want, they will come after you and take the rest. Europe ought to have learned that lesson, at terrible cost, in 1939; this ought to refresh their memory.

If we want to know why these lessons have not been learned before now, the cartoon jihad also gives us clues to the answer. Note that those who are supposed to help us learn those lessons—the left-leaning intellectuals and newspaper editors, the people who have traditionally posed as the brave defenders of free speech—have been the first to collapse in abject submission to Muslim sensibilities. The New York Times, for example, dismissed the cartoons as "juvenile" and explained that refusing to publish even a single image of the cartoons "seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

Note how the New York Times—like many other left-leaning newspapers—hides behind the evasion that the Danish cartoons are "silly" or "juvenile." On the contrary: the best of the Danish cartoons provided a far more serious, hard-hitting, thought-provoking commentary than has been provided in the pages of these same newspapers. While the mainstream media has drooled that Islam is "a religion of peace"—in the midst of yet another Muslim war—it was left to a Danish cartoonists to suggest that Mohammed himself, and the religion he represents, might be the bomb that has set off all of this violence. (To see these cartoons, go to the simply named website

But the prize for most abject surrender to Muslim dictatorship has to go to the leftist academics. The first to decry the Bush administration as a creeping "fascist" dictatorship, they are, perversely, the first to fawn in admiration before the world's actual fascists. If you think that's an exaggeration, read an op-ed in Sunday's New York Times by Stanley Fish, a famous "Postmodernist" university professor and defender of "political correctness." Fish writes:

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give—ask for deference rather than mere respect—it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of every newspaper in the country….

[T]he editors who have run the cartoons do not believe that Muslims are evil infidels who must either be converted or vanquished. They do not publish the offending cartoons in an effort to further some religious or political vision; they do it gratuitously, almost accidentally. Concerned only to stand up for an abstract principle—free speech—they seize on whatever content happens to come their way and use it as an example of what the principle should be protecting. The fact that for others the content may be life itself is beside their point.

This is itself a morality—the morality of a withdrawal from morality in any strong, insistent form. It is certainly different from the morality of those for whom the Danish cartoons are blasphemy and monstrously evil. And the difference, I think, is to the credit of the Muslim protesters and to the discredit of the liberal editors.

For years, the Left has told us that the foundation of freedom is subjectivism; if you are never certain that you are right, you will never be certain enough to "impose" your views on others. But will you be certain enough to defend your mind against those who want to impose their beliefs on you? If Fish is any indication, the answer is "no." Note how he bows with almost superstitious awe before the fanaticism of the Muslim mobs, while describing the old-fashioned liberals' defense of free speech as hypocritical, superficial, "condescending."
And now the "hate crimes" laws pioneered by the Left in the name of political correctness, are being invoked by Muslims to suppress publication of the Mohammed cartoons by a Canadian newspaper. The intellectuals of the Left, having built a reputation as defenders of free speech by striking a pose of defiance against innocuous threats at home, have now become the leading advocates for self-imposed submission to the Muslim hoards abroad.
Interestingly, intellectuals on the right have now become the loudest, most strident voices in defense of free speech, for which they deserve our admiration. Blogger Michelle Malkin has waged a particularly effective crusade on this issue. And she is not the only one; I linked to many good articles on the topic in last week's editions of TIA Daily.
But the right has its own contradictions, it own source of sympathy with the enemy. For years, conservative intellectuals have been demanding greater "sensitivity" to "religious sensibilities"—at least, to the religious sensibilities of Christians—and calling for a great role for religion in the "public square." They have waged a long crusade to allow religion to serve as the basis for laws against abortion and homosexuality, and for the subordination of science to religion, demanding that this be a "nation under God" rather than a "nation under Darwin."
And so we have seen a few prominent conservatives falter badly in the cartoon jihad. Prominent neoconservative scion John Podhoretz wrote a column in last Friday's New York Post that sounds an awful lot like Stanley Fish's column quoted above:

For many people, the way to grant Muslims the recognition they crave is to patronize them—to give them nice little nods and winks and talk about what a nice religion they have. That kind of recognition is unsatisfying and condescending. The impulse behind the original publication of the cartoons in Denmark last September was to cut through the condescension. They were literally provocative—designed to provoke discussion about how to deal with the phenomenon that Carsten Juste, the editor of the newspaper that published them, called the "self-censorship which rules large parts of the Western world."
Well, as Juste and his staff have learned to their sorrow, while some of that self-censorship may be the result of cowardly political correctness, some of it is clearly due to simple prudence. Juste and his underlings have been in grave physical danger for months, ever since the cartoons were published. And it would not be too much to say that they and the world would have been better off if they had exercised a little more self-protective caution in the first place.

Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt—a much more dedicated religious conservative—practically squirms with discomfort at the idea of someone criticizing religion. He echoes the idea that the Danish editors were "irresponsible" for printing the cartoons because they could have predicted that it would "provoke" a violent reaction—but he adds a more pro-American gloss to it. He says that the cartoons were irresponsible because the enemy will use them as propaganda to incite riots and try to gain support among Muslims.

In a wired world, there aren't any inconsequential actions, and everything is grist for the propagandists among the jihadists. That doesn't mean censorship, or even self-censorship. Only a bit of reflection before rushing off to start new battles which divert attention from those already underway. There is a chasm of difference between serious commentary on the Islamic challenge facing Europe and the West…and crude, sweeping anti-Muslim propaganda. It isn't necessary to defend the latter in order to uphold and praise the former.

(See more of Hewitt's commentary on this issue.)
The weakness of the conservatives is that they think the essence of the West is our religion, our "Judeo-Christian tradition"—rather than our Enlightenment legacy of individual rights and unfettered reason. Conservatives try to evade the clash between religious authority and freedom of thought by claiming that religion provides the moral basis for liberty. But the clash cannot be avoided, and conservatives are forced to choose where they will draw the line: where respect for religious prohibitions, in their view, takes precedence over respect for the individual mind. On this issue—involving a religion alien to American traditions—most conservatives have had no problem drawing the line in favor of freedom. But will they draw a different line when their own religious dogmas are challenged?
This is the final lesson of the cartoon jihad. The real issue at stake is not just censorship versus freedom, but something much deeper: the need to recognize the real essence of the West. The distinctive power and vibrancy of our culture, the source of our liberty, our happiness, and our unprecedented prosperity, is our Enlightenment tradition of regard for the unfettered reasoning mind, left free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
And this controversy has given our minds plenty of evidence to follow, and plenty of fearless conclusions to draw.

The sexual pathology underlying islamofascism,,1717676,00.html

Can sexual inadequacy or deprivation turn angry young men into psychotic butchers?

Does masturbation lead to suicide bombing? One would think not. There is no more direct link to suicide bombing than there is to blindness or schizophrenia. But there may be a connection between sexual inadequacy or frustration and the pull towards violent extremism. This is the theme of an engaging novella, Seventeen, by the Japanese novelist Kenzaburo Oe, who won the Nobel prize for literature in 1994. The story is set in the 1960s, when it was written.

The main character is a 17-year-old boy who can't stop jacking off, in the bathroom, in the bedroom, in the bushes, even in the schoolroom. He is ashamed of his habit, just as he is ashamed of almost everything else. No good at games, a failure with girls and a bully at home, he can't really stand anyone - not his wishy-washy liberal father, or his mother and sister, or his teachers, and least of all himself. Conscious at all times of being an ugly failure, all he can do is masturbate, while living in terror that the whole world is aware of his practice just by looking at him.

But a kind of salvation is at hand. The boy is introduced by a friend to a band of extreme rightwing youths, dressed in uniforms, following a leader who rants about communists and socialist traitors, and the glories of the Japanese empire. Soon the great masturbator, too, is issued with a uniform and boots, and accepted as a warrior for the imperial cause against foreigners and leftwing traitors. He even gets into a few violent scrapes. And he has his first satisfying orgasm, in a massage parlour, in his new uniform, dreaming of total power, of killing his enemies, of raping their wives and daughters, and of dying for the glorious emperor.

It is not Oe's most subtle piece of fiction. The narrator often sounds too much like a literary tool for expressing the politics most abhorrent to his creator. But the sexual swamp in which extremism can grow is well described, and worth exploration. As a somewhat dogmatic leftist intellectual, Oe appears to think that violent extremism, arising from fantasies of omnipotence, is typically the domain of the far right. He has often expressed his admiration for Chairman Mao. But the combination of sexual frustration and violence was as typical of Mao's Red Guards as it was of Japan's Black Shirts.

In contrast to the insatiable chairman, who had a harem of dancing girls for his private use, Chinese men were forced to live like revolutionary monks and were discouraged from marrying young. The Great Helmsman, by the way, had his own peculiar brushes with inadequacy, as related by his personal physician. His sexual potency rose and fell, as it were, with his political fortunes. Any threat, imagined or real, to his sense of total control, and he wilted.

Sexual deprivation may be a factor in the current wave of suicidal violence, unleashed by the Palestinian cause as well as revolutionary Islamism. The tantalising prospect of having one's pick of the loveliest virgins in paradise is deliberately dangled in front of young men trained for violent death. And even those who are not trained to kill and die often live in authoritarian societies in which sex before marriage is strictly forbidden, in which women outside the family home are not only supposed to be untouchable, but invisible. Access to MTV, the internet, DVDs and global advertising reinforces the notion that westerners live in a degenerate garden of sinful delights. This makes the lot of millions of young Arab men even harder to bear, and can provoke a mixture of rage and envy.

