Isaac Schrödinger

What About Islam?

I got an email this morning from a fellow who seeks a few answers. The major part of the email follows.

"... you spend a lot of time analyzing the life of Muhammad. Clearly, he performed a multitude of actions intolerable for anyone claiming to represent the Eternal Word of God, regardless of the time period he came from, what part of the world he lived in or what culture he grew up in. So I can see why moral relativism is not, at least by itself, good enough to defend him.

But the question arises, to what extent did the people of Arabia really object to Muhammad's actions and to what extent were they merely the result of his environment? The ubituitous example is Aisha. From what I've read, it seems the evidence that anyone in Arabia, pagans, Jews or Christians, objected to his marraige with Aisha due to her age simply due to her age is not there. One could argue he used revelations to gain support and intimitaded would be objectors, but even his multitude of critics never found Aisha's age objectionable. Hence, it seems that either Arabs, including Jews and Christians, had condoned sexual relations with little girls and that only modern post-Enlightment Christians have come to find it objectionable, or that ultimately it didn't really happen and the hadiths that suggest this are false. Obviously, you both reject the latter, but that would create a problematic situation for Arabs, even Christian and Catholic ones, who would have to come to terms with the fact that their culture has condoned mistreatment of women for centuries and only post Enlightment values have changed this. And although their defense of Muhmmad as a role model for all times would still fall flat, Muslim can argue that early Jews and Christians clearly did not see Muhammad's marriages objectioanble and objectioning to it today is cultural elitism. Now, I would say sex with a nine year old girl is grotesque regardless of the age but unfortunately it can be argued this results from unreasonable cultural standards.

The same goes for many issues with Muhammad and women. Critics attacked Muhammad for banditry, insulting pagan faiths and not being a convincing prophet, but never his relations to women. Marrying wifes of fallen enemies never drew objections, nor did having slave girls or polygamy. The only thing he did that Arabs found objectionable, atg least with regards to women, was marrying his son in law's wife. The changes in women's status in Arabia as a result of Muhammad seem overwhelmingly postive. Again, that's not to justify the horrific oppression of women going on right now due to his example, but merely to discuss the issue of his environement. Critics of Muhammad today suggest he was in the same league as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Nero or Attila the Hun in terms of how he forced his people backward and oppressed them, but it seems it can also be argued his actions were more good that bad when the situation of Arabs before and after him is analyzed.

Another thing I suppose is, why do you think Muslims have been in the dark fo so long about Islamic textgs and Muhammad's character. The fact that many Muslims don't speak Arabic, and certainly not Classical Arabic, well enough to read the texts is one issue. What do you think caused it? It's indeed interesting that out of the 1.2 billion Muslims-which we must face is a huge number, there are many very smart, upstanding people in this group who look at the Quran, Hadith and Sira and see genuine beauty, wisdom and tolerance in it. Do you think it's due to mental defficiency, actual brainwashing or self denial? Sijmply a radically different interpretation that sadly not enough Muslims follow? Or simply being severely misguided by Imams who may not understand as much as they think about Islamic texts? The best case scenario is that the interpretations of the Quran, as outlined in the blogging the Quran series on the Islamocritical site Jihadwatch, are not the sole interpretation by Muslims And in the end, when all is said and done, does Islam have to be eradicated from the hearts and minds of one billion Muslims for them to live peacably? Or can Muslims modernize by critical reevaluation of texts and a mass movement to reject Islamic literalism?"

Feel free to comment. I'll reply in the coming days.

Gates of Fire

Steven Pressfield, who wrote a most visceral novel about one of the greatest battles of Antiquity, was recently interviewed by Glenn Reynolds.

Jihad Against Jihad?

Tambi Dude sent me this link today:

In the fall of 2007, Islamists set up a stand at Toronto's annual Word on the Street book festival where they distributed a free booklet titled Towards Understanding Islam, written by Mr. Maudoodi. In the booklet, Mr. Maudoodi exhorts ordinary Muslims to launch jihad, as in armed struggle, against non-Muslims.

"Jihad is part of this overall defence of Islam," he writes. In case the reader is left with any doubt about the meaning of the word "jihad," Mr. Maudoodi clarifies: "In the language of the Divine Law, this word [jihad] is used specifically for the war that is waged solely in the name of God against those who perpetrate oppression as enemies of Islam. This supreme sacrifice is the responsibility of all Muslims."

One of the comments there:

To abandon jihad means to abandon Islam. Islam without Jihad is like tiger without its teeth. The only way to abandon jihad is to abandon islam, which is what I have done. I am sure Tarek must have also done the same, but since no muslim can say that in public without the risk of seeing his head on the floor, he is talking in coded languagge.

