Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Detroit Muslims freak out over editorial

The Detroit News, last Sunday, printed an editorial that is a little simple-minded but largely accurate:

Nolan Finley

Palestinians failed democracy, not the other way around

Democracy didn't fail when the Palestinians used their first truly free vote to install terrorist leaders. The Palestinians failed. Again.
Those who see the Hamas victory as evidence that democracy is not the answer for all people in all places ignore the unique nature of the Palestinians. They lack a key ingredient for sustaining freedom - self-interest.
The Palestinians' lust for Jewish blood is stronger than their desire to lead peaceful, secure lives, to rule an independent state, to lift themselves out of their misery.
That, given the opportunity, they would give their votes to terrorists should not be a shock. This is the same people who deified Yasser Arafat, the father of modern-day terrorism.
Terror defines Palestinians
Under Arafat, terrorism became an inseparable part of the Palestinian identity. He perfected the use of terror as a means of gaining a political wedge, proving that those willing to shed blood without relenting, without remorse and without regard to external pressure will be rewarded with a seat at the table.
Their suicide bombers should have made the Palestinians international pariahs. Instead, apologists depicted the violence as the natural response of a persecuted people. The excuses invited more terror, from more sources and in more places.
Even the Bush administration pretended that the Palestinians were the victims of terrorists within their midst, but beyond their control. The Hamas victory makes it impossible to sustain that pretense.
The Palestinians knew what Hamas was when they gave it their votes. They chose terror over peace, just as they did five years ago when they answered Arafat's call to unleash a brutal wave of terror to cover his impotence at the bargaining table.
The defenders of terror are now spinning a new scenario, one that has Hamas morphing into a political organization and renouncing violence.
Hamas is unrepentant
But note that Hamas is not saying that. Its leaders remain committed to wiping the Jewish blot from the Middle East.
Even if Hamas mouthed the right words, who could believe that it has suddenly turned away from decades of violence?
Terrorism is the history of the Palestinian people, and it will be their future if they are allowed to again slip past the supposed zero-tolerance policy on terror.
Hamas is no different from al-Qaida. Both are terrorist groups, and both target innocent victims.
It was considered in the interest of world stability to smash the al-Qaida-backed Taliban government in Afghanistan. Why isn't it similarly desirable to smash the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories?
Hamas doesn't want to lead, it wants to kill, and has done so in more than 200 terrorist attacks against Israel during the past five years, including dozens of suicide bombings.
Pretending Hamas can be something other than it is will only lead to more killing.

The large Arab community in Detroit is up in arms. One article that got printed in the Detroit News espouses absolute, provable lies, defending the indefensible in praising Hamas:

Hamas is not part of an effort to take someone else's land away. Its struggle is defensive, not offensive.

Neither does Hamas want to create a state wherein one religion reigns supreme. In Israel, Jews have automatic citizenship and other rights not afforded to people of other faiths. The double standard applied to Hamas -- and Arabs and Muslims -- is fueling support for more extremist groups.

Looks like the author hasn't read the Hamas charter. But, hey, lying isn't a problem when you are defending the blameless Palestinian people. And the parts where they want to kill all Jews is just an inconvenient detail, not to be mentioned in a major American newspaper.

Meanwhile, the Arab American News is calling for the editorialist to be fired. Where they can't parse simple explicit language in the Hamas charter, they somehow see vicious racism in a pretty accurate article:

The venom that poured forth from Finley's pen was like the pre-Holocaust venom directed by Hitler against Jews.

We are shocked that an editor would write such a racist diatribe. We are more shocked that a publication like the Detroit News would print it.

While Finley's bias against Arabs is very well known, he has generally hidden it under the cover of his very pro-Israeli views.

This time there was no such veil. Finley openly, directly, shamelessly consigned an entire group of people to hell: "Terror defines Palestinians," he wrote, and "The Palestinians' lust for Jewish blood is stronger than their desire to lead peaceful, secure lives, to rule an independent state, to lift themselves out of their misery."

Unfortunately, the new publisher of the News, Dave Butler, upheld Finley's right to say what he did. In several email discussions with several community members, Butler insisted this was an issue of free speech and that a debate over the column would educate and inform.

How do you debate, Mr. Butler, whether Palestinians are human beings or not?

Neither Butler nor Finley would suggest such a debate about any other group of people.

Apparently the new ownership of the Detroit News doesn't know what responsible journalism is.

There are no words strong enough to adequately condemn these statements. Nolan Finley should be fired. Now.

Notice that not once were any of Finley's statements shown to be inaccurate, or his logic shown to be faulty.

