Farah: Message from an Arab-American

Although he is of Arab ancestry, Joseph Farah is in fact well known as a fundamentalist Christian extremist and bigot. His rantings have no impact outside that community.

Allahu akbar

Yes Reza, you are so right and reasonable! Joseph Farah IS a very well-known and SELF-IDENTIFIED Christian. Therefore you have no need to actually confront his opinions with reason. All that is necessary to prove the irrelevance of his opinions is to label him and extremist and bigot and assert that "his rantings have no impact outside that [fundamentalist Christian] community."

I for one, Reza, am completely persuaded by your approach to confronting these issues. How could any rational human being NOT be entirely swayed to your opnion -- you argue it so well!

A refreshing point of view from an Arab-American, not unlike comments I have heard from my Hindu Indian friends who feel like the government is not doing their job when they are not searched!

Mr. Farrah is simply stating the facts that the PC crowd would rather ignore. Islamic terrorism only comes from one source: muslims.

Reza:

You keep making your asinine little posts. Come the Fall, I won't be here posting too much because I am going to be too busy doing some serious ideological damage to the cause of Islam.

I have a lot of experience in political action and I am going to start shaking your tree. Most people, especially leftists, do not think that one person can change society. Well, I know better. One person can change minds and change laws. I know how to do it and you are going to start taking a sh*t-kicking.

Great Mentat. It's time that people starting taking some action.

Farrah is first and foremost a conservative idealogue, then a republican, then an American, then whatever else (bible thumper, arab, whatever.)

Obama is shaping up to face Aaah-nold for the presidency in 2012 or 2016. That is, if the nazis change the US Constitution just for Aaah-nold. I guess if Bush wins (and America loses) then Hilary will face Jeb! in 2008. Then if she loses that (and with Nader's help, she could) then it could be Jeb vs. Obama in 2012.

Glad the topic stays focused on demonizing lib'ruls, demoncrats/dhimmicrats/democrites. That's the important thing. Make the sheep think that their enemies are the hippies and the treehuggers.

Anything about stopping the world-wide Jihad is apparently secondary.

Gee, Reza, I keep coming late to the party! I use your stuff often.

Does anyone know whether Obama is a Muslim? It might be useful to know.

Both parties have been duped by Muslims. Influence peddling is rampant in the halls of Congress. Both Clinton and Bush have invited to the White House Muslim leaders with known terrorists ties. And the Democrats used a Muslim imam with terrorist ties to give the benediction. You would think they would looked into his background....

KEITH JOY:

The same PC pandering to muslim/arab sympathies in Obama's speech comes from the Republicans as well. We all know Bush is in bed with the saudis and is either too afraid, or too ignorant, to identify the enemy for who they are.

Bush is at least taking the fight to the muslims, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Truth is, the jihadists have more to fear from the right at this time then the left. Even though it is the left that should be ideological opposed to everything the jihadists support – except their mutual hatred of Bush, Christianity, and traditional America.

Political correctness hurts the anti-jihad cause and is embraced and used by the muslims at every chance (CAIR's constant whining? Michael Moore’s offer from hezbollah?) This unwitting alliance with the enemy must be pointed out at all times and exposed - whichever side it comes from.

Reza, Once again the question! Are you the grandchild of Tokyo Rose? She was as annoying and stupid as you!

Although he is of Arab ancestry, Reza is in fact well known as a fundamentalist Islamic extremist and bigot. His rantings have no impact outside that community.

All Hulla!

Who is Joseph Farah, is protestant or catholic, is foreigner or is was born in USA, because he say very well things, Reza, I know you have a lot of anger with Samir Klalil Shamir, this meravellous man, catholic, jesuit that wrote a book about islam that say truths, and like he say truths, he is anti-islamic, greetings

KJ~ I don't think even the National Alliance would vote for Arnold (proper spelling by intelligent people). And say, do you remember those democrats in the California government, who were overheard on the PA system in dozens of state buildings, discussing how to make the deficit WORSE so they could continue in power?

