Wafa Educates Bill On The "Rape Factor" In Islam

From Act! For America;

Wafa Educates Bill on the “Rape Factor” in Islam




Posted By Andrew Bostom On March 29, 2011



[1]



Educable? [2]



At least by her??



Last night for a few brief shining television moments (captured here [3]), Wafa Sultan, courageous author of the indispensable jeremiad “A God Who Hates [4],” strove gamely to educate Bill O’Reilly—often seemingly impenetrable [5] by facts regarding Sharia—about how Islamic Law, patterned on the “perfect example” of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, sanctions rape.



The news “hook” for Wafa’s unfortunately rare appearance was the recent alleged rape of a Libyan woman, Iman Al-Obeidi by Qadaffi’s minions.



As a working physician in her native Syria, Wafa noted that she was familiar with “many such crimes” committed with the sanction of Sharia—Islamic Law. She elaborated that under Sharia,



Any sexual activity is considered the give right of a male…A Muslim woman cannot report being raped because she will be asked to provide four witnesses otherwise she will be accused of committing adultery, and she will be stoned to death.



The scholar Ibn Warraq [6] affirms this “iniquitous situation.” He notes that Koran 24.4 [7] states: “And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony – They indeed are evil-doers.” But Warraq elaborates how this injunction renders women defenseless under misogynistic Islamic Law, past and present:



Muslim jurists will only accept four male witnesses. These witnesses must declare that they have “seen the parties in the very act of carnal conjunction.” Once an accusation of fornication and adultery has been made, the accuser himself or herself risks punishment if he or she does not furnish the necessary legal proofs. Witnesses are in the same situation. If a man were to break into a woman’s dormitory and rape half a dozen women, he would risk nothing since there would be no male witnesses. Indeed the victim of a rape would hesitate before going in front of the law, since she would risk being condemned herself and have little chance of obtaining justice. “If the woman’s words were sufficient in such cases,” explains Judge Zharoor ul Haq of Pakistan, “then no man would be safe.”



Responding to Wafa Sultan’s remarks, Mr. O’Reilly expressed his (uninformed) incredulity regarding the teaching, and example of Islam’s prophet:



I find it hard to believe that the prophet Muhammad would preach a doctrine where any woman can be abused at any time by any Muslim man and be held not accountable.



And Wafa replied, appropriately



You need to get familiar with Muhammad’s life and how he treated women in his life…Don’t forget, Muhammad is the role model for every Muslim man.



Notwithstanding the predictable American Muslim Brotherhood taqiyya O’Reilly is likely to air in the coming days as a “fair and balanced” riposte to Wafa’s irrefragable presentation, some salient details merit review.



What was Muhammad’s “perfect” role model? And what do Islam’s canonical texts, especially the Koran and the hadith (Muhammad’s “guiding” words and deeds as recorded by his pious Muslim companions), opine on these matters?



Using the Koranic “revelation” as justification, Muhammad insists that he is entitled, not simply his own wives, but those captured in battle, and cousins as well, as per Allah’s grant in Koran 33:50 [8].



O Prophet, We have made lawful for thee thy wives whom thou hast given their wages and what thy right hand owns, spoils of war that God has given thee, and the daughters of thy uncles paternal and aunts paternal, thy uncles maternal and aunts maternal, who have emigrated with thee, and any woman believer, if she give herself to the Prophet and if the Prophet desire to take her in marriage, for thee exclusively, apart from the believers — We know what We have imposed upon them touching their wives and what their right hands own — that there may be no fault in thee; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.



Koran 4:24 [9] extends the “privilege” of having sexual intercourse with captured slave women to all Muslim men.



For example, Muhammad and his minions attacked and subdued the prosperous Jewish tribe Banu-Mustaliq in a surprise raid (during 626 A.D.). The Banu al-Mustaliq males were slaughtered and the “booty” included the victims’ women. Juwayriyya, the most beautiful captive and daughter of the leader of the Banu al-Mustaliq was taken as a “bride” for Muhammad himself. The mass rape by “coitus interruptus” of the captured women—as sanctioned by Muhammad—was described in a canonical hadith, thusly:



(Sunan Abu Dawud 2167)—Muhairiz said: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse). Abu Sa’id said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: Can we draw the penis when the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) is among us before asking him about it? So we asked him about it. He said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.”



Moreover, according to modern Western law (for example this Canadian law [10]), statutory rape is sexual intercourse with anyone under the age of 14 — a punishable offense unless both parties are aged within two years of each other, or the accused is aged 12 to 13. Here is how the two most important canonical hadith collections [11] describe Muhammad’s “relationship” with Aisha — their “marriage contract” and its sexual consummation — when the Muslim prophet was some four decades older than his child bride (aged 6-7 at the time of her “marriage”):



Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311 [12]: Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.



Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 [13]: Narrated Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).



Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151 [14]: Narrated Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, who had not yet reached the age of puberty.)



Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5981 [15]: Aisha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.

The Muslim Brotherhood In America, Part III: The Settlement Process

From Human Events--Guns & Patriots:

The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part III--'The Settlement Process'by John Guandolo




03/29/2011





Thus far in our journey towards better understanding the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the United States, we have laid the foundation of their global strategy, their foundational beliefs, and their arrival in the U.S. in the 1960’s. As we have discussed, the Brotherhood established their first organization in 1963 at the University of Illinois in Urbana – the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – and from the MSA, nearly every major Islamic organization in the United States was formed – all MB front groups.



But how did the Brotherhood actually insinuate itself into the fabric of America? How is it possible that today the most prominent Islamic organizations in North America are controlled by the Brotherhood and actually seek to subordinate the individual liberties of Americans (and Canadians) to the slavery of Shariah (Islamic Law)? In Part III of this series, we set out to help clarify the way the MB “settled” here in America. Please note the MB did so with their objectives clearly at the forefront of their minds – (1) re-establish the global Islamic state (Caliphate) and (2) implement Shariah (Islamic Law).



For this exercise I will use two extremely useful Muslim Brotherhood documents. The first is a speech given by Zaid Naman (aka Zeid al Noman), a member of the MB’s Board of Directors and the “Masul” (Leader) of the MB’s Executive Office in the United States. Naman was speaking in the early-1980’s to a group of Muslim Brothers in the U.S. A recording of this speech was discovered in the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia residence of Hamas/MB official Ismail Elbarasse, where the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. were found. The English transcript of this speech was entered into evidence at the US v HLF trial in Dallas 2008 – the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history. This speech is so powerful because this group of Muslim Brothers shared the history and strategy of the Brotherhood here in the U.S. with the expectation their comments would never see the light of day.



The second source is the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic document – An Explanatory Memorandum – dated 1991 and also seized during the Elbarasse raid in 2004. This document was written by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood official in the U.S. at the time, and approved by the MB’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference – the two governing bodies within the MB structure here. (The third part of the MB structure is the “General Masul” or Leader of the MB for the entire U.S.)



Both of these documents were entered into evidence at the HLF trial and stipulated to by the defense, which means they are legally what they purport to be.



As you read this, consider the MB’s entire effort as a massive Influence Operation – or for the professionals, a massive counter-intelligence operations – not “terrorism.”



