Science and the Alt-Right!

Islam: The Left's Double Standard

With a hat tip to GeeeZ:

Now for a little personal anecdote...

A few years ago, at the swimming pool, I said to another lounge lizard, a retired public school teacher: "Wearing a hijab is like wearing a swastika."

Other lounge lizard (horrified): "Oh, don't say that! It's so hateful!"

AOW (suppressing a smile): "I'm not the one who said that. A Muslim said that."

Other lounge lizard (relieved): "Oh, well. That's different."

A Short Video About What an Asshole Donald Trump Really Is

Islamphobia Defined

From the Daily Lobo (March 6, 2015):

In the wake of recent attacks targeting Muslims on American college campuses and around the world, ASUNM unanimously passed a cautionary resolution at Wednesday’s meeting urging UNM administration to state their opposition to Islamophobia.

Sen. Udell Calzadillas Chavez, who introduced Resolution 6S, said there is a widespread culture of fear and ignorance that perpetuates violence against Muslims. The purpose of the resolution is to provoke better understanding of Islam in the UNM community.

“This is a proactive approach to events in the United States and around the world,” he said.

Citing domestic attacks against Islam such as the February killing of three Muslim students at the University of North Carolina and a Molotov cocktail being thrown at the Albuquerque Islamic Center last year, as well as the continuing fight against ISIS in the Middle East, the legislation states that UNM “should stand strong in opposition of Islamophobia and related hate crimes.”

The document defined Islamophobia as “dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”

Ihsan Wadud-Rodriguez, a senior Psychology major and Muslim student, said prejudice is often driven by inaccurate and uninformed presumptions about Muslims and the religion they practice.

“Islam has been unfairly confounded with cultural practices,” Wadud-Rodriguez said. “Those very cultural practices which are not supported by Americans are also not supported by Islam. There’s no contradiction: I don’t experience any self-discrepancy between my American values and Islamic values.”...

Additional information at Pamela Geller's site, which as hacked again yesterday and was offline for at least five hours. Pamela reminds us that Nonie Darwish was made unwelcome at the University of New Mexico back in 2012.

The seats of higher learning have become hotbeds of indoctrination and brainwashing.

Who Knew?

November 2012 has been Islamophobia Awareness Month (hat tip to Will of MFS - The Other News):

Unreasonable Fear of Islamophobes

By the time I finished reading the 24-page report put out by Smearcasting.com, (about the top 12 Islamophobes in America) I had made so many notes in the margins, I could have easily written a document twice its size in commentary on the ridiculous PR effort to convince readers that those who are trying to educate the public about Islam's relentless encroachment, Islam's political goals, and the methods of Jihadis are all "Islamophobes" who are doing nothing more than smearing the good name of Muslims everywhere and stirring up "racial hatred."

The whole 24-page document, entitled Smearcasting, criticizes, insinuates, implies, but doesn't really say anything substantial, but displays a virulently hateful and sarcastic tone about these "Islamophobes." Ironically enough, they seem Islamophobe-phobic and yet in the entire document, they never once refute any of the quoted claims of their hated dirty dozen.

On top of that, they do not acknowledge — and I think this is a significant omission — two significant facts. And the ommission of this acknowledgment makes the document lose all credibility. The two facts they omit are:

1. Muslims are committing large numbers of violent acts in the name of Islam.

2. There are intolerant and clearly violent portions in the Qur'an.

These are such glaring and pertinent facts, I don't think any amount of whitewash of Islam or vilification of these pundits could gain any credibility unless they are addressed, or at least acknowledged.

But the article, Smearcasting, actually cheered me up because first of all, they offered nothing that caused any doubt about the work we're doing. And more important for my morale, I discovered the impressive reach of these pundits. It was heartening to know so many people are hearing this message and apparently wanting to hear this message.

Micheal Savage has a radio show that reaches 8.25 million readers per week. According to the article, Savage "sees a monolithic Islamic scheme to take over the U.S." This, as well as many other statements are never refuted in the article, by the way. They must have assumed they were speaking to multicultural journalists who would accept the implication that these claims were preposterous, when almost all the pundits' comments they quoted in the article (in order to ridicule the statements) were accurate, reasonable assertions and statements of fact.

Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor show reaches 3.5 million listeners. Michelle Malkin and Robert Spencer both have bestselling books. Glenn Beck has the third highest-rated national radio talk show among adults ages 24 to 54, and he has "repeatedly associated Islam with Nazism. He drew a parallel between Mein Kampf and 'jihad' because, he said, both mean 'my struggle.'" This is another statement the article left standing, as if it was self-evident this is ridiculous, when in fact it is an accurate statement.