Reza,
Please explain something to me.You come onto this site day after day and try, but fail miserably, to reveal islam to be some kind of divinely special religion that we should all embrace, and you speak as though we are missing out on something spectacular. You do this by spouting off the same irrational garbage daily that sort of gives off a de ja vu vibe, at the same time as being totally unreasonable and in denial of anything even slightly anti-islam, such is the deep level of your brain-washing, and even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Whereas the man who wrote this article talks with perfect sense and with great amounts of observation, and you make yourself the laughing stock of the day once again by declaring this man is "ranting". Not a word of this letter is what I would call a rant, he is calm and just and rational, the latter of which is a word with an unfathomable concept to you and your despicable kind.
So explain to me Reza , why in hell would any of us here, who have openly declared their utter contempt for islam on many occasions, be even mildly convinced by a religious wacko with a less-than-animal-level intelligence like you, over a far more rational, and credible human being, who you would class as an infidel anyway. Your lies will be the end of you Reza.

Reza's comments are indeed humourous.

They remind me of the comments of an islamofacist named "Ahmad" on forum.jamaat.net - when I mentioned Ibn Warraq, Ahmad told me that Warraq was a "well-known" Christian minister in Ohio who had never been a muslim, then cited (unsurprisingly) truly crap "evidence" for that statement, which was another islamofacist hate site.

I would opine that it is an islamofacist ploy when confronted by someone disapproving of their stance from their own group to describe the individual as a i) "hater" who is ii) "well-known". What "well-known" constitutes is anyone's guess. Evidence is secondary to the accusation - much as Reza has no evidence of this "well-known" tendency, at least apart from islamofacist hate sites.

For a fun time and a look at the real heart of an islamofacist moron, I recommend forum.jamaat.net under the Islamic Civilizations/Islam in North America First section. I've been arguing with this mental midget for a while, and you practically have to wipe the spit off your monitor when you're done. Feel free to leave comments and useful quotes people. Wind Ahmad up and let him go! LOL

Excellent statement by Joseph Farah - brave and insightful. Let Reza argue against THAT, if she can. (She can't, no worries.)

Geoff

I Witness there is no Allah and Mohammed was the Messenger of Bad Taste.

Many "Arab-Americans" in this country are, in fact, not Arabs at all, but rather, the descendants of Arabic-speaking Lebanese Christians, especially Maronites, who left what was then the Ottoman Empire, from the 1880s on, for the United States,, Australia, South America, even West Africa, because they sensed that they could elsewhere overcome the heavy hand of both Muslim Turkish overlords, and the threats (which in Damascus, in 1860, had resulted in massacres of Christians) of the kind the Christians in Iraq are now facing, and that were for 1300 years a permanent feature of the lives of all non-Muslims under Muslim rule.

Some of these people do not realize this; they confuse the use of Arabic with being an Arab – and linguistic imperialism, which accompanied the spread of Islam (for the Qur’an must be read in Arabic, and the Arabs always regarded themselves as being superior to all other Arabs precisely because the Qur’an was given to them, “and in your language” for “you are the best of people.”

Joseph Farah, in fact, is not an anomaly but a truth-teller who has not forgotten history. He is grateful to America, and in that gratitude reminds this reader of Salom Rizk, author of Syrian Yankee, who like so many who arrived between 1890 and 1930, with the words “Syrian” or even “Turk” stamped on their passports, were in fact Christians escaping from the Christian destiny of dhimmitude.

If one looks at these original immigrants, and their testimonies, one finds nothing like the disloyalty being exhibited by so many Muslims, who identify not with the Infidel nation-state in which they live, but with Islam and only Islam, to which all their loyalty is exclusively given. In the 1930s and 1940s, Lebanese Christians often sided strongly with the Zionists. One might consult the statements of the Bishop of Beirut, Ignace Moubarac, who saw clearly the intertwined destinies of the Jews of Mandatory Palestine, and of the Christians of the Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East. Some of Moubarac’s remarks (and he should not be confused with the sinister islamochristian Abbe Yoakim Moubarac) can be found in Bat Ye’or’s study, “Islam and Dhimmitude.”