An almost comical example of fake pathos comes via another article in Arab American News. The author describes the scene as he read the editorial to his proud Palestinian children (who were born in the United States):

I read them the piece to show them that even in America; hate is alive and well, as long as it is “couched” in a newspaper “Editorial” and excused as a mere expression of free speech. Of course, there are limits placed on free speech, but those limits do not apply as long as those on the receiving end are Palestinians.

After I read them Mr. Finley’s column, my youngest son, who is 13 years old, looked up at me with a painful expression on his face, and asked me “Why do they hate us”?

I pondered his question for awhile, trying to answer him, but I was at a loss for words. Why do they hate us was the same question that many Americans, elected officials, and pundits were asking after the horrible attacks of 9-11. One not very enlightened answer was that they hate us because of our “freedom.”

The answer that I finally gave my son was that we, the Palestinian people, are hated by our enemies because of our legitimate and moral struggle for freedom. They hate us because we are tenacious in our struggle for justice, a word that is bandied about, but few understand in relation to what the Palestinian people have had to and are continuing to endure. They hate us because when most people would have given up and disappeared silently into the night, we remain, standing erect, firm in our conviction that we deserve to live in freedom and dignity, and we will not be denied.

In a way, I guess I am thankful for Mr. Finley finally showing the world his fangs and for the Detroit News for helping expose his hatred to the world at large. His words have reenergized me and many others to work harder than ever to combat bigotry whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. I also want to thank him for helping me show and explain to my children that Mr. Finley lives on the fringes of American society, even though his bosses at the Detroit News are trying to make him and his hatred part of America’s mainstream.

Next time I am sitting with my children sipping a cup of Arabic coffee under one of my family’s ancient olive trees, overlooking the landscape of the village of my birth - ringed by Jewish-only colonies that were built on stolen lands - I will once again tell my children about Mr. Finley’s remarks.

Maybe when Mr. Finley finally retires from spewing forth his poisonous venom in the pages of the Detroit News, he will be allowed to immigrate to Israel and make his home alongside his fanatic brethren in the extremist, Jewish-only colonies that are built on stolen Palestinian lands. He would make a great spokesman for them; after all, he has been practicing for many years.

Here's a great spokesman against hate, don't you think?

So, in summation, the Arabs reacted to an editorial by attacking the author, by trying to get him fired, by calling him bigoted without a shred of evidence, and by defending terrorists. And not a single acknowledgement that, hey, maybe the policies of the people they are so strenuously defending, that their people voted for in great numbers, may have something to do with why people aren't exactly supporters of a Palestinian terror state.

The author with the 13-year old wrote in other articles that he cried when the mass-murdering uber-terrorist, Yasir Arafat, died. But somehow he cannot tell his son honestly that Americans don't support terrorists because people like him name streets and public squares after people who murder Jewish children, that his people celebrated the deaths of thousands of Americans, and that his people overwhelmingly supported Saddam Hussein and now support Iran's Ahmadinejad in his quest for a second Holocaust.

Nah, it's easier to pretend that he is interested in high-sounding concepts like freedom and justice (but apparently not freedom of speech for people who hate terror.) The truth sometimes hurts too much.

One third of British Muslims say Anglo-Jews are a legitimate target

Sad but not surprised say Jewish community leaders following the release of a poll that asked for the views of British Muslims towards Jews and Israel.

Conducted by Populus for a group of Jewish organisations and first published in The Times, it surveyed 500 people across the country between December 9 and 19 last year, nearly 50 percent agreed with the conspiracy theory that "the Jewish community in Britain is in league with the Freemasons to control the media and politics". while 37 per cent believed that Anglo-Jewry was a "legitimate target as part of the struggle for justice in the Middle East".

Of the conspiracy theory, Board of Deputies chief executive Jon Benjamin said it was "completely bizarre" while he added. "It is concerning to hear that Jews are considered legitimate targets."

...Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala told the Jewish Chronicle on the question of Jews being an legitimate target, "completely unacceptable. I just hope people were confused by the question, otherwise it is very disturbing."

Jewish leaders have called for seeking better dialogue with Muslims.

"None of these responses surprises me at all," said Dr Richard Stone who is active in interfaith dialogue and is chair of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia. "It's a demonstration of how urgently work is needed to bring Jews to meet Muslims."

That is a bizarre interpretation, to put it mildly. I don't know anything about Dr. Stone, but it is strange that he looks at abject Jew-hatred through a lense of Islamophobia, rather than ask for Muslims themselves to teach tolerance.

The brave Fatah greenhouse guards should be commended. After all, they managed to avoid robbing what they were meant to guard for months.

