ZZ Top
I'm Bad, I'm Nationwide

Six arrested over Leicester kebab shop explosion

Video from BBC. Still not one word about whodunit. We can be pretty sure of one thing;. had even one of the suspects darkened the door of a church one time, the accused would, likely, all be labeled ‘fundamentalist Christians’.

Video here.

Ground Zero Mosque Imam Calls For Integrating Sharia Law Into American And British Legal Systems  

AMERICA’S most controversial imam — the man at the centre of the storm over plans for the “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York last year — flew into Edinburgh yesterday to tell the Festival of Spirituality and Peace that greater integration between Islam and the West depends on the incorporation of Sharia law into the legal systems of the UK and the United States as well as Muslims adopting the culture of their host countries.

Many see Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as an Islamic moderate even though he has been vilified in the US press as an apologist for radical Muslims.

In an interview with the Sunday Herald, Rauf said he believes the world is in the grip of a “dangerous myth” and “self-fulfilling prophecy” that “Islam and the West are at war. But the real battleground is not between Islam and the West, but between the wise, fair-minded people of all faith traditions and the extremists.”

Although he is a pro-US imam who has argued that America is the embodiment of Islam’s ideal society, Rauf became a hate figure in the US over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. The plan offended relatives of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and led to a US pastor proposing a “Burn a Koran day”. 

Read the full story here.

Damien comments:

Just imagine the outrage there would be, if a prominent western Christian leader were to say that Biblical Law should be incorporated into the laws of a non Christian, in order to help Christians integrate. Do people really not see the absurdity of this? Do they not see how incorporating Sharia law, even the more benign aspects of sharia law into our legal system would violate the very principals of secularism? If people actually believe him, and actually think that incorporating sharia law into our legal system will improve relationships with Muslims than they can not complain when the religious right demands that we base our laws on "biblical principals."

How Should We Treat the Muslims in Our Midst?

LIVING AMONG US, we have many Muslims who are undoubtedly as innocent of terrorism, political subversion, and Islamic supremacism as we are. But we have a problem, don't we? These innocent fellow countrymen — and the terrorists, subversives, and supremacists — all call themselves "Muslims."

Many non-Muslims explain the situation to themselves that "there are extremists in every religion" and let it go at that. But those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine and Islamic history have discovered that "letting it go at that" would be a big mistake. And of course, those who simply look at the news can see that there must be something about Islam that produces more "extremists" than other religions.

In fact, the "extremists" are not any more "extreme" than the many devout followers of other religions. The difference is that the teachings devout Muslims follow are more definitively hostile toward non-followers than any other mainstream religion's teachings.

So we are in a quandary, and so are the innocents who call themselves Muslims (but who ignore or are unaware of Islam's intolerant teachings). We don't want to make the mistake of overgeneralizing and becoming hostile to someone just because he says he's a Muslim. But we don't want to support or encourage or befriend a Muslim who is following the teachings of the Koran because it says it's okay to pretend to be a non-Muslim's friend, but to never actually be their friend, and it says "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." These are not the beliefs or motivations we want in a friend, or in someone we invite home to dinner, or even in someone we speak freely with.

We know how to deal with orthodox Muslims who are actively pushing for concessions from the West, but what about in our personal lives? Should we live in suspicion of all Muslims? Should we automatically hate someone we know is a Muslim? Would you want to live that way? No, probably not. Should you ignore what you know about Islamic doctrine and treat everyone the same? That doesn't seem sensible either.

We're in a real quandary, and so are heterodox Muslims who have rejected the worst of Muhammad's teachings.

Our difficulty can be resolved with a simple change in our personal policy. We can consistently treat the Muslims among us a particular way and it will solve our problem and hopefully bring this issue into the light of day where we can reasonably deal with it like adults.

Before I describe the personal policy I advocate, I need to clarify something. An "innocent Muslim," or what has often been called a "moderate Muslim" would necessarily have to reject jihad except in the sense of a "personal inner struggle." That would be a Muslim who rejects (or is unaware of) 97 percent of the references to jihad in the Hadith. For a Muslim to be truly innocent, she or he must reject (or be ignorant of) much of the "sacred" example of Muhammad, which means rejecting (or being unaware of) the 91 passages in the Koran that tell Muslims to follow Muhammad's example.

An innocent Muslim must also reject (or is unaware of) the intolerance, hatred, and violence toward non-Muslims in the Koran. And an innocent Muslim would reject (or be ignorant of) the subordinated position of women in Islamic doctrine.

For any non-Muslim who has studied Islamic doctrine, the above description is a reasonable starting point for a Muslim we can welcome in our midst.

What brought this up was reflecting over the last ten years. We started citizenwarrior.com in 2001, about a month after 9/11. And in that time, we've heard from hundreds of Muslims, all of them arguing that we don't know what we're talking about because "true Islam" is peaceful and tolerant.