In “Syrian Yankee” Salom Rizk, who was an orphan, remembers the difficult lives of the Christians, threatened constantly by the Druse (who also inhabited the mountainous areas of The Lebanon) and of course, by the Muslims of the cities. Rizk remembers the generosity of the American welcome – a generosity that earned his loyalty. His memoir, which in the light of the inculcated malevolence of some now calling themselves “Arab-Americans,” shows his hatred of Hitler, his sympathy for the Jews (including the Jews of the Middle East), his awareness – not based on a knowledge of canonical texts, but on the remembered experience of living with Muslims), and above all, his devotion to the United States. One might compare Rizk’s memoir with the hatred that squirts from under every word of Qutb, who lived in America for several years in the late 1940s and was outraged by everything he saw, not least by the surpassing “immorality” of a church-sponsored square dance.

It is always curious to run across those who have forgotten why their own parents, or grandparents, or even more distant ancestors, left whatever they left, to come to America. I know of refugees from Soviet Russia whose own children know nothing about Communism, and seem to think that Soviet Russia’s wickedness is greatly exaggerated. There are refugees from Iran, living in the major cities of the West, whose own children seem not to know that their parents were persecuted by mullahs, and who have become completely alienated and disgusted with Islam, but find that sometimes their own children, misguidedly seeking some kind of “return to their roots,” will take up Islam with a fanaticism that can only horrify their own parents, who were themselves victims of the belief-system of Islam. Curious that these roots-seekers do not go back far enough, beyond Islam, to the Christianity, or Judaism, or mostly the Zoroastrianism, that predated the bloody arrival of Islam with the victory over Rustum at the battle of al-Qadasiyya.

Farah remains true to the spirit of Rizk. He knows why Christians from Lebanon, and elsewhere, came here – even if some of their descendants do not. When James Zogby heads the “Arab-American Anti-Defamation Committee,” and works to preventing the effective administration of the Patriot Act, he is not acting as his own ancestors would have wished, in making Muslim efforts at subversion, and conversion (da’wa) easier rather than harder. Perhaps he does not understand, or fully appreciate, his family’s history. He might read, with profit, Bat Ye'or's "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam.” He might read any of the essays by the articulate Habib Malik, who has repeatedly explained what Islam means for non-Muslims (Malik is the son of the most celebrated Lebanese Christian statesman, Charles Malik). He could also read the most comprehensive study of the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam, that written by the late Antoine Fattal, “Le statut legal des non-Musulmanes au pays d’Islam.” Zobgy, and those who seem to imitate him, owe a bit more to their own ancestors, and a lot less to the Muslims who did not wish, and do not wish, the Christians of the Middle East well, no matter how cleverly they manipulate and exploit them, as front men in the Jihad – and not only in the Jihad against Israel.

Joseph Farah expresses the views of many people, of course. One does not mean to suggest that he expresses the views only of grateful Lebanese Christians. In fact, his views are those that were once the common currency of all grateful immigrants, and of those of their progeny who had the wit, and the intelligence, to compare life in America with what they would have had, had those ancestors stayed home. But surely he does speak as well for the Arabic-speaking (but in most cases not Arab, for they predate them) Christians of the Middle East. It is he who has things right; Zogby who reveals an ignorance of, or indifference to, his own own ancestors, and their travails over centuries; such an ignorance, and such an indifference, is not pleasant to contemplate. T

And if the Lebanese-Americans should not be tricked, or trick themselves, into supporting “Arab-American” causes which are really promotions of an Islamic agenda (unless they wish to betray their own ancestors), they might also consider a recent doctoral study by Franck Salameh, a Maronite, demonstrates the ways in which "Arabness" was imposed on those who came to use the Arabic language, and who were forced to forget, or made to forget, or tricked inito forgetting, that they were not Arabs -- for how many "Arabs" after all really existed, to settle among the far more numerous, advanced, settled populations of Christians and Jews in Mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, Egypt, and North Africa. This will not prevent many people from thinking that they are partly "Arab" (instead of, say, people whose ancestors were conquered by the Arabs, and forced to use the Arabic language, and then were convinced that they were "Arabs" themselves. When Maronites suggest, perfectly correctly, that they are “Arabic speaking” but not Arabs, rather the descendants of Phoenicians, this is all treated as a joke – but why? The Phooenicians did not die out. Christianity came to Lebanon before Islam. Those Christians did not die out – obviously they were the descendants of somebody, and had it been of the Arabs, they would undoubtedly have been Muslims. No Maronite Christian, whatever his facility with Arabic, is likely to be an Arab, even if he finds that he is called, or has for a time called himself, an “Arab-American.”