Can't argue with that. One finds clear and concise language here but only under the cloak of anonymity. 

Cartoons-That-Must-Not-Be-Seen

Christopher Hitchens:

A book called The Cartoons That Shook the World, by Danish-born Jytte Klausen, who is a professor of politics at Brandeis University, tells the story of the lurid and preplanned campaign of "protest" and boycott that was orchestrated in late 2005 after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran a competition for cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

One can guess what happened.

Yale University Press announced last week that it would go ahead with the publication of the book, but it would remove from it the 12 caricatures that originated the controversy. Not content with this, it is also removing other historic illustrations of the likeness of the Prophet, including one by Gustave Doré of the passage in Dante's Inferno that shows Mohammed being disemboweled in hell.

Read the entire piece. Hitchens ends it eloquently and forcefully.

Here's the most potent image:

Western media showcased its cowardice when the cartoons came to light. For some time, thousands of people were visiting this blog to simply see what all the fuss was about. (They were looking around in Google Images.)

Hell Gets Hotter

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz via The Corner:

in March 2009 the Saudi clock began running backward. Prince Nayef bin Abd Al-Aziz, half brother of Abdullah and interior minister, became second deputy prime minister. Nayef is the embodiment of Wahhabi obscurantism; to cite the most famous example of his extremist behavior, he was the first prominent Saudi to accuse Israel of carrying out the atrocities of September 11, 2001. When it appeared that the mutawiyin would be called to order for their thuggery, Nayef challenged Abdullah by insisting that the Wahhabi militia was a pillar of the state and must not be touched.

Of course. Nayef will need those thugs when he becomes king.

No Love for Jews

Michael Totten interviews Jeffrey Goldberg:

The settlements aren’t the central question. They’re a tragedy in part because they obscure the central question of this conflict. The only question is: can the world of Arab Islam accept the idea of Jewish national equality? That’s the question, and I don’t know the answer to that.

Naturally, I shade toward pessimism on that question. I’m recalling, among other things, that the Six Day War wasn’t started because of the settlements. If you study the history of the last one hundred years, you’ll see that this is the central animating cause of the conflict. And I don’t see much evidence that Arab Islam can assimilate this idea right now.

The broader Muslim world doesn't accept the idea of Jews. Period. Forget about "Jewish national equality". It's important to remember that the concept of a dhimmi -- a perpetual, conquered, slave -- started with Jews under Muhammad:

A classic precedent of the dhimma was an agreement between Muhammad and the Jews of Khaybar, an oasis near Medina. Khaybar was the first territory attacked and conquered by the Muslim state ruled by Muhammad himself. When the Jews of Khaybar surrendered to Muhammad after a siege, Muhammad allowed them to remain in Khaybar in return for handing over to the Muslims one half of their annual produce. The Khaybar case served as a precedent for later Islamic scholars in their discussions on the issue of dhimma, even though the second caliph Umar I subsequently expelled the Jews from the oasis.

Try telling one billion Muslims that Muhammad's example should not be followed.

Stonings Maybe, Kinda Barbaric

Amazing news:

Iranian lawmakers are mooting legislation that would outlaw harsh punishment methods such as stoning and amputations, Iran's official news agency IRNA said on Monday. Ali Sharokhi, who is the president of the Iranian judiciary commission said MPs are eyeing legal amendments to make illegal stoning, cutting off the hands of thieves, amongst other 'Islamic' punishments.

Iran just might upgrade its law to the ninth century.

Saying No to Slavery

The New York Times via Infidels Are Cool:

Speaking at the Palace of Versailles, Mr. Sarkozy confronted one of the most hotly debated social issues in France, saying there was no room in the republic for burqas, the garments that some Muslim women wear to cloak their bodies and faces.

“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women.”

To enthusiastic applause, he said, “I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.”

Good.

A Peaceful Protest

Daily dose of imagery:

Protesters at Mel Lastman Square in Toronto in reaction to Iran Presidential Election results.

Check out the photos.

On the Edge

Pejman Yousefzadeh: Iran in Turmoil.

Breitbart:

Several foreign news organisations complained Sunday that Iranian authorities were blocking their reporters from covering protests against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election.

German public television channels ZDF and ARD said their reporters were not allowed to broadcast their reports, while the BBC said the signals of its Persian services were being jammed from Iran.

The Dubai-based Arab news channel Al-Arabiya in Tehran was forbidden from working for a week and Dutch broadcaster Nederland 2 said its journalist and cameraman were arrested and ordered to leave the country.

The True Victims

Maytha:

Much reviled in academic essays by right-wing blog-o-sphere superstars as an anti-feminist "veil of oppression" and at times overly-theorized by Western scholars, the abaya is yet another Middle Eastern victim of misrepresentation in the West.