Some 200 dunams of greenhouse space in the Gaza Strip were ransacked recently by dozens of armed Palestinians and residents of Khan Yunis.

International donors had purchased the greenhouses from evacuated Gush Katif settlers for the benefit of the Palestinians.

According to Palestinian and international sources involved in running the greenhouses, the armed robbers belonged to two militias, the Assistance Committees and the Popular Army, affiliated with former Palestinian ruling party Fatah. These militias had been hired by the Palestinian Authority to guard both the ruins of the former settlements and the greenhouses, which were all under cultivation. But instead of guarding the greenhouses, the guards decided to rob them.

According to the sources, the robbers used bulldozers to break the iron
supports of the buildings' frames, then swarmed over the equipment inside, which included piping and irrigation computers. The damage to the greenhouses, which are meant to provide employment for hundreds of Palestinians and increase the PA's exports, is irreparable, the sources added.

The incidents were accompanied by exchanges of fire between the militias and Palestinian policemen, in which several policemen were wounded.

However, the police were unable to halt the robbers.

This is not the first time Palestinian vandals have attacked the greenhouses, but the previous incidents caused less damage.

OK, one more time: The Palestinians have 52,000 paid "security" personnel. Why exactly do they have to outsource the mission of guarding greenhouses to terrorists?

It is a trick question, of course. The paid security personnel are also terrorists.

We're really too hard on the guy. He's just an ordinary Joe, who likes to kick back with a Bud and watch some football and occasional porn. (Little known fact: He's also a big fan of Desperate Housewives.)

(Hey, it's late at night.)

Islamofascism

A writer for Saudi Arabia's Dar al Hayat named Jihad el Khazen gives his readers a "heads-up" on what he considers the latest neoconservative bigotry:

Readers have heard of Islamic fundamentalism, radicalism, extremism and terrorism, but I would like to introduce an expression that I hope they memorize, since they will hear it much in the future. It's Islamic fascism, or Islamofascism, one of the favorite expressions of neoconservative writers these days.

Before the issue of the cartoons exploded, the Likudist Washington Times had published a series warning of the threat of an Islamic state in Europe, focusing on Bosnia, as the corridor of al-Qaida to Europe. Bosnian Muslim fighters have joined "Islamofascist terrorists in their barbaric campaign against American forces."
There have been 100,000 Iraqis killed compared to 2,400 American soldiers, so who's the barbarian here? The articles argue that NATO bombed the Serbs "a day after an auto-massacre committed by Bosnian Muslim forces in the central market of Sarajevo," because Saudi Arabia has signed contracts for billions of dollars to purchase Boeing aircraft." I swear that I'm quoting this correctly. The articles quote the following from an older article in the same newspaper: "La France est morte [France is dead]. In fact, the only things that are growing in France right now are crime and Islamism." This is 3 years before the riots in the suburbs of French cities.
The Weekly Standard, the neoconservative mouthpiece, published an article entitled "Fascism, Islamism and Anti-Semitism," objecting to doubting the Holocaust and discussing the rise of Islamo-fascism in Iran, and the "Dictator in Tehran" - meaning President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who was elected in very democratic fashion and who enjoys continuing, huge popularity.
[...]
Returning to the topic I began with in this column, the harsh anger against the cartoons, I selected the easiest aspects of the campaign against Islam and Muslims. The danger is from the extremists in the ranks of the neoconservatives, who have waged a conscious campaign with a single goal of serving Israel at the expense of everything else.

Besides the fact that the writer engages in the same namecalling that he decries from others (referring to "Likudniks", "American imperialists", "neoconservatives" and other choice epithets of the Left and the Arab world), he is missing the point in his zeal to find anti-Muslim sentiment everywhere in the US.

The term "Islamofascism" may not be 100% accurate, as fascism has some components that Islamism does not. But it is a pretty good description of today's political Islam. As Wikipedia explains:

Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

This sounds like a pretty decent description of much of political Islam today.

In almost all cases, when writers on the Right refer to Islamofascism they are referring not to the religion of Islam in the Western sense, but to its political manifestation. And political Islam can accurately be described as evil. Political Islam has as its goal the literal takeover of the world and subjugating everyone to Islamic law.

Other religions either have very little political dimension, or their political dimensions have been blunted over time. Christianity has a message to all of mankind as well but it has morphed to fit in with Western concepts of general separation of church and state. I am unaware of any historic theocracies based on Buddhism or Taoism.

Western thinkers naturally separate religion from politics, because such a separation is part of their worldview from birth. A great percentage of Western criticism of Islam is political, not religious (with the notable exception of women's rights.) But Islamic thinkers have no such separation.

