List Of Top American Muslims Sent To Obama

The Denver Post enlightens the rest of us:

CHICAGO — In a bid to get more Muslim Americans working in the Obama administration, a book with resumes of 45 of the nation’s most qualified — Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 executives and public servants, all carefully vetted — has been submitted to the White House.

The effort, driven by community leaders and others, including U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., was bumped up two weeks because White House officials heard about the venture, said J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, who sifted through more than 300 names.

“It was mostly under the radar,” Williams said. “We thought it would put (the president) in a precarious position. We didn’t know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community.”

I’m sure we’re all wondering the same thing. Namely – did Obama also get a list of the ‘top’ Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Atheists, and so on…?

The Murder And Torture Of Ilan Halimi: Update

Some of you may recall reading here about the torture and murder of French Jew Ilan Halimi, at the hands of a Muslim mob. The case went to trial but has apparently now been stopped; more on this very shortly. Meanwhile, check out the article below, by Pam Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog, written while the trial was ongoing.

The Halimi Cover-Up

by Pamela Geller

The abduction and murder in Paris of a young Jewish man by a gang of Muslim immigrants calling themselves the Barbarians shocked the whole of France in 2006. But now that the accused are on trial – silence.

A French judge has ordered the latest issue of the magazine Choc (“shock”) removed from the shelves. The cover showed a man with duct tape completely covering his head, except for a small opening around his nose. His nose is bloody. His hands are also bound with duct tape

It was a photo of Ilan Halimi, the 23-year-old Parisian Jew who was kidnapped and tortured for 24 days by the Barbarians. His captors took the picture and sent it to his family.

A lawyer for Halimi’s family had complained about the magazine, but ‘Choc’s editor-in-chief Paul Payan responded:

“Of course, we understand the anguish of the parents and, of course, we share their anguish…. But what’s so harrowing is not the publication of this photo. What’s harrowing is what it represents, what happened, the reality behind it.”

And it gets worse. The New York Times reported last week that “in the two and a half weeks since 27 people went on trial [in Paris] for the brutal 2006 kidnapping, torture and killing of a young Jewish man, little has filtered out about the proceedings.”

Worse still, the little that has emerged indicates that French government and law enforcement have done everything in their power to obscure the Islamic Jew-hatred that led these Muslims to commit this crime.

The corrupt media, aligned with the jihad forces, has long blacked out the truth about the homemade concentration camp and the inconceivable horrors that were suffered by this French Jew, chosen by Islam’s soldiers for unimaginable torture. They covered up the religious aspects of this depraved barbarity. Law enforcement did as well.

No one said anything about the Quran’s statement that the Jews are the Muslims’ worst enemies. No one referenced Muhammad’s words: “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'”

Never was there heard anything about the Islamic tradition that says: “When judgment day arrives, Allah will give every Muslim a Jew or Christian to kill, so that the Muslim will not enter into hell fire.”

Ilan’s uncle, Rafi Halimi, reported that “the gang phoned the family on several occasions and made them listen to the recitation of verses from the Quran, while Ilan’s tortured screams could be heard in the background.”

Three weeks of unimaginable torture. Three weeks. So many clues. So many guilty animals partaking in the continuing torture in their “homemade concentration camp.”

Twenty-three people participated in torturing Ilan. Another twenty were involved indirectly. The custodian of the building gave them the key to an apartment where they said they wanted to “keep someone.”

French journalist Guy Millière reported that “the screams must have been loud because the torture was especially atrocious: the thugs cut bits off the flesh of the young man, they cut his fingers and ears, they burned him with acid, and in the end poured flammable liquid on him and set him on fire.”

Horrible tortures. Horrible torturers. One of the torturers would go to work at a TV station every day and come back to partake in the torture. The girls who lured Halimi into the trap knew he had been kidnapped. They knew Youssef Fofana, the leader of the Barbarians, was extremely violent. They knew Ilan was still in his hands three weeks later.

All they had to do was make an anonymous phone call to the police. No one would have known. They did not do it. No neighbor thought to say to the police that something strange was going on in their building.

The police told the family not to say a word. The Jewish community was not warned when prior attempts to kidnap Jewish men had failed. The Jewish community was not warned before the successful attempt.

Even the one member of the gang who dropped out because he was shocked by their violence did not call the police.

When Ilan was found, the head of the fire department who was called to the scene, a man with decades of experience, almost fainted when he saw the victim.

The last thing Youssef Fofana did was slit Ilan’s throat, twice, and pour a flammable liquid on him to try to set him on fire. But this did not burn him to death, because Ilan walked for perhaps one hour, trying still to find a way to live.