Oh yes, that big, black, cotton garbage bag is the victim. The women who're murdered or beaten upon refusal to wear the cloth are, for some strange reason, forgotten.

In Saudi Arabia, the mutaween (the religious police) has the authority to assault women who dare show their arm or ankle in public. Many Arab girls died because the mutaween refused to let them leave a burning building in 2002.

Last year in Iran, women were brutally attacked and arrested in public for the crime of "immodesty":

Back to Maytha:

During my two weeks in the Emirates, I spent nearly everyday draped in the shoulder-to-toe black cloak-a decision made by choice and not force. Having been raised all my life in the states, this decision might come as one of shock by my rah rah female compatriots. Interesting enough, as I embark on my flight back to the states, one of the things I will miss the most about my experience in the Emirates is the culture of the abaya.

Just how spectacularly dumb do you have to be to choose this in one of the hottest places on Earth?

No Limit ...

... to Jewish cruelty!

The Pathan Identity

A reader asks:

I've been wondering about this for a while - do you happen to have any inside info as to exactly how much support the Taliban enjoys inside Pakistan? I know that the regime probably just wishes they'd all drop off the face of the earth, but how much support do they have in the border region from the average Pakistani?

The North West Frontier Province (NWFP) in Pakistan is the most religiously intolerant place in that nation. A few years ago, thugs there started beating up people who weren't in mosques during prayer time.

I would say that the majority doesn't oppose the Taliban for two big reasons.

1. The Taliban represent themselves as enforcers of true, undiluted Islam. Ergo, anyone who opposes them is the enemy. Even Pakistanis in urban areas -- where one can fly kites, play cricket, listen to the latest Indian music and watch Hollywood blockbusters -- oppose the US and hence are in de facto alignment with the Taliban. Of course, this support would wane if they got their golden chance to live under their demonic rule.

2. Many people in that province don't consider themselves an integral part of Pakistan. Their cultural habits, ethnicity and language are distinct from the rest of the country. The Pathans (or Pashtuns) are extremely tribal and often refuse to allow the Pakistani military in their lands. Pakistanis have to use local officers to enforce the law; many Pathans in the military simply don't cooperate with anti-terrorist efforts or, worse, tip the suspects.

In a provincial population of 20 million, I'm sure, one can find millions who loathe the Taliban but they'd be sadly outnumbered by the irrational buffoons who provide moral and financial support to this modern evil.

Trashcanistan Supreme

The Telegraph via LFG:

Mr Riedel, who served on the NSC under three previous presidents, believes that unless serious action is taken, Pakistan will become a "terrorist university", posing a far greater threat to the security of the US and Europe than Afghanistan before the September 11 atrocities.

Recent "apocalyptic" intelligence on the situation in Pakistan has sent shockwaves through the upper echelons of the Obama administration and convinced Mr Riedel's review team that radicals trained in Pakistan are the greatest threat to Western security.

One White House aide emerged from an intelligence briefing on Pakistan three days after Mr Obama's inauguration to exclaim: "Holy s--t!"

Pakistanis trained the Taliban and then exported them to Afghanistan. That's why these Islamists have such a high level of support in the border regions of Pakistan.

Nothing is Exempt

Damian Penny:

I don't agree with Hari on many issues, and I don't share his antipathy toward religion - but I have a much bigger problem with anyone who tells me his religious beliefs should be exempt from criticism. Especially when the punishment for "insulting" his faith is torture and death.

What I wrote in 2006:

It is vitally important that the West not put Islam or any other religion off-limits to critical analysis. For only in the West can a person safely write that the obliteration of a Jewish tribe, the taking of sex-slaves, and the confiscation of non-Muslim property is something not to be celebrated and emulated.

Trashcanistan Supreme

Cafe Alpha provides this link in the comments here:

From The Guardian comes the depressing news that the cancer of Sharia Law has infected the body of Pakistan.

Significant chunks of sharia have infected Pakistan for a long time.

Now, it's going hardcore:

Singer Sardar Yousafzai and his band were driving from a wedding gig when the gunmen burst onto the road, firing without warning.

Yousafzai survived, but a harmonium player died and four others were wounded. He is now in hiding — the latest of many entertainers whose lives and livelihoods face an escalating threat from Taliban-led militants in northwest Pakistan.

That's right: Allah doesn't like music.

As Taliban militants gain a stronger hold in this region of Pakistan, they are imposing their view that music, singing and other such arts are un-Islamic. Several entertainers have been kidnapped or killed, while many others have fled, quit or watched their work opportunities dwindle.

