Aiding Jihad out of treasonous ignorance

President Bush has spoken glowingly of Islam since 9/11 (ironic enough from that event alone). At first, it seemed like a wise, level-headed, reasonable position. But it was one held out of ignorance of the motivation behind the slaughter, an ignorance shared by most of us.

Now, nearly six years out from 9/11, the President has no excuse. And he's providing the aid to our enemies for which those on the Left have rightly received his criticism.

From here:

At Wednesday’s rededication ceremony of the Saudi-funded Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., President Bush missed a perfect opportunity to repudiate apologism for radical Islam, and instead announced his latest plan to get the Muslim world to stop hating America: appoint a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Because the President doesn't understand (or is unwilling to admit) that Muslim hatred for the West is not because of "our Liberty" or any other such nonsense; it is because their god commands them to hate all who refuse to covert to Islam or submit to its harsh humiliation and oppression as a "protected" (dhimmi) people.

Bush praised the OIC, saying, “We admire and thank those Muslims who have denounced what the Secretary General of the OIC called ‘radical fringe elements who pretend that they act in the name of Islam.’” The special envoy’s mission, Bush said, would be to “listen and learn” to OIC ambassadors.

By "radical fringe elements . . . " the President refers to Muslim totalitarians, those who would impose the absolute rule of Allah over all mankind using any means necessary, including offensive warfare.

However, I would not be surprised to learn that the Secretary was referring to those "moderates" who have not (yet) taken up support for Jihad.

While this may sound nice, it is rooted in complete ignorance of the rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and anti-American sentiments routinely found in statements by the OIC and its leaders, including referring to “Islamophobia” — and not the mass slaughter of innocents in the name of Islam — the “worst form of terrorism,” as OIC did last May.

And in (apparently complete) ignorance of nearly 1400 years of rape, slavery, and murder in fulfillment of Allah's commands and in imitation of his apostle's example.

In 2002, the OIC published its “Declaration on International Terrorism.” Therein, the authors stated, amongst other outrageous claims, that there was no such thing as Palestinian terrorism, writing, “We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.” To the OIC, groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Hezbollah are not terrorists, but “freedom fighters.”

That's not far removed from the President's "tiny minority of extremists," "Religion of Peace," and "great world religion" propaganda. And wouldn't that make the OIC "with the terrorists"?

So much for the President's strong and patriotic post-9/11 rhetoric.

This is just the beginning of a litany of the OIC’s wrongs. In March 2006, OIC General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu embraced Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal at a press conference at OIC’s headquarters. Ihsanoglu whitewashed: “With its win, Hamas begins a new stage in the development of the Palestinian issue. We assure that Hamas will deal with all national and international requirements in a practical and logical way.”

At a “special session” of the OIC in August of the same year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for “the elimination of the Zionist regime,” a statement that OIC failed to condemn. Moreover, the OIC has repeatedly backed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As Ishanoglu said in April, “All member states of the OIC and I have obviously supported Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear technology,” despite clear indications that the Iranian regime’s uranium-enrichment program is designed chiefly to make nuclear weapons.

"Peaceful" as in the "peace" that comes from annihilating all who refuse to convert or submit to the tyranny of Allah.

And then, there is OIC’s explaining away of the 9/11 attacks, which “expressed the frustration, disappointment, and disillusion that are festering deep in the Muslims’ soul towards the aggressions and discriminations committed by the West.”

With Islam, it's always the fault of its victims.

These are the people that President Bush feels the need to “listen and learn” from. And the Bush administration’s wishful thinking extends beyond his feelings toward the OIC, to the very location where Bush was giving his speech.

He ought to listen to and learn from the word of Allah and the example of his false prophet -- and from nearly one and one-half millennia of putting them into practice. Then he'd use now properly American blood and treasure in defense against the Scourge of Allah.

The 2005 Freedom House report on the Saudi-led radicalization of American mosques specifically identifies the Washington Islamic Center as a hotbed of hatred. In the past decade, I personally collected numerous copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion from the mosque. The Freedom House report chronicles the center’s extremism: imams instructed their students to distance themselves from the West, forbade Muslim students from wearing the traditional cap and gown at during University graduation, and warned that participating in American holidays was the “most dangerous form of imitating the unbelievers, the most destructive and the most prevalent among the Muslims.”

The center’s library included a Saudi text book for 11th graders that described “the role of the Jews in the corruption of the European way of life,” and that Jews used “innocuous-sounding themes as ‘progress and civilization’ or ‘individual freedom’ to destroy Europe.”

There are many more examples in the report. Unfortunately, the President’s lack of awareness is not limited to the OIC and the Washington Islamic Center, but also to the officials of the so-called “moderate” Muslim organizations whom the FBI, Department of Justice, Defense Department, and Department of State routinely invite to meetings and hearings.

In his speech, Bush said, “This enemy falsely claims that America is at war with Muslims and the Muslim faith, when in fact it is these radicals who are Islam's true enemy.” Yet that very talking point is the refuge of America’s supposedly mainstream Muslim organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA).

Allah is at war with us, and it is the "moderates" who are "radical" -- perverting Islam -- in the eyes of Allah and his apostle.