Anyway, it was a relief to know these antijihad pundits were so popular. Our message doesn't have nearly the reach we need, but this is a good start, and the numbers were bigger than I expected. And it was pleasing to know that in this well-researched onslaught meant to defame and hopefully destroy these twelve kings and queens of Islamophobia, that the best they could come up with was completely toothless.

Walid Shoebat

I liked his comment in an interview about the film, Islam: What the West Needs to Know. By the way, has anyone discovered whether he is the real thing or not? He sure is accurate in his portrayal of Islamic principles. Anyway, here is his comment:

At another speech, one Rabbi critiqued the New Testament as “riddled with violence,” I had no problem with his right to state this, yet when I confronted him I asked “Why do you feel free to critique the New Testament, but afraid of critiquing Islam’s well documented violence?” to which he could not reply.

It didn’t matter that I stated in my speech that a Jew had the right to critique Christianity, a Christian had the right to critique Mormonism and Islam, and a Muslim had a right to critique the Bible and Christianity, I was still accused of racism and bigotry against Islam. One can say almost anything against any other religion but Islam. Why?

Our basic religious freedom is at stake. We might be going on the same road as I witnessed in England while doing interviews in the media. In one Christian TV show, the interviewer stated that he cannot critique Islam in fear of closure. Only the interviewee can do so. He feared a shut down of his Christian station.

The other dangerous trend is that all fundamentalists are being lumped as fanatics. At the BBC in England during one interview the interviewer stated to me that “the problem with today’s world is fundamentalism” to which I responded “Christian fundamentalists give the world a headache, I confess, but Muslim fundamentalists will whack your head right off your shoulders, sir” I was quickly thanked and escorted out of the BBC.

Pat Condell: Islam Is Not A Victim

(With a hat-tip to Brooke)



YouTube Link

The West Should Applaud the Brave Geert Wilders for His Courage to Air the Film, Fitna, Against Great Odds, Pressure and Criticism

Ever since Geert Wilders released Fitna last week, all we have heard from the mainstream media and from politicians is criticism of the Netherlands’ best-known, most courageous, and clearest-thinking public figure.

So many people, spineless ones mainly, have said that Mr Wilders set out to insult the Qur’an and Muslims. What a ridiculous thing to say! Surely, what he set out to do is plain to see: He set out to inform the Dutch (and by extension , other Westerners) that they were in danger of losing their country (ies) to a backward, regressive ‘culture’: Islam. He stated categorically that this was the last chance for the Dutch to do something about the explosive growth of Islam in their country.

Now what is extreme about that? And what is "far-right" about it, as far as that goes? Yet Geert Wilders is almost always portrayed as a "far-right", "extreme" politician by just about all the media. Why? Just because he wants to warn his fellow countrymen of the dangers that lie ahead? Seems like good old-fashioned common sense to me. Patriotism, even!

I have been warning for years of the danger of the explosive growth of Islam in the West. And just in case anyone out there thinks that I entitled my book, The Dawning of a New Dark Age, for reasons of sensationalism, think again! That title was carefully chosen, for I truly believe that we are heading for a "New Dark Age" if our politicians do not stop passing ridiculous laws to mollycoddle Muslims. They need to change course, and quickly.

I have just finished reading Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone. Clearly, he has taken up the theme in my book; since he refers to the coming "New Dark Age" often enough in it. So I am obviously not alone in my judgement that a "New Dark Age" is dawning here in the West.

In the past days, it has come to light that many Muslim countries, that oh-so-Western country Turkey included, are calling for the film Fitna to be banned. Clearly, Muslims don’t want to be confronted by the truth, for obviously they are hurt by it. The truth, as they say, so often does hurt.

So what Muslims now want the West to do is close down freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If we do that, it will be a fast track to a "New Dark Age". It is freedom of expression which so clearly delineates our two worlds: the world of the West and the world of the East. Were our politicians to be so stupid as to contemplate such a move, then they will surely deserve to incur the wrath of the electorates around the Western world!

Like so may others, I waited patiently for the film, Fitna, to be released. We had to wait a long time for it, but it was well-worth the long wait. I had expected the movie to be controversial, and it was. But in actual fact, it wasn’t that controversial at all; on the contrary, I found the film to be rather mild and measured. There was very little in it which most of us haven’t seen before. But it was very cleverly put together, and the choice of music was superb. All in all, Fitna impressed; and it had a message which all Westerners should take the time to ponder, since so many Westerners go about their daily lives, oblivious of the dangers which lie ahead of them.

I take my hat off to Geert Wilders for a number of reasons: First and foremost among them is for his courage in stating the things which almost all other politicians are far too cowardly to state. I also applaud him for his clear thinking, and for his refusal to obfuscate the truth.