More:

There are also signs the cultural assault is spreading. In the eastern city of Lahore, for instance, a handful of small bombs have detonated near theaters and a cultural complex in recent months, spurring fears of a "Talibanization" of a cultural center.

I was born in Lahore -- a city bustling with music, movies, theater and gloriously cheap arcade games. The Taliban couldn't have picked a more target-rich environment.

Pakistanis supported the Taliban when they came into power; now, it's time to savor the bitter, lethal fruits.

An Unanswered Question

Mezba poses a simple and important question in the title. He describes the symptoms truthfully but somehow doesn't quite answer the question:

In Canada we live respectfully with the Jews and while we disagree on many things, we treat them as our friends and neighbors.
In Bangladesh Jews are the cause of all problems and the reason why there is so much war all around the world and after all, everything is Israel's fault and part of a conspiracy.

More:

In Canada molesting a women is against the law.
In some Muslim lands molesting a women IS the law.

In Canada we treat work as noble. A labourer at a construction site (work that the Prophet did) is as much a person as a doctor.
In Bangladesh, "they" are second class citizens and not even worth a mention.

Isn't it interesting that lands across the world where Muslims have majorities -- and thus have large portions of sharia incorporated in law -- the conditions for humanity are utterly filthy? People, who get the golden chance, quickly leave these places, yet too many don't answer the question, "Why is it that my birth country is a mini-hell on earth but these "infidel-infested" lands are better in every measurable way?"

The answer, of course, is Islam. Subtract that from the culture and especially from the political sphere and then these halaal countries just might progress from the 7th century.

Lovely Incentives

Mark Steyn:

Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the Ayatollah's fatwa against Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses. Two decades on, who needs the mullahs? These days western nations are happy to fatwa their own. It's now a familiar pattern.

If you threaten violence, the authorities cave in, and do the mob's bidding in the interests of "public order" — as they did in Toronto on Wednesday, when thugs attacked a Jewish center.

Here's what happened:

On the campus of York University, a Muslim mob attacked the Hillel House, pounding on the door and yelling antisemitic slogans. Unbelievably, according to this account in YNet, the police demanded that the center itself close down -- punishing the innocent and achieving the goal of the mob.

Thuggery pays.

Answer: Yes

An Ottawa radio host asked:

Is there something inherent in the Muslim faith that promotes violence and oppression of women?

Of course, a broadcast watchdog group flips out over this:

The host has mounted a sweeping, abusive and unduly discriminatory criticism of Islam.

Oh no!

“Green did not merely disagree with opposing points of view,” it said. “He mocked, ridiculed and insulted their interlocutors.”

Allah wept.

Feel the Peace

Tambi Dude emailed me this link recently.

Another Fool

Charles Krauthammer via LFG:

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims by saying "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Of course: America is to blame for the wretched anger of the Muslims. Therefore, the US ought to change her behavior -- a policy that Obama can easily follow with, likely, little short-term consequences.

In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Under Obama, no more liberations. Change!

The Religion of Peace Explained II

From the comments of this post:

Their vision of the Prophet (saws) and the Sahaabah are 1960’s hippies or Code Pink radicals. I get the feeling that if they knew the REALITY of the Prophet (saws) and his blessed Sahaabah that they would not only not like them at all - but they would be repulsed because of their Western brainwashing.

What brainwashing might that be?

If they saw sex slaves being taken, they would complain of so called “women’s rights”. Many of them think that slavery itself is unislamic and even think that Islam calls for its banishment or some “abolition” movement. These same people would protest that the kufaar have to pay jiziyyah in the Islamic government. There was never any such movements in the history of Islam until the advent of Muslims learning values from the West.

Yes, those filthy! horrible! Judeo-Christian + Greco-Roman values have truly poisoned the minds of Muslims who live in the West.

Can't a brother get a sex-slave?

Another precious commenter:

Denying the zakaah is KUFR. And the penalty for kufr is death. That is why Abu Bakr declared war on the apostates. This story is a thorn in the necks of those who claim that there is no mandate to kill apostates in Islam.

More from this lovely fellow:

One othe thing that has not been mentioned here is that Islam is not complatible with democracy or any system in which the kufaar are considered to be equal to the believers. Far too many muslims think that participation in “the system” is somehow beneficial to the Muslims when in fact we have our own divine and COMPLETE system of gov’t from top to bottom that we can live by.

Where everyone shall submit to Allah ... or else.

The Religion of Peace Explained

Umar Lee:

This was put together on my behalf from the former imam of a masjid in response to many liberal-minded, unaware or just uneducated Muslims who alleged I have slandered the sahabah by referring to many of them being killers and unromantic men. What is written is for your information and I encourage you to use this and study more. However, do not read this and then start going out and robbing kufar, committing acts of violence, or taking sex slaves ( and I have known brothers right here in America to do all three).

