Saturday, March 11, 2006

It Gets "Interesting"

This has been a week with a number of rather "interesting" (in the Chinese sense) developments. Some good news, mostly not, and interesting all round. Also yet another act of censorship, and call for solidarity.

  • Pakistan (remember them?) and Spain (responding to deadly Islamist intimidation by becoming uber-dhimmis) are together lobbying for an anti-"religious defamation" measure from the UN. Why is this a problem ? We all know how the West's lefties revere the UN and bow to "international law". Once such a "UN law" is passed (no the UN is not a legislature, no matter what you hear on SBS), all a country will need is a left wing government and then its game over, even if blasphemy laws were not legislated locally. We will then see legislated dhimmitude by default in any Western nation without a spine, and a minority of nations rebelling against the UN. This minority may not include the US, judging by recent White House and State Dept reactions to the MoToons.

This story has been removed for legal reasons

(Filed: 19/02/2006)

It is not in the Google cache either. Naturally, this cannot stand ! Like the MoToons, and the Manifesto, this needs to be reprinted far and wide. So here it is [Hat Tip: Mike Jericho]

The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state
By Alasdair Palmer
The Telegraph Group February 19, 2006
For the past two weeks, Patrick Sookhdeo has been canvassing the opinions of Muslim clerics in Britain on the row over the cartoons featuring images of Mohammed that were first published in Denmark and then reprinted in several other European countries."
They think they have won the debate," he says with a sigh. "They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.
"The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that's a clear victory.
"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."
Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.
"It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue.
"For someone with such strong and uncompromising views, Dr Sookhdeo is a surprisingly gentle and easy-going man. He speaks with authority on Islam, as it was his first faith: he was brought up as a Muslim in Guyana, the only English colony in South America, and attended a madrassa there.
"But Islamic instruction was very different in the 1950s, when I was at school," he says. "There was no talk of suicide bombing or indeed of violence of any kind. Islam was very peaceful."
Dr Sookhdeo's family emigrated to England when he was 10. In his early twenties, when he was at university, he converted to Christianity. "I had simply seen it as the white man's religion, the religion of the colonialists and the oppressors - in a very similar way, in fact, to the way that many Muslims see Christianity today."
Leaving Islam was not easy. According to the literal interpretation of the Koran, the punishment for apostasy is death - and it actually is punished by death in some Middle Eastern states. "It wasn't quite like that here," he says, "although it was traumatic in some ways."
Dr Sookhdeo continued to study Islam, doing a PhD at London University on the religion. He is currently director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. He also advises the Army on security issues related to Islam.
Several years ago, Dr Sookhdeo insisted that the next wave of radical Islam in Britain would involve suicide bombings in this country. His prediction was depressingly confirmed on 7/7 last year.
So his claim that, in the next decade, the Muslim community in Britain will not be integrated into mainstream British society, but will isolate itself to a much greater extent, carries weight behind it. Dr Sookhdeo has proved his prescience.
"The Government, and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, are fundamentally deluded about the nature of Islam," he insists. "Tony Blair unintentionally revealed his ignorance when he said, in an effort to conciliate Muslims, that he had 'read through the Koran twice' and that he kept it by his bedside."
He thought he was saying something which showed how seriously he took Islam. But most Muslims thought it was a joke, if not an insult. Because, of course, every Muslim knows that you cannot read the Koran through from cover to cover and understand it.
The chapters are not written to be read in that way. Indeed, after the first chapter, the chapters of the Koran are ordered according to their length, not according to their content or chronology: the longest chapters are first, the shorter ones are at the end."
You need to know which passage was revealed at what period and in what time in order to be able to understand it - you cannot simply read it from beginning to end and expect to learn anything at all.
"That is one reason why it takes so long to be able to read and understand the Koran: the meaning of any part of it depends on a knowledge of its context - a context that is not in the Koran itself."
The Prime Minister's ignorance of Islam, Dr Sookhdeo contends, is of a piece with his unsuccessful attempts to conciliate it. And it does indeed seem as if the Government's policy towards radical Islam is based on the hope that if it makes concessions to its leaders, they will reciprocate and relations between fundamentalist Muslims and Tony Blair's Government will then turn into something resembling an ecumenical prayer meeting.
Dr Sookhdeo nods in vigorous agreement with that. "Yes - and it is a very big mistake. Look at what happened in the 1990s. The security services knew about Abu Hamza and the preachers like him. They knew that London was becoming the centre for Islamic terrorists. The police knew. The Government knew. Yet nothing was done.
"The whole approach towards Muslim militants was based on appeasement. 7/7 proved that that approach does not work - yet it is still being followed. For example, there is a book, The Noble Koran: a New Rendering of its Meaning in English, which is openly available in Muslim bookshops.
"It calls for the killing of Jews and Christians, and it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them. The Government has done nothing whatever to interfere with the sale of that book.
"Why not? Government ministers have promised to punish religious hatred, to criminalise the glorification of terrorism, yet they do nothing about this book, which blatantly does both.
"Perhaps the explanation is just that they do not take it seriously. "I fear that is exactly the problem," says Dr Sookhdeo. "The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam through the prism of their own secular outlook.
They simply do not realise how seriously Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in mortal combat with secularism.
"For example, one of the fundamental notions of a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice. But in Islam, choice is not allowable: there cannot be free choice about whether to choose or reject any of the fundamental aspects of the religion, because they
are all divinely ordained. God has laid down the law, and man must obey.
'Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically non-religious laws. They believe it must be the dominant religion - and it is their aim to achieve this.
"That is why they do not believe in integration. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate."Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on.
"That plan, says Dr Sookhdeo, is being followed in Britain. "That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them sharia law.
"There's already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions.
"Some Muslims are now pressing to be allowed four wives: they say it is part of their religion. They claim that not being allowed four wives is a denial of their religious liberty. There are Muslim men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time - and stay married, in sharia law, to all four."The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of
time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that.
"Dr Sookhdeo's vision of a relentless battle between secular and Islamic Britain seems hard to reconcile with the co-operation that seems to mark the vast majority of the interactions between the two communities.
"Well, it isn't me who says Islam is at war with secularisation," he says. "That's how Islamic clerics describe the situation.
"But isn't it true that most Muslims who live in theocratic states want to get out of them as quickly as possible and live in a secular country such as Britain or America? And that most Muslims who come to Britain adopt the values of a liberal, democratic, tolerant society, rather than insisting on the inflexible rules of their religion?"
You have to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and their self-appointed leaders," explains Dr
Sookhdeo. "I agree that the best hope for our collective future is that the majority of Muslims who have grown up here have accepted the secular nature of the British state and society, the division between religion and politics, and the importance of allowing people to choose freely how they will live.
"But that is not how most of the clerics talk. And, more significantly, it is not how the 'community leaders' whom the Government has decided represent the Muslim community think either.
"Take, for example, Tariq Ramadan, whom the Government has appointed as an adviser because ministers think he is a 'community leader'. Ramadan sounds, in public, very moderate. But in reality, he has some very extreme views. He attacks liberal Muslims as 'Muslims without Islam'. He is affiliated to the violent and uncompromising Muslim Brotherhood."He calls the education in the state schools of the West 'aggression against the Islamic personality of the child'. He has said that 'the Muslim respects the laws of the country only if they do not contradict any Islamic principle'. He has added that 'compromising on principles is a sign of fear and weakness'.
"So what's the answer? What should the Government be doing? "First, it should try to engage with the real Muslim majority, not with the self-appointed 'community leaders' who don't actually represent anyone: they have not been elected, and the vast majority of ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with them.
"Second, the Government should say no to faith-based schools, because they are a block to integration. There should be no compromise over education, or over English as the language of education. The policy of political multiculturalism should be reversed."The hope was that it would to ensure separate communities would soften at the edges and integrate. But the opposite has in fact happened: Islamic communities have hardened. There is much less integration than there was for the generation that arrived when I did. There will be much less in the future if the present trend continues.
"Finally, the Government should make it absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions - but all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society. That is a non-negotiable condition of being here."If the Government does not do all of those things then I fear for the future, because Islamic communities within Britain will form a state within a state. Religion will occupy an ever-larger place in our collective political life. And, speaking as a religious man myself, I fear that outcome."