Naman acknowledges that after the formation of the MSA in the U.S. in the early 1960’s, there was not a lot of organization, and he describes this period as a “Gathering or a grouping for Islam activists without an organizational affiliation.” But the MSA was the center of the activity:



“As for Recruitment in the ranks of this Movement, its main condition was that a brother…must be active in the general activism in the MSA.” As Muslim Brothers came from various countries, they settled in small groups or “usras” (families), sometimes hundreds of miles apart. They were called to recruit other arriving Muslims into the Brotherhood, and do what they could with what they had. The object was to grow these usras into large groups of Muslim Brothers so, eventually, the growing concentric circles of influence covered large areas.



As Naman puts it: “The first generation of Muslim Ikhwans in North America composed of a team which included he who was Ikhwan in his country or he who was a member of the Worshipers of the Merciful Group or he who doesn’t have a direction but who is active in Islamic activism. This was the first point or group which gave or planted the Muslim Brotherhood seed in America.”



By the 1970’s, arriving Brotherhood members were upset with the lack of activism and recruitment in the U.S. by the MB already here. Saudi Muslim Brothers and others came to America and joined the ranks. They demanded clearer commitments and “Ikhwan formulas” of how to accept Muslims into the MB ranks of “this Dawa’a and to make work secret.”



The MB established 5-year plans, the first of which, from 1975-1980 was the period of “General work and dedication to general work organizations.” During this time the Brotherhood went through infighting and turmoil as it sought to organize and agree on strategies and tactics.

By 1980, the Brotherhood emerged with strong leadership and a more focused commitment to the long-term strategy. 1981-1985 was a period of “Regional Planning and Growth.” Over time, the Brotherhood organized regionally in the U.S. and formed “Coordination Councils” which had leadership and committees to begin better organizing their efforts. Plans were developed, and the Brotherhood came up with primary and secondary goals for the Movement at that time.



“The main goals which were approved by the executive office were five…First of all: Strengthening the internal structure; second, administrative discipline; third, recruitment and settlement of the Dawa’a; four, energizing the organizations’ work; five, energizing political work fronts. Also, it adopted eight of the secondary goals on top of which were: finance and investment; second, foreign relations; third, reviving women’s activities; four, political awareness to members of the Group; five, securing the Group; six, special activity; seven, media; eight, taking advantage of human potentials.” (emphasis added)



Later in the Q & A session, Naman is asked about the aforementioned statement. An unidentified Muslim Brother asks, “By ‘Securing the Group’ do you mean military securing?” Naman responds with: “No, Military Work is listed under ‘Special Work.’ Special work means military work. ‘Securing the Group’ is the groups security, the Group’s security against outside dangers. For instance, to monitor the suspicious movements…which exist on the American front such as Zionism and Masonry…etc. Monitoring the suspicious movements or the sides, the government bodies such as CIA, FBI, etc, so that we find out if they are monitoring us, are we not being monitored, how can we get rid of them. That’s what is meant by ‘Securing the Group.’”



The aforementioned comment needs little reinforcement, except to add that inherent to the MB structure is the “Special Section” which conducts “special activity” or activity more commonly known to us as “terrorism.” This includes assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, etc. And that’s what makes it “Special Work.”



Additionally, during the speech Naman mentions the differences between Muslim Brothers coming to the U.S. from various nations, and how difficult it is in those nations to partake in certain activities. He offers one pertinent example for us: “…if the asking brother is from Jordan, for instance, he would know that it is not possible to have military training in Jordan, for instance, while here in America, there is weapons training at many of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) camps…”



When later asked by an apparently irritated Brother as to why some Brothers in the U.S. get weapons training and others do not, Naman responds with, “By God, the first thing is that you thank God and praise him because you found a camp to meet in. You know that, for instance, Oklahoma has become a blocked area for you. You cannot meet in it in the first place right? …My brothers, according to what I learned in Oklahoma they started to be strict about letting Muslims use the camps. They would ask them, for instance, to submit their name and would ask you to bring and ID or something to prove your name…In some of the regions when they go to a camp, they take two things, they would request a camp that has a range, a shooting range and one which has a range to shoot, one which has a range which they use for shooting. You would find that in some of the camps.”



These comments by Naman are in line with the MB’s “Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan,” a five phase plan to overthrow the United States which includes the comment under Phase IV: “Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.”



Interestingly, Naman assesses that the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts in the U.S. – and the West – are more cohesive than elsewhere in the world. “Except in America and in Europe, we do not find unified movements which work in that way, to be able to try to melt all of the Ikhwans (Muslim Brothers’) experiences into one pot…under one umbrella…Here in America we find the practical application for this…idea which is the Group’s unity in one movement.”



Just prior to this speech, in early 1981, the MB created the Shura Council here in the United States whose role is “planning and monitoring executive (MB) leadership.” “The current Shura Council came on board to finish what its brothers started on the span of the past seven years to lead this Group to new horizons, God willing, keeping its eyes on huge goals among which is the settlement of this Group.”



“By ‘settlement of the Dawa’a’, the Muslim Brotherhood Dawa’a is meant.”



Dawa’a is the “call to Islam.” In Muslim Brotherhood doctrine, this Dawa’a is the process by which the MB works to achieve its primary objectives. It is the foundation for the “Settlement Process.”



Per their strategic document, the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement in North America are: (1) Establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood; (2) Adopting Muslim causes domestically and globally; (3) Expanding the observant Muslim base; (4) Unifying and directing Muslim efforts; (5) Presenting Islam as a civilization alternative; (6) Supporting the establishment of the Islamic State wherever it is.

Furthermore, this strategic document states: “It must be stressed that it has become clear and emphatically known that all is in agreement that we must “settle” or “enable” Islam and its Movement in this part of the world. Therefore, a joint understanding of the meaning of the word settlement or enablement must be adopted.”



“The Concept of Settlement…Settlement: That Islam and its Movement become a part of the homeland it lives in.”



“The Process of Settlement: In order for Islam to become ‘a part of the homeland’ in which it lives…the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain ‘the keys’ and the tools of this process in carry (sic) out this grand mission as a “Civilization Jihadist” responsibility which lies on the shoulders of the Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.”

Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:



The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.



Putting It Into Practice



The above paragraph IS the MB strategy. Civilization-Jihad “by their hands” – OUR hands. The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for destroying the United States is to get us, specifically our leadership, to do the bidding of the MB for them. The Muslim Brotherhood intends to conduct Civilization Jihad by co-opting our leadership into believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby coercing these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates. Be assured they are doing this with great success.



Political, military, law enforcement, media, and religious leaders are being duped across America by the MB leadership. The approach tactics differ depending on the targeted organization – ie for media the approach may be a “civil rights” basis, while for Christian leaders it will be based on the Muslims’ claiming they are “also followers of Jesus” without the explanation that to the Muslims, Jesus was a Muslim prophet.