In all that time, we have never heard from a Muslim — not once — that acknowledged the existence of the immense number of passages in the Koran that non-Muslims find disagreeable — passages that anyone with an IQ over 70 could understand are disagreeable to non-Muslims. And not once have any these Muslims acknowledged the existence of the egregious example of Muhammad — an example anyone with the slightest amount of human empathy would understand might be offensive or even frightening to non-Muslims.

What we've heard again and again was that it's all taken out of context, and that the terrorists have it all wrong and nobody else except the terrorists believe in or follow such teachings, or the teachings don't exist.

Over the years we've come across a very small number of genuinely jihad-rejecting Muslims, like Tawfik Hamid. And of course, if someone genuinely rejects the hatred, political ambition and calls to violence in Islamic doctrine, they don't complain to us about what we write here on Citizen Warrior. They don't have a problem with criticism of Islamic doctrine (they are strong critics of the doctrine themselves).

But after rejecting so much of Islam (given our definition of an "innocent Muslim" above), even Muslims have a hard time understanding why such a person would call himself a "Muslim," but who are we to say how any person should define himself?

THE RECOMMENDED POLICY

Okay, so our situation is that we don't know how to treat the Muslims in our midst, and the "innocent Muslims" don't know how to identify themselves as "jihad-rejecting Muslims." Here is the solution: We should stop coddling the innocent Muslims and start being very matter-of-fact about our situation. We need to stop talking around this issue. We need to stop avoiding the source of the problem. We need to deal with Muslims forthrightly with this attitude: "You either firmly reject jihad or we must assume you embrace it. It is counterproductive for everyone for us to bend over backwards trying to prove how tolerant we are."

If Muslims want to be welcomed into this society, they need to start standing up and making their voices heard. They must openly acknowledge and unambiguously and categorically reject the hatred, misogyny, and violence in their core doctrines, or we must assume they don't.

Many of us are reading their source books. We know the doctrine. We would be foolish not to assume a Muslim believes in Islamic doctrine. So it is up to Muslims to tell us they do not believe in that doctrine, and to say specifically which parts of the doctrine they do not endorse.

What got me thinking about this was an article by Christopher Hitchens who said that Governor Mitt Romney (a Mormon) firmly stated "that he did not regard the prophet, or head of the Mormon church, as having ultimate moral and spiritual authority on all matters. Nothing, he swore, could override the U.S. Constitution."

Why did Romney feel he needed to say that? Because many of us are aware of Mormon doctrine. So he openly reassured us as to where his loyalties lay.

Have you ever heard a Muslim do this? And yet Muslims are in a worse situation. They experience far more suspicion and hostility in our society than Mormons. But rather than doing what Romney did, what do Muslims do? Usually they blame us for the suspicion and hostility, and imply the problem is our lack of "tolerance."

So here's the situation: We've become aware of Islamic doctrine and we don't like it, so we naturally wonder where the Muslims among us stand, and instead of saying, "We acknowledge the intolerance and violence of our core doctrines, and we reject them totally," they tend to open up with hostility, and so deepen our suspicions. The hostility and finger-pointing and the avoidance of honesty are exactly what we would expect from someone who believes in the supremacist, intolerant teachings of Islam.

And weak, vague assurances are not good enough. "We reject the killing of innocents" doesn't work any more because too many of us know already that nowhere in the Koran does it imply non-Muslims are innocent. It implies just the opposite.

Muslims need to be clear and explicit, and we need to demand that of them without apology. From a non-Muslim's perspective, our open demand for honesty is a rational response to the facts, and nothing to be embarrassed about.

We need to make it clear what someone must do to be welcome in this society if they call themselves a Muslim. And we need to be clear that our "tough-love" attitude toward them is a sane response to what we know of their ideology.


ISLAMIC BELIEVERS

Imagine you were putting an avowed communist in charge of the Federal Reserve. You wouldn't do it without very firm assurances from him that he completely rejects the economic model of communism. You have to demand that assurance because you are familiar with the basic tenets of the communist ideology.

You have to assume when someone says he's a communist that he believes in the communist ideology. It's an assumption we can take for granted. Otherwise, what does it mean to say you're a communist?

That's what it means: That you believe in the communist ideology.

Same with Islam: You say you're a Muslim. That means you believe in Islam's ideology. Fine. I am familiar with Islam's teachings. And no, I don't want you running the country or involved in law enforcement or teaching my children or writing textbooks or working in counterterrorism or joining the military, unless you can assure me about what parts of that ideology you reject. This should be plain common sense, but of course, it only makes sense to someone who is familiar with the Islamic ideology.

If you assume it is impossible for a religion to advocate intolerance, supremacism, mysogyny and violence to non-believers, this policy and this attitude would not make sense. If you assume the teachings of any religion could be used to justify anything, it would not make sense to you either. But if you are a non-Muslim and you've read the Koran, you know what I'm talking about.