[Update 15/3/2006]

Looks like the editor responsible for publishing the story has herself been fired from the Telegraph.

Dark times indeed.


Friday, March 10, 2006

Our Taxes: Spent on Censorship or Just Being Wasted ?

It is becoming almost routine that this humble blog with its meagre 20 or so visits a day should be graced every two weeks or so by none less than the Australian Federal Department of Communications and the Arts, the body responsible for monitoring internet content.
Their visits are never pleasant, and the mystery still in my mind is: Is this an investigation of the kind of content on the site (not hosted in Oz, so leave me the hell alone please) or is this some slacker at the DCATA with nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon than to surf the Web at OUR expense ?

(Department Of Communications And The Arts)
Australia, 0 returning visits
10th March 2006
Six DaysNo referring link
10th March 2006
Six DaysNo referring link

Have any of my fellow anti-Dhimmi ozbloggers attracted similar attention? (This is addressed to the two or three of you who might visit this site from time to time...)

Should I give this individual a chance to comment (that's what the comments field below is for) before I report him to his employer for wasting our tax money, and giving me the Orwellian jitters ?

While we are on the topic of Government departments: at least our dear visitor doesn't work at the Deparment of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. That deparment needs a "Humanitarian" and "Multigender" in the name too. Then at least they would spell "DHIMMIA" properly...


Thursday, March 09, 2006

Koran Indicted - Germany Awakes ?