The fuzziness between religious Islam and political Islam is caused not by bigoted Westerners but by the Islamists and Muslims themselves. Very few Muslims that I have read accept the idea of Islam as purely a personal or communal religion; it is a global movement and it has a unquestionably political dimension.

Muslims like the Mr. El Khazen above purposefully blur the lines as well when it is convenient for them. They choose to be offended when political Islam is attacked, hiding behind the fiction that Islam is a religion in the Western sense. Practically all the attacks from the "neocons" are of Islamism, not religious Islam; very few have a problem with a billion practicing believers of Allah as long as they keep their religion away from geopolitics. But it is in Islamism's interest to keep that line blurred so they can claim that attacks on Islam are religious, not political.

If today's Islam cannot separate its faith components from its geopolitical ambitions, then it cannot ever fit in the 21st century together with the rest of the world. It will ultimately be regarded as the enemy not only of the West but of everyone.

The challenge for Muslims today is to clearly define who they are and what they believe with respect to the rest of the world.

I cannot say how accurate this is, but I found a list of four goals of the Koran from a British mosque website. The blurring between what the West would consider religion and politics is blatant:

O brothers and sisters!
Come today to learn about the fundamental goals of the Qur’an! Come to call the Qur’an to teach us the goals that it was revealed for, and by which Allah was pleased to have it as the seal of books. Come and call the Qur’an to have its goals implemented in us, in our societies, in our reality and in our lives.

The foundational goals of the Qur’an are four:

The first is guidance to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala, true steadfast guidance, complete guidance for the individual in his entire being, his feelings and senses, and in all aspects of his life. It is complete guidance for the ummah, for its individuals, its facilities, its fields, its life, its reality, its transactions....

The second goal is to create a balanced comprehensive Islamic personality (this is done by its commands and prohibitions, its manners and morals, its instruction and legislation)....

The third goal is the creation of an Islamic and Qur’anic society. The Qur’an builds an Islamic society and it builds it on the foundations of the way of the Qur’an and its principles and instructions, and when we proceed with the lights of the Qur’an, our society is revived with great and noble life, pure and happy, otherwise our society will be dead mulling over its grief and tragedies and it swallows its humiliation and cowardice in every moment....

The fourth goal is to lead the Islamic ummah in the battlefields against its enemies and opponents. The Qur’an takes the ummah by its hand and guides it and gives it the means of victory and informs it of the reasons of animosity that others have towards it. It shows them their goals and ambitions and their use of whatever they are able to destroy it. It shows their methods and conspiracies and their trickery. ...The Qur’an takes the ummah by its hand to show it the tool of victory and the provision of the path and strengthens its connection to its Lord and its Islam.

This is what the Qur’an did with then noble companions in their jihad with their enemies, this is what the Qur’an did with the Muslims when they devoted themselves to the Qur’an, and this is what the Qur’an will do with us if we consider it and adhere to it and follow its rulings. Therefore, Allah says:

“Listen not to the unbelievers but strive against them with the utmost effort, with the Qur’an.” (Furqaan: 52)

This is a divine instruction for the messenger, peace be upon him, and for the Islamic ummah that comes after him, to make the noble Qur’an an instrument and a means by which to seek help in its jihad.

It is a stretch, but it may be possible to interpret the third goal as only applying to existing Muslim nations. It is difficult to interpret the fourth goal as anything but a declaration of war against all unbelievers who do not submit to Islamic superiority.

If these goals are accurate, if the eternal war against unbelievers is part and parcel of Islam, then the fight against Islam is indistinguishable from the fight against Nazism. The world of the non-believers and the Islamic 'ummah cannot co-exist, and Islam already declared war against the rest of the world centuries ago.

(An interesting corollary to the description above is that it seems to be in the interest of would-be leaders of Islam to stoke the fires of hate against the West, interpret Western actions as being anti-Islamic and provoke the war; because believing Muslims would have no choice but to fight their perceived enemies. The cartoon riots can be seen in this context.)

Unless Islam reforms and becomes a personal and communal belief system as opposed to a supremacist political ideology, the rest of the world had better wake up to the reality that the war has already started and that Islam has already defined its goals and its vision of the future. Being against political Islam is not bigotry; it is survival.

Conspiracy theory of the day

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between Arabs and the Onion.

The state-run Syrian daily al-Thawra lately hinted that Israel developed the bird flu virus to harm the genes of its Arab neighbors.

An article published by the newspaper argues that Israel spread the virus in the Far East to mislead the world.

This is a quantum leap over last month's Palestinian Zionist bird flu conspiracy: (via Iranian news):

Tehran, Jan 17 - The Palestinian Authority accused the Zionist regime of attempts to transfer the deadly bird flu virus to the Palestinian-settled areas by burying infected birds there.