The images in the film were, in some ways, shocking; but only to the uninitiated. For people who are familiar with the blogosphere, they were mild indeed. But powerful for all that.

The Dutch government has egg on its face! Those politicians made such a fuss over the impending release of that short film that they showed themselves up to be the wimps they truly are.

Oh, and a point on Islamophobia, something which so many Muslim countries seem to view with increasing alarm…

As I have said before, the term ‘Islamophobia’ is a misnomer, since a phobia is an irrational fear of something. Many people fear Islam; but that fear, alas, is not ‘irrational’. People’s fears are based on solid experience and history. It is an undeniable fact that the intention of Islam is to take over the Western world, and replace our way of governance with the Islamic way. Given the track record of most Muslim countries, it is surely not phobic to fear the exceedingly fast growth of Islam here in the West. On the contrary, actually, it would be irrational not to fear that explosive growth!

Moreover, I should like to say this: If Muslims don’t want their religion to be feared, if they want to be liked and welcomed around the world, they have to change their behaviour. Governments cannot legislate for its people to ‘love’ Islam. Only Muslims can make themselves loved and welcomed; and to bring these changes about, then they need to change their own behaviour. They need to stop their inexorable programme of expansion around the world, they need to free up their peoples, and they need to stop the cruel punishments: the beheadings, the stonings to death, the amputations for theft - the general cruelty which is so obviously part and parcel of their way of life. And they certainly need to put a stop to putting people to death for apostasy.

The expression, "In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful", is found in almost every chapter (Surah) of Al-Qur’an al Kareem. Isn’t it high time that Muslims started to follow the example that Allah has supposedly given them? Isn’t it high time that Muslims started to show the same compassion and mercy that Allah supposedly shows His followers?

In summary, I would say this about Fitna. It was an excellent film, well worth waiting for. It was in no way insulting to Muslims; though I appreciate that many might have been hurt by it. But then, as I have already stated, the truth is usually hard to swallow. Nobody, Muslim or non-Muslim, likes to be confronted by the harsh realities of life. I applaud Geert Wilders for having the courage and bravery to raise issues in the Netherlands (and in the West) which should have been raised long ago. Bravo, Mr Wilders! Bravo!

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved

Two Audios: Who Is Allah? & Islamphobia

From The Idiots Guide To Islam at In The Name Of Allah:



YouTube Link:

We are INDOCTRINATED to believe that ALLAH is GOD.

Allah is NOT God. Allah is only the NAME of a god.

YouTube Link:

The Muslim population HYPOCRITICALLY accuses the West of 'Islamophobia'.

Isn't it natural that we should be terrified of Muhammadan Islam?

The entire series of audios is HERE. Also see In The Name Of Allah, which offers articles on topics related to the history of Islam, including this excellent introduction to Islam. Excerpt from near the end of "Introduction to Islam":

Politicians and theologians keep repeating the mantra that Islam is a religion of 'peace', when the history of Muhammadan Islam is written with the blood of conquests and subjugation of tens of millions of nations in at least twenty-five countries spanning three continents - Asia, Africa and Europe - stretching from India and China in the east to the Atlantic in the west. The subject peoples of these lands - who had their own religions and beliefs - did not voluntarily become 'Muslims' through dialogue and spiritual enlightenment.

[Hat-tip to Mark Alexander, where I found the second of the above audios]

When Someone Criticizes Islam, What Should We Call That?

WHEN SOMEONE says some of the passages of the Qur'an are violent and Islam itself is a political religion, what do you call that kind of criticism? It's an important question. Strangely enough, I've heard it called "racist," which seems very odd. Islam is not a race.

I've also heard it called "Islamophobia," which is also strange, because it is not a phobia.

It is religious criticism. But it's more than that, because Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is also a political system with political goals. So instead of racism or Islamophobia, we could call it religious or political criticism.

But if you call it that, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. In a free society, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize religious doctrines and political systems. It's perfectly all right in a free country, for example, to point out that the Catholic church frowns upon birth control, or that communism and free enterprise are incompatible. Anyone who protested statements of that kind would accurately be seen as absurd.

So when someone explains the political ideology contained in the Qur'an, it is a completely legitimate activity, and anyone who calls it racism or Islamophobia either doesn't understand what they're saying, or, more likely, they are trying to censor the criticism. That kind of censorship is out of line in a free society.