Many of us have been waiting for the inevitable collision between the emerging raft of religious vilification, "tolerance" and blasphemy laws, and the Koran, holy book of the intended beneficiaries of these new laws.
There have been a number of near-misses.
The recent Abu Hamza trial in the UK introduced the "Koran defence", where Hook's lawyers argued that whatever the vile terror sponsor and hatemonger might have said, it was merely his interpretation of the Koran. For some reason, all present seemed to think that this was the end of the matter, and while Hook went to jail for stirring hatered (not an outcome I support either), there was no further enquiry into the presument innocence of the Koran itself.
Somehow, the Koran always manages to evade scrutiny and censure.
In the "Catch the Fire Ministries" case in Victoria, the defendants were prevented from quoting from the Koran to support their case, as this would constitute further intolerance of the kind they were accused of in the first place.
In the UK, recently overturned "religious tolerance" laws were of concern to a Muslim community, who lobbied government to ensure that the Koran would be explicitly excempt: they knew full well how compatible the Koran is with modern notions of tolerance !
This opportunity did not go unnoticed by at least one group that did promise to put the Koran on trial if the laws were to be passed. Fortunately they were not.
And still we have not had a public airing of the Koran before a court, media and public. That is until now. A German attempt three years ago failed, but it is being launched again, across the country.

A broad alliance of grass-roots movements have gone to the prosecutors of several states to hinder the dissemination of the Quran. According to the indictment, the Quran is not just a religious and historic book, but also a political book, which is incompatible with the constiution.


At the prosecutor’s office at Gorch-Forck-Wall 15 in Hamburg, an unusual letter was received Monday morning, containing an indictment filed this weekend. The indictment targeted the Quran, charging that the holy book of the Moslems, according to the accuser, is incompatible with the German constitution.

“Support Denmark!”

The accuser is “Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen (BVB)”, which concerns itself with, in its own words, “defending basic rights and freedoms” against Islam. The extensive international furore, allegedly caused by the Muhammed cartoons, has made clear the relevancy of the alliance. Its homepage is decorated with a Danish flag with the words “Support Denmark! Defend the Free World.” superimposed on it.

The indictment has been filed in several states, including Hamburg, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Bayern and probably more.

In several talkshows on German TV, conservative politicians have pointed out that the Quran is incompatible with the German constitution. The Turkish-born writer Serap Cileli said on January 29 this year that “the Quran must be considered a historic document. It is not compatible with our constitution and Human Rights.”

Now the alliance wants the matter tried at
the courts.

Potent Political Book

The author of the indictment in Hamburg, Jutta Starke, says that the Quran was reported to the police two or three years ago, but that the report was dismissed on the grounds that it was a book of only historical interest.

“The evenths of the last months have made clear that the Quran isn’t just a historical book, but very much a potent political book, a thing which we document extensively in the indictment,” Jutta Starke says.

She says it is a task of sisyphean dimensions to inform the media, politicians and churches of the true intentions of Islam in the enlightened world of the West. “We are grateful to Jyllands-Posten that discussions about Islam have now become possible,” says Jutta Starke.

“You suffer for all of Europe and that’s why we find it indecent that Europe hasn’t loudly, in unison, taken a stand for Freedom of Speech against the laws of the Quran.”

The indictment consists of five pieces of paper and a number of appendices. The indictment says that it is not against Islam’s spiritual message, but against the judicial and political message.

The decisive count of the indictment “is in the Quran’s status vis a vis the Federal Republic of Germany’s constitution”. In the appendices to the indictment, 200 points have been listed “where the Quran is against and claims itself above the constitution.”

The Quran has an Answer to Everything

It is pointed out that the Quran to Moslems is the end all, be all in matters of faith, in matters of society and state and in the discourse with people of different views. The Quran says that it is the words of Allah. According to the views of several, including leading, Moslems in Germany, it is
literally and absolutely true at all time and in all places, the indictment says.

The newly elected German-born chairman of the Moslem Central Council of German, Ayyub Axel Köhler, is quoted in the indictment:

“A constitution after the principle of the division of powers into the legislative, the executive and
the judicial powers, is nowhere to be found in the Islamic theory of the State. From an Islamic viewpoint, this is obvious, since the laws - the laws of God - in the form of sharia, are already made and thus no legislative power is needed, in that sense of the word. Only Allah is the legislative power.”

Muslim Chancellor

A prominent Moslem, Ibrahim El-Zayat, is quoted as saying that he thinks it is possible that “the Federal Chancellor in 2020 is a Moslem, born and raised in Germany, that the Federal Supreme Court has a Moslem judge, and that a Moslem representative will be on the Federal Radio/TV Council to secure the Moslem citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

“This land is our land
and it is our duty to make positive changes. With the help of Allah, we will make it a paradise on Earth, by making available the Islamic ummah (ED: Islamic community) and all of mankind. Allah doesn’t change the situation of a people till the people have changed the situtation,” El-Zayad is quoted as saying.

Violence against the Infidels

The indictment is against the 200 verses of 114 suras (ED:chapters) of the Quran that are not compatible with the constitution, including demagoguery, incitement to murder, murder and
mutilation, war, acceptance of thievery against infidels, meaning all non-Moslems. Verses are also pointed out where the equal rights of men and women are not upheld and where people of different faiths are oppressed.

Example: “The unbelievers among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians): They are
the vilest of all creatures.” (Sura 98:6)

According to the indictment that paragraph violates Article 4 of the Constitution and Paragraph 166 of the Penal Code

Now if only all those places afflicted with blasphemy and "tolerance" laws were to launch something similar. Oh to see such a case in Victoria!
I do not want the Koran banned : I want the laws themselves to be overturned, the Islamists to stop using these laws as cover, and most importantly for the Koran to get a good airing in the process, along with "moderate" Muslim sentiment in light of such developments. Lets see where this goes.

