Wednesday, 27 August 2014

Nothing to Do with Islam

The worldwide western left says that none of the mayhem in the world today -- the murderous Islamic State, Boko Haram's child kidnapping, the world's myriad Islamic terrorist groups -- 93% are Islamic -- the ubiquitous Islamist groups -- none of this has anything to do with the Islam, the "true" Islam, the Religion of Peace. (BBC, Daily Beast, Huffington Post).
This is total and complete nonsense, of course. As this article shows...  None of those Islamopologists provides any evidence for its view that putative peaceful Islam has been "hijacked" or "warped".  It merely states, states and states again ("religion of peace", "hijacked", "warped"...) with increasing frequency, and also with increasing desperation: for the emperor's clothes are well and truly down around his ankles.
Later: I'm just listening to a BBC World Service Radio report of Halal tourism, which is reporting sympathetically on places where there is gender segregation, no pork, no alcohol....
What on earth is wrong with the BBC??

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Allies in Islam: Not...

Two countries that we should ditch as putative "allies":
Ed Husain nails the blindness of the West to Saudi's Salafism/Wahabbism, which supports extremism and terrorism worldwide, while its political leaders hold hands with Western leaders.
But Husain has his own blindness.
In the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, the religious police beat women with sticks if they stray into male-only areas, or if their dress is considered immodest by Salafi standards. This is not an Islam that the Prophet Muhammad would recognise. [my emphasis]
But this is simply not true.  The Koran -- authored by Muhammad and later men (men) -- is down on women.  They must be beaten if they are disobedient...
On a BBC current affairs item, an imam whose name I didn't get, said that Muhammad would not have supported the murder by beheading of the American James Foley.  But again, that's not true, is it? Muhammad had the poetess Asma bint Marwan murdered for the "crime" of poking fun at him.  And he had many others murdered for the least of disturbances to his tender ego.
Can we possibly imagine he would have spoken out against the murder of a representative of the US< the "Great Satan" which seeks to stop the advance of Islam? (At least in their eyes...).
Any reform of Islam -- tough enough --will be impossible if the key tenets of Islam and the fundamental teachings of its "prophet" -- the warlord Muhammad --  are not faced squarely, with a fierce and basilisk eye.  Husain, for all the he's more honest that most Islamists, is not the man to do that.

Saturday, 23 August 2014

UK Islamists Join With Neo-Nazis, Marxists in Anti-Semitism

Islamists in the UK are joined by the Social Workers Party, neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers,
Marxists and more in protests against Israel that devolved into blatant anti-Semitism.
None of these groups has protested the daily slaughter of Christians or
Muslims at the hands of Islamists across the Middle East.(Photo: © Reuters)
The left and right join hands in hating jews.



Sent from my iPhone
+852 9308 0799

Islamic antisemitism well predates Gaza

This article places it all on Israel's Gaza actions, themselves a defensive action.
Andrew Bostom shows that Islamic antisemitism goes back to the beginning of Islam.
Muhammad was upset that the jews laughed at him; that they demanded proof of his claim to be the latest prophet. These were the early jewish stand-ups.
And, like all demagogues, Muhammad couldn't take a joke...

Islam in action: Saudi Arabia Beheads 19 in 17 Days...

... including for sorcery, which is warned about in the Koran.
Disgusting.
This from a key "ally" of the US....

Sunday, 17 August 2014

Who's responsible for these anti-Semitic attacks? Give me one guess... (shhh....it's Islam)

Rod Liddle in the Speccie, in top form again... "It's ok to mention anti-semitic attacks, but not who commits them".
Interesting that the Owen Jones Guardian article to which Rod refers has 3,000+ comments, but it was only some way down the comments that someone mentioned Islam was the reason for the bulk of anti-semitism in the UK and Europe....
Owen Jones himself, as Rod notes, doesn't even mention Islamic antisemitism.  Ironic, given that the title of the post is "Anti-Jewish hatred is rising -- we must see it for what it is".  Except that Jones doesn't see the single most important cause....
Many of his commenters call his article "brave".  What's "brave" precisely, in noting a clear and rising phenomenon.  It would have been brave, perhaps, if Jones had indeed seen anti-jewish hatred for what it is.... a manifestation of increasing Islamisation of the UK and Europe and the latest in long-standing anti-semitism in Islam. For which read Bostom's carefully researched and referenced "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism".
Later: I'm just listening to BBC Worldservice radio: they note the increasing antisemitic phenomenon.  They say it comes as much from the "far right" as from "certain sectors in the Muslim community".  Actually, no.  It's Islamic, stupid....

Thursday, 14 August 2014

Pat Condell Takes on Hamas vs Jews in Gaza


And yet, people continue to call on Israel to restart a "peace process".  Condell mentions in passing that Hamas have no interest in peace.  He's quite right.  Here's the Charter of Hamas (aka "The Islamic Resistance Movement"):
Article 13:
Peace initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: “Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.” From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: “The people of Syria are Allah’s whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow.” (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

And Hamas also calls on Jews to be killed. Not just those in Israel, but all Jews, anywhere, any time.  So, as Condell says, how can you negotiate with someone who only wants you dead and has no interest in peace or compromise.