It was another brutal Islamic slaughter of a defenseless Jew. To cover it up now is only to help ensure that it happens again.

I wanted to write something about this article by Pamela Geller but I’m on the verge of tears having read those details. I wish long life to Ilan Halimi’s family and I hope and pray that Ilan is in a far, far better place right now.

Jews don’t believe in hell but, if there does exist such a place, I hope that the bastards who killed Ilan Halimi will rot there for all eternity.

Relevant links:

Atlas Shrugs

Jew With A View: Muslim Mob On Trial For Torture And Murder Of Jewish Man Lured by Honeytrap

Egypt Bans Marriage To Israelis

Here is yet more proof – if any was needed! – that Islam is inherently anti semitic.  In Egypt, ostensibly on ‘peaceful’ terms with Israel, Islamic religious law has now been cited to ratify a ban on marrying Israelis. No doubt Egyptian Muslims are feeling empowered as a result of Obama’s wooing of Islam.

One Egyptian certainly is. Here, from the World Jewish Review:

Solicitor Nabih Al-Wahsh has managed to extract a ruling from Egypt’s Administrative Court — which rules in disputes between citizens and the state — that would force the Egyptian government to strip Egyptians married to Israelis of their Egyptian citizenship. The May 19 ruling was met with the cheers of millions in this populous Arab country.

After the verdict was read in the Cairo courtroom, Nabih al-Wahsh jumped for joy and received an avalanche of telephone calls from friends congratulating him on his latest legal victory.

“This is an historic ruling,” al-Wahsh said to reporters after the ruling. “Egyptians married to Israelis are dangerous to Egypt’s national security, acting in ways that contradict the constitution of their country and Islamic laws,” he said.

Calls flooded into TV talk shows discussing the verdict and readers posted comments on Web sites of newspapers that wrote about it.

Everyone appeared united in elation at the ruling, as well as in hatred of the Jewish state and everything that related to it.

Such sentiments among a large chunk of Egypt’s population of about 80 million underscores the wide chasm that distinguishes Egypt at the official level and the same country at the level of its public.

Although Egypt was the first country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, almost 30 years ago, its government and its people still walk two different paths.

Egyptian officials visit Israel, meet members of its cabinet and sign agreements secretly and openly with them, but the people on the street still view Israel as an “enemy,” “imperialist” in nature, and those Egyptians who travel and get married there are seen as “traitors.” These same critics have consistently attempted to abort every possibility of breaking the ice that has blocked the way between Cairo and Tel Aviv for decades now.

In this sense, it is true that Egypt is the “heart of the Arab world,” as President Barack Obama and his advisers like to call it.

Egyptian analysts say the court ruling asking the government to revoke the nationality of Egyptians married to Israelis should not affect peace between the Jewish state and the country that bore arms against Israel four times in the last 60 years.

Some estimates put the number of Egyptians living in Israel between 6,000 and 7,000, although al-Wahsh believes the number could be between 30,000 and 40,000.

The reason people leave Egypt for Israel is not a secret to the people in this country, even among decision-makers themselves. In addition to the fallout from the international economic downturn, which has weighed heavily on the Egyptian economy, Egypt has been suffering its own economic deterioration for years.

In this country, which features the oldest civilization in the Arab Middle East, more than 40 percent of the population lives beneath the poverty line, according to the World Bank.

The economic reform policies of Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party have failed to improve living conditions for the majority of the population and have even backfired at times, creating a new class of monopolistic businessmen who control the prices and availability of basic commodities.

Israel, by contrast, is a thriving multiethnic country that enjoys political pluralism and offers Egyptian job seekers a model totally different from in their own country, where jobs are rare, diversity is nonexistent and religious tolerance is scarce.

Part of the antipathy to Israel stems from what Egyptians see on their national TV and read in their newspapers every day.

A few weeks ago, TV anchor Mahmud Saad, in an on-air telephone interview, lashed out at Egypt’s Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni, who is seeking election to the top post of UNESCO, for inviting Daniel Barenboim, a conductor with Israeli origins and international acclaim, to lead an orchestra at the Egyptian Opera House.

“I hate Israel,” Saad, who hosts the popular talk show “al-Beit Beitak” (“Feel at Home”), shouted while speaking with the minister.

Days later, Egypt’s ex-mufti — a top religious leader who advises the country’s Muslim majority on religious matters — lampooned Arab countries that sign agreements with Israel in a veiled criticism of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Yet there was Obama last week, in Egypt, legitimising Islamic hatred of ‘infidels’ and actually claiming that Islam valued ‘racial equality’.

