OIC chief: "Attempts to equate Islam with terrorism should be stopped. Stereotyping and demonization of Muslims should be combated"

Attempts to equate Islam with terrorism should be stopped.

610 * 622 * 624 * 632 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996

Mohammed said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.
-- Bukhari Vol. 4 Book 52 No. 220

I shall terrorize the infidels...
-- Allah commanding terror in Koran 8:12

Am I missing something here? Is Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu?

Does Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu want Infidels to read the Qur'an? The Hadith? The Sira? Does he want them to read the histories -- the histories written by Muslims, for god's sake -- about the Muslim conquests, and the subsequent mass killings and subjugation of non-Muslims? What does he want us to find out about Islam? What is in the glossy brochures prepared by assorted Ministries of Islamic Propaganda, or by individual smiling imams (the kind who keep getting picked up later for connections to terrorism, or are revealed later, after they have decamped back to a Muslim land, to have made all kinds of disturbing and even blood-curdling remarks)? Is that it?

Amazing, isn't it, the real outrage, the genuine fury, that we should actually find out what Islam inculcates, and connect it to the recorded behavior of Muslims over the past 1350 years, and to the observable behavior of so many Muslims today, as we open our newspapers or turn on our radios and televisions, and piece together what might well be a separate section of the paper or segment of the broadcast, to be called The Jihad News.

A little more from previous postings on Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish "historian of Islamic science" whose outward appearance is so deceptively modern and secular and sweet-reasonable, and then one realizes that that is merely camouflage and that his mental baggage, while not quite as primitive as that of the qaradawis and tantawis, is from the same product line manufactured by Islamic Tourister:

A previous article on the same topic, which I will post below, demonstrates that Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu has been beavering away at this project, this transparent attempt at across-the-globe censorship of criticism of Islam, an attempt that constitutes an assault on the advanced, Western world, whose citizens are being threatened if they dare to exercise their right of free speech about what Ihsanoglu primly and self-righteously calls a "religion" (as if that conferred some kind of special immunity). But Islam is an all-encompassing ideology, a Total Belief-System that presumes to regulate every detail of a man's life, and offers a Complete Explanation of the universe. Furthermore, it places great emphasis on inculcating the idea that all of humanity is divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, Believers and Infidels, and Muslims are taught that between the two there must exist a state of permanent war (though not always of open warfare), and that all Muslims have a duty, central and not tangential, to participate in some way in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. Islam is a politics, Islam is a geopolitics. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu knows that, but he doesn't want the world's Infidels to find that out, or to discuss it among themselves, much less to actually criticize it. And so he will do what he can to shut down the exercise, in the Western world (and elsewhere in the non-Muslim lands), of our right to free speech, a right that could not possibly exist for one minute in the lands where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, but in the advanced West, as one of its achievements, such a right has been won and is now exercised, possibly not quite as impressively, or with as much gratitude, as it might be -- but the important thing is the right, the untrammelled right.

Islam is not merely a bunch of rituals of individual worship, or an explanation of how the universe came to be. It is, more importantly, also a politics and a geopolitics. A man who can present the dhimmi system, and describe the status of the "Protected People" un-ironically as A Good Thing, an Example of Muslim Benevolence and Tolerance, as he does in the article re-posted below, is for all of his outward mien, that tie, that Western suit, inwardly as hopelessly primitive as any daggers-and-dishdasha Saudi.

Posted by: Hugh at October 31, 2008 12:37 AM
Here is that article:

Fitzgerald: The O.I.C.'s attempt to suppress freedom of speech

Presumably the member-states of O.I.C. were consulted on this attempt to suppress freedom of speech, as it is commonly understood, all over the advanced Western world, and to substitute for it a non-freedom freedom-of-speech, that is the one recognized in Islam, which is a very different thing. Therefore, one wishes to know, before another trillion dollars goes down the drain, if the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, which owe their existence, as well as uncountable (save possibly by those locals who have decamped with so much of the loot) billions of dollars lavished on them and their permanently ungrateful (they are Muslims, we are Infidels) peoples, also subscribe to this attempt by the O.I.C. to suppress not only freedom of speech in Denmark and all over Western Europe, but in the United States as well.