In March 2002, in response to an FBI raid of Islamist organizations in Northern Virginia, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said, “This is a war against Islam and Muslims… Our administration has the burden of proving otherwise.” In February 2004, MPAC Vice Chairman Aslam Abdullah said, “in the name of the ‘war on terror,’ Islam and Muslims have become a target in America and elsewhere,” and in June 2004 Abdullah accused President Bush of engaging in “a religious and racist agenda and prejudice against Islam, Muslims, and Arabs.” In 2004, Louay Safi, a top ISNA official, went further, writing that the “assertion by ‘world leaders’ that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam is nothing but a piece of propaganda and disinformation that was meant to appease Western Muslims and to maintain the coalition against terrorism.”

If only it were that. Instead, it is a demonstration of the absolute ignorance, gullibility, incompetence -- even malfeasance -- of our leadership.

Meanwhile, Bush’s own Justice Department recently formally named CAIR and ISNA as Muslim Brotherhood–front groups, listing them as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history, against the Holy Land Foundation, an alleged Hamas front group.

In his wrongheaded outreach to the OIC, the president aligns with those who think the West is responsible for Islamic terrorism. Bush himself has said we “abandoned Muslims in the Middle East to tyrants and terrorists.” Yet Wahhabism was born in the 18th century, long before Western colonialism in the Middle East and the resulting appointment of despotic rulers. It was the fascist Muslim Brotherhood that gave birth to terrorist groups like al Qaeda and Hamas, and it is the absence of a reformation that keeps the Muslim world boiling and in regression.

This time, the President's soft bigotry of low expectations is getting Americans and other Western Infidels killed.

And Emerson's historical perspective is too short-sighted. "Wahhabism" is Islam, and it's been like this -- depending upon Muslim knowledge, will, and zeal -- for nearly fourteen centuries.

Unfortunately, despite his best intentions, the president gave the wrong speech at the wrong time. Perhaps the most telling indicator of his error was the fact that hours after his speech, CAIR, the un-indicted co-conspirator in the Hamas case in Dallas, congratulated the president on the appointment of a representative to OIC. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

With leadership like this, the West's future looks grim.

President Bush seeks to establish a Jihad stronghold "in the very heart of Europe"

Europe has forgotten its Christian past. It has also forgotten its long war of self-defense against Jihad.

The last two American presidents in particular have acted in apparent indifference toward the former and ignorance of the latter. One bombed Christians in defense of Muslim terrorists (he did nothing to defend America against their co-religionists), the other seeks to achieve by use of American influence what Muslims could not accomplish by force of arms (even with a complicit world media).

From the article misnamed "Kosovo Conundrum" -- the real puzzle is why two of the most powerful men on earth would sacrifice Europe to Jihad:

At the forthcoming summit, among other issues, Presidents Bush and Putin will face the problem of independence for the Serbian province Kosovo.

Kosovo is unfinished business, left over from the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia in the past decade and the legacy of fundamentally flawed American policies promulgated by the Clinton administration and then perpetuated by his successor. In terms and perspective of American long-term geostrategy and the ongoing struggle with radical Islam, it is indeed unfathomable how our foreign policy establishment has rationalized its strategy in the Balkans. Already, a body of impartial evidence strongly suggests an inexplicably steady policy of accommodation by the United States to Islamist demands. Essentially, at several key junctures on the road to peace and stability in the Balkans, America gave veto power to extreme Islamist leadership and its supporters worldwide.

The U.S. objective in Bosnia has been to establish a unitary state governed by Muslims, in effect abrogating the international treaty, the Dayton Accords. Together with the European Union, the United States has exerted consistent and relentless pressure to abolish or at least severely diminish the Serbian entity.

Currently in Kosovo, America is aggressively forcing the establishment of the second Muslim state in Europe. This is in contravention of international law and despite serious misgivings in Europe and resolute resistance by Russia.

An independent Kosovo would be a failed state, ethnically and religiously cleansed of Serbs and other minorities. During the past eight years of U.N. and NATO control of the province, the non-Albanian population experienced ethnic cleansings, destruction of a great number of homes and more than 100 churches and other medieval evidences of overwhelming Christian presence. Add to this a flourishing international drug and white slave trafficking, Kosovo is rather far from the democratic and multicultural model that the U.S. foreign policy establishment professes to support. Obviously these are not credentials for independence.

Equally serious is the undeniable rise of the puritanical strain of Wahabbi Islam and real potential for increased interacting between heroin trafficking and crime with terrorists in Kosovo, Southern Serbia, Bosnia and Northern Macedonia.

Where is the quid pro quo for rendering such significant aid to the Islamist agenda in the Balkans? Putting aside slogans and calculated deceptions, the U.S. geostrategic balance sheet in the Balkans shows perceived assets — such as, for example, the preservation of NATO by activating it in war in Bosnia and against Serbia, testing the functioning of international laws and treaties and institutions in the post-cold war world, standing up for expansion of democracy and multiculturalism, punishing Serbia and ascertaining Russian response, stopping wars and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, imposing its will on Europe and concerns of the European Union and establishing a beachhead in Albania.