That man wouldn’t recognise integrity if it walked up and slapped him round the face.

Obama And The Whitewashing Of Islam

 

 Got a nice big bucket? If not, you’d better borrow one from a neighbour. Because trust me – you’re gonna need it after reading Obama’s Love Letter to the Muslim World. He attempted to whitewash Islam to such an extent that frankly, I’m amazed even the Muslim audience members were able to keep straight faces. America’s Prince Of Appeasement bowed low before them, and it was not a pretty sight.

 

Let’s  face it. Obama might as well be a Muslim. I  don’t care how much the man insists he’s a Christian. He speaks with a reverence for Islam and he calls the Quran ‘holy’. I don’t know many Christians that would do this. If Obama had spoken this way about Islam prior to the American elections, would he be sitting in the White House today? I’d wager the answer is a resounding NO.

But he did win, and now the Prince Of Appeasement clearly feels secure enough to express his reverence for Islam:

Obama: ‘Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.’

(really? with not one Islamic democracy? with the Quran clearly stating that non Muslims must be coverted by force or beheaded? with millions of Muslims dedicated to transforming the world into a global Caliphate? with Jews and Christians and all ‘infidels’ living as dhimmis in Muslim lands, century after century? ‘religious tolerance’ – really?)

 

Obama: ‘In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.’

(no? then G-d only help America. Because Islam’s made it clear, it is War)

 

Obama: ‘The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.’

(’holy’? Only if you’re a Muslim. How many Christians would even consider referring to the Quran as ‘holy’? Oh, and let’s not forget, that the above teaching is a JEWISH teaching that appeared IN Judaism thousands of years before Islam even existed.)

 

Obama: Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism…’

(correct, Islam is the TOTAL problem!)

 

‘Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.’

(Er, where? Not on  planet Earth!)

 

Obama specifically refers to both the Quran and the Christian bible as ‘holy’ – but manages to avoid referring to the Torah in the same way. Instead, he cites the Talmud.

Why is this? Why did Obama not quote from the Jewish holy text, the Torah? After all, it’s not like there’s any shortage of wise and compassionate teachings in the Torah! But no, instead Obama says:

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of G-d.”

And what about the millions of people who DON’T belong to one of the three Abrahamic faiths?

Obama’s Cairo love-fest with Islam will surely go down in history as a masterclass in sheer, unadulterated appeasement.   Oh, how the extremists must be crowing right now.

I can almost hear Mohammed laughing.

****************************************************************

Melanie Phillips has voiced some very pertinent points about Obama’s comments on Israel today in Cairo. Here is what she says:

 

Obama  revealed gross ignorance of the Jews’ unique claim to the land of Israel. He said that America’s unbreakable bond with Israel was based upon:

the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust…

The Jews’ attachment to their homeland does not derive from the Holocaust, nor their overall tragic history. It derives from Judaism itself, which is composed of the inseparable elements of the religion, the people and the land. Their unique claim upon the land rests upon the fact that the Jews are the only people for whom Israel was ever their nation, which it was for hundreds of years – centuries before the Arabs and Muslims came on the scene. As for antisemitism, he made no mention of the alliance between the Palestinians and the Nazis during the 1930s, and the fact that Nazi-style Jew-hatred continues to pour out of the Arab and Muslim world to this day.

Building upon this ignorance, he then adopted the Arab propaganda version of Israel’s history. He thus delivered a travesty of the facts:

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.

On the contrary, it is not undeniable because it is untrue. The Palestinians have been offered a homeland repeatedly – in 1936, 1947, 2000 and last year. They have repeatedly turned it down. The Arabs could have created it between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. They chose not to do so. They could have created it after 1967, when Israel offered the land to them in return for peace with Israel. They refused the offer. The Palestinians have suffered because they have tried for six decades to destroy the Jews’ homeland.

Obama: For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation.

The ‘pain of dislocation’ was caused by the fact that six decades ago they went to war against the newly recreated Israel to destroy it, and were subsequently deliberately kept in ‘refugee’ camps by the Arab world. What other aggressor in the world is described as suffering ‘the pain of dislocation’ caused by its own aggression — which has continued for sixty years without remission and shows no sign of ending?

Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.

There is one reason for that and one reason alone – the Palestinians have ensured that Israel has never lived in peace or security, because they have continued to attack it and murder its citizens. And Gaza? Doesn’t Obama realise the Israelis no longer occupy Gaza?  It is run by Hamas, which shows its commitment to the peace and security of its inhabitants by throwing them off the tops of tall buildings.