Kufr Aleikum,
Fingers crossed...

Web Sites and Voltaire Plays

With the World turning upside down all too rapidly, it is not surprising to see France moving to the forefront of European anti-dhimmitiude, even as Jean-Marie Le Pen allies with Islam against Jooooooooos.
A play by Voltaire : "Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet" was NOT banned in a French town. The Mayor showed spine and called in police instead! Voltaire, a figurehead of the Enlightenment, the man who said "I disapprove of what you say but I will die for your right to say it" is naturally offensive to Muslims.
After "pleading" with authorities, Muslims resorted to rioting which the Mayor described as "quasi-insurrectional". It pays to note that prominent "moderate" Tariq Ramadan was opposed to the staging of the play.
This follows the censoring of a Marlowe play in Britain due to content that was offensive to Muslims. Other attacks on European culture include calls for destruction of Renaissance frescoes which depict Mohammad in hell, a scene from Dante's Inferno presumably also offensive to Muslims.
It is not just about cartoons. It is about our whole culture. The sooner we realise this and stop retreating the better.
More disturbing things on the horizon: Gleefully, bending over since the Madrid bombings, Dhimmi Spain joins with moderate-key-ally-in-the-GWOT Pakistan in calling for an international anti-blasphemy law via UN resolution. This one scares me more than Paki nukes.
Also from Western Resistance: Members of State Muslim Body in Italy Refuse to Condemn Terror. A small surprise here. Usually they redefine it to mean the stuff that the US and Israel do, and then condemn that.
Finally, here is a little something for those who think that blasphemy laws are a good thing, that the poor darling Muslims are victims to be pitied and that terror is just a cry for help:
In submission to political Islam:
  • We shall not create or publish any art to be displayed in any public forum that is offensive to any Muslim.
  • We shall not write articles, books or essays that criticize political Islam.
  • We shall not give a full report on the violence of political Islam around the world nor mention
  • We shall show respect towards political Islam and defer to Islam’s demands on political, cultural and public issues.
  • We declare that the First Amendment does not apply to political Islam.
  • We shall criticize our civilization, but never criticize political Islam.
  • We shall find fault with ourselves when political Islam commits violence.
  • We shall change our laws and customs in accordance with the wishes of political Islam.
  • We shall not study the Koran, the life of Mohammed (the Sira) or the Traditions of Mohammed (the Hadith).
  • We shall not teach the history of political Islam’s 150 million victims.
  • We shall not teach how Islam sold African slaves to the world and enslaved Europeans and Asians.
  • We shall only teach about the “Golden Age of Islam” .
  • We shall not criticize the payment of the jizyah (foreign aide) to Islamic countries.
  • We shall keep our gates wide open for Muslim immigrants.
  • Whoever criticizes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall be declared a bigot and attacked.
  • We submit to political Islam and as dhimmis we seek the protection of Islam.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