As for Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, he was chosen to be the head of the O.I.C. because he was a "moderate" Turkish Muslim and a presumably-respectable "historian of science." But he turns out to be not that but rather an historian, and defender, of "Islamic" science, who attempts to tortuously explain away the absence of science in the Islamic world since its brief flourishing thanks to Christians, Jews, and those who, while they were called Muslims, were only a generation or two away from being something else, in a milieu still heavily influenced by non-Muslim elements -- which, when greatly reduced, also reduced the atmosphere in which science could be conducted.

Ihsanoglu has explained to an American audience how splendid was the system of "protection" that Islam offered Christians and Jews -- "protection" offered by Muslims, for the payment of Jizyah, from those same Muslims. A system that would have impressed Al Capone.

Taken from a web-site that follows the OIC:

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.

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.'"

No Western country should be extending aid to any member of the O.I.C. that does not expressly disclaim any support for this current attempt by the O.I.C. to change Western freedoms, in the Western world, so that that Western world may submit to a Muslim diktat -- as the effort to change the non-Muslim world from within and without proceeds, without stopping, as it will continue to do forever, if it is not firmly stopped.

Not a dollar of aid should be transferred from Infidels to Muslims. Let those who need money get it from their fabulously rich fellow Muslims. Let those Muslims who at this point take for granted their continued access to the West, to its medical care, its educational institutions, its advanced technology, its everything, learn that they can no longer take such access for granted, and that they are very close to having it denied outright.

What can they do, after all? Stop selling us oil, the one thing that they have for sale? Of course not. Can they deny us their investments? Not easily, for they are not going to invest such sums at home, but even if they did, we can start to recoup the enormous sums that we spend dealing with the menace of Jihad (including the monitoring of Muslim populations, and the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) by seizing, as enemy-owned assets, whatever can be seized from known jihadists and jihad sympathizers -- and it isn't all in the form of easily dissolved liquid assets. This would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

Unfair, you say? Why?

Didn't the same thing happen during World War II -- seizure of enemy-owned assets? Of course it did. We have simply failed to recognize a "war" unless it is of the conventional kind. But the Jihad is not of such a kind. Its main weapons are not on the battlefield. The most important weapons are the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa inside the West, and demographic conquest, which Muslims assume can continue, unnoticed and unopposed, forever, because they assume the Western world simply does not have the necessary minimal self-confidence to deal as it once would have dealt with such a perceived -- and in this case, rightly perceived -- threat.

[Posted by Hugh at February 16, 2008]

Posted by: Hugh at October 31, 2008 12:38 AM
Two postings about Ihsanoglu found by searching:

On Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish historian who was carefully chosen, as the most moderate and presentable (to the Infidels) person, after the bad impression left by Mohamad Mahathir's celebrated rant, to assume the position of head of the Organization of Islamic Countries, one can find a number of things in the JW archives.

Here are two:

1. From a posting on exaggerated claims made by Muslims for "Islamic science":

"One might also be amused by the large claims made by a bizarre figure, Ziauddin Sarkar. Sarkar, in turn, was somehow permitted to review, in the pages of the British journal "Nature," the large claims made on behalf of "Ottoman" -- i.e., "Islamic" science - by Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a historian of Ottoman science, some of whose attempts to explain why such things as the clock did not develop in the East but only in the West (you see, since the early clocks were not sufficiently accurate for Muslims to rely on them for knowing when it was time for prayers, they did not think it worth using them, or trying to improve them) raise far more disturbing questions about the Muslim mind-set than Dr. Ihsanoglu apparently realizes.

Why did an editor at Nature give the job of reviewing Ekheleddin Ihsanoglu's book to the apologist Ziauddin Sarkar? And who at Science allowed the puff-piece about "Islamic science," with every cliche that no historian of mathematics, or science, or technology -- not Giorgio di Santillana, not Crombie, not Charles Singer, not a hundred others -- would have permitted.