Likely, the most significant asset was recently named by the chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, Rep. Tom Lantos. Advocating independence for Kosovo, he said "just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led governments in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe." Impartial examination of each of these strategic assets may not value them highly. They can in fact be liabilities for our long-term strategic interests and will undermine Europe.

President Bush persists in humiliating himself (and America) by submitting to the Religion of Ignorance and Bloodshed

As has been evidenced for quite a long time -- especially in the recent attempts to obliterate our national sovereignty and our Freedom of Speech -- America's political elites are neither humble nor public servants.

They, as a whole, are betraying their oaths to defend our Nation and Constitution.

And the President -- a leader in the effort to abolish our borders and Liberty -- persists in his suicidal fictions. Of course, it doesn't matter much to him in the short-term; he and his family will have the best security our money can buy.

In the long-run, however, when he discovers too late what the Religion of Equality has always had in store for his daughters -- a fate to which billions of innocents have succumbed over the last one and one-half millennia, a fate he had the power and responsibility to destroy -- perhaps then he will not so easily offer up utterly, contemptibly, inexplicably stupid and false misrepresentations of the doctrine of Mahomet.

The statements (highlighted below) from an authoritative scholar of Islam frighten especially Western Infidels since we have neither the moral fortitude nor intellectual honesty to admit that their truth and authority come from being an accurate representation of the will of Allah and the example of his false prophet.

Islam is not like any other "great world religion," despite the President's protestations to the contrary. It is a totalitarian, absolutist, merciless Ideology of Theft, Rape, and Slaughter. Until our political, media, and academic elites recognize and admit that, photos like the one above will be of happier times.

From Spencer, who points out that everyone told the truth about Islam until the middle of the last century, when lying apologists for Islam infected the West with their politically-correct nonsense about the death cult. And of course, the West was eager to believe it.

And that "self-appointed vanguard presuming to speak for Muslims"? That's President Bush.

When he spoke this week at the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Islamic Center of Washington, President Bush said: "In the Middle East, we have seen instead the rise of a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination. This self-appointed vanguard presumes to speak for Muslims. They do not."

There we are again. The Administration and the mainstream media (both Left and Right) take it as axiomatic that the jihad we see all over the world today represents a perversion of Islam, repudiated by the vast majority of Muslims. The American Muslim advocacy industry, chiefly the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has recently been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, has quite successfully portrayed any exploration of the elements of Islam that give rise to and justify jihad violence and Islamic supremacism as a manifestation of "hatred," "bigotry," "Islamophobia." Those who do not accept the iron dogma that Islam contains nothing within it that can reasonably be used to justify terrorism are vilified and marginalized.

However, consider for a moment that if the iron dogma is false, the dogmatists are doing a grave disservice to the United States and even to peaceful Muslims. For if there is nothing in Islam that needs reforming, we cannot possibly offer assistance to Islamic reformers. And if Islam is a fundamentally peaceful belief-system, then we need not reevaluate our immigration policies vis-a-vis Muslims entering the U.S. from a national security standpoint, and we need not call American mosques to account for what they are teaching. If we're just dealing with a few crazies, we need not call upon Muslims in the U.S. and elsewhere to perform a searching and honest reevaluation of their beliefs, and decide whether they want to live in a state of conflict with the rest of the international community on an indefinite basis. I suspect that if the question were posed to Muslims worldwide, many would opt for otherwise universally accepted notions of human rights: the freedom of conscience, equality of dignity of women and men, equality of dignity of non-Muslims with Muslims. But we will never know, because Western leaders wouldn't dare pose the question on those terms. After all, they don't want to be seen as "hatemongers."

But there is another aspect to that hatemongering. And that is that the vision of Islam and jihad that the "hatemongers" present today is identical to the one that was universally accepted by academics, including Muslim ones, up until the age of political correctness and Said's Left-McCarthyite Orientalism swept propagandists like Carl Ernst, Omid Safi, Rashid Khalidi and others into our universities. If this is an unfair picture of Islam, motivated by hatred and powered by selection bias involving the ignoring of peaceful Muslim authorities, that is an exceedingly strange fact. But fact it is. Let us examine, to take just one example, the work of the great Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, who died earlier this year at the age of 98.

Khadduri was an Iraqi and a scholar of Islamic law of international renown. I've lately been revisiting his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject. Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. Although it was not a consciously formulated policy, Muhammad's early successors, after Islam became supreme in Arabia, were determined to embark on a ceaseless war of conquest in the name of Islam. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

And:

Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam's instrument or carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief in God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared "some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ." Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community which prefers to remain non-Islamic -- in the status of a tolerated religious community accepting certain disabilities -- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. (Page 64)

Khadduri is, in Bush's words, explaining a doctrine that uses "religion as a path to power and a means of domination." Was Khadduri an "Islamophobe"? A "propangandist"? A practitioner of "selection bias"? A diabolical character misrepresenting the testimony of the texts? Did he ignore Islam's peacefulness and moderation? Those who level such charges at those who discuss the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism today should kindly explain how it is that a scholar like Khadduri (and there are others like him, which I will discuss at another time) could have come to the same conclusions as the "venomous Orientalists" of the 1950s and the "Islamophobic propagandists" of today.