Others are coming to the same conclusion, and I've seen many more direct challenges to Muslims who say they are moderate. They are being asked pointed questions like, "Do you repudiate what Hamas is doing?" and "I am a Buddhist; do you consider me a kafir?" and they're asked to sign the Freedom Pledge and if they won't sign it, they are asked why they won't. These are steps in the right direction.

But more interviewers need to become educated enough about Islam that they can ask stronger, more specific questions. And this challenge needs to become incessant from all of us, everywhere. Muslims must be made to face the discomfort. They must realize they have to come right out and say, "Yes, there is a political agenda in Islam, and I completely reject it" or they will not be welcomed or trusted (or invited to any "interfaith dialogs for peace and understanding").

For someone who is unfamiliar with Islamic doctrine, all this would sound terrible and unfair, but we would do the same for any person who openly declared their endorsement of a seditious or treasonous or intolerant or violent ideology and who wanted to live among us as equals.

WHY THE TOUGH LOVE ATTITUDE IS NECESSARY

There are three reasons Muslims are reluctant to say what parts of Islamic doctrine they reject:

1. It says in the Islamic doctrine they can't reject any part of the Islamic doctrine.

2. They fear for their lives. According to Islamic doctrine, the penalty for apostasy is death. They might also merely fear to be ostracized by their community. Heterodoxy, even if not accompanied by the death penalty, can be socially penalized severely in Muslim communities.

3. They don't reject it. They are going along with the Western society program until Muslims have greater political strength, at which time, they will start applying the political, supremacist teachings of Islam. This approach must be fairly common, given the patterns of modern Islamization.

It would take a very brave person, even if he was truly a jihad rejector, to volunteer an admission of apostasy. We must, in a sense, force their hand and then help protect jihad rejectors from reprisals.

This issue must be forced into the open or we will continue to suffer in a confused and paralyzed limbo while orthodox Muslims paint all of us into a corner (the non-Muslims and jihad-rejecting Muslims alike) by continuing their Islamization of the West.


IDEOLOGY COUNTS

In a video profiling three American Muslims, who all presented themselves as regular American citizens, the Muslims seemed baffled as to why non-Muslims might look at them suspiciously, but they also seemed equally self-righteous about how silly and misguided that is, and not one of these American Muslims mentioned the supremacism and intolerance at the core of their doctrines. Worse, they acted as if no such doctrines exist. They acted as if such a notion was preposterous.

One of the women in the video even pointed out that believers of other religions don't get this kind of scrutiny or prejudice. I wanted to tell her, "That's right. It's been a long time since anyone worried about the Amish rioting, beheading people, infiltrating governments, threatening violence to silence their critics, changing the contents of public school textbooks, or blowing up buses. Ideology actually counts."

We don't have a situation where religions are all the same but one is being picked on unfairly. We have a situation where most religions share many principles about universal love and kindness, but Islam does not. According to Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of people and deserve to suffer in this life and burn in the afterlife.

One Muslim man in the video implied that if only people could get to know him and his family, their suspicions would disappear. I wanted to tell him, "Whether or not your family members are personable is not what concerns us. We wonder whether you believe in jihad in any form. We wonder if you pay your zakat and thus potentially fund suicide bombers. We wonder if you participate in CAIR or ISNA or any of the other Muslim organizations under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood and we wonder if you've aligned yourself with the Brotherhood's goal to sabotage and undermine our government. We wonder if you believe in reverse integration and if you're striving in the way of Allah to Islamize America. We wonder if you follow the Koranic teachings to never make friends with non-Muslims — to go ahead and fake it, but never actually befriend them or like them."

If he is actively working toward Islam's prime directive, no amount of "getting to know him and his family" will matter. What might matter is if he acknowledged those teachings and told us he rejected them. That would at least be a start. But in the video, which would make any PR hack proud, you hear nothing that even approaches that level of honesty.

If these American Muslims are really so baffled, they should read their own doctrines. And if they have read them, their "bafflement" is a deceit because anyone reading the Koran or Muhammad's words and deeds would not be baffled in the slightest. It would be obvious what non-Muslims don't like about it.

Why does it matter? These Muslims are not a threat to national security, are they? Why not let them continue in their innocence? Because they are having children, and in a recent study in Britain, researchers found that second-generation Muslims are more "radical" than their immigrant parents. That is, they hold more orthodox views. In other words, they believe in Islam's prime directive. They are more committed to jihad than their first-generation parents.

Why would this be? Because of what I'm harping on: All these "perfectly nice Muslims" in the video are raising their children without ever telling them that supremacist and intolerant teachings are strewn throughout the Koran and Sunna, and without saying, "but we completely reject those teachings." No, they say nothing of the sort. They do just the opposite. They tell them being a Muslim is wonderful, that the Koran is the word of the Almighty, and that Muslims are being unfairly persecuted by non-Muslims around the world.