A Taxonomy of Moderates

This article is based on correspondence in response to the following statement:
"the idea of defining Islamism in terms of the priority of common/sharia law is *very* elegant."
Defining Islamism: A Necessary Condition?
The definition of Islamism in terms of the priority of Sharia over the Secular State and the Rule of Law (or their equal co-existence) is a useful definition of Islamism, and provides a necessary, but insufficient condition for defining "moderates", as explained below. This definition can also be subverted by relativistic arguments, limiting its rhetorical value.
The State is Not Allah
Arguably, the main purpose of the US right to bear arms is as a countermeasure in the event where the state becomes something that the people can no longer tolerate. Obviously, there is some "self-evident truth" that to some Westerners at least sits above the state itself. We are not a secular theocracy, with the State as god. That is Fascism/Communism. We are still a nation of individuals, and we value our individuality more than the contracts we create to facilitate it, though we value these quite dearly indeed. Out of these contracts we forge a state.
Anticipating Trouble
This does not to refute the definition of Islamism provided previously, which is in fact useful. I am merely anticipating the inevitable and flawed counter argument, which is already leveled: that our societies are evil and corrupt, even by our standards (so many lefties are all too ready to agree here) and that in challenging our law with their Sharia Muslims are no more guilty that any "freedom fighters" in the past. Yes, I know that this is an odious argument, and that there is a huge difference between Sharia and any Western notions of common law, or even leftie notions of an ideal utopia (of a non-relativist variety). This counter argument does not hold substance, but consists of the kind of rhetorical sludge that no logical razor can hope to cut, at least not in any effective, eloquent way, one that that would unambiguously end the argument in the eyes of "Joe Average-Intelligentsia" ("Joe Chardonnay-Sixpack...") And so the relativistic rot of our society continues...
Islamists, Literalists and the Mainstream
Some facts worth remembering who considering the definition above: It is not axiomatic. It derives naturally from mainstream Islamic adherence to the Koran as the complete, final, perfect and literal word of God, the person of Muhammad as the perfect example, and Islamic jurisprudence of 300 years after his death as the only source of interpretation. The definition is thus subsumed by the definition of "literalist". This means that all mainstream Muslims are Islamists by this definition, and those that are not Islamists are sinners, heretics or traitors by the basic standards of their culture.
"Negative Moderates"
This is well worth remembering, because it means that "moderates" may be merely lax in their faith, or ignorant of its tenets. As we have seen countless times, this means that in times of crisis, where they turn to their family, community and culture for strength, they must turn against the supremacy of the Secular State and its Rule of Law. This is an important point: the "moderate by default" is a potential Islamist, and this is the path of many a suicide bomber, who were seen to be assimilated, westernised and hedonistic, but suddenly turning towards their faith (with the support and acclaim of their families and communities) and then taking the next logical steps that piousness, holy texts and religious leaders demand. Lets call these poor or lax moderates "negative moderates". Most of the "youths" rioting in France last November or Sydney beaches last December would be "negative moderates". So would many members of FATAH, or Iraqi Baathist insurgents, and any number of unveiled, fashionably dressed Al Jazeera reporters. Negative moderates are not necessarily our friends.
"Positive Moderates"
"Positive moderates" would be a small minority of moderates indeed, those who are educated in Islam, and take a clearly non-literalist, pro-Enlightenment stand. This may include some members of sects like Ahmaddiyah and more tolerant Sufis, as well as a number of prominent individuals. Sadly, these are all considered heretics and worse by the Muslims mainstream. There is even a handful of prominent positive moderate religious leaders. These tend to be disenfranchised, and their claims of wider mainstream appeal false and counterproductive. Probably unintentionally, they legitimise the Islamists (ie the Muslim mainstream) by claiming far more acceptance within the Ummah than they actually receive, and providing the well-meaning Western intelligentsia with the evidence of the kinder, gentler, friendlier Islam that they so desperately crave. The leadership and Islamic bona fides of such people are not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of their "fellow" Muslims, because almost none of them want to challenge the supposed perfect, literal, complete and final nature of the Koran, nor to tolerate any such challenge from others. Having said this, Irshad Manji's stand in the Manifesto against Islamism is courageous and commendable, as are the tiny "Free Muslims Against Terror" in the US, the emerging Democractic Muslim movement in Denmark, and "Ni Putes ni Soumises" in France.
It should be mentioned that the most Positive of Positive Moderates are not Muslims at all, but rather ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and Salman Rushdie. Perhaps Positive Moderates are in the last stage of denial...
Uses and Challenges
The above definition of Islamist is thus a useful benchmark for the determination of true moderate Muslims. It falls short of a sufficient condition for "moderation". It also fails to provide an easy method of distinguishing positive moderates from negatives. It may not be a sufficient condition, but it certainly serves as a necessary condition: anyone who sees a role for Sharia law in society, and at any point puts it above the rule of law of a secular state is not a moderate. Sadly, the definition is also complicated by the practice of taqiyya.
Is Tariq Ramadan a moderate by this definition alone ? Possibly, especially with a selective reading. Is this really his agenda ? Are there examples to the contrary ? Indeed. Is he an Islamist ? In my book, certainly. The counterargument is that there are plenty of Christians who are guided by their religious sentiments in their activism and lawmaking. This is true, but we never call these people "moderates", and are often quick to call them "fundamentalists", sometimes unjustly. This is not a complete argument, unless one wants to label all religiously motivated legislators, judges and activists as "fundamentalists".
A more difficult and subtle argument would return to the sub-legal basis of Western culture: to me it is obvious that there are aspects of Reconstructed, Post-Enlightenment Western Secularism, as well as mainstream Protestantism, Catholicism and Ashkenazi Judaism which dovetail naturally with Western notions of common and natural law, while Sharia does not. Exploring this topic in detail is a task beyond me, but one I leave open to the great legal and philosophical minds out there.
Kufr Aleikum !