What is happening when standards, supposedly so rigorous at "Science" or at "Nature" are so obviously non-existent, and both journals become, rightly, the object of ridicule? This kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on. Who, in the world of science, will demand some kind of investigation into how, if not Sarkar's absurd review, then at least Wasim Masiak's bit of propaganda for some Self-Esteem Studies Department at Al-Azhar University, or the King Abdul Aziz Institute of Advanced Islamic Sciences, is discussed, both its contents, and how it ever was allowed to grace the pages of what is supposed to be a serious and "peer-reviewed" journal.

Who were Masiak's peers, the peers who reviewed him? George Saliba?

[Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 01:36 PM]

2. And this excerpt from "Islam for Infidels, Part III":

And many more words and phrases will need to be carefully redefined to protect Islam from prying eyes and minds. Certain words that could prove too hot to mishandle may have to be eliminated altogether. One word that seems to be getting much disturbing attention lately, is “dhimmi.” If Infidels were to visit the website www.dhimmitude.org, or even read the books of Bat Ye’or, they might develop a negative view of Islam. And that would never do. Muslims are keenly aware of the problem – hence all the talk of “protected peoples” and the Compact of Omar.. No less a personage than Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of Ottoman science, who is now the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, helpfully explained in a recent address to an audience of American Infidels, that the “privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was given only to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed.”
In defining “dhimmiship” as the “privilege of becoming a protected minority” Dr. Ihsanoglu did his best. But those who are so solicitious of the public image of Islam and of Muslims in mind realize that it should not be left up just to NPR, or the BBC, or Le Monde; we all have to pitch in, and do our bit. It might be better if “dhimmi” were to be jettisoned altogether. The word upsets Infidels, and it does nothing for Muslims, either.

Instead of “dhimmis” why not call them “Friends With Benefits”?

[Posted by Hugh on February 14, 2005 10:33 AM] |

[Posted by: Hugh at September 14, 2007]

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is also the one who, at the time of the death riots and Muslim riots over those anodyne cartoos in a Danish paper, solemnly likened the effect of those cartoons on Muslims as being akin to the effect on Infidels of the mass murders carried out be Muslims on 9/11.

[Posted by: Hugh at September 14, 2007]

Nota Bene this excerpt from the second posting:

"[Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu] helpfully explained, in a recent address to an audience of American Infidels, that the “privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was given only to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed.”

One more time:

"The privilege of becomng a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship."

Christians and Jews, because you are the lucky "followers of a prophet -- Moses, Jesus [that is, the Muslim Moses, the Muslim Jesus] you will enjoy, when Muslim rule comes everywhere, the same "privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship" that Christians and Jews have enjoyed in the Middle East, and elsewhere in Muslim-ruled lands, for so long.

So what's your problem? Never satisfied? What's the reason Islam is not pleasin' you?

[Posted by: Hugh at October 31, 2008]

The world's top diplomat for Islam called on Friday for an end to what he termed efforts to equate the religion with terrorism and said the 'demonization' of Muslims around the world must be fought.

"Attempts to equate Islam with terrorism should be stopped. Stereotyping and demonization of Muslims should be combated..."

I completely agree. Muslims should learn to think for themselves, lead their own lives, and be individuals. Muslims should stop being demonic because of Islam. They should stop using Islam as an excuse for the most horrible behavior.

The UN should be moved to Medina or Mecca or Sudan. If Muhammad said he was made victorious by terror, what is this man talking about. I guess only infidels should not talk about Islam when Islam is able to degrade everyone and everything in the world. Tell this man from Turkey that as long as the Quran and ahadiths say that Allah created Blacks to be slaves to whites, Islam will be exposed. Tell him he can bamboozle the elite of America and the Western societies, but not the ones of us on the bottom. Whites will be called mamluks and blacks abed. Will Muslims be censored from calling Black men less than a donkey's penis(Ishaq 243) Black women a sign of a bad disease (Hadith 9:162,3) ugly, nappy head, pug nosed slaves (Bukhari). Will Islam be allowed to call Black women STUPID (Tabari 1:280). Ask the UN and the man from Turkey or any Muslim scholar or suicide bomber, or shoe thrower. Let him know, those of us down on the bottom level of society will fight back, all of us opf all colors. WE ARE ALL TIRED OF THE BEHEADING ALLAH AKBAR. SURA 3:54 SAYS ALLAH IS THE GREATEST LIAR, SCHEMER. NOW WHY WOULD A GOD HAVE TO SCHEME OR LIE, IF HE IS GOD. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. MEIN KAMPH MEANS MY JIHAD!+

The paganistic, backward and violent tenants of Islam are demonic defamers within themselves. It is the teachings of your prophet that have brought these reflections of your religion throughout the non Muslim world.