So our young Muslim grows up alienated from his surrounding culture and ignorant of Islamic doctrine and yet considering it an elemental foundation of his identity that he is a Muslim. This makes him fairly easy to recruit by devout Muslims who simply tell the kid to read the Koran and discover his obligations as a Muslim. The teenager is only too eager to see his parents as hypocrites, and becomes a devout Muslim, committed to jihad like it says in the Koran he is supposed to be. The result: Second-generation Muslims are more radical than their immigrant parents.

Another video, this one produced by teenaged American Muslims, who clearly have no clue about the doctrines of their own religion, yet feel self-righteously justified in vilifying non-Muslims who know more about their own religious doctrines than they do: The End of Islamophobia.


NOT GOOD ENOUGH

In an article entitled, Why 'Islamophobia' is Less Thinly Veiled in Europe, the author, Robert Marquand, writes, "In university settings and among some Muslim moderates, frank reappraisals of the Koran are under way, which includes a tougher look at its calls for militancy." He presented this fact as if it should put all our worries to rest.

Some Muslims are taking a tougher look? That is not a big relief. Islamic doctrines are clear, straightforward, and easy to find. They don't need to be "looked at" — they have been looked at, studied, memorized, clarified, and analyzed for 1400 years. And they were pretty clear and straightforward to begin with. They don't need to be looked at. They need to be vociferously repudiated, explicitly and forcefully.

Violent and intolerant teachings in Islamic doctrine are not superfluous addendum that can be easily discarded; they are embedded deep in the core of Islam throughout its doctrine and throughout its history. And orthodox Muslims are acting on these passages all over the world, killing people, destroying property, wrecking lives, and worming their way into positions of power. They're doing it right now, today.

Someone will die today because of these doctrines. By any definition, the situation is urgent. A "tougher look" doesn't cut it. Not even close. Does Marquand really think we can all relax now because some Muslim intellectuals at a few universities are taking a "tougher look?" He must be joking.

Marquand quotes Ahmet Mahamat, an immigrant from Chad who lives in France. Mahamat said, "Immigrants are linked to criminality or delinquency or fanaticism." He meant "linked in peoples' prejudiced minds." Poor Mahamat. We are supposed to feel sorry for him. But I wanted to tell him to suck it up and prove people wrong, just like every immigrant group before him has had to do.

Almost everywhere, when immigrants arrive on foreign shores, they face prejudice. And if they work hard and prove themselves loyal members of that society, they are eventually accepted and embraced.

That's how it works. You want to be on our team? Then prove yourself worthy. We don't owe you anything. We've already let you move here — the rest is up to you. If anything, you owe us.

But Mahamat is pursuing the example of Muhammad the Whiner. "I look in the eyes of so many people," he says, "and what I see does not correspond to who I am. They see another me."

I want to tell him, "Look, Mahamat, we know the ideology you supposedly believe in. You say you're a Muslim. We naturally assume you believe in Islam. We assume you are an adherent of Islamic doctrine, which would mean you believe in the supremacism and intolerance inherent in your ideology. Either stop calling yourself a Muslim or explicitly say, 'I reject jihad, I reject Muhammad's political, supremacist model, and I embrace Western values of freedom, women's rights, religious equality, etc.' It took me all of ten seconds to say that, so what's the problem? If you can't honestly say those things, then our suspicions are correct, so quit your whining and get used to permanent rejection because you do not belong in this society."

YOUR PUBLIC DECLARATION OF YOUR IDEOLOGY SHOULD INFLUENCE MY BEHAVIOR

When you know something about an ideology, you treat the person differently, and you should. You don't feed a Jain a steak dinner when they come to your house (Jains believe you should not kill any living creature). You don't invite a Buddhist with you on a deer hunt (Buddhists refrain from harming living beings).

If you know about someone's ideology, you usually will (and definitely should) treat them differently.

And in the same way, if someone's ideology calls for unrelenting jihad against non-Muslims until the whole world submits to Islamic law, generally speaking, you don't invite them to come live in your country and bring their wives. And if they are already in your country, you usually will (and definitely should) be wary of them until they prove their devotion and loyalty to your country and the principles your society is founded on.

This should be common sense. If it doesn't make sense to you, your first step should be to take the pledge and read the Koran.

For those who unevasively reject jihad in their speech and action, we should treat them like anyone else. No better, no worse.

I know many will think, "I don't care what they say. They could be lying." And of course that's true. But this is the place to start. The next step is to see if their actions match their words. This is true with anyone. If someone says they are on your team, you don't automatically trust them with your children. You get to know them. If their behavior doesn't match what they say, you stop trusting them, just as you should.

But the point is, none of us should be at all shy about speaking frankly about the principles in Islamic doctrine. Speak openly about it, and ask Muslims directly where they stand.