Fair-minded observers, however, should take Khadduri's scholarship as confirming the findings of those who say today that elements of Islam are giving rise to violence and terrorism today, and that that must be addressed by both Muslims and non-Muslims if there is ever going to be an end to it.

Not that Khadduri saw it coming, at least in 1955. In the same book, he wrote that the jihad ideology had largely fallen into desuetude:

The Muslim states, however, are quite aware that at the present it is not possible to revive the traditional religious approach to foreign affairs, nor is it in their interests to do so, as the circumstances permitting the association of religion in the relations among nations have radically changed....the jihad [has] become an obsolete weapon...Islam has at last accepted, after a long period of tension and friction with Christendom, its integration into a world order which, although originating in western Europe, now tends to encompass the entire world. (Pages 295-296)

Those assertions were much truer in 1955 than they are in 2007. Today we are dealing with a global movement that is doing all it can "to revive the traditional religious approach to foreign affairs," and who vehemently reject the idea that "the jihad [has] become an obsolete weapon." They are explicit opponents of the "world order" which originated in western Europe, and posit Sharia as an alternative to it. Note that Khadduri doesn't say that Islamic sects and schools have rejected jihad and reformed the doctrines that mandated Islamic supremacism. Rather, he says that these doctrines were set aside in practice. And now they are being taken up again, fifty years after Khadduri was ready to pronounce them dead -- and now many Western analysts, ignorant of history, think that only we introduce Western ideas into the Islamic world, they will be widely adopted.

In fact, those ideas have long been present, and today's global jihad represents a rejection of them, not a manifestation of ignorance of them. Hugh Fitzgerald has frequently pointed out here that Saudi oil money, massive Muslim immigration into the West, and the revolution in communications technology have made this reassertion possible. I would also add that the Khomeini revolution in Iran has encouraged jihadists in numerous ways, not least by demonstrating that they can capture a state and hold power.

But Bush's address is just the latest example of the fact that Western leaders are largely ignoring all this, and continuing to make policy based on fictions. Karen Hughes is reading John Esposito and Reza Aslan instead of Majid Khadduri and those who confirm his analysis. The negative consequences of this will only grow more obvious as time goes on.

What would the Sons of Liberty do?

115 elected representatives had the unabashed gall to publicly vote to violate The Bill of Rights.

In Colonial times, what was done with those government agents who opposed American Liberty?

From NRO:

The "Fairness Doctrine" Loses [Ramesh Ponnuru]

The House votes 309-115 for a Mike Pence amendment barring the FCC from imposing it.

Serbs defend themselves against Islamic terrorism, and Muslims get their land

From here:

GRACANICA, Serbia (Reuters) - Serbs in Kosovo on Thursday marked an epic medieval battle central to their claim to the province, testing the patience of the Albanian majority already angry at delays to its demand for independence.

How condescending! Of course, the Albanians deserve to have the land they've rightfully stolen!

NATO troops secured the route as U.N. police escorted several busloads of nationalists from the Serb stronghold of Mitrovica to a church service in the Serb monastery enclave of Gracanica, near the capital Pristina.

It's about time NATO "troops" did something other than rape African girls desperate for food. It's too bad no one let them know sooner about the rampant and systematic Muslim destruction of Christian churches there.

The West sees no prospect of returning Kosovo to Serb rule. Albanian leaders have threatened to declare independence unilaterally if the U.N. impasse drags on much longer.

Give us some, or we'll take it all! Of course, when Muslims don't get what they want by asking, they take it by force, echoing their prophet's habit.

June 28, or St Vitus' Day in the Serbian Orthodox calendar, marks the anniversary of the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, when Orthodox Christian Serbs lost to the Muslim Ottoman Turks on fields north of Pristina.

The defeat ushered in 500 years of Ottoman rule and became central to a Serb belief in their close links to God.

You mean that Muslim imperialism didn't begin with the Jews in 1947 or President Bush after 9/11? This author must be an Islamophobe!

Late Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic exploited the battle six centuries later, riding the tiger of Serb nationalism into the wars that tore apart Yugoslavia and drew NATO bombs in 1999 to halt the killing of Kosovan Albanians.

Yes, defending one's people against a resurgence of historical Muslim terrorism is "exploiting" an ancient battle.

And of course -- lest we miss this subtle fact -- it is Serb nationalism, not Muslim terrorism, that devastated Yugoslavia!

Why is it that when Bill Clinton decided to bomb here, instead of destroying Muslim terrorists, he devasted Christians? Why is it that when he had opportunities to erase OBL, he chose not to do so? Why is it that after numerous jihadist attacks against America under his watch, he chose to do nothing at all?

No matter how hard President Bush repeats "Religion of Peace," no matter how many discussions with terrorist-supporting nations in which he engages (a person may destroy an enemy by making him his friend -- so much for "if they're not with us . . . ," -- but I don't think this is what President Lincoln had in mind), regardless of how many hard-earned American tax-payers dollars he squanders on terrorists trying to destroy Israel, Clinton's distinction as the First Muslim President appears safe (although, now he's got a new challenger on the horizon: Jimmy Carter).

Almost a million Albanians were temporarily driven out in a two-year Serb counter-insurgency war. NATO forced Serb forces to withdraw and Kosovo has been run by the United Nations since.