It is Islam that is clearly the problem not those who speak of what they see,hear, and have experienced in the barbaric world that is fundamental Islam. We are only reflecting what we see every day that speaks to the jihadist elements of the Quran, and the hadiths..

The problem is yours not ours. One cannot deny,ignore,and pretend,that the actions of Islam are just some kind of an illusion.

Do you think the people of free world are but ignorant fools that you can so easily place a curtain in front of them and walla we suddenly lose all awareness of the violence that is perpetrated daily in the Name of Mohammed? You would have us ignore the 12,439 terrorist attacks committed in the name of Allah all over the world since 9-11?

Yes there are the naive dhimmis' among us that will cater to the sweet deceit that is the dar al harb, that is the stealth wall that must be breached by those who love freedom from the tyranny of Islam---No the Western World has only just began to understand way to slowly, but understand..

The UN should be moved to Medina or Mecca or Sudan. If Muhammad said he was made victorious by terror, what is this man talking about. I guess only infidels should not talk about Islam when Islam is able to degrade everyone and everything in the world. Tell this man from Turkey that as long as the Quran and ahadiths say that Allah created Blacks to be slaves to whites, Islam will be exposed. Tell him he can bamboozle the elite of America and the Western societies, but not the ones of us on the bottom. Whites will be called mamluks and blacks abed. Will Muslims be censored from calling Black men less than a donkey's penis(Ishaq 243) Black women a sign of a bad disease (Hadith 9:162,3) ugly, nappy head, pug nosed slaves (Bukhari). Will Islam be allowed to call Black women STUPID (Tabari 1:280). Ask the UN and the man from Turkey or any Muslim scholar or suicide bomber, or shoe thrower. Let him know, those of us down on the bottom level of society will fight back, all of us of all colors. WE ARE ALL TIRED OF THE BEHEADINGS FOR ALLAH AKBAR. SURA 3:54 SAYS ALLAH IS THE GREATEST LIAR, SCHEMER. NOW WHY WOULD A GOD HAVE TO SCHEME OR LIE, IF HE IS GOD. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. MEIN KAMPH MEANS MY JIHAD!+

I second Hugh's comments and the first poster.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, can see clearly that the West is beginning to wake up to what Islam is and this is going to scupper any plans of Islamisation of the West. He knows that he must use our human rights laws against us, something Islam ignores on a regular basis, or else the 'game's up' for Islam.

He knows that once the West finds out the truth of Islam then Muslim's all over the world will face the wrath of angry westerners, who they've tried to pull the wool over their eyes, leading to their utter destruction.
No one likes being deceived and this is Islam's middle name.
I look forward to the day when the West completely cuts of Islamic countries, which will lead to civil strife and revolution within those countries, as Muslims leave Islam in their droves seeing it for what it truly is, nothing more than a death cult.
They will also realise more importantly that Human survival is detrimental to the West and not to Islam. They will realise that all the medicine and technology they need to survive comes from the West.

I look forward to this day and can see how Muslims like Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu are panicking. People are now beginning to see that the Emperor is as naked as the day he was born.

From article: Attempts to equate Islam with terrorism should be stopped.

This is a job for Mohammadans themselves, which they are reluctant to do. It is easier to blame kufrs...

And this: Stereotyping and demonization of Muslims should be combated..."

This is completely within the control of Mohammadans, should they decide to control it.

By their 'behavior' shall you know them.

Good behavior can be stereotyped, but it is rarely demonized...

The Ummah is as the Ummah does: Intolerance, Shameless Lies, and Murder.

How to debate and frustrate an infidel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIqMZkrdL-w

Islamic terrorism started with Mohammed. Hasn't stopped since. Islam and terrorism go together like bacon and eggs. No pretending otherwise. Encouragingly, as every year goes by, more in the West comprehend that Islam is rotten to the core. In sheer numbers more know this as we approach the end of 2008 than was the case just a year ago. There will be even more who come to realize how awful Islam is by the end of 2009. Hard to keep the truth about Islam from coming out and Islam ironically is one's best ally in accomplishing this task because Islam can't help showing its true colors over and over again.