Here is how it works: a leader of an MB front, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for

instance, who has been a Muslim Brother for 40 years, is a classically trained intelligence officer from a foreign nation, has been in the U.S. for 20+ years, and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, approaches a senior government official (usually with zero counterintelligence training). The Muslim Brother says he is from the largest and “most prominent Muslim organization in America” or words to that effect. He explains he has come to help the official discern fact from fiction about Islam and help deter “radicalization” as well as “Islamaphobia” in the local community. The Brother says he has experience in “building bridges” between the U.S. government and the Muslim community, and even produces photographs with other senior government officials and community leaders. The official, unaware ISNA is a MB and Hamas support entity, an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest successfully prosecuted Hamas case in U.S. history, and the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement here, begins working with this Muslim Brotherhood leader. They have discussions in the government office building where the senior official works, and the Muslim Brother tells the official ISNA is “moderate” (because he says so) but if he or any of the Muslims at ISNA hear of any “radicals” in the area, they will be sure to let the official know. They also talk about the Brother’s concern about how “aggressive” the U.S. government is perceived in the local Muslim community, and the “fear of backlash” against them. “We want to help you,” the Hamas/MB leader will say, “but we need assurances from you that you will not unnecessarily target Muslims for investigation or go into our Mosques unannounced. In exchange, we will be sure to tell you if there is anything nefarious going on in the Muslim community.” The government official buys off on this and, in the interest of deepening the relationship with the Muslim and the community-at-large, the government official complies with the MB’s request and eases off. The two men have lunch weekly and develop a relationship – the government official thinks the Muslim Brother actually likes him. The Muslim Brother is actually quite likeable. He was trained to be “likeable” during his counterintelligence training in his home country, which he has perfected during his last 40 years of operating for many of those years in hostile countries before coming to the U.S.



Over time, the government official establishes policies and procedures based the advice given to him by the Muslim Brother, which the official has never backstopped to determine if it is factually accurate. A year later, evidence comes to light identifying the Muslim Brother and the true nature of his intentions. The government official must now make a choice. Does he cut off his relationship with his “Muslim friend” and, therefore, admit he was duped and created policies and procedures for his agency based on disinformation fed to him by a Muslim Brother? Or does he silence his subordinates who have brought facts forward clearly identifying the enemy? Sad to say, around the country today, the latter is occurring at a exponentially higher rate than the former.



This is Civilization-Jihad “by their hands,” and evidence of it can be seen in: our universities – many of which have MSA chapters and host Hamas and MB speakers on a regular basis with the support of university Presidents and Boards who silence students challenging the school or Hamas; our intelligence and national security apparatus where analysts and agents on the ground who understand the Muslim Brotherhood threat are disciplined, subject to internal investigations, and threatened with termination for doing their jobs, going after the MB, and speaking up about this threat; our war colleges – at which Muslim Brothers serve as Distinguished Professors or Chairs of Middle Eastern studies programs and pollute the dialogue and suppress any attempt to speak truth into the threats from the Islamic Movement; our financial institutions – many of which are “Shariah Compliant” per the MB’s request and at the direction of the U.S. Treasury Department; our churches and synagogues – which only seem to outreach to Muslim Brotherhood front groups (note: ISNA is the certifying authority for all Muslim Chaplains in DoD and in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons) and which join the MB in protests against government investigations of anything “Muslim” or “Islamic” (e.g. Congressman King hearings); and the list goes on.



The MB Settled in America to subordinate the Constitution to Shariah. The “Process” by which they did it is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process.” Their methodology is to subvert the primary/foundational institutions in our nation and co-opt our leadership. At a quick glance it appears the score at halftime of this football game is 200-0 in their favor. Time for us to take off the baseball uniforms and engage the MB on the football field.







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

Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a former active duty Infantry/Reconnaissance Officer in the United States Marine Corps, and a former Special Agent of the FBI in Washington, D.C. for over 12 years. He currently advises the government on a variety of issues.



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

The Brotherhood Wants To Islamize Modernity, Not To Moderize Islam

From Winds of Jihad:

Bat Ye’or: The Brotherhood wants to Islamize modernity, not to modernize Islam


by sheikyermami on March 27, 2011



Isn’t that what Tariq Ramadan wants also?



The Muslim Brotherhood is Poised to Take Power in Egypt



Proudly brought to you by the Manchurian Moonbat Hussein Obama, Muslim thug-in chief





Of course our learned analysts and the gushers from the enemedia know better and never cease to beat the drum for the ‘uprising for freedom and democracy’. The reality is that Islam will rule and everything else will take a backseat.



The Islamization of Modernity by Bat Ye’or (via GoV)



The well-known author and anti-jihad activist Bat Ye’or — a native of Egypt — was interviewed at the Norwegian website Document.no about the recent upheavals in Egypt and the political prospects there for the Muslim Brotherhood.



Related:



Mark Steyn: Do-gooders in a land with no good guys

French, Russian Leaders Faulted for Using the Word ‘Crusade’ (perhaps we should call it ‘blood for oil’- or ‘defending Al Qaeda’ instead?)

Libyan Rebel Leader Thanks Sarkozy: Now Please Get Lost

Now They Tell Us… Gates Says Libya “Posed No Threat – Was Not Vital National Interest to Intervene”

Libyan Rebels to Reporter: “Now Is the Time of Jihad!”

Many thanks to Cecilie for translating the interview, and to Tundra Tabloids for posting it. Some excerpts are below:





Bat Ye’or: The Brotherhood wants to Islamize modernity, not to modernize Islam



Q: Bat Ye’or, thank you for letting Document.no. interview you. There has recently been a revolution in your native country, Egypt. Everybody was apparently surprised by the fall of Mubarak’s regime. Were you surprised too?



A: Yes, of course.



Q: Few commentators seem to have any clear idea of where the road leads to for Egypt. The subsequent future events compared with both the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the revolution in Iran in 1979. Where do you think the country is heading now?



A: We are on the way to the end, I fear, for the Muslim Brotherhood is the only well-organized and structured movement with clear objectives and an international power base. It also seems that it has almost unlimited access to financing. I am of the opinion that any comparison with Western revolution is meaningless, because we are dealing with a Shariah society that works within a political view of reality that rejects the foundation of our own. I have also noticed with great sadness that the attacks and murders of Copts have increased.



Q: Foreign correspondents in Egypt say that the protesters’ anger was a cry for justice, and they recognized that there was something genuinely positive in the uprising. But the most cautious would add that this is not something upon which to build a community, given that it is easier to unite against someone than it is to find the way forward together. Can all this youthful energy have some positive impact, or is it disorganized?



A: I agree with the correspondent’s point of view. But democracy, freedom, jobs and justice can only be developed if you develop the right institutions and have a grasp of the economy. Egypt is a poor country with more than 80 million inhabitants, of whom a large percentage are illiterate who cannot cope with the challenges of the 21st century. I do not doubt the abilities of the academic and educated elite, but the social problems are so huge. The general trend towards a more traditionally religious society based on the Koran will also not contribute to modernization.





Q: Do the Egyptian masses want democracy in any meaningful sense of the word, or do they lack a clear understanding of what it is all about?



A: They surely want democracy, but when you listen to what they have to say, it seems they think there is something tangible that they can grasp and carry, and not an abstract idea that needs time and requires effort from the entire nation to be accomplished. Democracy is not just majority rule. It involves a politically independent judiciary, equal rights for all — including non-Muslims and non-Arab minorities such as Kurds, Assyrians, and Berbers — and freedom of expression and acceptance of pluralism and criticism. But all this is forbidden both in Sharia law and in the Cairo Declaration of 1990 on human rights in Islam. In order to achieve democracy, one must first eliminate the Sharia.