This policy will be hard on everyone in the short run but ultimately it will solve a huge problem we now face, which is that heterodox Muslims are reluctant to speak up about what they really believe, and that leaves us not knowing how to treat them. Who is committed to jihad and who isn't? We don't know who to trust or how to treat them. We are collectively filled with an awkward uncertainty about Islam.

Meanwhile, true believers in jihad are busy Islamizing the West while we hesitate, paralyzed by our uncertainty. This has got to stop immediately.

We call on all non-Muslims in the free world to join us in this stand — to put the onus on each individual Muslim (not just "Muslim organizations"). We must make this clear to every person who calls himself a Muslim: If you do not openly reject the doctrine of jihad when given an opportunity to do so, we must assume you abide by it and believe in it since it is a central part of your religious doctrine.

The result will be an openness and clarity that will allow us to move forward, stopping the orthodox Muslims from proceeding with their Islamization project, freeing the heterodox Muslims from their prison of silence, and freeing ourselves from having to live with uncertainty, suspiciousness, or hatred in our day-to-day lives.

Andy Khouri's 99 problems with conservative critics of Islam

I don't think I'd ever looked this over before - it's not like everything can be thought out easily in a jiffy anyway - but I thought I'd look over Comics Alliance's moonbat Andy Khouri's apologia where he basically attacks conservatives bothered with that Islamic comic, The 99, written a couple weeks before the case of the Islamic Batman officially came up:

Superhero fans, especially those old enough to have opinions, are often divided by their views on the appropriateness of real-world politics in their escapist literature. While many of us regard Dennis O'Neil and Neil Adams' socially relevant run on "Green Lantern/Green Arrow" to be a superlative example of costumed heroes confronting the hard-hitting issues of the day, just as many readers dismiss it as didactic and inappropriate given the characters' roots in benign adolescent power fantasies. But what about when real-world issues encroach upon the mild escapism? What happens then?

Poor man. Did it ever occur to him that back in the day, Green Lantern and Green Arrow never went miles out of its way to whitewash bad ideologies? But, that said, I do understand why some people feel that heavy politics just don't suit comics.

These issues are being confronted again with "The 99," a comic about a group of multi-ethnic superheroes with a basis in Islamic culture and faith. An animated series based on the comic was meant to debut last week, but it's been pushed back to January of next year (unlike DC's "JLA/The 99" crossover miniseries, which debuts next week with issue #1). Like New York City's so-called "Ground Zero Mosque," itself envisioned to promote tolerance and peace between Muslims and the greater American population, "The 99" cartoon finds itself imperiled by those who've yet to see or even contemplate the true nature of the work.

As it so happened, "those who've" guessed quite well what could be the problem: the comic/cartoon doesn't feature any of the more disturbing passages of the Koran. Does it? If it's offensive to whitewash nazism, then it's offensive to whitewash any violent themes in Islam and the Koran.

And judging from little Mr. Khouri's own whitewash of the Ground Zero mosque, it's clear he doesn't have a very high opinion of Americans - not even the families of the victims - who have every right to protest what will be seen as a victory to the terrorists. He also clearly has no shame in obscuring imam Feisal Rauf's own repugnant background.

"Cancel 'The 99' before it starts," wrote the New York Post's Andrea Peyser in an editorial this week.

Hide your face and grab the kids. Coming soon to a TV in your child's bedroom is a posse of righteous, Sharia-com pliant Muslim superheroes -- including one who fights crime hidden head-to-toe by a burqa.

These Islamic butt-kickers are ready to bring truth, justice and indoctrination to impressionable Western minds.

Conservative conspiracy website World Net Daily joined in, writing nearly 1,000 words of warning against the supposedly subversive series. Except, from all appearances, "The 99" is about as subversive as baseball and mom's apple pie.

But if no mention of the Koran's verses are featured, then it is subversive. As is Mr. Khouri himself, I'd think. And how touching that all he sees in WND is "conspiracy".

The superhero group was created by Muslim psychologist Naif Al-Mutawa not to promote radical Muslim values, but specifically to confront them, and challenge the xenophobia preached by radical Imams (possibly the sort of views that have resulted in an American cartoonist going into hiding after challenging Muslim extremists). In an interview with PBS, Al-Mutawa recalls his inspiration for "The 99," which began with the familiar idea of "Pokemon," and his desire to create something for children with that kind of potential:

My next thought was that there had been a fatwa issued against Pokemon in this region. My next thought was, "My God, who are these people, and who appointed them to be spokespeople for Islam?" My next thought was Allah, and how disappointed he must be. My next thought was that Allah had 99 attributes, and that brought me full circle back to Pokemon, which is a concept of 300 attributes.

Ah, I see. So Mutawa, and by extension Mr. Khouri, are trying to seperate between the Koran and the imams who preach the beliefs of its main writer, Muhammed.