Once in a while, this rage will explode in carefully orchestrated orgies of violence. It is said that Mohammed Atta visited a striptease bar before crashing a plane into the Twin Towers. Perhaps he craved one nibble at the forbidden fruit before his earthly extinction. The fact that it was forbidden - repulsive but also terribly seductive - marked his view of women in general. He made it clear in his will that he did not want any women to defile his grave with their presence.

Again, this is not to say that sexual frustration or bitter misogyny leads directly to mass murder. If it did, we would live in a very dangerous world indeed. But they cannot be dismissed as factors. It has long been assumed that young men are better fighters when they are deprived of sex, like slavering dogs fighting in a pit.

One of the many barbarities of war, in ancient times as well as in recent conflicts, is the promise to hungry, brutalised men that once a city is taken its women are part of the loot. The only difference between this and those fabled houris in paradise is that the objects of deferred lust are real and pay a horrible price for it.

The view that sex with women takes the fight out of men is common enough even in less bloody pursuits, such as football. Often, when a national team is about to do battle, the coach will announce that wives and girlfriends will be banished. The men have to be kept on the leash. Sex will be their reward once the enemy is defeated. Among the great myths of Dutch football is the story of the 1974 World Cup. Deprived of female company, some of the players allegedly took their pleasure with local floozies, and therefore lost the final against Germany.

All this applies to sex with women. Sex with men can be a very different proposition. As a rule, societies that prize machismo and male honour do not take a kindly view of homosexuality. It is tolerated, at best, but only the active, "male" partner, especially if he is older and married, can escape from homosexual encounters with honour. The passive one is like a woman - submissive, weak, despicable. So it is still said to be in many Arab countries, as it was in ancient Greece.

But there are notable exceptions to this rule. Some of the most macho societies in history have prized homosexual relations. The Spartan army encouraged loving relationships between soldiers, as it would foster loyalty and courage. Samurai in feudal Japan had a similar attitude. Sex with women was fine, as far as it went, which was to produce children. But honour and nobility were to be found only in relations between men. The premise behind this is not so different from the homophobia in other macho cultures. Women are soft, and their proximity softens men, just as the wiles of Cleopatra softened the Roman general Mark Antony. True manliness must never be tainted by the female sex, or the domesticity it represents.

In 2004, Johann Hari wrote about the "overlap" of homosexuality and fascism. "Gay men," he wrote, "have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was ..." This was especially disturbing to Hari, who identifies himself as a "progressive gay" man. Examples supporting his thesis are readily at hand: Pim Fortuyn (though not really a "fascist", as Hari seems to think) was gay. Jörg Haider is said to be gay. And then there were the Nazi Stormtroopers, the brown-shirted SA led by a thug named Ernst Röhm. Röhm, and many of his comrades, were homosexual.

Röhm was a keen promoter of the Spartan ideal of fit fighting men pairing off. Like many German soldiers in the wake of the first world war, he felt like a loser, embittered by military defeat, and marginalised by peace. For him, the SA was a way to regain his self-esteem. He thought of it as an elite of superior men, chosen to control first Germany and then the world. Röhm was rather like the 17-year-old in Oe's novella: the uniforms, the boots, the brutality made him feel omnipotent. Sex was an expression of power, and power was eroticised. "Since I am an immature and wicked man," he once said, "war and unrest appeal to me more than the good bourgeois order."

Hari implied that there was something in the nature of homosexuality that made it particularly suited to fascism. Quoting a "gay pornographer", Bruce LaBruce, he cited "body worship, the lauding of the strong, a fetish for authority figures and cruelty". But this is to assume that homosexual desires can be reduced to a Tom of Finland cartoon in which the characters are manhandled by brutal leather-clad policemen. Such fantasies exist, to be sure, and fascism exploited them to the full. You only have to see the outsized sculptures of naked athletes in the former Foro Mussolini sports complex in Rome to get the idea. One should never forget that despite the antics of Röhm and his friends, homosexuals were persecuted in Nazi Germany.

There is a more plausible explanation for the attraction felt by a certain kind of homosexual for violent elitism and extreme political causes, and that is the loathing of bourgeois life. Röhm divided men into soldiers and civilians, and the latter, to him, were "swine". Everything associated with the word "prudence" was hateful to him. To a man such as Röhm, domesticated bourgeois society was, by definition, cowardly, materialistic, henpecked and dull. What he craved, above all, was constant violent action to disrupt the kind of life from which he felt excluded. This may be the key to gay fascism, more than the nature of homosexual desire. Extremism is the loser's revenge on society. Who the losers happen to be depends on the nature of the society. It can be homosexuals who feel shut out, or young Muslim immigrants.