Q: Professor Bernard Lewis says that there is something in the Muslim tradition that is vaguely reminiscent of democracy; in other words these consultative groups consisting of key people, clan leaders etc. Is such a corporate model the best you could hope for?



A: Such meetings, in which unelected tribal leaders make decisions have nothing whatsoever to do with a modern democracy as we know it.



Q: The Copts were not particularly satisfied with the election of the leader of the constitutional committee. Do you fear that the constitutional amendments will pave the way for the Brotherhood?



A: As early as 1971 the Egyptian Constitution’s Article 2 specified that “the Islamic legal principles is one of the main sources of legislation.” This rule was strengthened on 30 April 1980, when Parliament changed it to Sharia being the main source of legislation. Egypt has kept many Islamic laws: polygamy, discrimination against women, lack of recognition of the Baha’i as a religion, punishment for apostasy and blasphemy, as well as restrictions on Christian religious and civil rights. I am sure that the Brotherhood influence will give the Christians as well as the liberal Muslims an even harder life if they (the Brotherhood) enter the parliament. In addition there will be no democracy without full recognition of Israel’s rights in its historic homeland, or unless the ideology of jihad against non-Muslims ceases.



Q: Is there a danger that they can win big at an early election?

"Koran Burning Is Terrorism"--Killing Un-Believers Is A Command From Allah, So You can't Blame The World's Muslims

From Winds of Jihad:

“Koran Burning is Terrorism”- Killing Unbelievers is a Command From Allah so You Can’t Blame the Worlds 1.5 Gazillion Muslims….


by sheikyermami on March 27, 2011



…….because they’re only following their religion. Right?



Where is Condi clueless Rice when you need her?



“Disrespect for the holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States,” she said. “We honor the sacred books of all the world’s great religions. Disrespect for the Holy Koran is abhorrent to us all.”







OIC to convey strong condemnation of Qur’an-burning to UN Secretary General, demand UN action against free speech



Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN condemned “this reprehensible act” as “the work of extremists.” He didn’t mean, of course, any of the recent jihad attacks or plots. What he had in mind was the burning of the Qur’an in Florida, which, as you can see in this story, the OIC is exploiting to renew its jihad against the freedom of speech in the West. The OIC is bent on compelling Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam, which will criminalize any honest examination of the ways in which jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to recruit for jihad among peaceful Muslims, thus preempting the formulation of any effective strategy to counter that use.



“OIC to ‘send’ strong condemnation,” from the Paki Daily Mail (full post below the fold)



Strange that we never send any “strong condemnations” for burning our flags and telling us they want to kill us all, don’t you think?



UN Human Rights Council adopts resolution against religious discrimination, OIC thrilled



Contemptible. Using taxpayers money to work against us, enabling our enemy to shut down freedom of speech:



No one supports actual religious discrimination, but the OIC is dedicated to quashing all honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism under this rubric. Hence their happy reaction to this resolution. More on this story. “OIC commends resolution on religious discrimination,” from Arab News, March 26: UN Yuman Rites used to make you submit to Islam



Islamic ambassadors to Vatican demand Vatican condemnation of Qur’an-burning



So the pope is now responsible when someone burns a dirty book?



Terry Jones is neither a priest nor a Catholic, but the Islamic Republic’s Ahlul Bayt News Agency cannot be expected to have mastered the intricacies of Christian sectarianism. But note in any case that we have never seen such outrage and indignation from Islamic ambassadors or any other Muslims regarding any of the jihad terror attacks and plots against non-Muslims in the U.S. or Europe. These so-called “hijackings” of their peaceful faith never seem to move them to this kind of outrage. Note also that the ambassadors are trying to use this incident to attempt yet again to restrict the West’s freedom of speech regarding Islam, jihad and Islamic supremacism.



“Islamic countries ambassadors to Vatican condemn insult to Holy Quran,” from the Ahlul Bayt News Agency





NEW YORK – Reposing complete confidence in Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, the OIC decided that the Ambassador of Pakistan along with Ambassadors of Tajiskistan (OIC chair), Morocco (OIC Coordinator for Human Rights), Iran and Egypt would meet with the UN Secretary General to convey OIC’s strong condemnation and ask him to take the lead towards promoting inter-faith harmony.



It was decided in OIC ambassadorial meeting which convened here the other day to discuss the recent desecration of the Holy Quran in Florida last week.



The meeting approved the proposals of Ambassador Haroon and his Iranian counterpart that OIC Chair and Observer Mission will draft a strong condemnatory letter on behalf of OIC with the assistance of Pakistan and Morocco to be sent to the UN Secretary General, President UN General Assembly, High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) with the request to circulate it as an official document….



Reiterating the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari’s clear expression of sentiments of the people and extreme provocation and seriousness of the issue, and his call to the United Nations to take immediate action on the subject, Ambassador Haroon the first Speaker from the member states voiced strong condemnation of this sacrilegious act.



He assured that Pakistan would continue playing its active and constructive role in promoting inter-faith harmony and peaceful co-existence.



On March 22, Ambassador Haroon had written a letter to the UN Secretary General, where he drawn UN attention towards this despicable act of desecration of the Holy Quran by Wayne Sapp and Terry Jones in Florida.



He voiced Pakistan’s profound regret and deep concern at the increasing acts of “Islamophobia and growing trend of intolerance and hatred towards Muslims as well as insults to their religious symbols and personalities”.



The letter further said, “While this reprehensible act is the work of extremists and is evidently designed to provoke dissent and discord among communities and peoples across the world, such sacrilegious acts also go against the very concept of inter-faith harmony and threaten the multicultural fabric of the societies and the brotherhood of the United Nations”.



The Ambassador urged the United Nations to play its important role in ensuring peace and harmony among peoples of the world. He said Pakistan has full confidence in the UN’s leadership and hoped that it would take all steps to fight such tendencies and promote intercultural and inter-faith harmony that is basic to coexistence of mankind.



Recalling Pakistan’s initiative on Interfaith Dialogue and participation in the Alliance of Civilization, Ambassador Haroon stated that Pakistan has always stood for promoting peace and harmony among people and nations of the world.



He regretted that while OIC has always supported peace initiatives in all regions of the world including tolerant and constructive engagement during last year’s Islamophobic incidents i.e. threats to burn the Quran and opposition to construction of Islamic Center in New York, attacks on Islam, its symbols and holy personalities continue unabated.



The Ambassador proposed that the OIC group should write a letter to the UN Secretary General (UNSG) asking him to issue a strong condemnatory statement and take concrete action to protect multiculturalism and promote peace and harmony in the world….



sheikyermami March 27, 2011 at 10:21 pm


A civilisation of narcissists



I wouldn’t call it ‘civilization’- these criminal aggressors never had what it takes to build what we call civilization:



By Khaled Ahmed



Muslims seem to be blind to non-Muslim emotions; they are civilisationally inward-looking, but only go into denial when taxed with blame from the outside. If Muslims kill non-Muslims, they seem strangely unconcerned; when Muslims kill Muslims, as in Sudan, they turn their eyes away. It is only when non-Muslims kill Muslims, that they wake up and start complaining and pointing to their general state of victimhood. In his book Tehzeebi Nargisiyat (Sanjh Publications Lahore, 2009), Mobarak Haider goes into the minutiae of collective Muslim narcissism and examines all their overt and hidden postures, and comes up with a key to the understanding of the Muslim mind.