What lovely company.

Umar Lee, then goes on to provide some statements which are backed up with historical accounts. Here's something he said:

The Prophet {s.a.s.) was a warrior and many of the Sahabah [his companions] that he loved were straight-up killers.

More:

Others were robbers (robbing the caravans of the kufar).

More:

Others took women and young girls as the booty of war.

More:

Islam spread through jihad and was sustained by the sword of very masculine men.

Arguably, the most hideous point comes at the end:

Ibn Taymiyyah on the concept of “love”. From Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (10/129): Love is a psychological sickness, and if it grows strong it affects the body, and becomes a physical sickness, either as diseases of the brain, which are said to be diseases caused by waswaas, or diseases of the body such as weakness, emaciation and so on.

Why do over a billion people believe in, and follow, this trash?

Elusive Peace

Mezba:

If you are poking a bee's nest with a stick, better be sure to have protection for when they come out. One has to question the tactical necessity of firing rockets at residential areas in Israel. What objective, military or otherwise, did they achieve?

Terror.

After a few more points, this question is asked:

So what should the Muslim community world wide (and the Arabs) do to prevent another round of genocide?

Genocide? Israel has been giving up territory (Sinai, Golan, Gaza) and leaving Arabs to their fate for many years. In that time, the population of Arabs around Israel has grown at a sharp rate. One has to admit, it's the most amusing method of genocide in history.

Israel is specifically targetting Hamas -- you know, that lovely group which actually has genocide as one of its ideals.

Mezba then offers a peace proposal:

You want peace, stability and economic prosperity. Even thought of emulating the Prophet? The Hudaibiya treaty, signed with terms very unfavourable to the Muslims, changed the game forever. Go to the Israelis and ask for a 20 year peace treaty.

How truly wicked. Hamas to Israel: "Please, stop killing us! Let's have peace ... for now. We'll be back later with better weapons to slaughter your children."

This from an educated Muslim in the West.

The Dutch Buckle

BBC News via Samizdata:

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression".

For the sake of argument, if Wilders is wrong about Islam, then wouldn't the prudent response for opponents be to make a movie in which they disprove him?

But they can't.

Instead, the Dutch system has chosen to sacrifice Wilders to placate the umma: "See! We're not Islamophobes. So, please don't attack us."

Gays Support Hamas

The first comment in this post:

I will never understand the left siding with the Islamics

They very tenants they hold dear and claimed to have championed, Gay rights, womens rights, hell even human rights the Islamics would be more than happy to take away from them.

Whatever ally is anti-US, anti-Israel or anti-West will do for the brain-dead on the left.

The Chosen Scapegoats

Yaacov Lozowick:

What Cole has just told us is that his mind can live with the explanation that Mohammad Atta murdered thousands of people in New York, because five years earlier he'd been absolutely and totally furious at an Israeli killing of one hundred people in Lebanon. Moreover, Cole implies, it is well likely that another act of Israeli killing today will have a similar result sometime down the road. Furthermore, he then goes on, he's telling us this because the Obama administration must stop the way Israel is purposefully putting Americans in danger merely because Israelis are that kind of people.

It's amazing how some people adamantly refuse to see evil.

A Civilized Power

Some perspective on Israel and war. From a comment:

the Palestinians don't deserve one iota of sympathy for the fact that their attacks are getting deadlier responses. You don't wage war on a modern military power's civilian population and then go crying to mommy when they see your pathetic, 19th century weapons and up the ante with 21st century firepower.

If the Ukrainians, Kazakhs or Mongols did this crap to Russia, and the Russians responded by carpet-bombing their capitol city into rubble, I doubt you'd hear more than a "golly, that was rough" out of the UN. By all rights, the Palestinians are blessed that their neighbors are Westernized Jews, not Russians or Chinese.

Legitimate Use of Force

Instapundit:

BUT DON’T CALL THEM “BARBARIANS,” because that would be rude. Comparing Hamas to the Nazis. “The Hamas founding covenant explicitly calls for the extermination of all Jews. Hitler never made total extermination an official plank of the the Nazi party platform.”

Yet, ignorant and idiotic commentators are yelping about how Israel(!) ruins the peace process. I've always maintained that, given the Hamas charter, Israel ought to annihilate every member, or at least every leading official, of Hamas.

It was a good day when the IDF made Ahmed Yassin fly. But instead of congratulating Israel, most of the world shed tears for the evil "spritual" leader and, of course, blamed Israel for another setback to peace.

Hamas and their sponsor states must be ground into powder for there to be any chance of peace in that region.