Again, the truth accidentally slips through Reuters' filters: "Serb counter-insurgency war."

And that's what you get when you have the UN in charge: Christians dead, their land stolen, and Muslims achieving their goals in establishing the tyranny of Allah over all mankind.

This year's anniversary falls amid deepening diplomatic stalemate over the Kosovo Albanian demand for independence.

Also known as "flagrant Muslim land grab jihad."

Serbian ally Russia has blocked the adoption of a U.N. Security Council resolution that would set Kosovo on the path to statehood, raising fears among NATO powers of Albanian unrest.

We wouldn't want Muslims upset! Isn't that what two-year-olds do, only without IEDs?

Kosovo's U.N. governor on Wednesday banned a self-styled 'volunteer guard' of Serb nationalists from attending the anniversary at the towering Gazimestan monument.

Anything with "-stan" at the end of it cannot be a good sign for Infidels. And that "volunteer guard," they wouldn't happen to be men tired of their people and their land being raped, slaughtered, and stolen, would they?

Kosovo Albanian hardliners had warned that the 'Guard of Tsar Lazar' would be "met with bullets."

A handful of Serbs in Gracanica wore t-shirts of the Tsar Lazar guard, calling for "war for the liberation of Serbian land".

The Congress of Serb Unity said it would pay respects "to the holy Kosovo warriors who fell defending Christian civilization and the whole of Europe from Islam."

Around 100,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo, outnumbered by 2 million Albanians, mostly Muslim but overwhelmingly secular.

Certainly, there's nothing to fear from these "overwhelmingly secular" Muslims (it is obvious these Serbs are not only stuck in the Dark Ages, they're racist too!).

That's why they're demanding land at the point of a gun. Whenever I'm denied the land I've rightfully invaded and occupied -- even after appropriately raping, butchering, and burning my way through it -- I often threaten gun violence.

And why is it that the Left want to deny Americans their right to bear arms, but Muslims get to brag about theirs?

It was at the Gazimestan monument in 1989 that Milosevic addressed hundreds of thousands of Serbs in a speech that foreshadowed the bloody collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Almost a decade later, after wars in Bosnia and Croatia, Milosevic launched a crackdown on separatist Kosovo guerrillas. Independent estimates put the civilian death toll at between 7,500 and 12,000, mostly Albanians.

"separatist," "guerillas," "Civilian." "mostly Albanians." All the euphemisms for Muslim terrorists. And that last phrase means partly Serb.

As unwittingly noted above, at whose feet does the responsibility for that blood fall? Allah's, of course.

Even the great Mark Steyn still makes the false "Islamist" distinction

Mark Steyn in a typically incisive commentary on Rushdie Rage (Muslims are in a Rush for him to Die) and the West's impotence in the face of it and every other expression of Islamic supremacism.

Though he cites one Muslim's Qur'anic justification for his bloodlust, he still doesn't quite get to the point of admitting that the problem is Islam.

Together with his use of "Islamist mob contract," it gives the impression that the jihadist is the aberration -- rather than the representative -- of the Religion of Peace (and that's a fatwa; it's not "Islamist," it is Islam).

Following is one important comment by Edo on Steyn's article. He is right, how could it all have been forgotten? Even more inexplicable now, how is it that six years since 9/11, only a few have rediscovered it?

Islamic cruel imperialism has been on the march for 1350 years.

The West knew this fact until recently, and our schools used to teach The Song of Roland, the history of the battles of Lepanto and Tours and about Charles Martel, and the fight against encroachment by Mohammedan armies up to the Gates of Vienna, where they were finally driven back by the combined forces of Europe under the Polish king Jan Sobieskie.

How has our past, and Islam's millenia-long depredations and brutal expansion, been so outrageously forgotten?

Mark Steyn:

A year or so after the Ayatollah Khomeini took out an Islamist mob contract on Salman Rushdie in 1989, the novelist appeared, after elaborate security arrangements, on a television arts show in London. His host was Melvyn Bragg, a longtime British telly grandee, and what was striking was how quickly the interview settled down into the usual cozy, literary chit-chat. Lord Bragg took Rushdie back to his earlier pre-fatwa work. "After your first book," drawled Bragg, "which was not particularly well-received."

That's supposed to be the worst a novelist has to endure. His book will be "not particularly well-received" – i.e., some twerp reviewers will be snotty about it in the New Yorker and the Guardian. In the cozy world of English letters, it came as a surprise to find that being "not particularly well-received" meant foreign governments putting a bounty on your head and killing your publishers and translators. Even then, the literary set had difficulty taking it literally. After news footage of British Muslims burning Rushdie's book in the streets of English cities, BBC arts bores sat around on talk-show sofas deploring the "symbolism" of this attack on "ideas."

There was nothing symbolic about it. They burned the book because they couldn't burn Rushdie himself. If his wife and kid had swung by, they'd have gladly burned them, just as the mob was happy to burn to death 37 Turks who'd made the mistake of being in the same hotel in Sivas as one of the novelist's translators. When British Muslims called for Rushdie to be killed, they meant it. From a mosque in Yorkshire, Mohammed Siddiqui wrote to the Independent to endorse the fatwa by citing Sura 5, verses 33-34, from the Quran:

"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land, is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land."