Haider says if you think Muslim isolationism and pride are of recent date, you are mistaken; Muslims have always been like that. It is their understanding of Islam that permits extreme posturing, while at the same time giving them the rhetoric of peace that no one takes seriously. If a Muslim terrorist kills another Muslim, the unthinking verdict is that the killer couldn’t be a Muslim or he wouldn’t have done it. Yet the bitter truth is that despite all their aggressive strutting, Muslims are busy killing Muslims all over the world. When they travel abroad and are treated with fear and loathing at international airports, they pocket their narcissism and suffer in silence. Strangely, pride doesn’t recommend refusal to migrate.

Author Haider bases this narcissism on the way Muslims absorb the following tenets of their faith: 1) Islam is a complete code of life and offers solutions to all problems; 2) Every edict of Islam is eternal and applicable to all times; 3) Islam is the only truth and any other competing truth must mould itself according to Islam or be ready to be suppressed; 4) Muslims are under obligation to make Islam the supreme religion of the world as other religions are jahiliyya; 5) Muslims are the foremost nation in the world and the only one that will be allowed into Heaven; 6) Action taken to subjugate other civilisations is jihad and not terrorism.

There are other ‘collective’ illusions contained in the edicts that follow: 7) Violence is interpreted as jihad, but then jihad is supposed to be the personal obligation of Muslims and not the state; 8) Any deviation from the prevailing dogma is non-belief or kufr; in more mitigating conditions, it is at least heresy; 9) The best knowledge is knowledge of religion and the ulema are the best among men, which means that no one can think about religion on his own; 10) No one can become a scholar of Islam except by accepting the dogma and obeying the edicts of tradition.

The Taliban are the climax of the journey of blind dismissal of the world outside the Muslim self. The idea is to rule the world not through acquisition of knowledge but through the use of the sword. The Taliban are the symbol of Pakistan’s recession into the self in the face of modern challenges. The biggest self-destructive vice that springs from this is uniformity of thinking or yaksaniyat (p.62).

Pakistan in its official and unofficial mythology claims that superpower Russia was defeated by the Taliban; and superpower America, too, will now be defeated by the Taliban, a glory in which Muslims of the world will indirectly participate. Corrupt politicians returning from the fleshpots of Europe, where they have just spent a part of the wealth gouged from Pakistan, complain that the West has lost its spiritual values and is now looking beseechingly at the Muslims as an agency of the revival of the western soul.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 27th, 2011.

Eurabia Slides Into Dhimmitude

From Winds of Jihad:

EUrabia Slides Into Dhimmitude


by sheikyermami on March 27, 2011



Friedrich Submits

German minister affirms that Muslims belong in Germany



Ahead of a conference of Islam leaders on Tuesday in Germany, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich distanced himself from previous comments by saying Muslims ‘belong to this society.’ (Craven Dhimmi)

‘Euromed’ Mass Migration



Arabs warn Euro-dhimmies to fulfill their obligations



Who in his right mind would sign up to a treaty that will result in your destruction?



Amazing that all these Arab welfare seekers know ‘their rights’ and that Eurodhimmies don’t have any. Europeans reduced to serving the new masters in their own countries? But of course……



Muslims Take Over a Europe Afraid to Open Its Eyes



In a Europe where Islam is the fastest-growing religion, and where the number of Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years, Europe’s Muslim lobby is becoming increasingly assertive and skilled at pressuring European policy-makers into implementing countless pro-Islamic policies, especially ones that institutionalize Islamic Sharia law. Muslim lobby groups are, in fact, transforming European society in ways unimaginable only a few years ago; critics say their ultimate goal is nothing less than the Islamification of Europe. (source)



The UK is like the Titanic, only bigger:



Spencer: The Inquisition of Melanie Phillips



In FrontPage this morning I discuss the latest challenge to the freedom of speech in Britain:



Last week British columnist Melanie Phillips wrote a blogpost at the Spectator entitled “Armchair barbarism,” discussing the brutal jihad murders of the Fogel family in Israel. Her references to the “moral depravity” of the Arab “savages” who committed the crime have gotten her in hot water with Britain’s hyper-PC Press Complaints Commission, which has launched an investigation.Phillips is being investigated, ironically enough, for writing that “the moral depravity of the Arabs,” as she chose to term the murderers of the Fogels and those in Gaza who celebrated those murders, “is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media.” And as if on cue, the watchdog organization in Britain of that liberal media swooped down upon her.



Melanie Phillips discusses her use of the term, ‘savages’ for which she is being investigated





thanks to Vlad Tepes





The irony was compounded by a further statement in Phillips’ column: “Overwhelmingly, the media have either ignored or downplayed the atrocity – or worse, effectively blamed the victims for bringing it on themselves, describing them as ‘hard-line settlers’ or extremists.” In this case, however, they were not blaming the victim, but blaming the columnist who spoke forthrightly about the nature of the murderers.



After the column was published, the P.C. Commission received two complaints about it: one from Engage, a group that is dedicated to advancing Muslim participation in British society, and from one of Britain’s most prominent Muslim leaders, Inayat Bunglawala, the chairman of Muslims4UK. Bunglawala fumed that Phillips’ words “went far beyond just denouncing the killings. It was a far more generalised racist outburst against Arabs as a whole.”



Ignoring the fact that Arab Muslims commit jihad terror attacks on a virtually daily basis, and that there is no equivalent among Jews, Bunglawala claimed that “if you insert the word ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’ where she has referred to Arabs then I am sure she would have no doubt that those words would be antisemitic. Just as she abhors antisemitism it is important that she maintains the same vigorous anti-racist stance against Arabs. It is just unacceptable to use that kind of language.”



Yet Bunglawala and Engage were ignoring one undeniable fact: the Islamic jihadists who murdered the Fogel family were savages, as were those who celebrated their murders in Gaza. I would say this while standing in the middle of Trafalgar Square, and if Britain’s PC Commission had any residual sense of shame, it would drop its investigation of Phillips immediately….



There is more.

The Failure To Tell Right From Wrong: The Possible Collapse Of Western Civilization

From Winds of Jihad:

The Failure to tell Right from Wrong: The Possible Collapse of Western Civilization


by sheikyermami on March 28, 2011



This is a must read:

A culture of celebrating life and freedom and Justice is Right; A culture celebrating death and totalitarianism, injustice, and abuse is Wrong

By Howard Rotberg



I am convinced that Western liberal democratic civilization will fall, not because of conquest from outside it, but because its citizenry has ceased understanding right from wrong.



Cultural and moral relativism, political correctness and moral equivalency are the signs that our intellectual elites, in universities and media, predominantly, are confused over the most elementary questions of right versus wrong.