The War Continues

Can you see the key lie in this first paragraph at Muslim Matters?

After an agreement to a six-month ceasefire between between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19th, Israel launched multiple F-16 bombers into the Gaza Strip, dropping 100 tons of bombs in the first nine hours of fighting, indiscriminately massacring over 225 Palestinians and injuring over 700 others.

It's the word indiscriminately. Why would Israel need to send in the air force if all she wanted was indiscriminate death? Israel could simply launch thousands of cruise missiles into Gaza and be done with it.

Israel is specifically targeting Hamas and its evil henchmen. The fact that some civilians die as a result is not the fault of Israel.

End Nag Now?

Hunh. I guess the Israelis are merely nagging in response. Though, they're slightly better at it.

A Fool's Alliance

Harry's Place via David Thompson:

There is a comment piece in yesterday’s Times by Andy Hayman, formerly the most senior anti-terrorist officer in the Metropolitan Police. It amounts to a partial defence of the strategy of cultivating and assisting Muslim Brotherhood connected Islamists, pioneered by the (now retired) police officer, Bob Lambert.

Here's the core of the faulty thinking behind such policy:

What made the Muslim Contact Unit’s decision to partner with Islamists respectable, was the thesis that there is a “good Muslim Brotherhood” and a “bad Muslim Brotherhood”.

Assuming the good and the bad exist, then the difference is merely their timing and approach; the goals are the same:

Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

What Pakistani Terrorist?

Infidels are Cool:

Pakistan’s taqqiya is not strong.

It never has been.

The Objective is Terror II

Cafe Alpha provides a link in the comments to "A speech delivered by Dr. Andrew Bostom in Fairfield Connecticut to the Congregation Beth El, December 7, 2008."

This current Jewish tragedy within a much larger non-Muslim, primarily Hindu tragedy, reminded me of the Indian Sufi “inspiration” for The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Ahmad Sirhindi. Nearing completion of my first book compendium, The Legacy of Jihad, in early 2005, specifically the section about jihad on the Indian subcontinent, I came across a remarkable comment by the Indian Sufi theologian Sirhindi (d. 1624). Typical of the mainstream Muslim clerics of his era, Sirhindi was viscerally opposed to the reforms which characterized the latter ecumenical phase of Akbar’s 16th century reign (when Akbar became almost a Muslim-Hindu syncretist), particularly the abolition of the humiliating jizya (Koranic poll tax, as per Koran 9:29) upon the subjugated infidel Hindus. In the midst of an anti-Hindu tract Sirhindi wrote, motivated by Akbar’s pro-Hindu reforms, Sirhindi observes,

Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.

The biographical information I could glean about Sirhindi provided, among other things, no evidence he was ever in direct contact with Jews, so his very hateful remark suggested to me that the attitudes it reflected must have a theological basis in Islam—contra the prevailing, widely accepted “wisdom” that Islam, unlike Christianity was devoid of such theological Antisemitism.

Jew-hatred is at the core of Islam. Why? Because Muhammad had trouble convincing the skeptical Jews of his hallucinations. The Arabian Jews of the 7th century saw Islam for the painfully silly cult that it is.

Initially, Muhammad couldn't retaliate. That's how we got those "peaceful verses" in the Quran. Though, as he got more followers, he started to vomit the "war verses". The end result was the humiliation and sometimes annihilation of the Jews of Arabia.

This leads to a not-so-small problem. To criticize Jew-hatred is to criticize Muhammad and his evil legacy. And in some nations to do that results in the death penalty.

We are in a Long War which started almost 1400 years ago.

The Objective is Terror

Theodore Dalrymple:

The article in The Observer that I have cited claims that neither the Indian state nor the Indian press has investigated or publicised human rights abuses in Kashmir, but this is simply not so. It is not difficult to find articles about such abuses in the Indian press; but even if this were not the case, there is no evidence that the terrorists, who were quite obviously willing to die, had tried anything else before they tried random killing. In their case, they killed not as a last but as a first resort. It was the answer to their need for significance.

Link via David Thompson.

Will Jews Ever Learn?

Robert Spencer:

Really, you can't make this stuff up.

I think Olmert wants to give the impression of doing something for peace. Of course, his actions will lead to anything but.

See No Evil

Vinod:

In the ironic, postmodern world, you earn accolades by tarring a disagreeable politician with the epithet “terrorist.” By contrast, had Mr. Khan worn a t-shirt critical of Bin Laden & his supporters, and stepped out of his comfy limo at the wrong time just a few blocks away, the word “terrorist” would have taken on a considerably more literal meaning.

The bravery of these "artists" never ceases to amaze.