That last sanction apparently wasn't an option.

Britain got so many things wrong during the Rushdie affair, just as America got so many things wrong during the Iranian embassy siege 10 years earlier. But it's now 2007 – almost two decades after Iran claimed sovereignty over British subjects (Rushdie), almost three decades after they claimed sovereignty over American territory (the U.S. Embassy in Tehran). So what have we learned? I was with various British parliamentarians the other day, and we were talking about the scenes from Islamabad, Pakistan, where the usual death-to-the-Great-Satan chaps had burned an effigy of the queen to protest the knighthood she'd conferred on Rushdie.

I told my London friends that I had to hand it to Tony Blair's advisers: What easier way for the toothless old British lion, after the humiliations inflicted upon the Royal Navy sailors by their Iranian kidnappers, to show you're still a player than by knighting Salman Rushdie for his "services to literature"? Given that his principal service to literature has been to introduce the word "fatwa" to the English language, one assumed that some characteristically cynical British civil servant had waved the knighthood through as a relatively cheap way of flipping the finger to the mullahs.

But no. It seems Her Majesty's Government was taken entirely by surprise by the scenes of burning Union Jacks on the evening news.

Can that really be true? In a typically incompetent response, Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, issued one of those "obviously we're sorry if there's been a misunderstanding" statements in which she managed to imply that Rushdie had been honored as a representative of the Muslim community. He's not. He's an ex-Muslim. He's a representative of the Muslim community's willingness to kill you for trying to leave the Muslim community. But, locked into obsolescent multicultural identity-groupthink, Mrs. Beckett instinctively saw Rushdie as a member of a quaintly exotic minority rather than as a free-born individual.

This is where we came in two decades ago. We should have learned something by now. In the Muslim world, artistic criticism can be fatal. In 1992, the poet Sadiq Abd al-Karim Milalla also found that his work was "not particularly well-received": he was beheaded by the Saudis for suggesting Muhammad cooked up the Quran by himself. In 1998, the Algerian singer Lounès Matoub described himself as "ni Arabe ni musulman" (neither Arab nor Muslim) and shortly thereafter found himself neither alive nor well. These are not famous men. They don't stand around on Oscar night, congratulating themselves on their "courage" for speaking out against Bush-Rove fascism. But, if we can't do much about freedom of expression in Iran and Saudi Arabia, we could at least do our bit to stop Saudi-Iranian standards embedding themselves in the West.

So many of our problems with Iran today arise from not doing anything about our problems with Iran yesterday. Men like Ayatollah Khomeini despised pan-Arab nationalists like Nasser who attempted to impose a local variant of Marxism on the Muslim world. Khomeini figured: Why import the false ideologies of a failing civilization? Doesn't it make more sense to export Islamism to the dying West?

And, for a guy dismissed by most of us as crazy, Khomeini made a lot of sense. The Rushdie fatwa established the ground rules: The side that means it gets away with it. Mobs marched through Britain calling for the murder of a British subject – and, as a matter of policy on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity, the British police shrugged and looked the other way.

One reader in England recalled one demonstration at which he asked a constable why the "Muslim community leaders" weren't being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer told him to "f--- off, or I'll arrest you." Genuine "moderate Muslims" were cowed into silence, and pseudo-moderate Muslims triangulated with artful evasiveness. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, who went on to become leader of the most prominent British Muslim lobby group, mused about the Rushdie fatwa: "Death is perhaps too easy."

In 1989 Salman Rushdie went into hiding under the protection of the British police. A decade later he decided he did not wish to live his life like that and emerged from seclusion to live a more or less normal life. He learned the biggest lesson of all – how easy it is to be forced into the shadows. That's what's happening in the free world incrementally every day, with every itsy-bitsy nothing concession to groups who take offense at everything and demand the right to kill you for every offense. Across two decades, what happened to Rushdie has metastasized, in part because of the weak response in those first months. "Death is perhaps too easy"? Maybe. But slow societal suicide is easier still.

A taste of what you can expect under the benevolence of Allah

This is modern, moderate Iran.

This is government policy.

This is Islamic law.

This is what President Bush, the Left, and other apologists for Islam defend.

A sixteen-year-old girl executed. Women harassed and "taken to the bus" for dressing like moms. Men reportedly brutalized and forced to drink bathroom wash water for their Western dress and hair styles.

This is only a taste of what you can expect under the rule of Allah.

This is only the beginning. From Michelle Malkin:











Do you really want to defend this? You might want to get fitted for your abaya and niqab soon.

The Byzantine emperor's analysis of Muhammad was correct: he spread his faith by the sword

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the role of journalism today. Hewitt, Hannity, Rush, et al., ought to imitate her courage:

The first time that I was at a gathering like this one, it was November 2005 at the Krasnapolsky hotel in Amsterdam; not quite like this one, though, because there is only one National Press Club. I was invited to a session on media coverage of Islam, and Submission was shown. Submission is a 10-minute film I made with Theo van Gogh. As many of you know, he was killed for it by a Muslim.