The idea that those who are less powerful can censor the speech of those who are more powerful was recently articulated by an Assistant Professor of Education, named Ozlem Sensoy, at Canada’s Simon Fraser University. Remember, this is a professor who teaches those who will soon be teaching our elementary and high school students. And remember, these remarks were specifically about justification of mob rule in censoring free speech, but her arguments can be used (and are being used) by those who would restrict the rest of liberal freedoms.



Related:



Media Matters to Launch Campaign of ‘Guerrilla Warfare and Sabotage’ Against Fox News

Wade Rathke’s Startling Admission: ‘Economic Terrorism’ Engineer Stephen Lerner Is Still on SEIU Payroll

PETA: Hey, Let’s Change Bible to Include More Animal Friendly Language! Faith



In response to students at the University of Ottawa preventing a speech by conservative columnist Ann Coulter, Sensoy congratulated the students who, in her opinion “embody the spirit of student activism.” She castigated those who sought to uphold Coulter’s freedom to give a speech because Sensoy says they “fail to acknowledge and understand … the social concept of power”. This moral relativist managed to turn the notion of freedom on its head by arguing that:



“The ‘isms’ words (racism, sexism, anti-semitism) refer to power relationships that are historic and embedded, and these relationships do not flip back and forth. The same groups that have historically held power in the U.S. and Canada continue to do so.”



(Can you believe that Sensoy actually thinks that power relationships never change and are embedded? Would not Obama’s election in the U.S. indicate a substantial change in power relationships?)



And so this teacher of our future teachers argues that allegations of the need for free speech seem to “ surface when there is a need to stifle speech that challenges social power (which is what the U of Ottawa students were doing, challenging the inequitable social power relations that Coulter’s “speech” upheld).”



So Coulter’s speech is not protected, but the speech of those deemed to be “marginalized” and lacking power, is to be protected.



But who decides who is deemed powerful and who is deemed marginalized? Sensoy doesn’t say it explicitly, but this Turkish-born cultural relativist implies that it is only intellectually enlightened people like her who can decide which is which – and which have the right to free speech. And so in Canada we have Human Rights Commissions which use this same approach to decide which speech is protected and which is not.



This manner of thinking is even more developed in England where the great columnist Melanie Philips is being attacked because one of her blogposts on the Spectator website referred to the “moral depravity” of Arab “savages”. She is being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission.



The online comment piece, headlined “Armchair barbarism”, focused on media coverage of the murder of five members of a Jewish family in the West Bank town of Itamar by Palestinian militants earlier this month. Phillips dared to frame the issue as one of right versus wrong, morality versus moral depravity:



“The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American ‘liberal’ media,” wrote Phillips.



“Overwhelmingly, the media have either ignored or downplayed the atrocity – or worse, effectively blamed the victims for bringing it on themselves, describing them as ‘hard-line settlers’ or extremists.



Phillips criticized the New York Times, one of the many left-liberal media who portray the slaughter of Jewish babies as just another part of the “cycle of violence” which on the Israeli side tends to be more about what response should be made to the use of rockets and suicide bombing by Palestinians in lieu of negotiations. Israeli children then deserve to be slaughtered, according to this line of thinking, because the Israelis are, after Gaza, rightly afraid of giving up more land to such “savages” who will have it easier to intentionally target civilians. This immoral, yes immoral, line of thinking equates murder of a 3 month old baby with the Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which (it can surely be argued) it is legally and morally entitled (but which it has expressed the willingness many times to give up some parts of in return for a final settlement where Palestinians would recognize the rights of Israel as a Jewish state in the otherwise Muslim Middle East.)



In the law of defamation in Canada and most liberal countries, the truth of the statement complained of is an absolute defence to damages for defamation. It is high time that in the name of morality and justice, we judge our journalists on the truth of their words, and not on how they might offend some groups claiming victim status ormarginalization or the need to correct what they allege are power inequities “embedded” in some part of our culture.



Multiculturalism should mean the right of all ethnic groups and religions to live in peace in our society as long as they accept our basic cultural values such as our fundamental freedoms. The popular radio commentator Dennis Prager has articulated America’s values as being the phrases inscribed on American coins: E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One), In God We Trust, and Liberty.



It would be appropriate for more people to discuss what are the fundamental values of liberal societies and how we should encourage those societies struggling to implement liberal values, rather than supporting a rogue’s gallery of fascistic nations. Poor Barack Obama, he who preached in Cairo that Arab nations like Egypt have the same commitment to tolerance and justice as Americans do – and then had to sit by in a daze as Egyptians demonstrated against the existing regime, and in favour of – well who knows?



Poor Barack Obama, who was certain that aiding the Green revolution in Iran against the apocalyptic, nuclear-arming Iranians, would be seen as “meddling”, but who is now participating in bombing in Libya, without any knowledge of who the rebels are, is clearly out of his league. May I suggest that without a clear set of values, beyond “tolerance” and denying American “exceptionalism”, it is most difficult to frame a cogent foreign policy? You might end up, like Obama, on the side of Radical Islam, and its Iranian-supported Muslim Brotherhood-influenced cohorts, when it comes to Egypt, Iran and Libya, and reluctant to criticize Palestinian terrorism in any way, at the same time you implore American Jews to exert pressure on Israel.



Radical feminists who hate Israel and love Islamic states that oppress women, gay rights groups that hate a nation that features gay rights parades and a military in which gays serve openly, and then support Muslims who kill and torture gays (or, like Ahmadinejad, argue that there are no gays in Iran), all need to look at their fundamental premises of what is right and wrong in this world.



At the same time as our Universities pathetically hosted hatefests called Israel Apartheid Week (which do not pass the minimum standards of accuracy that should entitle them to use university facilities), Israel was busy showing those willing to look, just how a moral nation behaves:



While the relatives of the murdered Fogel Family of Itamar were still in the seven-day mourning period for the “savage”, “barbaristic” butchering of 5 members of one family by members of a culture that features anti-Jewish incitement in their education system, media and mosques, Israel showed its character: An Arab woman from a nearby village, was delivering a baby which had the umbilical chord wrapped around its neck. Her family sent her by cab to the nearby Jewish town of Itamar, where Israeli medics were proud to save mother and baby, who the grateful family named “Jude”.

A lovely video is available on the internet telling the story of how Israel has helped a young Haitian man, who lost his leg in the earthquake. This was particularly sad because he made his living as a talented dancer. Israeli doctors, who were among the first to get operating theatres up and running after the earthquake, took the young man back to Israel where they gave him a prosthesis and physical therapy that has resulted in him resuming his dancing career!

Israel has Arab members of the Knesset, on its Supreme Court, and in its diplomatic corps. The Druze Arabs, who agree to support the state and serve in its army, have even had a Deputy Prime Minister from among their community in Israel. Abbas, (who wrote a thesis while studying in Communist Russia denying the Holocaust) of the Palestinian Authority has vowed that not one Jew shall be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state, at the same time as he calls for a “right” of return for all of the descendants of the approximately 750,000 Arabs who left Israel during the War of Independence, when Israel was attacked on all sides by Arab neighbours who were opposed to the United Nations partition of the land between Jewish and Arab states. Approximately the same number of Jews were ejected from intolerant Arab nations such as Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Yemen even though they had lived there for thousands of years. Israel of course took them all in. Most left-wing analyses of the Israel-Arab conflict do not bother to mention this fact.