Monday, March 06, 2006


An Open Letter to Unelected, Moustached Pseudo-Moderate President Musharraf of Pakistan (A nuclear capable, proliferating, terror sponsoring state under official Sharia Law... Does anyone even remember?)
Dear Mr Musharraf,
May I call you Pervez ? No ? That's OK. You have a whole lot more medals than me, and I have never actually grown any kind of moustache, let alone one as prodigious as yours. May I call you "Mush" ? No ? WHY NOT ?
Before we get down to business please allow me to congratulate you on your many successes. It takes real genius to overthrow a democratically elected government in a military coup and still be the darling of the White House and State Department, lauded as a key partner in the Great War on Terror, especially given the track record of your country in this little enterprise.
Now as it happens I am not such a big fan of democracy, at least not in your country, given the kind of elected Islamists that you rub shoulders with every day and enjoy pretending to oppose. Your dictatorship is yet another lesser of two evils, and one I would be even happier about were you truly the secular moderate that our media keeps talking about. Now I may be a simple blogger and not versed in such matters, but it seems to me that while Murbarak in Egypt fought tooth and nail against allowing the Muslim Brotherhood anywhere near elections, your post-Sept 11 reaction to a similar situation in Pak was very much the opposite. Hey, the White House can't argue with democracy, right ? Well done. Instant bad cop ! And there were all those unsophisticated idealistic types thinking that secular moderate dictators do things like repeal Sharia law, and try to modernise their country. A great secularist and modernist, an ally in the Great War on Terror, you joined in the standing ovation offered to Mahatir Mohammad in his speech that set the tone of the New Anti-Semitism, but all too passe nowadays. And you are still Ally Number One. True genius.
And speaking of those nukes. Iran's (hopefully) as-yet-non-existent nukes are scaring the pants out of even the Euroweenies, but noone seems too worried about the country who made it all possible, and has developed warheads and delivery capability.
And what a country ! The country that was the Taliban's main supporter, and now the hideout of choice of Al Qaeda's top brass. The country that reluctantly pursues "terrorists" in the West while letting them train and mount attacks in the East. The country that is still a Waqf, regardless of the secular state that Jinnah had in mind. How the heck did you pull all that off ?
How many inept, halfhearted attacks did you have to mount against terrorists living happily in your Tribal Areas ? Not many, but enough to justify keeping US troops out so they could not do the job ?
You are a very clever man, and I refuse to believe those lies about you. I refuse to believe that you are politically outmaneuvered by Islamists in government. You allowed them to be elected in the first place. I refuse to believe that your military intelligence service the ISI may be riddled with Islamists but I wonder how you could stay in power without them. Coups like yours are usually accompanied with purges. So perhaps the ISI's allegiances are not such a problem for you after all, but you get to blame them when things go bad. I refuse to believe that you of all people would not know where Bin Laden is. I refuse to believe that you would not be a competent man in charge, with trusted, competent people working for you. People who could be counted on to stage the odd fake assassination too...
But this is not why I write you you today.
It has come to my attention that you have provided a number of blogs some undeserving publicity. Those blogs had the distinction of being the main targets of attack by Islamist hackers. It would appear that hackers are not just malicious angry nutcases, they do useful things like pass their hate lists on to sympathetic governments.
Mr Musharraf, I work a day job, do an unmanageable amount of volunteer work and thanklessly maintain this blog, whose readership consists of a very small number of like minded nutcases, an Australian government Department concerned with free speech (they think there should be less of it), and the occasional Islamist doing a google search on "blogs by people I should be beheading". I work hard Mr Musharraf, and my work is largely thankless, with no help from you.
Admittedly, these blogs are better written, researched and visited than mine. In fact, my blog is probably going to be the subject of upcoming BBC lifestyle series "What Not to Write", hosted by a pair of well dressed post-menopausal bitches with caffeine addictions and a flair for humiliating people. But this is hardly the point. Or maybe, this it is the point. Yes, these 12 blogs that you have so kindly provided free publicity to may well deserve the attention that mine lacks. This is why, Mr Musharraf, I am begging, indeed, imploring you for a break. Please, oh pretty please with 77 Virgins on Top (see, I'm open minded), please
If you cannot see your way clear to doing this, could you please ask someone in your Ministry of Telling People What to Think to explain to me what else I would need to do to qualify. Its not like I haven't already done plenty.
Do I need to insult the Prophet ?
Hey, Mohammad is, like, and old dead guy who liked little girls! (And a few other things to boot...)
Do I need to call for a new cartoon competition ?
I hereby call upon both of my regular readers as well as any Government Departments and Islamoloonies visiting Six Days to send me some challenging pictures of Mohammad celebrating the Kama Sutra and the variety of farm animals that may have been found in Medina in 600 AD.
Hey, if you don't ban me, can I at least please get a fatwa ? My friends would be so, like, jealous.
Just Good Friends
Failing all of this, I ask you, Mr Musharraf to at least visit Six Days now and then. I look forward to your visit and your comments, and would be more than happy to put your blog up on my blogroll as well. As we get to know each other email addresses may be exchanged too. Finally, as I get to know you, I may even welcome you to join me over a couple of Carlsbergs in the local pub. Incidentally, that is where it stops, much as I may admire your power, your political genius, your interest in blogging and your well sculpted moustache. Given the reputed tastes of your good friends the Pashtuns, and the previously mentioned tell-tale moustache, I must emphasise that I would not actually share any of your other possible tastes, common as they are in Dar-al-Islam. For this, I blame the West's ready availability of unmarried, uncovered women, lessons about "stranger danger" delivered to us as children and a relative absence of farm animals. Sorry, but I have been corrupted away from what what you would probably call nature and towards decadent Western heterosexuality. I blame pornography, loose morals, secularism, the human rights of women, and the human rights of horny teenage me. I also blame a succession of Catholic girls, but that is an entirely different if delightful story (What is it with them and Jewish men?). But, as I said, we can still be good friends. If I misunderstood you then apologies, but you cannot be too careful when dealing with someone called PERVEz...
Otherwise, if you still find yourself in the market for neocon studmuffin, you may want to look up this guy.
Thanks and Goodbye
So thanks for taking the time to read this. I look forward to seeing your new blog too. Please forgive the brevity of this rant. I gotta go now and do more stuff to stop you and your ilk from destroying all that we in Dar-al-Harb hold dear.
Kufr Aleikum,
Ben Ze'ev

Wednesday, March 01, 2006


This just in from some of the biggest names in anti-dhimmitude. Lets see if the cowardly media that failed to print those cartoons will also shy away from printing this manifesto. If this courage can be found, I do not expect a generous reception from the ROP. Just as with the pictures, it falls to every blogger out there to reprint it and I am doing my humble bit.
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

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

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas. We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
12 signatures
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from somilian origin, is member of Dutch parliement, member of the liberal party VVD. Writter of the film Submission which caused the assasination of Theo Van Gogh by an islamist in november 2004, she lives under police protection.