Each of the heroes of "The 99" represents one of those virtues of Allah, such as strength, mercy and wisdom, attributes that are valued by many faiths and cultures. Praised by U.S. President Barack Obama as embodying "the teachings of the tolerance of Islam," the young heroes also demonstrate these values in their fantastical adventures without any one character praying or even mentioning explicit Muslim scripture nor the Prophet Mohammed, according to ICv2.

How odd that he technically admits Mohammed was the very inspiration for tyrants who follow him today.

Just as importantly, "The 99" are not only intended to present a moderate, tolerant face of Islam to the Western world, but also to the Islamic world itself. In the same PBS interview, Al-Mutawa recalled pitching the idea of "The 99" to investors, and describing the trading cards and stickers of suicide bombers that were sold "in the millions" to children throughout the West Bank and the Middle East. It was time for the Islamic world to find some new heroes, he said.

Gee, they were just following the teachings of Muhammed. Why does al-Mutawa live in denial about that? That's exactly his problem - that he won't acknowledge the Koran's verses for jihad, nor one of Muhammed's most chilling acts in sexuality. As Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer would say, there may be moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam. And any "religion" that would condone violence for the sake of it - to say nothing of forcing underaged children to marry an older man - is not something you just whitewash.

Each of the heroes of "The 99" represents one of those virtues of Allah, such as strength, mercy and wisdom, attributes that are valued by many faiths and cultures. Praised by U.S. President Barack Obama as embodying "the teachings of the tolerance of Islam," the young heroes also demonstrate these values in their fantastical adventures without any one character praying or even mentioning explicit Muslim scripture nor the Prophet Mohammed, according to ICv2.

And just how does that somehow make it legitimate? Let us be clear: a religion founded by a violent man who even took a 6-year-old girl as his bride, and which is built upon his beliefs, is not something you deal with using kid gloves. In fact, it's not something to be admired at all. And that Khouri would go miles out of his way to apologize for something built on what neither Moses nor Jesus ever supported is disgusting as the whole claim to tolerance is a blatant lie. Will they next condone a whitewash of the sick acts of Mumia abu-Jamal, who murdered officer Daniel Faulkner?

Just as importantly, "The 99" are not only intended to present a moderate, tolerant face of Islam to the Western world, but also to the Islamic world itself. In the same PBS interview, Al-Mutawa recalled pitching the idea of "The 99" to investors, and describing the trading cards and stickers of suicide bombers that were sold "in the millions" to children throughout the West Bank and the Middle East. It was time for the Islamic world to find some new heroes, he said.

But as this earlier info tells, al-Mutawa may have committed the unpardonable sin of taqqiya.

The inherent Middle Easternness of "The 99" does set it apart from other television cartoons; I don't think we've seen this cultural context presented so obviously in children's entertainment since Disney's "Aladdin" in 1992 (you can count "Prince of Persia" if you like). A seven-minute preview on YouTube reveals more of "The 99's" backstory, which has to do with Mongols plundering and burning a library in 13th century Baghdad, which contained the world's largest collection of knowledge and wisdom. Luckily, the contents of the books were saved within 99 magic gemstones -- "Noor Stones" -- which are discovered centuries later by the young heroes of "The 99."

Such a series mythology is in keeping with the tradition of the variously "ethnic" backgrounds of some of our favorite children's adventure stories: Indiana Jones, Johnny Quest, the Immortal Iron Fist. There are differences, obviously, like the fact that all those heroes are white men inserted into "exotic" locales and cultures to become their champions, rather than heroes actually based in those milieus, as seems to be case with "The 99."

And these also something similar - that people of Arabic descent, if anyone, are just as white as the westerners, their complexion of dark/light notwithstanding. As for the "heroes" from these milieus, did it ever occur to him that the ancient Persians were an Aryan race - possibly one of the earliest - and even if they weren't as tall as their Viking successors, it's quite possible many of them were blond? So, I've included Prince of Persia alright.

That one female character, Batina the Hidden, wears a burka and a few other heroes wear headscarves seem to be sticking points for opponents of "The 99," and opponents of Islam in general. Indeed, Peyser's critical New York Post piece is called "Trading Cape for the Burqa," as if even gazing upon such fictional children will be enough to prompt non-Muslim American children to abandon our Western fashions and adopt all the trappings of the dreaded Sharia, or Islamic Law. It's the next dangerous fad that will get your children into trouble, like huffing paint or drag-racing down the street at night.

The problem is that it might not tell whether this is an obligation or a choice. Either way, a religion built upon the kind of horrors Islam happens to be and he won't admit, is not something you just promote as though it were no big deal.

Now here's where Khouri descends into lying:

Andy Sullivan, a Queens construction worker opposed to the "Ground Zero mosque," on "The 99":

They're taking advantage of the fact that in every middle-class household, Mom and Dad are working their asses off. They know the kids are watching TV or on the Internet. So maybe Sharia becomes OK. It's a game. It gradually becomes more and more in their lives.