Israel, after due judicial process, just sentenced former president Moshe Katsav to seven years in prison for rape. In the Arab world, it is almost unheard of for a man to be tried for rape; unfortunately it is far more common for the woman to incur criminal sanction (such as stoning to death or permitted honour killing) for bringing dishonour to her family. Why have the Leftists abandoned review of human rights in a legal system as a basic form of morality? The answer unfortunately is that right and wrong are the first victims of cultural relativism. When CBS reporter Lara Logan learned first hand about the culture of rape in Arab countries, it was her very own news organization that feared publicizing what was already known on the internet, and this fear to me has more to do with offending the perpetrators than protecting the victim.

Obama is not the first western leader to act with undue hostility to the Jewish State. Certainly, the selfish needs of the West for Arab oil have governed their policies. But that does not make those policies moral. It just makes the proponents of favouring corrupt Arab regimes who, above all, hurt their own people, look like the hyprocrites they are.



Even the Queen of England has besmirched a throne that need the respect of its subjects. Instead, while Britain tolerates Shariah law and no-go areas for Christians and Jews, this long serving monarch who has undertaken some 250 official visits to approximately 130 countries, has never visited Israel, nor has any member of the Royal Family made an official visit to Israel. Long before the international BDS (boycott, divestiture and sanctions) movement was organized, her Majesty, was carrying out a Boycott against Israel (it is unclear whether there is an unwritten policy of the British Foreign Office in this regard; all the more hideous is a boycott whose proponents will not even expose it to the debate which occurs with formulating written policy.)



What is so difficult in determining right and wrong when it comes to Israel’s policy against the Iranian-backed terrorist organizations (whose charters call for genocide against the Jews) who send unprovoked rockets and missiles against Israeli civilians? Why does Israel alone among the nations of the liberal world get criticized for “disproportionality”, when after months and months of taking civilian casualties from Hamas or Hezbollah, it strikes back to remove the infrastructure supporting the rockets?



The great columnist for the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, wrote during the 2006 Hezbollah war:



“The perversity of today’s international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.



The concept of “proportionality” has never been applied to other Western nations. Like the concepts adopted by the anti-Israel left, the concepts and the subversions of language applied to Israel show nothing so much as an abandonment of traditional Judeo-Christian ethics in an effort to appease radical Islam.



Islam has many theological problems that it will have to solve before it can hope to be called a “religion of peace.” Why call it a religion of peace when the Hadith (a record of the sayings of Mohammed) says: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”



I am the son of a Holocaust survivor. My father lost his parents and then eight year old sister in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. I have degrees in History and Law from the University of Toronto (which last year, during the U of T’s hosting of Israel Apartheid Week, I returned to the University in protest and shame). After 40 years of the study of History, I am convinced that the moral measure of a society is how it treats its Jews, or now, how it treats the Jewish Homeland. Obviously, I find current international culture to be sorely lacking in this regard.



Why is it that our politicians and media cannot simply point out that the United Nations is a farce and should be reorganized as it has become a tool for third world, largely Islamofascist governments to concentrate most of their resolutions on Israel and not address any illegal acts by any Arab countries, any NGOs or any terror organizations. Giving Kofi Annan a Nobel Prize does not transform something that is Evil into something that is Good. Annan was the UN official who refused Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, commanding the UN force in Rwanda, another 3000 troops that Dallaire said could prevent the Rwandan genocide. In a moral world those who assist in genocide should be put on trial, not given Nobel prizes.



Not only do Palestinians send their children to die, but they celebrate their death as long as they have killed lots of Jews in a suicide bombing. Not only did Palestinians attack the Israeli sports team at the Munich Olympics, but those terrorists who survived, were welcomed as heroes by Gaddafi’s Libya.



Fabrication of events are common – from the supposed Jenin massacre to the al-Dura staged and false murder. There have been staged funerals where the supposed deceased gets up and walks away. There is the denial of unequivocal historical and archeological evidence of Jews living in Israel centuries before there was such a thing as a Palestinian people. Liars, lovers of death, abusers of women, haters of liberty, these are a people who reject everything beautiful in this life and instead embrace a culture of death, that prevents their own people from moving forward by adopting a blamology focused on Jews.



A country that embraces life, beauty, Justice, medical and scientific advances is shunned. Yasr Arafat who was driven out of Jordan was nevertheless made into a saint by Bill Clinton and the American media.



Fortunately, my country, Canada, is one of the few countries in the world where mainstream politicians are unafraid to stand up proudly for what is right (even though the media and the universities are as hostile to Israel as in many European countries).



The Government’s House Leader, John Baird, and an opposition Liberal MP, Joe Volpe, both recently spoke at a Carleton University event, which was a bipartisan response to perennial Israeli Apartheid Week demonstrations.



“Israel’s values are Canada’s values,” Volpe said, and his statement was supported by Baird when he added that slurring Israel with an apartheid label “is really an attack on Canadian society and Canadian values.”



Volpe called the smear campaign “offensive” and identified it as an attempt to foreclose debate by intimidating those with opposing views, while Baird called this misapplication of “apartheid” an abuse of free speech with no basis in reality and delegitimizing Israel its only goal.



Can one imagine Barack Obama making such statements?



People who place rockets and other military installations in the middle of, or close to, civilian residences are evil people. When they use those rockets hundreds of times against civilians they must expect that a democratic nation protecting its people must try to knock out those rockets. They must expect that even a country like Israel, that takes extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties, will end up killing some civilians. Anyone who is offended by that should speak out against Hamas and Hezbollah placing their rockets and other military hardware in such places. Instead, such papers as the New York Times reserve their indignation for the liberal democratic country. Even worse, they tend not to show photos of intentionally murdered Israeli civilians like the Fogel family from Itamar, but assist in Palestinian propaganda by well publicizing the images of dead Palestinians. I believe that a high school student knows that this is wrong and I also believe that by the time that high school student finishes a university journalism program he has been convinced that it is right. Wrong has been made into right.



We should especially be concerned about what is being taught to Education students and Journalism students. When Good is banished from our schools and our media and when fewer and fewer people are attending church and synagogue and getting the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic there, we have a major problem. It does not seem that difficult to me to know what are Good values. But in an education system that pretends to be “value-free”, a whole generation of people will have a harder time. To me, these are good values:



fundamental constitutional freedoms such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly

equal treatment for women

taking responsibility for your actions and not blaming others

not killing or injuring others except in self defence

not bearing false witness

But, sadly, I cannot think of one Muslim country that espouses these values. For saying this, I can possibly be physically attacked or brought up on Human Rights Commission charges, where I would have to pay my own lawyer, but complainants against my speech would have their legal costs paid for. This statement would be construed as Islamophobic, no doubt, but I have a different opinion: I would like to think that individual Muslims are as deserving of freedom as any other people on this earth, and my criticism of Muslim governments is in fact an advocacy for Muslim people. Do you think that argument would win the day at the Canadian Human Rights Commission?



The President of the great hope of the free world, America, says explicitly that there is nothing exceptional about American values and compares Islamic standards of justice and tolerance in such places as Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia favourably with American standards of justice and tolerance. Don’t Americans worry about their President getting confused between right and wrong?