Ironically, the fact that exponents of pure Islam (the jihadists) will not tolerate criticism of Islam is one of the main criticisms of Islam. The fact that the Qur'an itself is adamant about disallowing any criticism of the Qur'an (and calls for a death sentence for doing so) is one of the most legitimate things to criticize about the Qur'an.

read the rest >>

The Mistaken Use Of The Term "Islamophobia"

The following article was written by Ali Sina, and originally published on the apostate's site, Faith Freedom. An apostate is someone who was once a Muslim, but then rejected the religion (became a non-Muslim). In an Islamic state, becoming an apostate is a crime punishable by death. Here is Ali Sina's article:

One friend alerted me to a discussion going on in Wikipedia on the neologism “Islamophobia.” Someone has suggested that this category should be deleted because the term Islamophobia is divisive, inflammatory and it is frequently used to inhibit very valid criticism of Islam.

This suggestion, of course, as it is to be expected, has been rejected by Muslims who have Islamized everything including Wikipedia. This friend asked my opinion. Here is what I think:

Islam is an ideology. Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobe, communists calling their critics communitophobe or Hindus calling theirs Hinduphobe. The term "Islamophobia" is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading.

According to Dictionary.com Phobia is “a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.” Therefore the neologism "Islamophobia" implies that Islam is not dangerous and the fear of it is irrational.

This claim has not been established and it is not universally agreed upon. There are many who argue that Islam is indeed a dangerous ideology and they have their logical arguments to prove their claim. Irrespective of whether the critics of Islam are right or wrong about whether Islam is dangerous or not, calling them “phobic” implies that their criticism has been already refuted and the irrationality of their fear of Islamic threat has been established. Therefore their disagreement with Islam is not logical but a mental disorder.

All ideologies have their opponents. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.

Only Muslims are capable of this much irrationality and arrogance. We all recall Muhammad Abdullah, the Afghani man who converted to Christianity and who was facing execution. When the government of Afghanistan was pressured to release him, to save face they accused him of being insane and not fit to stand trial. In the mind of Muslims only an insane person would disagree with Islam. This is sheer arrogance.

Buddhism is by all accounts a peaceful religion as non-violence is the core of it. Despite that Buddhism has its critics and we never call them Buddhistphobes.

The neologism Islamophobia makes absolutely no sense. It is derogatory and is used in a pejorative way to discredit the critics of Islam from the outset.

read the rest>>>

Dr. Tawfik Hamid Coming To Washington, D.C.

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

Excerpt from this source, an essay by Tawfik Hamid, and subtitled "Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence":

...Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.

[...]

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

[...]

...[M]any non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

[...]

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."...

Read the entire article.

The author is Dr. Tawfik Hamid, author of the book The Roots of Jihad. His online biographical sketch states the following:

Born in Egypt to a secular Muslim family, Tawfik Hamid joined the extremist Islamic Group GI when he was in Medical School . His colleagues in the terror movement included Al Zawaherri, then a friend with whom Tawfik used to pray, and now the number 2 person of Al Qaeda.

Eventually Dr. Hamid questioned the feelings of hatred and impulses to violence that his participation in extremist Islam was fomenting within him. He became a physician, and also a scholar of Islamic texts. When he began to preach in Mosques to promote a message of peace instead of violence and hatred, however, he himself became a target of the Islamic extremists who had been his friends. They threatened his life, forcing him and his family to flee Egypt , and then Saudi Arabia. As Dr. Hamid says "The powers of darkness were overwhelming and I was forced to emigrate with my family to the West seeking freedom."

From his insider understanding of terrorist mentality, Tawfik predicted the Sept. 11th, Madrid, and London attacks. Now his mission has become "to speak out against radical Islam, a cancer that is spreading with frightening rapidity across the globe today."...

It appears that Dr. Hamid is qualified to speak of the subject of which he's written in the above commentary, which serves as a reality check.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid will be speaking in Washington, D.C., on Friday, June 29, 2007. I received and accepted the following invitation via Andrew Whitehead, Director, Anti-Council on American-Islamic Relations (Anti-CAIR):

The Hon. Rick Santorum

and

The Victory Coalition

cordially invite you to a public lecture

“Radicalization of Young Muslims”

by Dr. Tawfik Hamid

Friday, June 29, 2007

12 to 2 p.m.

The lecture will be at The Ethics and Public Policy Center

1015 Fifteenth Street NW

Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20005

Lunch will be served.

Dr Hamid is a former member of Jema’a Islameia, an Islamic extremist group, and a former associate of Ayman al-Zawaheri, Al-Qaeda’s second in command. He is a lecturer and author of The Roots of Jihad, as well as several articles, including “How to End ‘Islamophobia’” in The Wall Street Journal, and “The Development of A Jihadist's Mind” published by the Hudson Institute.

For more information and to RSVP contact Simone Lorenzo

at slorenzo@eppc.org or 202.682.1204.

Please RSVP before Wednesday, June 20.