Why shouldn't Mr. Sullivan be scared? In the United States, Sharia is most often discussed in connection with Muslim extremists such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and other places where one imagines thieves' hands being cut off at the wrists and women being executed for having the misfortune of being raped. Sharia has also been invoked as a boogeyman by some conservative American politicians, who say their liberal opponents intend to adopt Sharia in some official capacity. Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich recently came out firmly against Sharia being "considered as a replacement for American law" (even though no American politician is promoting anything of the kind). Sharia is coming for our courts and it's coming for our kids!

In reality, Sharia is not a by-the-books law but more of a set of social and political beliefs practiced by Muslims around the world, who differ on the details depending on where you go and who you talk to. What's generally true across the board is that Sharia is about being culturally conservative, behaving very modestly with respect to sex and money, and practicing a high level of courtesy and reverence for one's neighbors.

Oh really? I don't think the Koranic verses presented here support his shameless claim, nor do these ones, and nor do even these, nor do even the ones presented earlier in this post. Main mistake Khouri made was not citing any verses and themes from the Koran when he wrote that cruddy item, but we can guess why.

But even by this most unspecific definition of Sharia, "The 99's" connection to Islamic law seems tenuous at best. The reality is that Superman himself operates in a way that would be very agreeable by most mainstream interpretations of Sharia, and it is with pronounced irony that conservative Americans, particularly those in favor of living life like we're all Boy Scouts, react so hatefully towards Muslims, who are truly their allies in this regard.

If "The 99" were truly promoting the kind of intolerant views so feared by detractors -- if the super-strong Jabbar left an unmarried woman to burn in a fire because he found out she was banging her boyfriend, for example, or Betina the Hidden refused to stop some bank robbers unless the bankers agreed that "Israel should be wiped off the map," then we would have a problem. But none of those things are going to happen, and for millions of Muslims around the world, those things are not what Sharia is about.

Now isn't that a bit rich coming from someone who claimed I shed crocodile tears (which is only doing me a most flattering honor), wallowed in victimology himself, and then embraced the propaganda of Sarah Glidden? And who's pretty much signaled that he hates conservatives except if they're Muslims (though it's questionable if they really are conservative).

Towards the end, he tells about his background:

There are no doubt numerous empirical studies that suggest a wild conversion of non-Muslim American children to Islam or an adoption of fundamentalist Sharia is incredibly unlikely, but I can best speak to my own experiences as an American youth growing up not just in front of Islamic-themed television, but in actual Islamic countries. So as to deflect any accusations of religious bias, I should point out that my surname, Khouri, is Arabic for "priest," and it's a name my ancestors took on as they converted to Christianity. It is from within that Christian heritage that I first encountered Islam -- not on my television, but living next door. As a child I lived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, where Islam is the official religion and Arabic is the official language. The little girls next door wore headscarves, as did all the women on our street -- except for my Scottish/German mother and my half-Arabic sister, since they weren't Muslims. The broadcasts of "Astro Boy" and "The Muppet Show" were interrupted for salah (ritual prayers), and I took a mandatory Arabic language class in school.

Strangely, over twenty years later, I remain a non-Muslim who can't speak Arabic, and I suspect the same will be true of non-Muslim children who watch "The 99." The worst that could happen, if you're inclined to think of it that way, is that non-Muslim American children may actually learn that while Europe was up to its eyeballs in the Dark Ages, the Middle East was experiencing a cultural renaissance. Non-Muslim American children may actually lay their eyes upon fictional kids of perhaps unfamiliar backgrounds stepping up to become heroes themselves, rather than backwater citizens in distress waiting for Tom Cruise's "Last Samurai" or Kevin Costner's "Dances With Wolves" character to come save them.

So he admits he's a Christian, though with the way he went at the time, one could say he's not all that different from say, Mosab Hassan Youssef, if Walid Shoebat is correct about him. But while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam, and just because his family may not have been persecuted while in the UAE doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as one of the earliest links I provided makes clear. I do suspect even now he's still hiding more than a thing or two about what the environment there is really like. Just as importantly, he admits that he can't speak Arabic - and likely hasn't read the Koran - and if not, then I'm not sure he's qualified to make the argument here. However, like various other leftists, what's interesting is that he seems very absurdly obsessed with race.

I do find it amusing even now that this man who apologizes for Islam still reads the creations of Jewish writers/artists/editors, and have to wonder how much longer he'll continue to do so. I may have more to add to this post later. For now, this is the best I can do to dissect some of his sad propaganda.

"BEAR" MEANS TO HAVE ON YOUR PERSON.

LITERALLY "TO CARRY".

PERIOD.


Click here to read the whole thing.