Also, I second what Richard the Lionheart posted above about Muslims in large numbers throwing off their ideological chains as a major factor in the eventual marginalization of Islam. To fully assert one's humanity is impossible as long as one remains a Muslim because Islam disallows looking upon non-believers as other than the equivalent of human waste. Nothing humanitarian in this view and millions upon millions of Muslims worldwide cannot remain Muslim and be enlightened about human existence, all of human existence. Therefore, leaving Islam completely is the only recourse a Muslim can take to truly become fully human. The more Muslims who do this in the ensuing years the better. Better for them. Better for all of us.

And if Mr. Ihsanoglu doesn't like assessments of Islam like the one I've just written here, too damn bad. Besides, he had better get used to it because the revulsion towards Islam will only increase in the years to come as non-Muslims everywhere refuse to be silenced, as well as intimidated, by the world's most awful religion to ever come along in all of man's history.

http://www.walidphares.com/artman/publish/article_1917.shtml

interestinconundrum...Thanks for that link...I don't care to debate Mohammadans because I don't want to wade through all that taqiyya etc to do it, I will engage them sometimes, but engaging is not necessarily debating...I think Abdullah the Quasi apostate probably watched that video...He has most of those moves down pretty well...He could fool someone who did not know any better...

Wow. All this neo-Orwellian Double think sure does get painful.

"...Roy Brown argued that Islam was often linked to terror because perpetrators of many terrorist acts identify themselves as Muslims."

If the shoe bomb fits...

"The world's top diplomat for Islam called on Friday for an end to what he termed efforts to equate the religion with terrorism and said the 'demonization' of Muslims around the world must be fought."

As duh swami pointed out, this is up to the Moslems themselves. They're the terrorists, they're the ones who can stop being terrorists. The Moslems make up the majority of terrorists, and they're the only ones who operate on a co-ordinated (more or less), world-wide scale. Virtually all the other terrorist movements in the world are localized matters: separatist movements, tribal conflicts, drug traffickers, border disputes, etc.

"The 57-nation OIC, based in Saudi Arabia, represents 1.5 billion Muslims."

If it represents 1.5 billion Moslems, it must be representing several hundred million dead ones. Islam must be like Chicago politics, where even the residents of the cemetaries are counted.

"...and said the 'demonization' of Muslims around the world must be fought."

No -- terrorism by Muslims around the world must be fought. Their reputation is the least of my worries.

100% of the world's most dangerous terrorists just happen to be Muslim: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

100% of the world's most dangerous terrorists just happen to be Muslim...
Posted by: jdamn

What a charming bunch of characters.

Obviously the one thing they have in common is that they all mis-understand Islam.

They need to council with Abdullah the Quasi Apostate, who sometime embarrasses himself here, to 'splain' to them the 'real' facts of Mohammadan life...

Robert Spencer has been a guest on the Michael Savage program from time to time. I was listening to Savage last night. To his credit, Savage does not mince words when it comes to the violent nature of Islam.

When it comes to Fox News, Savage is not so generous. Last night Savage explained that a wealthy Saudi businessman owns a considerable share of stock in the news network and thus Fox reporters are not at liberty to use politically incorrect words like Islam, Muslim, Islamofascism, etc.

I cut my cable a few years back. Instead I get my news from the Internet and secondly from talk radio. Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" are posted daily on the Internet:

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

Check O'Reilly's 12/16/2008 Talking Points, "How should America deal with the Arab world?"

Any mention of Muslims or Muslim fanatics in the piece? Isn't Savage being a little unfair in this instance?

Terrorism is only ONE aspect of Islam, but nevertheless a permanent condition of the global jihad.

In the end it will be da'awa, infiltration, subversion and demographics that will bring our civilization to its knees.

WELLINGTON: "...the revulsion towards Islam will only increase in the years to come as non-Muslims everywhere refuse to be silenced, as well as intimidated, by the world's most awful religion to ever come along in all of man's history."