PA's Environment Preservation Minister, Yusof Abu Safiyah, revealed to a press conference in Gaza Monday that the regime has buried 85 thousand of infected birds on January 9 in Beit Forik region, close to Nablus.

This is not to be confused with the Lebanese freaking out over thinking that an Israeli carrier pigeon that strayed over the border was biological warfare.

Now, what Syria should have claimed is that the greedy Joooz developed bird flu so that they could market an antidote and make bilions of shekels to fulfill their purpose of keeping Palestinian Arabs in refugee camps forever. That at least is more believable.

Americans secretly meeting with Hamas?

The only source for this story is the bizarro Iranian news agency IRNA, but they don't usually make things up out of thin air. And it is altogether possible that they have sources in the PA that others do not.

Several European and Western diplomats have secretly been meeting with leaders of the Islamic Resistance Group, Hamas lately, Palestinian Islamic sources said.

The sources intimated that American, British, French and Scandinavian diplomats met lately with Hamas leaders, including newly-elected lawmakers, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Hamas leader and elected lawmaker Muhammed Abu Tir was quoted as saying on Tuesday that he had met with a British diplomat who is close to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Abu Tir did not reveal the identity of the diplomat nor did he say when the meeting took place.

Last week, a number of British diplomats as well as several former American diplomats met with Hamas leaders in the Hebron area as well as the northern part of the West Bank.

The two sides reportedly discussed Hamas's political outlook following its resounding victory over Fatah in the January 25 elections.

Hamas, observers say, has been displaying moderation.

(I wasn't kidding when I said "bizarro.")

The story is somewhat believable. I could see a former US ambassador to some Arab state talking to Hamas with unofficial US approval.

The Western desire to do something, anything to make it look like there is progress in the moribund "peace process" means that they will inevitably inch towards dealing with Hamas. There is zero chance that the West will throw up their hands and admit that there will be no peace with Hamas in power. The strong instinct for wishful thinking will kick in soon enough, and that means that any absence of outright calls for genocide on the part of Hamas will require pressure on Israel to reciprocate with money or land to reward Hamas' "pragmatism."

Zionist technology used for Iranian Jew-hatred

At least some Jews are getting rich off the Iranian mass psychosis.

The larger-than-life mural lionising Reem Saleh al-Riyashi, a Palestinian female suicide bomber, is as vivid an illustration as any of the Islamic republic's implacable hostility to Israel.
Two years ago, al-Riyashi entered the realms of Palestinian martyrdom when she blew herself up, killing four Israelis in the process, at the Erez crossing point in Gaza. Today, motorists and passersby gazing down from Motahari Street, in central Tehran, can contemplate her grimly resolute features as she holds her young son in one hand and a gun in the other.

Next to her portrait, set against a backdrop showing the Jerusalem landmark the Dome of the Rock and two booted feet trampling an Israeli flag, is another giant picture celebrating the actions of a further seven Palestinian women suicide bombers.
On the face of it, the banners are the highly predictable artistic reflection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent wave of fervently anti-Zionist rhetoric, in which he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and dismissed the Holocaust as a myth. But there is one twist: they have been created with technology made in Israel.

Experts in Iran's printing industry say they are typical of images produced by hi-tech digital printers made by Scitiex Vision, based in Tel Aviv. Printing equipment originating in Israel is commonly used in Iran.

"Those two banners are five metres wide, and no printing company other than Scitex produces that kind of technology," said one Tehran printing company owner, who requested anonymity. "The large-format printing industry is Israeli-led. Their equipment is very reliable. The result is that Israeli-made equipment is sold in Iran, and a lot of the anti-Israeli and anti-American propaganda you see here is made by this kind of equipment.

"Last year a company run by a friend of mine produced a mural listing a number of goods produced in Israel and saying: 'By boycotting these products, let's give a punch in the mouth to Israel.' But he made it using a Scitex machine. We laughed about it."
Iranian intermediary companies import the Israeli-made printing machines into the country, bypassing the Islamic regime's ban on trade with Israel by buying the equipment in a third country and then rebranding it under another name. Scitex machines are purchased in Holland under the brand Blaze and then exported to Iran; printers made by another Israeli firm, Nur, are bought in Belgium and disguised for the Iranian market under various names, including Salsa.
Printing industry insiders say the Iranian authorities are either unaware of the practice or turn a blind eye. As a result, most of the campaign posters for this year's presidential election - including those for Mr Ahmadinejad - were churned out using Israeli technology. Experts also believe it was Israeli printers that produced the banner for the recent World Without Zionism conference, at which Mr Ahmadinejad made his first call for the Jewish state to be wiped out.