THOSE WHO ADVOCATE A LAND-FOR-PEACE DEAL BETWEEN ARABS AND ISRAELIS - INCLUDING ISRAELI DOVES - ARE LIKE PEOPLE WHO TELL WOMEN NOT TO RESIST A RAPIST

THOSE WHO ADVOCATE A LAND-FOR-PEACE DEAL BETWEEN ARABS AND ISRAELIS - INCLUDING ISRAELI DOVES - ARE LIKE PEOPLE WHO TELL WOMEN NOT TO RESIST A RAPIST

Don't scream. Don't scratch him. Don't resist. Don't carry mace or hot pepper spray and G-D forbid don't carry a gun!

Just close your eyes and wait for it to end. Then rinse off.

That's what liberals want women to do. They don't want you to resist the rapist.

That's what liberals want Israel to do.

They want Jerusalem raped.

Click on the title to read the whole thing at the Astute Bloggers.

Islam Goes To The Beach

From Jawa:

The Control Room

From Sonic Charmer:

I’ve wasted a lot of pixels and photons ladling thick, rich, savory sarcasm over the notion that a President of the United States (any President) sits at the center of some sort of ‘control room’, pulling levers and flipping switches and turning dials as he ‘runs the country’.

Well, I have to eat my words, don’t I? Apparently there is a control room, and here it is:






In this video, we see President Obama managing and controlling the Hurricane Irene (or as I like to call it, MEGASTORM 2011) from a conference table. It’s really very impressive. I really just had no idea. He’s even in a shirt (not a coat and tie), to illustrate how hard he’s working at this.

So, I stand corrected.

Keep up it, President Obama. Please be sure to get enough fluids & elecrolytes as you run the hurricane. We can’t afford to let you not be sitting at that table in the control room. The country needs you!

Losing Malmo
And Brussels, and Rome, and Amsterdam . . .

From Andrew McCarthy at National Review: 

Do you remember the jihadist terror campaign that ravaged Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city? Do you recall the bombings, the suicide-hijackings, and the random assassinations that finally coerced the city to surrender to Islamization?

No? Funny, I don’t remember them either. Yet there is no question that Malmo has surrendered. Large enclaves of the city, like similar enclaves throughout Western Europe, have earned the dread label “no-go zone.” They are unsafe for non-Muslims, particularly women who do not conform to Islamist conventions of dress and social interaction. They are especially perilous for police, firefighters, and emergency-medical technicians.

Why would a community discourage the so-called first-responders? After all, the top priority of law-enforcement officers is to assist crime victims.

In an Islamic enclave, a high percentage of these will be Muslims. And obviously, the fire department and the ambulances are dispatched to save lives — here, Muslim lives. Yet, the community is hostile. The police and other emergency personnel are viewed as agents of the non-Muslim state. Their presumptuousness in entering the Islamic enclave and acting under the color of Swedish law is taken as an affront to Islamic sovereignty.

An Islamic enclave in the West may as well be the West Bank, and the authorities the IDF. They are regarded no differently. That is why, as Soeren Kern of the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group notes, “Fire and emergency workers . . . refuse to enter Malmo’s mostly Muslim Rosengaard district without police escorts.” And sensibly so: When firefighters attempted to extinguish a blaze at the city’s main mosque, local Muslims pelted them with stones.

There is a simple reason why this has happened to Malmo, and why it is happening in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, etc. The European Union forced on its member states the same approach to their swelling Muslim populations that the Obama administration is now trying to strong-arm American cities and states into adopting. It is a suicide theory, holding that the only threat to our security is “violent extremism.”

Violent extremism, the theory goes, is wanton and irrational. Therefore, it is mere coincidence that today’s violent extremists are almost uniformly Muslims. Indeed, the big thinkers settled on the antiseptic term “violent extremism” specifically to avoid the word “terrorism,”  which, owing to the inconvenience that Islamic scripture adjures Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts” of their perceived enemies, would give violent extremism an Islamic connotation that is to be studiously avoided, no matter how accurate it may be.

With violent extremism as their guide, policymakers instruct security agencies that there is no need to scrutinize any strain of Islamic ideology for the purpose of divining what Islamists want. In fact, the theory continues, because violence is wanton, while Islam is peaceful, violence must perforce be anti-Islamic, and thus Islamists must be just as offended by it as anyone else. Consequently, since by some strange quirk of fate the violent extremists seem to be coming out of the Islamic community, the best strategy is to befriend Islamist leaders and consult them about how we can conduct investigations without causing offense.

Naturally, police veterans fully appreciate that this is nonsense on stilts. They know that violence is often barbaric in the execution but almost never irrational in the application. Understanding motivation is the key to solving most crimes. But, hey, if the suits want it to be “violent extremism,” then violent extremism it is.
Cops, like most of us, want to get promoted up the ranks. Today, the people deciding who gets promoted up the ranks are progressives. You may remember their visionary criminal-justice theories from the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the explosion of crime that resulted from them. Back then, it was all about excusing the savagery and punishing the police for failing to understand the root causes. Today, it is about infantilizing the savages and warning the police not to look for the root causes.

1   |   2   |   3   |   Next >