So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

And what about the intolerable situation of Israel, forced to live in a state of siege for sixty years because of the unending aggression of the Palestinians and the wider Arab and Muslim world? The Palestinians could have lived in peace and prosperity alongside Israel at any time since 1948. If they were to end their attempt to destroy Israel and accept insteadthe right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state — that crucual qualification Obama omitted to mention – they could do so tomorrow. The only reason their position is intolerable is because they themselves have made it so. What other aggressor in the world has its situation described as ‘intolerable’?

Palestinians must abandon violence.

Good. But then:

Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.

‘Resistance’? ‘Resistance’ is a term of moral approval. ‘Resistance’ describes a fight against injustice. But the Palestinians have been engaged in an attempt to wipe out Israel. Obama sees this as ‘resistance’ – even though he says violence is wrong. And then this:

For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia.

So Obama has equated genocidal terrorism by the Palestinians with the civil rights movement in America and the true resistance against apartheid in South Africa. Thus the moral bankruptcy of the relativist.

Next, he repeated that the settlements (all of them? just new ones?) undermined peace and so had to stop. But they don’t undermine peace. It is Arab rejectionism that prevents peace in the mMddle East, and the settlements are a palpable excuse. Yet Obama delivered no ultimatum of any kind to Iran, the real threat to peace in the region and the world; indeed, he repeated that Iran

should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

– an alarming indication that he might view as acceptable a formulation which might enable Iran to continue to make nuclear weapons under some kind of verbal and political camouflage.

For his egregious sanitising of Islam and its history, and his absurd claims about its contribution to western civilisation, read Robert Spencer here. But in this regard, one of Obama’s references in particular made me catch my breath. It was this:

The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

This is boilerplate misrepresentation by Islamists and their apologists. The fact is that it is Judaism which teaches this as a cardinal precept. The Talmud states:

Whoever destroys a single soul, he is guilty as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whoever preserves a single soul, it is as though he had preserved a whole world.

The Koran appropriated this precept – but altered it to mean something very different. Thus:

That was why we laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet many among them, even after that, did prodigious evil in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. (My emphasis)

In other words, this turns a Talmudic precept affirming the value of preserving human life into a prescription for violence and murder against Jews and ‘unbelievers’. Yet Obama passed it off as evidence of the pacific nature of Islam.

So in conclusion, yes, there was some positive stuff in this speech – but it was outweighed by the United States President’s shocking historical misrepresentations, gross ignorance, disgusting moral equivalence between aggressors and their victims, and disturbing sanitising of Islamist supremacism

 

 

******************************************************************

UPDATE:

Clearly I am not alone in surmising that Obama has lost the plot entirely.  His recent announcement that America ‘is one of the largest Muslim countries’ is raising both eyebrows and suspicions in all sane observers. Here’s Melanie Phillips again, in the Spectator, saying what many are thinking:

Having previously declared that America is ‘no longer a Christian nation’ – to be precise:

… At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers…

Obama has now announced, on the eve of his pilgrimage to make obeisance to the entire Islamic world, that the US can be seen as a Muslim country:

‘And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,’ Mr. Obama said.

Uh? Here are some statistics of the number and percentage of Muslims in various countries:

Indonesia: 207,105,000 (88.2%);

Pakistan: 167,430,801 (95%);

India: 156,254,615 (13.4%);

Turkey: 70,800,000 (99%);

Egypt: 70,530,237 (90%);

Nigeria: 64,385,994 (45%);

Iran: 64,089,571 (98%);

Algeria: 32,999,883 (99%);

Morocco: 32,300,410 (99%);

Afghanistan: 31,571,023 (99%)

Saudi Arabia: 26,417,599 (100%)

USA: 4,558,068 (1.5%)

Just what planet is this US President on?

Or is this not a statement but an aspiration?

Across the pond, Wesley Pruden in the Washington Post also picks up on this point, as well as rightly lambasting Obama for his pitiful love letter to Islam while in Cairo:

“Now it’s on to Normandy, to apologize to the Germans. It’s the least an American president can do after the way the Allied armies left so much of Europe in rubble. There’s a lot of groveling to do for what America accomplished in the Pacific, too.

This prospect should appeal to Barack Obama, who relishes the role of Apologizer-in-Chief. Apologizing for manifold sins against civilization is not always easy, but it’s simple enough: “Blame America First.” You just open a vein and let it flow. In Cairo, Mr. Obama opened an artery.