.... the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Tuesday, 12 August 2014

Robin Williams on Islam Jihad

Monday, 4 August 2014

"Celebrating diversity means imposing misogyny"

(Photo: Getty)
(Photo: Getty)
People talk about their commitment to equality and diversity so readily they must assume there is no conflict between the two. The phrase falls off the tongue as if it were an all-in-one package, and people can ‘celebrate diversity’ and support equal rights without a smidgeon of self-doubt. Until, that is, they have to make a principled choice. Then, whether they admit it or not, they find that they can believe in equality or they can believe in diversity, but they cannot believe in both.
If this sounds like the start of a patient exploration of a delicate philosophical distinction, don’t be deceived. There is nothing difficult to understand, and my patience with the double standards of multi-culturalism snapped long ago. If you need me to rehearse the argument again after all these years, here it is, one more time. In a free society you are or should be free to believe what you want. But your freedom to ‘celebrate your diversity’ does not extend to the freedom to force your beliefs on others, unless you can secure a democratic change in the law compatible with the rights of minorities. 
[Related: Islamist extremists preach hate at UK universities]
Read on...
b5fc87372565f9ba47695083059c5960.jpg
Use existing two runways more efficiently. Photo: David Wong
The South China Morning Post ran my letter on Saturday, 2nd Aug:

Explanation required for third runway
As usual, Jake van der Kamp nails it in his column ("Let spoiled airlines fund third runway, not the public purse", July 22).
Those speaking up for a third runway at Chek Lap Kok demand that taxpayers stump up at least HK$200 billion to pay for it. That's HK$30,000 for every man, woman and child in Hong Kong. Or nearly HK$200,000 per taxpayer.
Surely the proponents of the third runway owe us an explanation. Why don't they increase the efficiency of the airport, before demanding that we spend vast sums on more concrete?
We are told by various sources that efficiency of the airport has dropped dramatically in recent years, as more narrow-bodied aircraft flying to secondary airports are allowed landing slots.
These should be weeded out, to focus on wide-bodied jets servicing key cities.
Why not address that issue first? Can the Airport Authority come clean on this issue?
Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay
Another correspondent makes similar points, in somewhat more detail:

The latest in BBC's asinine "Nothing to do with Islam"

My letter to them:

I refer to the BBC World Service radio program seeking answers to why so many converts to Islam in the UK perpetrate violent acts.

At one point, your presenter says “nowhere does the Koran promote violence”.

That statement is palpably and demonstrably False.  

The Koran is chock-full of calls to kill infidels (109 verses by one count).  Had your presenter had actually read the Koran (for surely, she can not have), she could not have made such an asinine statement.

Elsewhere she says that “There is nothing Islamic in their behaviour”, (talking of those who have perpetrated violence against non-Musilms).  Again, there facts are the opposite.  There is plenty in Islam’s Trinity — the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirah of Muhammad — that normalises such violent behaviour.  The core of Islam calls for it.

Her main line that any violence has “nothing to do with Islam” — Islam is “a religion of peace”, no less! —  is belied by her own evidence: in the very fact that there is so much “violent extremism”, which is always “Islamic” violent extremism — not Jainist, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Mormon violent extremism.  Even her guests belie her stance that violence is “nothing to do with Islam”: for it’s always Islamic, by their own testimony.  

Even if — as your presenter maintains —  Islamic “extremism” has “nothing to do with Islam”, that the converts who break bad have “misunderstood” Islam, has it not occurred to her that there seem to be an awful lot of these people, an awful lot of “misunderstanders”?  And not just in the UK.  Both Boko Haram and ISIS are led by men who are deep scholars of Islam. What is it that such men have “misunderstood”?  How is it that what they promote has “nothing to do with Islam”, when they know so much more of Islam than your presenter and are living their lives to advance Islam?

Why, oh why, does the BBC think it’s its job to excuse, to exculpate Islam??

Unless and until the violence at the heart of Islam is faced squarely, then the likes of your presenter — and the BBC -- are going to continue to be “puzzled” as to why converts to Islam think it their duty to attack we infidels.

Shame on the BBC….

Peter Forsythe

Sunday, 3 August 2014

Islam fashion:10 Great Things About the Burqa.

Brilliant!
I've banged on about the burka before. And now here's ten more reasons.... (to "like" it... Hah!)

http://takimag.com/article/10_great_things_about_the_burqa_gavin_mcinnes/print#disqus_thread


Sent from my iPad

Friday, 1 August 2014

Islam in action

This is a really shocking video.  But please don't tell me that "it's not Islam", or that "just some extremists that have hijacked the religion of peace".  No, no. This is mainstream Islam and mandated in the Koran and Hadith, by that "perfect man", Muhammad...
Killing of infidels, beheading them, including Muslims that are not sufficiently pious, is standard doctrine.