I found myself in the odd position of defending freedom of expression, free press, and the rights of women against Arab-Islamic journalists and commentators. I found it odd because the Western journalists whose conference it was were either quiet, mumbled something about free expression, or approached me after the session and whispered into my ear that I had done a good job. I noticed the embarrassment they felt at defending the very right from which they earn their bread.

I noticed the same sense of uneasiness in early 2006 among Western journalists, academics, politicians, and commentators on how to respond to the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark. In fact, many seriously defended the assertion that Denmark had to apologize for the cartoons. This attitude was repeated in the fall of last year when the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who wrote that the founder of Islam spread his religion by the sword, and the New York Times urged the Pope to apologize.

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam.

Tony Blair, a leader I admire, wrote in the first issue of this year's Foreign Affairs magazine that what we were facing after the 11th of September was a battle of ideas, a battle of values. In his article, Blair began by incisively outlining the most crucial conflict of our time, but then lost the line of his argument in inconsistency when he came to clarifying the parties involved in the war of values. He backpedaled against his argument and declared that the Koran is a great book, ahead of its time and good for women.

Why are Westerners so insecure about everything that is so wonderful about the West: political freedom, free press, freedom of expression, equal rights for women and men, gays and heterosexuals, critical thinking, and the great strength of scrutinizing ideas--and especially faith?

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam. Tony Blair and the Pope should not be embarrassed in saying it, and you should stop self-censoring. Islam and liberal democracy are incompatible; cultures and religions are not equal. And perhaps most important of all, Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence. The Koran is not a great book; it is reactionary and full of misogyny. The Byzantine emperor's analysis of Muhammad was correct: he spread his faith by the sword.

From this perspective journalists like all the rest of us face the unpleasant reality of taking sides or getting lost in the incoherence of the so-called middle ground. The role of journalists serving the West, who understand what this particular battle is about, will be to inform their audiences accordingly.

As I travel from country to country to testify from experience and observation that Islamic dogma creates a cult of death, a cage for women, and a curse against knowledge, I get both support and opposition. Europeans and Americans ask:

But what about the good Muslim living next to me? What about the different schools of thought in Islam? Is there no difference between the Muslims of Indonesia and the ones in Somalia, or the Muslims in Saudi Arabia and those in Turkey? Can we really generalize? What about the women who voluntarily wear the headscarf and the burqa and are happy to relinquish their freedom as their faith requires? If we give Catholics and Protestants and Jews their schools and their universities, isn't it only fair to give Muslims theirs, too? If generations of Jews, Italians, and Irish have assimilated, is it unreasonable to think that Muslims will assimilate too, eventually?" Isn't it more fruitful to engage in debate with your opponent and convince him through dialogue to take back his declaration of war than to attack him? Isn't it obvious that military attacks, such as those in Afghanistan after 9/11 and in Iraq, create more terrorists, and therefore more people who are determined to destroy the West than there would be if we had dialogue with them?

These questions are legitimate and deserve serious answers. Let's make a moral distinction between Islam and Muslims. Muslims are diverse. Some, like Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid, want to reform their faith. Others want to spread their beliefs through persuasion, violence or both. Others are apathetic and do not care much for politics. Others want to leave it and convert to Christianity, like Nonie Darwish, or become atheist, like me.

Islam unreformed, as a set of beliefs, is hostile to everything Western.

In a free society, if Jews, Protestants, and Catholics have their own schools, then Muslims should have theirs, too. But how long should we ignore that in Muslim schools in the West, kids are taught to believe that Jews are pigs and dogs? Or that they should distance themselves from unbelievers and jihad is a virtue? Isn't it odd that everywhere in Europe with large Muslim organizations, demands are made not to teach kids about the Holocaust, while in mosques and Muslim bookshops The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is distributed?

And what about in Muslim lands, where Jews, Catholics, and Protestants cannot have their own schools, or churches, or graveyards? If Muslims can proselytize in Vatican City, why can't Christians proselytize in Mecca? Why do we find this acceptable? If Christians, Jews, and Atheists take to the streets in large numbers to protest against their own elected governments in objection to the war in Iraq, to the war against terror, why don't Muslims march in equally large number against the beheadings of Western aid workers? Why don't Muslims stand up for their own? Why are Jews and Christians and Atheists in the West the ones fighting genocide in Darfur? Why does it pass unnoticed in Muslim lands when Shias kill Sunnis and Sunnis, Shias by the thousands? It doesn't add up, does it? If you ask me, "What is the role of journalism today?" I would urge you to look into these questions.

As a woman in the West I have access to education. I have a job, and I can change jobs as I wish. I can marry the man of my choice, or I can choose not to marry at all. If nature allows it, I can have any number of children I want. I can manipulate nature and freeze my eggs. I can have an abortion. I can own property. I can travel wherever I want. I can read whichever book, newspaper, or magazine I wish. I can watch any movie I want or go to the museum of my choice. I can have an opinion on the moral choices of others and express my opinion, even publish it. And I can change my mind as time goes by. I can establish a political party or join an existing one; I am free to change parties or give up my membership. I can vote. I can choose not to vote. I can stand for election to office or go into business. This is what makes the West so great.

This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam from Riyadh to Teheran, from Islamabad to Cairo know that any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their power.