The Proper Respect

JPost via Jihad Watch:

A Muslim graveyard has refused to bury nine gunmen who terrorized Mumbai over three days last week, leaving at least 172 people dead and wreaking havoc at some of its most famous landmarks.

The men are not true followers of the Islamic faith, according to the influential Muslim Jama Masjid Trust, which runs the 7.5-acre (three-hectare) Badakabrastan graveyard in downtown Mumbai.

"People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim," said Hanif Nalkhande, a trustee. "Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime."

They ought to be wrapped in a Pakistani flag -- artistically made from pig carcass -- and then thrown in an alcohol-soaked, Muhammad-cartoon-filled see-through container.

It's the least we can do.

Islamist Assault on India II

Umar Lee on the Mumbai attacks:

we still do not have all of the information, I do not see this event, as of yet, as being akin to 7-7, 9-11, or the Madrid train bombings which were all senseless in the sense that they were meant to kill as many people as possible and had no way of distinguishing who would die. This event targeted specific people and places. Government and intelligence officials were picked out to be assassinated who had committed crimes themselves against Muslims.

Of course. Though, I do wonder:

• What "crimes against Muslims" were committed by those who were shot down in the railway station?
• What "crimes against Muslims" were committed by the guests in the hotels?
• What "crimes against Muslims" were committed by those who died in the Jewish Center?
• What "crimes against Muslims" were committed by the four Australians, three Americans, three Canadians, three Germans, two Israelis, two Israeli-Americans, two Britons, two French, one Chinese, one Italian, one Japanese, one Jordanian, one Malaysian, one Mauritian, one Mexican, one Singaporean, one Spaniard and one Thai?

More from the moral degenerate:

This was a disciplined and relatively bloodless affair compared to what could have been so the international outrage seems a little out of order.

Islamist Assault on India

A reader of Instapundit writes about the Mumbai attacks:

This was not an Al Qaeda operation. This was planned and conducted by Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence Agency.

Initially I thought that such an attack would be too explicit for the ISI. But really, what does the ISI have to lose? What options does India have for retaliating back at a nuclear-armed, Islamist-infested failure of a nation?

An excellent observation in a long post here:

Things with India are extremely different. Here Pakistan’s enmity with India is historic. As a matter of fact, some may say that the very reason of Pakistan’s existence is a rejection of the fundamental principles behind India—secularism, pluralism and equality for all.

[Emphasis mine.]

Exactly.

An asinine post at Lahore Metblogs:

It’s about that the Indian media stop its propaganda and do some soul searching as to the actual reasons behind these attacks. A good starting point maybe, the state of Muslims in India.

DesiPundit has the appropriate response:

So let me get this straight, the way to improve the state of Muslims in India is to get pleasure in killing innocents, target foreigners, and hold a hospital for women & children hostage for hours. If the educated elite in Pakistan is anything like this moron, then I fear for Pakistan.

Most of them do take pleasure in the death of innocents. Ask Pakistanis about how they felt watching thousands of souls being extinguished on that dark September day in 2001. The response is a sick smile.

Latest information:

As of this writing, there were a reported 151 people killed from 11 different countries - though nearly 100 were Indian. More than 300 injuries have also been reported - those numbers may yet rise as several hostage situations still exist in the city.

There are some graphic images at that site.

Pining for the Empire

Hurriyet Daily News via Jihad Watch:

Among Muslim countries, the NIC expected "to see the political and economic power of Indonesia, Iran, and Turkey increase. "Over the next 15 years, Turkey’s most likely course involves a blending of Islamic and nationalist strains, which could serve as a model for other rapidly modernizing countries in the Middle East," it said.

Nationalist Islamism? That's exactly what this century needs.

Allah Doesn't Emote

Via Jihad Watch comes this halaal inanity:

Emoticons are forbidden because of its imitation to Allah’s creatures whether it is original or mixture or even deformed one and since the picture is the face and the face is what makes the real picture then emoticons which represent faces that express emotions then all that add up to make them Haram.

Yup, good Muslims should refrain from using emoticons.

Raping infidel women is fine, though.

Sweet Poison

LFG!!!!

What an interesting admission from Joe Biden, who states pretty clearly that Barack Obama’s youth and lack of experience will lead to “an international crisis.”

Thugs across the world know that Obama -- like Kennedy before him -- is a lightweight. Obama's likely desperation to avoid conflict would lead to a stronger hand for Islamist regimes. It's a paradoxical situation: John "the warmonger" McCain would probably have a more peaceful four years than Barack "anti-war" Obama.

See this video by Niall Ferguson.

Small Cultural Difference

Times Online via Daimnation:

For some, the internet is merely a hiding place — a web of secret corridors where all manner of shameful deeds unfold. But the police never expected that it might become a strategic platform where two groups of society's outcasts, terrorists and child sex abusers, could meet to exchange operational secrets.