Chahla Chafiq
Chahla Chafiq, writer from iranian origin, exiled in France is a novelist and an essayist. She's the author of "Le nouvel homme islamiste , la prison politique en Iran " (2002). She also wrote novels such as "Chemins et brouillard" (2005).
Caroline Fourest
Essayist, editor in chief of Prochoix (a review who defend liberties against dogmatic and integrist ideologies), author of several reference books on « laicité » and fanatism : Tirs Croisés : la laïcité à l'épreuve des intégrismes juif, chrétien et musulman (with Fiammetta Venner), Frère Tariq : discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan, et la Tentation obscurantiste (Grasset, 2005). She receieved the National prize of laicité in 2005.
Bernard-Henri Lévy
French philosoph, born in Algeria, engaged against all the XXth century « ism » (Fascism, antisemitism, totalitarism, terrorism), he is the author of La Barbarie à visage humain, L'Idéologie française, La Pureté dangereuse, and more recently American Vertigo.
Irshad Manji
Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and the internationally best-selling author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith" (en francais: "Musulmane Mais Libre"). She speaks out for free expression based on the Koran itself. Née en Ouganda, elle a fui ce pays avec sa famille musulmane d'origine indienne à l'âge de quatre ans et vit maintenant au Canada, où ses émissions et ses livres connaissent un énorme succès.

Mehdi Mozaffari
Mehdi Mozaffari, professor from iranian origin and exiled in Denmark, is the author of several articles and books on islam and islamism such as : Authority in Islam: From Muhammad to Khomeini, Fatwa: Violence and Discourtesy and Glaobalization and Civilizations.

Maryam Namazie
Writer, TV International English producer; Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran's International Relations; and 2005 winner of the National Secular Society's Secularist of the Year award.
Taslima Nasreen
Taslima Nasreen is born in Bangladesh. Doctor, her positions defending women and minorities brought her in trouble with a comittee of integrist called « Destroy Taslima » and to be persecuted as « apostate »
Salman Rushdie
Salman Rushdie is the author of nine novels, including Midnight's Children, The Satanic Verses and, most recently, Shalimar the Clown. He has received many literary awards, including the Booker Prize, the Whitbread Prize for Best Novel, Germany's Author of the Year Award, the European Union's Aristeion Prize, the Budapest Grand Prize for Literature, the Premio Mantova,
and the Austrian State Prize for European Literature. He is a Commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et Lettres, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities at M.I.T., and the president of PEN American Center. His books have been translated into over 40 languages.
Philippe Val
Director of publication of Charlie Hebdo (Leftwing french newspaper who have republished the cartoons on the prophet Muhammad by solidarity with the danish citizens targeted by islamists).
Ibn Warraq
Ibn Warraq , author notably of Why I am Not a Muslim ; Leaving Islam : Apostates Speak Out ; and The Origins of the Koran , is at present Research Fellow at a New York Institute conducting philological and historical research into the Origins of Islam and its Holy Book.
Antoine Sfeir
Born in Lebanon, christian, Antoine Sfeir choosed french nationality to live in an universalist and « laïc » (real secular) country. He is the director of Les cahiers de l'Orient and has published several reference books on islamism such as Les réseaux d'Allah (2001) et Liberté, égalité, Islam : la République face au communautarisme (2005).

This comes at a time when Europe is falling to its knees before their new overlords. Douglas Murray has just been to the anti-dhimmi conference in Holland commemorating Pim Fortuyn, the father of political anti-dhimmitude. He explores this sad state of dhimmitude in Eurabia, and mentions Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the signatories in the manifesto.

It seems the British police — who regularly provide protection for mosques (as they did after the 7/7 bombs) — were unable to send even one policeman to protect an organ of free speech. At the notorious London protests, Islamists were allowed to incite murder and bloodshed on the streets, but a passer-by objecting to these displays was threatened with detention for making
Holland — with its disproportionately high Muslim population — is the canary in the mine. Its once open society is closing, and Europe is closing slowly behind it. It looks, from Holland, like the twilight of liberalism — not the “liberalism” that is actually libertarianism, but the liberalism that is freedom. Not least freedom of expression.
All across Europe, debate on Islam is being stopped. Italy’s greatest living writer, Oriana Fallaci, soon comes up for trial in her home country, and in Britain the government seems intent on pushing through laws that would make truths about Islam and the conduct of its followers impossible to voice.
Those of us who write and talk on Islam thus get caught between those on our own side who are increasingly keen to prosecute and increasing numbers of militants threatening murder. In this situation, not only is free speech being shut down, but our nation’s security is being compromised.
Since the assassinations of Fortuyn and, in 2004, the film maker Theo van Gogh, numerous public figures in Holland have received death threats and routine intimidation. The heroic Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her equally outspoken colleague Geert Wilders live under constant police protection, often forced to sleep on army bases. Even university professors are under protection.
Europe is shuffling into darkness. It is proving incapable of standing up to its enemies, and in an effort to accommodate the peripheral rights of a minority is failing to protect the most basic rights of its own people.
The governments of Europe have been tricked into believing that criticism of a belief is the same thing as criticism of a race. And so it is becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous to criticise a growing and powerful ideology within our midst. It may soon, in addition, be made illegal.