In Muslim lands, except for a very lucky few, women are denied education, have no job, and are forced into marriage with strangers. In the name of Islam, women are denied the right to their bodies; they cannot choose whether to have children or how many to have. They have no rights to abortion, and often they die trying to get one. They cannot own property, trade, or travel without the risk of robbery or rape. Most women (and men) live in state and religious censorship on what to read (if they can read at all) and what films to watch, and they have hardly any museums or art they can enjoy. Of the 57 Muslim nations that are members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), only two are democracies. Both are frail and corrupt, and both face the risk of being overtaken by the agents of pure Islam. Turkey has a safety check in the shape of the army and Indonesia none. In none of these countries--except for the usual show-pieces to delude the West--are women allowed to establish their own political parties, play a meaningful role in one, vote, or run for office.

This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam--from Riyadh to Tehran, from Islamabad to Cairo--know that any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their power. This is why, among other things, they are so desperate to cage in women. This is why they also hate the West.

Please don't be fooled by the few shrill voices--in or out of the veil--that enjoy the status quo and betray their fellow women.

If we do not understand the differences between Islam and the West--why one is so great and the other so low--and we don't fight back and win this battle of ideas in order to preserve our civilization, in my view there is no point to your profession or mine.

Miracle in four words

Paul Potts, Nessun Dorma.

He sings, and we glimpse the Divine.

Here are his semi-final and final performances:

The connection between native Muslim terrorists and their international co-religionists is the will of Allah and the example of his apostle

How is it that the leading Republican presidential candidate and a major conservative pundit can be so unwilling or unable to identify that which motivates our enemy in the GWoT?

According to Hugh, in speaking of American Muslim terrorists the Mayor said, "I think the home grown part is something we’re just getting a fix on. And I think it’s really concerning us, that the way Chris Christie described it was this was not directed by al Qaeda, but it was inspired by al Qaeda. Sometimes, those connections are harder to find, because they’re not taking place over a telephone call, or some kind of communication."

Those "connections" are being made every day in bookstores, libraries, MSAs, mosques, homes, and all over the Internet.

The connection between home-grown terrorists and The Base isn't hard to find at all for anyone with at least basic reading comprehension skills, a modicum of curiosity, and the will to admit the truth.

The "connection" is not poverty -- many jihadists and their supporters are well-educated and financially secure.

Neither can it be Colonial oppression, since Jihad has been waged for fourteen hundred years against first Arabs, then Jews, Africans, Europeans, Persians, Indians, etc. Pagan, Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, animist -- all have tasted the malevolence of Allah.

And it can't be Israel's fault, since that nation was only reconstituted sixty years ago and was attacked by its Muslim neighbors repeatedly and without provocation.

That the would-be future president and his host are still so blind after all these years (thirty for the Mayor and almost six since 9/11 for Hugh) is indefensible.

The connection is the will of Allah and the example of his apostle as recorded in Islam's "sacred" texts:

". . . the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

". . . fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

". . . fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere . . ." (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you . . . " (Qur'an 2:216).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home) . . . But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward..." (Qur'an 4:95).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain . . . " (Qur'an 9:11).

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Western ignorance and imprecision aids the global jihad

Dean Barnett filled in for Hugh Hewitt on his radio program today.

I agree with his and his callers' reluctance to paint with too broad a brush while trying to correctly identify our enemy in the GWoT.

However, courtesy that obscures the truth -- especially in a time of war -- is no virtue. In this case, it is costing (and will cost) too high a price in American blood and treasure.

What is this lie? The assertion made by President Bush and other apologists for Jihad that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" and that a "tiny minority of radical, extremist, fundamentalist Islamo-fascists" have "hijacked" that "great world religion."

Nearly fourteen hundred years of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history demonstrate the terms "Radical Islam" to be misleading and "Genocidal Islam" to be redundant. And neither are those who would murder the innocent in service to Allah and those who support them a "tiny minority."

"Radical Islam" implies that "normal" Islam is as innocuous as any other major religion. It is not. It is more accurate to describe the doctrine and practice of truly "moderate" Muslims as "Apostate," "Liberal," or "Figurative" Islam.

Islam's "sacred" texts (Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith) make clear that the will of Allah and the example of Mohammed (described by his god in Qur'an as a "beautiful pattern of conduct") require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to establish the tyranny of Allah over all Mankind.

Mohammed commanded:

". . . kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

"When you meet the Unbelievers, invite them to Islam . . . if they refuse, offer them to pay the jizya . . . if they refuse that, then fight."

"Fight until all religion is for Allah."

The founder of the Religion of Tolerance also confessed: "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they confess that no one has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle," and, "I have been made victorious with terror."

These are not fabrications from Islamophobic racists. These are the very words of Mohammed, considered the Ideal Man in Islam. He is the one whose command is to be obeyed and example is to be followed by the faithful Muslim under all circumstances.

"Radical Islam," "Islamofascism," "Islamic Extremism," "Genocidal Islam," and the rest are all just Western Infidel misnomers for Islam, which requires the use of any means necessary -- including offensive warfare against Infidels, even genocide -- to subjugate all men under Shari'a.

We are only in the latest phase of the ancient War of Self-Defense Against the Malevolence of Allah.