In an interview before the Cairo speech, he called the United States one of “the largest Muslim countries,” based on its Muslim population, and he later put the number of Muslims in America at 7 million, more than even most Islamic advocacy groups claim.

Mr. Obama described himself as “a Christian, but,” and offered a hymn to the Muslim roots he insisted during the late presidential campaign he didn’t have. He invoked his middle name, “Hussein,” as evidence that he was one of “them.” The Obama campaign insisted last year that anyone who uses the middle name was playing with racism.

The article notes also:

“But it was more fun to fish for applause by berating America and throwing rocks at Israel…. Israel, he said, must “live up to its obligations,” but he had hardly a word of rebuke for the long record of broken Palestinian promises. It was a remarkable insult to an absent ally, delivered to the applause of Israel’s sworn enemies.”

And the piece concluded:

“The great Cairo grovel accomplished nothing beyond the humiliation of the president and the embarrassment of his constituents, few of whom share his need to put America on its knees before its enemies. No president before him has ever shamed us so. We must never forget it.”

Answering The Apologists For Islam

Those who seek to justify Islamic terrorism, often do so by stating that both Judaism and Christianity also have violent histories. Islam, they insist, is being ‘unfairly’ singled out, even though the other Abrahamic faiths are also inherently violent.

The two favourite and increasingly weary examples offered are the slaying by the Hebrews of the Canaanites (Judaism) and the bloody crimes of the Crusades (Christianity).

And this tactic by apologists for Islamic terrorism often works. It helps shore up the pervasive yet false premise that Islam is ‘just like other religions’.  Or, to put it another way: it is not Islam that causes Islamic terrorism, but rather human nature.

One of the best responses I’ve read to this apologist tactic, comes courtesy of writer and expert on radical Islam, Raymond Ibrahim. Here is what he says on the issue of whether Judaism and Christianity also promote violence in the same manner as Islam (emphasis is mine):

Such questions reveal a great deal of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of men and the immutable words of G-d. The fundamental error being that Jewish andChristian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theologywhich commands violence.

Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by G-d or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important question.

The Israelites’ violence is an interesting case in point. G-d clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of G-d’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Tanakh is just that—history. It happened; G-d commanded it.

But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Tanakh —commanded by G-d and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e. the Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Koranic verses:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (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 [i.e. Islamic law], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [i.e. Islam], from the people of the book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued (9:29).

As with Tanakh  verses where G-d  commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, these Koranic verses also have a historical context. Allah (through Muhammad) first issued these commandments after the Arab tribes had finally unified under the banner of Islam and were preparing to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors.

But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Tanakh  these so-called “sword-verses” subsequently became fundamental to Islam’s relationship to both the “people of the book” (i.e. Christians and Jews) and the “pagans” (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc).

In fact, based on the sword-verses (as well as countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), Islam’s scholars, sheikhs, muftis, imams, and qadis throughout the ages have all reached the consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world, until the former subsumes the latter. (It is widely held that the sword-verses alone have abrogated some 200 of the Koran’s more tolerant verses.)

Famous Muslim scholar and “father of modern history” Ibn Khaldun articulates the dichotomy between jihad and defensive warfare thus:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [i.e. jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...
The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people.

That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a “caliphate”]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations]…

But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations (The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473, emphasis added).

Even when juxtaposed to their Jewish and Christian counterparts, the Islamic sword-verses are distinctive for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than yesterday.

G-d commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did G-d  give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to fight and kill gentiles.

On the other hand, though Islam’s original enemies were, like Judaism’s, historical (e.g. Christian Byzantines and pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—“until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5).
The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).

Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad’s pattern of behavior—his “Sunna” or “example”—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]” (33:21).

And Muhammad’s pattern of conduct vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the concept of “moderate” Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world’s support per a recent al-Jazeera poll, portrays the prophet’s Sunna thus:

“Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).

In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).

While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Tanakh  never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by G-d for their less than ideal behavior.

And regarding the Crusades, Raymond Ibrahim points out:
In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically help better explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called “Christian” Crusades, despite them—man is truly predisposed to violence and intolerance. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder non-believers?

Read more of Raymond Ibrahim’s excellent articles here

Obama – Selling Out Israel

Both Jews and non Jews alike are expressing alarm over Obama’s willingness to sacrifice Israel in order to placate the Arab world.