Because I love you all and do not want you to leave without some amusement, here is a recently televised frank and honest exchange between a sane woman and an Islamist bigot, care of MEMRI [Hat tip: LGF]


The Head of the Arab League Agrees with Me !

Arab League chief says cartoons part of anti-Islam battle
(DPA)27 February 2006 AMMAN - Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa on Monday considered the Prophet Mohammed’s cartoons as part of a “battle against Islam” rather than a symptom of conflict among civilizations, and urged Arab parliamentarians to put pressure on the United Nations to come up with a “strict” solution to this problem.
As I said before, our most important weapon is our freedom of speech, because without it we cannot bring the others to bear. Amr understands this too. This is why he would like our freedom of speech taken away by an enlightened UN.

“I don’t think the issue pertains to an inter-civilization conflict. We have to mention the issue in its real perspective - it is a battle against Islam,” Mussa said at the opening session of the Arab Parliamentary Union (APU) conference at the Dead Sea resort in Jordan.

We agree again ! Amr thinks that there is a battle against Islam, at least its unreconstructed, literalist mainstream Sunni and Shia varieties. Well, the nasty anti-Western militant kind of Islam certainly seems to be doing its best to create a battle against itself at the moment, and poor ole moderate Muslims are being forced to choose sides. It is an interesting matter to investigate how much closer the Muslim mainstream is to their militants than they are to us... Amr does not think that this is a clash of civilisations and I agree, the clash is between Civilisation and Islamic Barbarism. We agree on so much, but we just support different teams.
A war with Islam. All those poor moderate Muslims caught in the middle...
This also goes back to the old question "what is a moderate Muslim anyway" ? Red Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London (currently suspended for making anti-Semitic comments, but back in the saddle in a month's time) invited this guy to England as his personal pal. Sheikh al-Qaradawi is a moderate muslim because... Ummm... Well... He thinks that there should be no suicide bombing except in "Palestine". And homosexuals should be killed. And so should apostates. Never mind, he is still best friends with Anti-Semitic Leftie London Mayor Ken. This may be because the definition of "moderate" has never been nailed down unambigously, and still leaves much to be desired. It is in fact merely a means of rehabilitating an ideology which is extremist in the broad sense, while marginalising some token members, the most extreme of the extreme. The more numerous, influential and still very dangerous ones are thus rehabilitated. The key question is:
Moderate with respect to what ? - Moderate with respect to Islam is not the yardstick we should be using. Moderate should be with respect to Civilisation. The yardstick is actually quite simple: Does the candidate for the label "moderate" agree that the rule of law of a secular state takes precendence over Islamic Law in all matters? Simple. How many moderates do we have now ?

They fight us with Judaism, so we should fight them with Islam. They fight us with the Torah, so we should fight them with the Koran. If they say "the Temple," we should say "the Al-Aqsa Mosque." If they say: "We glorify the Sabbath," we should say: "We glorify the Friday." This is how it should be. Religion must lead the war. This is the only way we can win.


Everything will be on our side and against Jews on , at that time, even the stones and the trees will speak, with or without words, and say: "Oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim, there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him." They will point to the Jews. It says "servant of Allah," not "servant of desires," "servant of women," "servant of the bottle," "servant of Marxism," or "servant of liberalism"... It said servant of Allah."When the Muslims, the Arabs, and the Palestinians enter a war, they do it to worship Allah. They enter it as Muslims. The hadith says: "Oh Muslim." It says "oh Muslim," not "oh Palestinian, Jordanian, Syrian, or Arab nationalist." No, it says: "Oh Muslim." When we enter under the banner of Islam, and under the banner of serving Allah, we will be victorious.

Nice. Remeber, this guy is a "moderate", a key face of international Islam . And then they complain about some war being declared AGAINST Islam...
Meanwhile, in "Moderate" Turkey with its now established Islamist government, Mein Kampf is a best-seller, and the anti-Semitic, anti-American film "Iraq-Valley of the Wolves" is the number one film, the most expensive Turkish production even made. Viewers in Germany have jumped up at the end of the film and shouted "Allahu Akbar".
In "Moderate" Indonesia new laws are tabled to placate a growing Islamic movement (all moderates ! really!) that will clamp down on public displays of affection, adultery and revealing clothing. If it passes, say goodbye to the Bali holiday...

Monday, February 27, 2006

Irving Shows Some Scary Insight

Yep, he is actually a Left Winger and so is Hitler. And he likes the Guardian too. [Hat Tip: Talleyrand]

For My Russian Speaking Friends

Otherwise find a Russian friend of your own and get them to translate it for you. Worth it.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by