When the Zogbys of this world speak more of Damur than they do of Sabra and Shatila, when they wonder openly why the Christians in Iraq are under attack, or remind us that the Arab Muslims in Sudan have killed nearly 2 million Christians, when they recall the massacre, in 1933, of the Assyrian Christians, when they make the cause of the persecuted Copts their own, when they help to educate Americans with no Middle Eastern connecton about the institution of dhimmitude which follows upon the Jihad-conquest, and imposes, or attempts to impose, on all non-Muslims a status of humiliation, degradation, and permanent insecurity – which is precisely why the Maronites managed to survive only by retreating to the mountain fastenesses, and why the Syrian Christians, for example, survive only because they once enjoyed the protection of the French, and now they enjoy the curious protection of the Syrian military dictatorship, because the Alawites who suppy the military caste are themselves regarded as not quite-orthodox Muslims because of their cult of Mary or Maryam, no doubt a holdover from the days when Syria was, like most of the MIddle East outside the Arabian peninsula, peopled by Christians.

Those whose Christian ancestors, a generation ago, or a century ago, left the lands where anti-Infidel persecutions and intermittent riots and massacres put the lives of those ancestors in constant peril, owe it to themselves, and to their fellow Infidel Americans, to listen to Farah and to Salom Rizk before him, and not forget that history, and come to believe that their real loyalties must lie with Islam, and the Muslim agenda that is, in the MIddle East, promoted by those Christians who, especially in the Palestinian Authority, have out of generations of internalized dhimmitude, taken to poromoting the Arab agenda. Naim Ateek, Hanan Ashrawi, Michel Sabbagh, and the gun-smuggling icon-stealing Hilarion Cappucci come to mind.

To identify with those who now run the varous Arab-American organizations, rather than such samaritan and truthtelling groups as the American Lebanese League, to forget or never know what Habib Malik and Antoine Fattal and Antoine Sfeir and many others have offered, in their own way, about how Islam treats non-Muslims (or look at the testimony of Nonie Darwish, or Walid Shoebat, for the testimony of those, even among the "Palestinians," who converted to Christianity in this country, and having sloughed off Islam, began to see things clearly, instead of through the glass of Islam, darkly). How people like James Zogby can turn their back on their own ancestors, or make up a mythical world of Muslim "tolerance" of Christians ("dhimmitude" has nothing to do with Western ideas of "tolerance") to justify to themselves the compromises they have made, in order to salve their consciences and keep receiving their salaries -- well, that is quite a puzzlement. And the descendants of those Arabic-speaking Christians, Copts or Maronites or Syrian Catholics or Greek Orthodox, who may, or may not, be lumped with others as "Arab-Americans," should ask themselves if that is a designation that truly describes them, that fits their own self-definition, or whether it simply imposes, on these shores, the expansive definition, provided by Arab Muslims, that insisted that anyone who used Arabic had, of course, to be called "an Arab." That this was a deliberate act of effacing the histories of non-Arab Arabic-speakers can be seen in the recent (1989) Taif Agreement, by which the Syrians and the Saudis forced the Lebanese to put a clause in their constitution calling Lebanon, for the first time in history, an "Arab country." It stuck in the craws of Lebanese Christians, but they were helpless to oppose it -- and not least because the American State Department, in the person of David Satterfield, present at Taif, seemed to think it was a perfectly innocuous clause. It was not.

Farah cannot be fooled. He knows too much. And that does not exhaust the list of his virtues.