Atlas Shrugs has been monitoring this situation closely; here is a recent post which spells out precisely what is going on:

Obama committed to Expelling Jews from Jewish Homeland

The increasingly creepy President’s latest act of anti-semitism. From Israel Today:

‘Obama committed to ejecting Jews from Judea-Samaria,’ says Abbas

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday told reporters in Cairo that he is convinced that US President Barack Obama is firmly committed to finally ejecting the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Abbas spoke to the press after briefing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on his visit to the White House late last week, during which Obama apparently agreed with his guest that existing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria must not even be allowed to experience “natural growth.”

“When the American administration talks about Israel’s duty to stop the settlements – including natural growth – it is a very important step,” noted Abbas.

Following their meeting last Thursday, Obama said that he also told Abbas to make a bit more of an effort to halt what he described as isolated and sporadic anti-Jewish incitement in Palestinian schools, mosques and media. Documentation by Israeli and international watchdog groups shows that the incitement is far from isolated or sporadic.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials cited by Ha’aretz decried the Obama Administration’s stiff demands that no more houses be built for Jews beyond the pre-1967 borders.

They noted that under former President George W. Bush, Israel reached understandings that the natural growth of existing towns would not subject to Israel’s commitments to halt settlement activity (commitments many Israelis see as null and void anyway since the Palestinians have failed to honor their reciprocal obligations).

But one official said those understandings are now “worth nothing,” and that the US is taking an unfair position by completely siding with Palestinian demands that go far beyond the original peace agreements.

Other officials attributed Obama’s hard line positions against Israel to his efforts to reconcile with the Arab and Muslim worlds, which will be the focus of a much anticipated speech he will give in Cairo this Thursday.

Israel to U.S.: ‘Stop favoring Palestinians’

UPDATE: The Lid compares Obama to Pharaoh: “This week the President of the United States declared that the Jews living in the West Bank cannot have children, and if they do those kids cannot live with their parents. Oh, that’s not what he said, but the result is the same. What he said is that there cannot be natural growth in the West Bank settlements:”

‘Obama’s decrees are like Pharaoh’s’

JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

“The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river,” Science Minister and Habayit Hayehudi head Daniel Herschkowitz said Sunday, referring to US President Barack Obama’s demand to freeze all settlement activity, even that ensuing from natural growth.

Speaking ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting, mathematician Herschkowitz furthered his point with a simple equation. “If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them – to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively,” he affirmed.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai said, “The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don’t want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we’re facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they’re demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand.”

Information and Diaspora Minister Yuli Edelstein chose a positive perspective on the dispute threatening an Israeli-American rift.

“The recent days prove what luck we have that it is [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu’s government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem,” he said. “Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations.”

“We aren’t headed for a confrontation with the White House, but rather for understandings, and Netanyahu’s visit there proved it. President Obama is a friend of Israel, and I’m sure we can resolve the disagreements,” Edelstein added.

Welfare and Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog of the Labor party stressed the importance in preventing a head-on collision with Obama.

“The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s upcoming trip to Washington proves it,” Herzog said.

BBC Set To Pay £30,000 To Muslim Council Of Britain

Just when I started to think that the BBC might have the balls to stand up to Islam, it transpires that the corporation is set to pay the Muslim Council Of Britain a whopping £30,000. Why? Because on Question Time, Former Daily Telegraph editor, Charles Moore, ‘slurred’ the Council.

And what was the terrible thing Moore said, precisely?

Answer: he stated that the MCB has failed to condemn attacks on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moore’s remarks came during a debate about the Islamic protests which recently ruined a soldiers’ homecoming parade in Luton. The MCB then threatened the BBC with legal action.

Mr Moore blamed the MCB’s leadership for its apparent reluctance to condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers overseas. He went on to claim that the MCB thought it was a ‘good thing’ to kill troops.

When the MCB first threatened to pursue legal action, the BBC offered to make a public apology on the Question Time website. The MCB rejected this and is now demanding a live apology on air.

A BBC source said the move has angered Mr Moore, who was not consulted over the legal response to the complaint or even informed that an offer to settle had been made.

Question Time is recorded an hour before it is actually shown, precisely so that lawyers can check the content for possible problems. None of the legal advisors raised flags over Mr Moore’s comments.

Charles Moore said: ‘The Muslim Council of Britain, which is the umbrella organisation for all Muslim groups in this country, I’ve gone to them many times, and I said will you condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they won’t.

‘But there is a bigger, another step that they take, they say it is actually a good thing, even an Islamic thing, to kill or kidnap British soldiers.’

The MCB rejected Mr Moore’s claims as a ‘total lie’. It then instructed libel lawyers Carter-Ruck, who wrote a formal letter of complaint.