The German writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger recently wrote a brilliant essay about "the radical loser", the kind of person, usually a young man, who feels victimised by the entire world, and hates himself as much as the forces that oppress him. These men are walking time bombs. Anything can set them off, a social snub, the loss of a job. And the explosion will usually kill the bomber as well as his enemies. Circumstances dictate to some extent who the enemies are, but the categories tend to be limited. As Enzensberger says, the "usual suspects are foreigners, secret services, communists, Americans, big corporations, politicians, unbelievers. And, almost always, the Jews."

The only thing missing in Enzensberger's analysis is the sexual factor, the psychology of the great masturbator, the murderous gay thug, the drooping despot. Perhaps this element is best explained by recalling a very recent story: the murder in Amsterdam of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. His killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, was born in Holland, though his parents were from Morocco. As a teenager he tried to conform to the culture of his native city. He got drunk, smoked dope, and tried to seduce Dutch girls. After all, everything in the culture, from pop music to TV commercials, promises sex. This is a world away from home, where the saintly mother and virginal sisters must be protected from lustful eyes.

But things began to go wrong for Mohammed. The Dutch girls were not as easy as he thought. He lost interest in his studies. Subsidies for this and that failed to materialise. There were nasty brushes with the police. And his sister got a boyfriend. This enraged Mohammed. He felt dishonoured, useless, excluded. He was, in short, a radical loser, and Islamism promised righteous murder, martyrdom, and the feeling, however fleeting, of total power.

The reason Van Gogh became Mohammed's target was a short film he made with the Somali-born politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script. The film, Submission, showed Koranic texts projected on to the half-naked bodies of veiled women who had been abused by men. Hirsi Ali blames Islam for the sexual subjugation of women and the misguided and frustrated machismo of men. Her take on secular European society is the exact opposite of Mohammed's. Where she sees liberation - above all, sexual liberation - he sees dishonour, decadence, filth and confusion. The freedom of living in Holland allowed her to flourish, while it made him feel small and hateful. And that is why he wanted to destroy her, and with her the civilisation that made him feel like a radical loser. Posted by Picasa

Monday, March 06, 2006

The enlightenment is here to stay


From the Economist:

Blame It on Voltaire:
Muslims Ask French
To Cancel 1741 Play

Alpine Village Riles Activists
By Letting Show Go On;
Calling on the Riot Police
March 6, 2006; Page A1

SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY, France -- Late last year, as an international crisis was brewing over Danish cartoons of Muhammad, Muslims raised a furor in this little alpine town over a much older provocateur: Voltaire, the French champion of the 18th-century Enlightenment.

A municipal cultural center here on France's border with Switzerland organized a reading of a 265-year-old play by Voltaire, whose writings helped lay the foundations of modern Europe's commitment to secularism. The play, "Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet," uses the founder of Islam to lampoon all forms of religious frenzy and intolerance.

The production quickly stirred up passions that echoed the cartoon uproar. "This play...constitutes an insult to the entire Muslim community," said a letter to the mayor of Saint-Genis-Pouilly, signed by Said Akhrouf, a French-born café owner of Moroccan descent and three other Islamic activists representing Muslim associations. They demanded the performance be cancelled.

Instead, Mayor Hubert Bertrand called in police reinforcements to protect the theater. On the night of the December reading, a small riot broke out involving several dozen people and youths who set fire to a car and garbage cans. It was "the most excitement we've ever had down here," says the socialist mayor.

The dispute rumbles on, playing into a wider debate over faith and free-speech. Supporters of Europe's secular values have rushed to embrace Voltaire as their standard-bearer. France's national library last week opened an exhibition dedicated to the writer and other Enlightenment thinkers. It features a police file started in 1748 on Voltaire, highlighting efforts by authorities to muzzle him. "Spirit of the Enlightenment, are you there?" asked a headline Saturday in Le Figaro, a French daily newspaper.

A debate on Swiss television last month degenerated into a shouting match when the director of the Saint-Genis-Pouilly performance accused a prominent Muslim of campaigning to censor Voltaire in the past. The two men also have traded insults in the French media.

.........snip...............but damage was minor. Police chased Muslim youths through the streets.

Now that tempers have calmed, Mayor Bertrand says he is proud his town took a stand by refusing to cave in under pressure to call off the reading. Free speech is modern Europe's "foundation stone," he says. "For a long time we have not confirmed our convictions, so lots of people think they can contest them." Posted by Picasa

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

What real honor and courage is all about
MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq Posted by Picasa

Free Site Counter