Iranian print specialists are convinced the Israeli manufacturers know their products are bound for Iran. "The whole thing is to the benefit of the Israeli companies," said the printing company boss. "They sell to a country that is officially banned from trading with them, meaning they have no after-sale service obligation.

But the move towards printed propaganda, especially using Israeli technology, has left many revolutionary artists disillusioned. Falling demand has forced Khasrow Karami to pay off several artists at his gallery, in an old disused cinema. Having once specialised in images of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iran-Iraq war - in which he was seriously wounded - Mr Karami, 43, is now painting advertising posters for the Canadian government urging Iranians to emigrate to Canada.

"I would rather be painting martyrs from the war than doing this. It's a big contradiction," said Mr Karami. "When I heard that this banner-printing equipment was being imported from Israel, it was a heavy blow for me. It leaves us confused about what we should believe. Do we accept the government's propaganda against Israel or do we admire the Israelis' brilliant technological innovation?"

Those infidel, Mohammed cartoon-printing Egyptians

Sandmonkey saw that Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr printed the Mohammed cartoons - last October!

Hat tip LGF via Solomonia.

Well-spoken fanaticism

I stumbled onto Islamiblog, where a devout Muslim tries to describe his feelings about the cartoons. He is clearly in pain, soft-spoken, earnest, literate - and wishes dearly that we should all live in a shari'a state where the people who publish such blasphemy would be killed.

In response to some queries on why I haven't written something specifically on the abuse of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then that is because:

1. Many good people have written enough about it already

2. I feel too ashamed, living in Europe, to write when I know what the Shari'ah demands of us

Let there be no doubt: the crime of belittling the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) results in instant death for the Muslim by unanimous opinion of the scholars, and the majority believe it to be the case as well for the Dhimmi and the Musta'man (those who have peace treaties etc) living in the Muslim lands under Islamic Law. That is how serious a crime this is.

As for these Europeans that are reviling the Prophet under their 'law' then we're at a dead end. As these non-Muslims are our own people living under their own law, we are forbidden to do anything that would contravene that law. How shameful for us.

Want to get an inside opinion on how I'm feeling at the moment on this subject? Have a little read of al-Shifa by Qadhi 'Iyadh (r) or if you're feeling really upto it, al-Sarim al-Maslul by Ibn Taymiyyah (r) and then tell me to calm down.

Why do we not have Shari'ah to preserve the Prophet's honour? Where is our Ameer al-Mu'mineen to run and avenge the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)? Where is that strength of the Believers that would make these criminals think twice before they lie under the banner of 'free speech'?

Seeing as we have no Shari'ah and seeing as we have no Leader and seeing as that we're struggling to gather even a motley crew of good enough 'believers' to grace the word 'Islam', then let us put our heads down in shame and humiliation, and let all those who can do something they feel worthwhile, do it.

Let us boycott, let us demonstrate, let us make our feelings known, let us educate, let us show the higher ethic - but let us also realise our individual pathetic state when we know the greatest of creation has been reviled and the criminals walk around smiling, and we just talk the talk and sell more European newspapers.

Wa Allahu Musta'an.

I know I shouldn't have written anything, because I find it difficult with such topics to control anything I write or say (cf the khutbah) descending into uncontrolled emotional rhetoric - so let me stop there and have mercy on my head and let the honourable Shaykh Riyad Nadwi put it a whole lot better than I ever will.

These are the people that scare me - seeming moderates who are against the current violence (like the editor of Arab American News who was on MSNBC tonight) yet when they speak frankly, they are only against the violence because it makes them look bad - but they truly believe that the cartoonists deserve to die for their "crime."

They sound so normal on TV, yet their goal is the exact same as Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad - world Islamic domination where they can enforce strict Islamic law on everyone.

OK, here are the cartoons

Here are some of the recent search keywords that hit my blog:

danish mohamed prophet cartoons turbine bomb
sam hamod on danish cartoons
danish cartoon mohamad turbine
flemming rose cartoons
flemming rose jewish
actual danish cartoon of prophet
is flemming rose jewish
flemming rose neocon
flemming rose
publication of the cartoon truly insults the dignity of muslims
view danish islamic cartoons
flemming rose caricature
arab cartoons jews

Clearly there is intense interest for people to actually see these cartoons.

So, as a public service, here is a reproduction of the cartoons that I found (just linking to Support Denmark):

To compare offensiveness, here are some random anti-Jewish cartoons from a 3 month period in 2002 of the sort that the Arab world publishes daily, courtesy of the ADL:

A stereotypical Jewish caricature is shown pointing to an acquiescent President Bush saying "He understands Hebrew, not Arabic."