Israel drops leaflets and even calls Palestinians on their cell phones, warning of impending bombing of terrorist infrastructure. Palestinians intentionally target civilians, but who gets the blame? The good are blamed and the evil are given the recognition that fuels the next atrocity.



I once sued a bookstore that hosted me for a lecture, when its hijab-wearing staff member failed to protect me from her anti-Semitic jihadist friends who yelled that I had no “right” to speak if I was pro-Israel and that I was a “f—-ing Jew”. The Judge hearing the case was unable to determine the factual veracity of the staff member’s claim of what I was alleged to have said that supposedly justified the abrogation of my free speech rights (the lady changed her statement three times) but he was satisfied that I said something (sic) that reflected an “us versus them” attitude. When judges cannot distinguish right from wrong, we are in trouble.



A set of fundamental values does not mean that good people will not frequently differ in how they are applied in various situations. That is why a Good country has a Good justice system. A Bad country, just leaves it up to the government’s discretion whether a non-compliant citizen should be just tortured or tortured and then killed. Those who advocate on behalf of Bad countries should have a very good reason for what otherwise should be seen as bad conduct.



As I write this, Gaddafi’s forces are shelling a hospital. What kind of people intentionally target hospitals? Is there any doubt that should (God forbid) Arabs push through Israeli defences that they would butcher hospital patients? A people that celebrates the death of scores of young Israelis at a disco, or old people at a Hotel Passover Seder meal would certainly create a genocide if they could. Ahmadinejad promises a genocide, Hamas promises a genocide and Hezbollah promises a genocide. Egyptians yell “Jew, Jew” as they rape a non-Jewish American reporter in Cairo.



A culture of celebrating life and freedom and Justice is Right; A culture celebrating death and totalitarianism, injustice, and abuse is Wrong.



If we do not recognize this, our children and grandchildren cannot look forward to much of a future, and everything that is Good shall end. Not everything that Israel or, for that matter, the United States, does is right. But liberal democracy is indeed the highest and best form of government for free and good individuals. Giving respect or moral equivalency to those who spit on our liberal democracy is a recipe for disaster.

OIC To Convey Strong Condemnation Of Quran Burning To U.N. Secretary General, Demand U.N. Action Against Free Speech

From Jihad Watch:

OIC to convey strong condemnation of Qur'an-burning to UN Secretary General, demand UN action against free speech


Pakistan's ambassador to the UN condemned "this reprehensible act" as "the work of extremists." He didn't mean, of course, any of the recent jihad attacks or plots. What he had in mind was the burning of the Qur'an in Florida, which, as you can see in this story, the OIC is exploiting to renew its jihad against the freedom of speech in the West. The OIC is bent on compelling Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam, which will criminalize any honest examination of the ways in which jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to recruit for jihad among peaceful Muslims, thus preempting the formulation of any effective strategy to counter that use.



"OIC to ‘send’ strong condemnation," from the Daily Mail (Pakistan), March 27:



NEW YORK – Reposing complete confidence in Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, the OIC decided that the Ambassador of Pakistan along with Ambassadors of Tajiskistan (OIC chair), Morocco (OIC Coordinator for Human Rights), Iran and Egypt would meet with the UN Secretary General to convey OIC’s strong condemnation and ask him to take the lead towards promoting inter-faith harmony.

It was decided in OIC ambassadorial meeting which convened here the other day to discuss the recent desecration of the Holy Quran in Florida last week.



The meeting approved the proposals of Ambassador Haroon and his Iranian counterpart that OIC Chair and Observer Mission will draft a strong condemnatory letter on behalf of OIC with the assistance of Pakistan and Morocco to be sent to the UN Secretary General, President UN General Assembly, High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) with the request to circulate it as an official document....



Reiterating the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari's clear expression of sentiments of the people and extreme provocation and seriousness of the issue, and his call to the United Nations to take immediate action on the subject, Ambassador Haroon the first Speaker from the member states voiced strong condemnation of this sacrilegious act.



He assured that Pakistan would continue playing its active and constructive role in promoting inter-faith harmony and peaceful co-existence.



On March 22, Ambassador Haroon had written a letter to the UN Secretary General, where he drawn UN attention towards this despicable act of desecration of the Holy Quran by Wayne Sapp and Terry Jones in Florida.



He voiced Pakistan's profound regret and deep concern at the increasing acts of "Islamophobia and growing trend of intolerance and hatred towards Muslims as well as insults to their religious symbols and personalities".



The letter further said, "While this reprehensible act is the work of extremists and is evidently designed to provoke dissent and discord among communities and peoples across the world, such sacrilegious acts also go against the very concept of inter-faith harmony and threaten the multicultural fabric of the societies and the brotherhood of the United Nations".



The Ambassador urged the United Nations to play its important role in ensuring peace and harmony among peoples of the world. He said Pakistan has full confidence in the UN's leadership and hoped that it would take all steps to fight such tendencies and promote intercultural and inter-faith harmony that is basic to coexistence of mankind.



Recalling Pakistan’s initiative on Interfaith Dialogue and participation in the Alliance of Civilization, Ambassador Haroon stated that Pakistan has always stood for promoting peace and harmony among people and nations of the world.



He regretted that while OIC has always supported peace initiatives in all regions of the world including tolerant and constructive engagement during last year’s Islamophobic incidents i.e. threats to burn the Quran and opposition to construction of Islamic Center in New York, attacks on Islam, its symbols and holy personalities continue unabated.



The Ambassador proposed that the OIC group should write a letter to the UN Secretary General (UNSG) asking him to issue a strong condemnatory statement and take concrete action to protect multiculturalism and promote peace and harmony in the world....



Posted by Robert on March 27, 2011 8:41 AM

Geert Wilders: The Failure Of Multi-Culturalism And How To Turn The Tide

From Jihad Watch:

Geert Wilders: The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide


Geert Wilders's speech at the Annual Lecture at the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome on March 25:



Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.



Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization – the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.



As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.



It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.



I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.



It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”

My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.



Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.



The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.



It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.



Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.



In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.



Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.



At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.



The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote – I quote – “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.



Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.



This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.



Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.



• The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said – I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.

• Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said – I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”

• Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that – I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”

• Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said – I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.

• In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said – I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.

• Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.



Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.



However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.



Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote – I quote – a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.



Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.



Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.



Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – End of quote.



Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.



Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned.



In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to – I quote – “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.

Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”



Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures – it is plain common sense.

Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.



Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.



My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.



Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” – End of quote.



Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” – End of quote.



In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.

Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.



Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.



This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.



The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.



Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.



Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.



I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.

Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.



Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of – I quote – “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.



And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.



Ladies and gentlemen,



It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.



Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.



Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.



Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.

The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.



It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.



While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.



“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”



For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.



The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.



Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.



While today – at last – our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.



There are a few things which we can do in this regard.



One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.



Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says – I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”



A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.



National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.



I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and – what an ironic coincidence – on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”



Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.



The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.



On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.



The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.

Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.



In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must – I quote – “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” – end of quote.



In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that – I quote – “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” – end of quote.



This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.



The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.



We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.



My friends,



Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally – better late than never – come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.



Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:



First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.



Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.



Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.



Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.



Let me end with a final – and a positive – remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.



The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.



I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.



Thank you very much.



Posted by Robert on March 26, 2011 9:30 AM