The MCB is also involved in a separate row with M.P. Hazel Blears. This one is between MCB deputy secretary general Dr Daud Abdullah and Miss Blears, and centres on a document relating to the recent conflict in Gaza which was signed by Dr Abdullah.

In March, Miss Blears interpreted the document as justifying attacks on the Royal Navy and wrote to The Guardian to explain her concerns.

A solicitor’s letter was sent on behalf of Dr Daud Abdullah demanding she pay £75,000 by last month or face full legal proceedings. But she refused to do so and no further correspondence has been received.

Are We About To See A Muslim Fatwa Against The BBC…?

The producers of BBC soap Eastenders are a gutsy lot. For if media reports are true, the show is set to do what the dhimmi British government won’t. Namely, treat Muslims like any other faith group – instead of  pandering to Islamic sensibilities.

How are they set to do that, you may wonder. Quite simply: by portraying a Muslim man falling for and enjoying an affair with a Gay Infidel.

The Sun reports:


Dashing developer Syed Masood shocks his conservative family, when he falls for Albert Square’s only openly Gay resident, caterer Christian Clarke. The pair will be shown embracing in scenes expected to shock and offend conservative Muslims.

Homosexuality is forbidden by Islamic law and the Quran.

Syed – played by Marc Elliott, 29 – arrived in Walford in April, with his girlfriend Amira Shah (Preeya Kalidas).

But in the storyline to air next month, it is revealed Syed has been desperately trying to repress his true sexuality.

Viewers will see him struggle to reconcile his feelings for charmer Christian (John Partridge) with his religious beliefs. He also has to deal with the horrified reaction of his family.

The BBC1 soap’s executive producer Diederick Santer said the dramatic scenes are designed to appeal to 21st century Brits.

He said: “We’ve always tried to make EastEnders reflect modern life in multicultural Britain and we’ve always told social issue stories relevant to our diverse audience.

“To all intents and purposes, Syed’s a ‘good’ Muslim man – he doesn’t drink, smoke or engage in sex before marriage.

“But he struggles with his sexuality when he finds himself drawn to Christian and he believes this goes against his faith.”

The show risks alienating many of its Muslim viewers.

Er, ‘alienating‘? Slight understatement, me thinks...

A recent Gallop survey of 500 British Muslims failed to find any who believed homosexual acts were morally acceptable.

So the BBC is going to show a Nice Muslim Boy getting it on with a Gay Brit called Christian…

Does the BBC really have the balls?

And shall we start placing bets on how long it is before British Muslims start protesting/issuing Fatwas/threatening Jihad/burning flags etc…?

Islamic Terrorists Target Moroccan Jews

Moroccan Muslims are a tad excited.  Having seen their co religionists in Yemen finally force out the tiny Jewish community there, they seek to accomplish the same thing in Morocco:

From Agence France-Presse, May 21:

RABAT (AFP) — A group of  Islamists recently arrested in Morocco planned to attack Jewish interests in the country, a court source said Thursday, citing the charges against them.

The suspects, alleged to be members of a cell that was part of the radical Islamist movement Salafia Jihadia, were also preparing attacks against Moroccan security services, the source said.

The cell — Jamaat Al Mourabitine Al Jodod, or New Fighters Group — allegedly began operating in March 2008 in southern Morocco and sought to recruit militants from Koranic schools with the intention of infiltrating political parties.

Authorities announced their arrest on May 12 and they face charges including forming a criminal gang with the aim of carrying out “terrorist” acts. They are being held in jail.

“Police dismantled the cell as part of a regular operation in the battle against terrorism,” the court source said.

Jews have been living in Morocco since the time of Antiquity. Prior to WWII, the Jewish population of Morocco reached 225,000.

But life in Morocco was not without its problems. In 1943 a series of  pogroms occurred. And in June 1948,  forty-four Jews were murdered during riots in Oujda and Djerada.  Also in that year,  an unofficial economic boycott was instigated against Moroccan Jews.

In 1965, Moroccan writer Said Ghallab had this to say about the feelings of his fellow Muslims towards Jews:

The worst insult that a Moroccan could possibly offer was to treat someone as a Jew.

My childhood friends have remained anti-Jewish. They hide their virulent anti-Semitism by contending that the State of Israel was the creature of Western ‘imperialism’

A whole Hitlerite myth is being cultivated among the populace. The massacres of the Jews by Hitler are exalted ecstatically. It is even credited that Hitler is not dead, but alive and well, and his arrival is awaited to deliver the Arabs from Israel.

And this is hardly surprising. For the Quran is replete with anti semitism. Mohammed may have started off by wooing Jews in a bid to convert them to his new faith, but the second they declined, his ‘love’ turned to hate and Islamic anti semitism was born.