Uncle Sam is shown cleaning up after the bloody tracks of Israel

Uncle Sam is shown cleaning up after the bloody tracks of Israel,
shown as a stereotypical Jewish caricature.

Jewish caricature is writing the "The USA's modern history."

A Jewish caricature writes President Bush's speech.

A Jewish caricature writes President Bush's speech. The caption reads "America's attitude towards Gaza's massacre."

A Jewish devil - possibly Ariel Sharon - walks over the skulls of its victims

A Jewish devil - possibly Ariel Sharon - walks over the skulls of its victims.

The Jew on the right says: "Say: 'I hate the Arabs'!", and the American on the left repeats: "I hate the Arabs, I hate the Arabs".

Remember, a black hat and beard is not something Zionists or most Israelis wear; just religious Jews.

Why the Muslims will lose the cartoon war

As the cartoon kerfuffle spirals out of control and the death-toll increases, it is clear that this is one battle that the Muslims will lose.

I recently wrote that the reason that Arabs are so absurdly upset over the publication of the Mohammed cartoons was because it showed Arab impotence. Because their initial protests were not reacted to instantly the way that Europe usually does, they keep upping the ante until they get noticed and treated with respect. Recent history shows that threats of riots bring this bizarre respect that is craved, and the illusion of relevance.

The centuries-long slide into irrelevance of the Arab world that I described hit two major speedbumps in the middle of the 20th century:

Oil became the most important fuel in the world, and the Arab countries ended up on top of it.
The liberal backlash against European colonialism turned into a religion of its own where anyone who is not from old Europe is automatically presumed to have a moral advantage.

It took a couple of decades for Arabs to use oil as a weapon, but they wasted no time to take advantage of their newfound allies on the Left, painting their billion adherents as an oppressed minority.

Either way, these two developments gave the Arabs a taste of what they had been losing for so long - the feeling of power, the impression that they can influence world events again. Oil made the Arab world an economic power and their liberal friends gave them a way to start to literally take over Europe with little protest.

Their power over European colonial guilt became close to absolute, turning tiny Israel into a perceived colonialist state and shielding the Arabs themselves from most criticism. The European liberal press was a major component of their brief rise to relevance and perceived power.

Their friends in the Europress might be willing to go along with their agenda as long as it is only indirectly anti-semitic and anti-American (remember, the Europeans are chafing under their relative irrelevance since World War II as well), but when the Arab world starts attacking the freedom of the press in the Western world, they don't stand a chance.

After all, the press has its own religion, with only one commandment: We shall publish whatever we want.

Freedom of the press is far more difficult to limit than other freedoms, because in our increasingly connected world it is easier to read the newspapers from China on the Internet than to go outside and pick up the one delivered to your house. The almost total voluntary ban on the Mohammed cartoons in US newspapers is meaningless when anyone can find them online with a single click. (It is still instructive that the AP refuses to even distribute the pictures to its member newspapers for them to make theie own choice of publishing them.)

When Iran publishes its Holocaust denial cartoons, the reaction from blogs will be not just publishing mild caricatures of Mohammed. They will create cartoons of Mohammed screwing camels and raping little girls. The Muslim world will get an idea of what real bad taste is, comparable to the explicitly anti-semitic cartoons that they see daily in their mainstream newspapers. In comparison, the Danish cartoons will look like they published the Koran in Arabic.

While there will be speedbumps (such as Google's capitulation to Chinese censorship), the Internet will ensure that everything will be available to everyone, and the Arab world will get more and more used to it the way everyone else has.

And their allies in the European press are already thinking twice about their support for regimes that are so opposed to their own holy mission.

In the end, the middle-east Muslims (who are the only ones violently protesting the cartoons) will lose the cartoon war, just as their short stewardship over the world's energy reserves will disappear in a few decades. Unfortunately, there will be many more casualties before that happens.

UPDATE: When I predicted what the blogs would do, I wasn't aware that they already were doing it.

The Mufti's short-lived rival

The infamous Mufti of Jerusalem waged a reign of terror from 1936-39 in Palestine, not only against Jews but against Arab rivals as well.

His amazing and under-reported war against all who opposed his leadership resulted in 3000 murders and over 18,000 Arabs fleeing Palestine out of fear.

One man emerged as a rival to the Mufti. Fakhri Bey Nashashibi wrote a letter to the British High Commissioner in 1938 detailing the corruption and crimes of the supposed leader of the Palestinian Arabs:

Keep in mind that then, as today, "moderate" is a relative term. It is clear that Fakhri Bey was against partition, he was against legally selling any land to Jews to the point of condoning murder, he supported terror against Jews. But he was against corruption and against the Mufti.