Source: The Clarion Project

"I live the drug war every day"

The war on drugs impacts real human beings...
Law enforcement officers against prohibition.... here

Hamas Seen as More to Blame Than Israel for Current Violence

And so they should be.
Even as Israel's attacks on Gaza kill innocents, shocking, horrible... and give pause to staunch Israeli supporters and philo-semites such as me.

Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Obama enables Islam

He may not be a Muslim (I don't think he is), but Obama sure does like to enable it, even or especially its more radical ends...
Another great article from Middle East watcher Raymond Ibrahim, who closely researches and translates Arab media:
"World Leaders Lambast Obamas 'Failures', in the Middle East".
Snip/
... Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, indirectly point to the Obama administration’s failures in the Middle East.  This occurred during an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, in the context of the Presbyterian Church of the USA’s recent decision to divest from Israel in the name of the Palestinian people.
After pointing out that “Christians are persecuted throughout the Middle East”—and nary a word of condemnation or concern from the Presbyterian Church—Netanyahu said:
You know, I would suggest to these Presbyterian organizations to fly to the Middle East, come and see Israel for the embattled democracy that it is, and then take a bus tour, go to Libya, go to Syria, go to Iraq, and see the difference.  And I would give them two pieces of advice, one is, make sure it’s an armor-plated bus, and second, don’t say that you’re Christians.
While not directly mentioning the U.S.’s role in these three nations... the obvious is clear: 1) the U.S. played a major role “liberating” two of these countries—Iraq and Libya—and is currently supporting the freedom fighters/terrorists trying to “liberate” Syria; and 2) in all three nations, the human rights of non-Muslims, specifically Christians, have taken a dramatic nosedive, evincing the nature of those the U.S. helped empower.

Monday, 28 July 2014

More nonsensical moral equivalence on Islam

Days before the recent Israel/Hamas conflict erupted, the Presbyterian Church USA withdrew $21 million worth in investments from Israel because, as spokesman Heath Rada put it, the Israeli government’s actions “harm the Palestinian people.”
Soon after, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and was asked if he was “troubled” by the Presbyterian Church’s move. Netanyahu responded:
It should trouble all people of conscience and morality because it’s so disgraceful. You know, you look at what’s happening in the Middle East and I think most Americans understand this, they see this enormous area riveted by religious hatred, by savagery of unimaginable proportions. Then you come to Israel and you see the one democracy that upholds basic human rights, that guards the rights of all minorities, that protects Christians—Christians are persecuted throughout the Middle East. So most Americans understand that Israel is a beacon of civilization and moderation. You know I would suggest to these Presbyterian organizations to fly to the Middle East, come and see Israel for the embattled democracy that it is, and then take a bus tour, go to Libya, go to Syria, go to Iraq, and see the difference. And I would give them two pieces of advice, one is, make sure it’s an armor plated bus, and second, don’t say that you’re Christians.
It’s difficult—if not impossible—to argue with Netanyahu’s logic. Indeed, several points made in his one-minute response are deserving of some reflection.

Why I don't criticise Israel



From the inimitable Sam Harris.
Israel is losing the PR battle.  But there's a difference in intent here.  The intent of Hamas is to kill all Jews.  The intent of Israel is to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli civilians.
Sam Harris asks: what would each side do if it could do what it wants?  Hamas would kill all Jews.  Israel would live in peace with peaceful neighbours.  There's a clear moral dichotomy here.
I recall a summary of Israel-Palestine:
"If Palestinian lay down their arms there will be peace; if Israel lays down its arms it will be annihilated".
But what of the West Bank?  Again, if Palestinians had taken on Gaza and focussed on economic development -- instead of bombing Israel -- the west bank issue would already have been sorted. Why should they give over more land, when the land they've already given is used as a base to kill its people?
Sam Harris:
And again, you have to ask yourself, what do these groups want? What would they accomplish if they could accomplish anything? What would the Israelis do if they could do what they want? They would live in peace with their neighbors, if they had neighbors who would live in peace with them. They would simply continue to build out their high tech sector and thrive.
What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of humanity. They want stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about. This is not a trivial difference. And yet judging from the level of condemnation that Israel now receives, you would think the difference ran the other way.
This kind of confusion puts all of us in danger. This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.

Sunday, 27 July 2014

GM scaremongering in Africa is disarming the fight against poverty

Guardian article here.
Snip/
As my fellow authors and I note in a Chatham House report, opponents have waged effective campaigns against GM technology based on misinformation and scaremongering.
[like Prince Charles and his uninformed (uninformable..) ilk]

Saturday, 26 July 2014

The Man Who Wasn't There

BBC radio today had a guest who claimed that the Sudan apostasy case was nothing but a family spat which "got out of control". Nothing to do with Islam, you know...
But if Islam didn't have a doctrine that apostates must be killed, there would have been nothing for the "family spat" to draw on.  Yet it does have such a requirement.  The Umdat al-Salik, the classic manual of Islamic jurisprudence, makes it clear: any person who apostasies from Islam must be killed. (o8.1)

And, the inimitable Steyn: "The man who wasn't there".

Sent from my iPad