Author Andrew Bostom (The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism) presents  an enormous amount of documentary evidence testifying to the humiliations Jews experienced at the hands of Muslims.

Bostom also points out  that the extremist, Jihadist description of Jews as “apes and pigs,” in accord with the Qur’an, has historical precedent.

Indeed, Muhammad himself used it before ordering that every adult male of the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, be killed, calling the Jews “you brothers of monkeys.”

And Zaynu’d-Din Ali b Said, praised the anti-Jewish riots and massacres in Baghdad in 1291 (which spread widely in the region), saying, “These apish Jews are done away and destroyed.”

Bostom also references another slaughter:

Referring to the Jews as “brothers of apes,” who repeatedly blasphemed the prophet Muhammad, and whose overall conduct reflected their hatred of Muslims, the Moroccan cleric al-Maghili (d. 1505) fomented, and then personally led, a Muslim pogrom (in ~1490) against the Jews of the southern Moroccan oasis of Touat, plundering and killing Jews en masse, and destroying their synagogue in neighboring Tamantit. Al-Maghili’s virulent Islamic antisemitism was perhaps captured best in a line from a verse diatribe he composed: “Love of the Prophet requires hatred of the Jews.”

“Love of the Prophet requires hatred of the Jews.”


The Religion Of Peace Strikes Again – Christian Graves Desecrated

One thing you can say for sure about Islam: it’s an equal opportunity offender. It doesn’t just teach hatred of Jews, but also Hindus, Christians and in fact, all non Muslims or as Islam fondly refers to them: Infidels.

This week, its Christians’ turn to feel the wrath of the ‘Religion Of Peace’:

Israel National News, May 25:

Palestinian Authority Muslims went on a rampage Sunday and desecrated 70 Christian graves two weeks after the Pope praised efforts for a new Palestinian state and tried to appease Muslim anger over previous disputes between the two religions.

The vandals smashed gravestones and knocked metal and stone crosses off graves in the village of Jiffna, near Ramallah, home to approximately 900 Christians and 700 Muslims. Greek Orthodox Church official George Abdo told Reuters the head and hand of a statue of Madonna also was severed….

Sunday’s anti-Christian attack follows years of harassment from Muslims that has escalated a lengthy exodus of Christians from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The areas enjoyed strong economies from 1967, when Israel took over administration of the areas following the Six-Day War, until 2000, when PA terrorists launched the Oslo War, also known as the Second Intifada.

Sharia Entertainment Inc


Feeling a bit bored, of an evening?

Nothing on TV that appeals?

Fear not – ’cause once Sharia Law is operating where you live, there’ll be a whole new world of entertainment! Why not forego the pub and instead gather with your mates to watch a man having his hand chopped off?

That’s how locals spend their spare time in Kismayo, Somalia. The BBC News website relates how recently Sharia Entertainment Inc drew quite a crowd:

Mohamed Omar Ismail, had been found guilty of stealing goods from another man’s house. That afternoon, hundreds of local people flocked to Freedom Park in order to see the amputation.

“After a long wait, Mr Ismail was brought out in front of the people and an official started to read out the court decision from a piece of paper.

“The Islamic Sharia court of Kismayo district confirms that Mohamed Omar Ismail has been found guilty of stealing,” the official announced.

“Mr Ismail stole 10 pairs of trousers, 10 shirts, eight other items and a bag. The value of all the items is estimated to be $90.”

“The official quoted a chapter from the Quran known as Surah Maida, verse 38, which is about stealing and relevant punishment.

“He said that the verse decreed that punishment for stealing was that the right hand of the thief should be cut off.

“A local journalist who witnessed the events unfold saw a shocked-looking Mr Ismail brought into the park.

“His right hand was held up to the crowds. It was then laid on a table and severed immediately and without ceremony at the wrist.

“The eyewitness told of his horror as the bloody body part was dangled by its index finger in front of the crowd to prove that punishment had been meted out.

“Mr Ismail is now recovering from his injury in Kismayo General Hospital, where he is being guarded by the Islamist militia who punished him.

“But according to an independent source, Mr Ismail insists he did not commit the burglary for which he lost his hand.

“He said he was still appalled at what had happened to him and the terrible pain he had suffered.”

So, next time Muslims in Britain, Holland, Norway, France, Sweden, or Germany, hold a rally demanding that Islamic law be enshrined in your nation’s legal system, remember this sorry tale.

Sharia Entertainment Inc – coming to a nation near you, soon!