His fight to marginalize the Mufti intensified in 1939, with a detailed letter to Arab leaders with more accusations against the Mufti, where censorship did not allow his original letter to become known to the mainstream Arab communities. Particularly stinging was his accusations of how money meant for charities were being diverted to the Mufti terror campaign, and how "no school was opened, no hospital built, no mosque erected, anywhere in Palestine during the long years of Haj Amin's administration."

The end of the story is predictable. Fakhri Bey was murdered by a "Palestinian terrorist" in Baghdad in November, 1941.

Arab comedian Hassan Al-Haifi

The Yemen Times employs one of the most talented Arab comedians on the planet. His name is Hassan Al-Haifi, and his is one of the most consistently hilarious voices on the Arab scene.

His main shtick is if anything happens on the planet that hurts anyone - it's gotta be the Jews.

Some priceless routines of his:

The Zionists were behind the USS Cole attack.
The Zionists were behind Monica Lewinsky.
Zionist-backed Americans are behind the Iraqi insurgents;
Mossad is also behind the Iraqi insurgents;
Zionists plan to control the entire world production of fossil fuels;
"The Arabs will someday wake up to find that they will only be able to buy meat with a coupon stamped by the Jewish Defense League or the Untied Jewish Appeal."
AIPAC was behind a supposed decision by Yahoo to drop the Yemen Times from its distributions;
Zionists were behind the French ban on Hezbollah Terror TV;
Zionists were behind the kidnapping of four Christian workers in Iraq;
Zionists bombed Iraqi churches;
Zionists were behind the Istanbul bombings;
Zionists were behind massacres in Bosnia;
AIDS and "Foot and Mouth disease" are punishments from God for the Western support of Zionists.

Classic stuff! The guy should put out an album of his favorite rants.

Is it any surprise that he knows who is behind the cartoons?

South Africa Dhimmis

South Africa has chosen dhimmitude over freedom of the press, with an amazing display of tortured logic.

The controversial interdict passed on Friday by the Johannesburg High Court, banning the publication of the infamous Danish cartoon strip depicting caricatures of the revered Islamic figure Prophet Mohammed, may be frustrating to the media fraternity but it does well to remind us that most of the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute and can – and will – be limited should the need arise.

An obvious example is the limitation of the right to equality in labour practice, where fair discrimination is condoned.

The section within the Bill of Rights granting the right to freedom of expression also expressly limits the right. In other words, the right to freedom of expression is inherently limited even before being limited by other competing rights, such as the right to dignity.

According to the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media, “does not extend to incitement of imminent violence or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”.

The caricature cartoons, which were commissioned by one Flemming Rose, a supporter of the anti-Islamic Zionist "clash of civilizations" Neo-Cons behind the “war on terror”, were drafted with the intention to insult and outrage Muslims – an aim well achieved.

The surge of violent protests emanating from the Arab world in response to the cartoons is an indication that the publication of the cartoons in South Africa may incite violence from the Muslim community and, because the source intended the cartoons to advocate hatred based on religion, the publication in South Africa could very well constitute “incitement to cause harm”.

A law professor at Wits University has said that although the cartoons did not amount to hate speech, they did amount to an incitement of violence and, as such, limit the press’ right to publish them.

The Media Institute of Southern Africa – a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange – has said that the interdict is an “unacceptable intrusion on media freedom and freedom of expression by the courts and believes it is unconstitutional”.

The interdict will be challenged in court by at least one media organisation on 28 February 2006.

In the real world, it is true that there are limits on freedom of the press from inciting violence. But that is inciting violence against the victims, not by the victims! Cartoons that call for the eradication of Islam could be considered incitement, but these cartoons that are less offensive than even the commentary above in its description of Flemming Rose's motivations.

In other words, by flipping the definition of "incitement to violence" into referring to violence from the supposed victims, it changes the intent of the law from reducing violence to increasing it! It gives effective veto power over any article by the press to the victim group - by threatening violence. This ridiculous reasoning ends up chilling freedom and rewarding violence, the exact opposite of its intent.

Not only that, but the hypocrisy in South Africa is stunning. It's Almost Supernatural points out to overtly anti-Jewish themes in recent SA "anti-Zionist" cartoons:

Also, there was a recent incident where a Muslim radio station in Cape Town broadcast explicitly anti-semitic material, and SA Muslims screamed about freedom of speech for over a year defending it.

As always, see It's Almost Supernatural for details on what's happening in South Africa.