That's because most are ignorant about Muhammad and his six-year-old wife. Exhibit A: Stefano Dambruoso, Italy's anti-terror magistrate, said:

“I would exclude the idea that they have paedophile tendencies. The most you can attribute to them is a relationship between men and women different from that of us Westerners, in which — as in many parts of the Arab world — wives are often very young girls of 11, 12 or 13 who because of family negotiations are given in marriage to men much older than them. But that is not paedophilia, it is a question of Arab culture.”

Just because sexual abuse of preteen girls takes place within a marriage, the men responsible are not pedophiles?

The Religion of Peace, Again

Modern Iran:

A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled "Islamic Penal Code", which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against.

The cruel history of one family:

Rashin Soodmand is a 29-year-old Iranian Christian. Her father, Hossein Soodmand, was the last man to be executed in Iran for apostasy, the "crime" of abandoning one's religion. He had converted from Islam to Christianity in 1960, when he was 13 years old. Thirty years later, he was hanged by the Iranian authorities for that decision.

Today, Rashin's brother, Ramtin, is also held in a prison cell in Mashad, Iran's holiest city. He was arrested on August 21. He has not been charged but he is a Christian. And Rashin fears that, just as her father was the last man to be executed for apostasy in Iran, her brother may become one of the first to be killed under Iran's new law.

Link via Vox Popoli.

Haraam Poetry

The National via Dhimmi Watch:

Last week, Jordan’s grand mufti, Noah Alqdah Samas, the kingdom’s highest religious authority, called Samhan an enemy of religion for his poetry, some of which included lines comparing his loneliness to that of the prophet Yusuf in the Quran.

Thank goodness he didn't sketch a cartoon.

Eight years ago, Musa Hawamdeh was charged with apostasy because of a poem he wrote titled Joseph, which Islamists said contradicted the story as it was told in the Quran. His book was banned.

Although he was later acquitted on all charges in both sharia and civil courts, he has been sentenced to three months in prison for violating the press and publication law.

More:

Abdul Hameed Qudah, deputy secretary general of the Muslim Brotherhood, said the lines of Samhan’s poetry were harmful to Islam.

“Any delay in taking measures against the writer would be a reason for discord,” he said in a statement posted on ammonnews.net, a popular Jordanian news website.

Two points:

1. Note just how weak Islam is: a few lines of poetry threaten it.
2. The thug who advocates force is complaining about "discord".

Overlord Was For Sand

Bruce Bawer via Jihad Watch:

there’s one very important difference between America and Europe when it comes to resisting cultural jihad, and that is this: that in America, a large proportion of the people who recognize the threat of Islam and who are determined to resist it are consciously fighting for freedom — for, that is, the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. In many parts of Western Europe, this kind of certainty and unanimity about freedom — simple freedom — as a first principle can be discouragingly hard to come by. The blogger Frank Martin has written about a teenage tour guide at a World War II battlefield in the Netherlands who told him that the Allied soldiers who fell there had been “fighting for bridges, how silly that they would all fight for something like that.” Somebody like that boy, who didn’t grasp that those soldiers had died for the very freedom that he had taken for granted his whole life, is incapable of standing up for freedom against Islamofascism.

So depressing.

Infidels in a Strange Land

Dhimmi Watch:

The UK's logic seems to be that, since both parties are willing to abide by the decision of a third part, in this case, the sharia court, and all parties concerned are doing so willingly, then it's legal. But, as this report points out, what of those veiled Muslim women in Britain who know no English, don't know their rights as citizens of Britain, and simply do what their men -- fathers, husbands, brothers -- tell them to do, that is, let a sharia court decide?

That question is not addressed by libertarians: how can illiterate women be free to choose between two options when their families only present them with one?

Understanding the Islamists

Breitbart:

Police arrested three men on Saturday in connection with a fire at the offices of the publisher of a book about the Prophet Mohammed and his child bride.

The Telegraph:

But the radical cleric Anjem Choudhary, who lives in Ilford, east London, said he was "not surprised at all" by the attack and warned of possible further reprisals over the book.

"It is clearly stipulated in Muslim law that any kind of attack on his honour carries the death penalty," he said.

"People should be aware of the consequences they might face when producing material like this. They should know the depth of feeling it might provoke."

He denied any involvement in the attack but said he "understood" the feelings of the perpetrators.

Links via Small Dead Animals.

Galloping Towards Sharia

The Telegraph via Samizdata:

Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

An example of sharia in action:

Mr Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

The news does say that judgment under sharia in Britain is voluntary. So, either these women were somehow coerced or they're really dumb.