--------------------------------------------------

I hope to God you are right, old buddy.

Tragically, there is an alternate scenario, one where an entire generation of free men willingly sacrifice those freedoms for expediency and comfort. And one generation may be all it takes to extinguish the flame of freedom, if not in the hearts of men, then in our laws and institutions.

I've been thinking about the respective personalities of the anti-Jihadists here, trying to comprehend what sets us apart from the rest, what it is that has endowed us with receptivity to a message that continues to elude the average Joe. There are some cues that are inescapable...

For example, you are a history teacher...which has always been my area of study...and obviously for Hugh and many others....(the only other thread I see is the enlightened feminism of some of our female contributors).

So there it is, a knowledge of and fascination for history...that in most cases preceded our awareness of Islam; this was the primer that sensitized most of us to recognition of the Islamic threat. And this just happens to be the field in education that is today most corrupted by political-correctness.

Many of us are middle-aged, having been educated in a different era with a different educational paradigm. What can we expect from the young, raised in today's stilted, convoluted apologia? What can we expect from two generations (and counting) who have been versed in relativism, to an extent that they are unable to distinguish between the ancillary and the systemic, between social imperfection and sociological evil, between genuine grievance and inspired barbarism?

Perhaps it's a personal failing, but I just don't share your optimism.

Perhaps one feature that may characterize many, though not all, of those who visit this site is that, though they are unlikely ever to be tempted to affix that self-congratulatory "Question Authority?" bumper-sticker to their car's bumper, they turn out, because both of ingrained skepticism about the current Idols of the Age and its "everyone knows" version of Received Wisdom, and possibly, sometimes, because of personality traits that not everyone finds winning -- sheer orneriness, for example, or even, in some cases, a grating self-assurance -- turn out to be, in daily practice if not in flaunted bumperstickers, well-versed in the business of "questioning authority."

Of course, he is exercised about "attempts to equate Islam with terrorism" by non-Muslims, who make this equation simply by reporting accurately on the terrorists' own stated justifications for their actions. He is not talking about the terrorists' own "attempts to equate Islam with terrorism." Those don't bother him.

Maybe it's trivial but this is one of the most concise and economical statements I've ever seen in print on this subject.

I'm not sure why it rings my chimes so much.

I will for sure be emailing it around.

"Attempts to equate Islam with terrorism should be stopped. Stereotyping and demonization of Muslims should be combated..." -- and those who persist in telling the truth about Islam (i.e: "defaming Islam") deserve to be beheaded, or to have one hand and one foot on opposite sides cut off, or to be thrown from a high wall, or to be stoned to death, or.... WHAT DO YOU MEAN THIS MIKE IS STILL ON??!!

RSI

"Questioning authority"

Interesting observation, Hugh.

Could very well be the common thread. It's no doubt we have an eclectic group here, but there is some undeniable symmetry, which is what differentiates the regulars from the outsiders and occasional visitors. Those of us who have found a home here obviously ascribe to an imperative; it's reflected in our daily lives, in conversations and emails with fatigued friends and family, in the depths of our souls....we simply won't let go of this issue. In short, we love freedom every bit as much as those bastards love their Allah.

Though I have some German and English blood, questioning authority and a hatred of tyranny were most definitely traits of my Scotch-Irish ancestors. And while my little woman wouldn't insist that I was "ornery", my political interlocutors would, whatever their stripes.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have much more patience with personal short-comings and foibles than I do with political ignorance and stupidity.

No Robert I know I don't plan on stopping!

The religion is sick! People following it are led by the nose and I don’t have to except bullshit from NO ONE!

I call it what it is! Don't like it then TOO DAMN BAD!

This is what I've been saying all along, it's all about free speech. The head bangers hate it, no wonder when they bang their heads on the floor five times a day on a regular basis.

You are bound to get gaga.

But the point is that none of us has ever vilified or demonized Islam, Muslims have been doing that job for themselves, for nearly 1400 years and they are damn good at it.

Cornelius, you were right on two counts with me: a female and a reader of history.
Also, a former student of philosophy, my favourite part of which was the study of logic.
As I said once before here, a strong taste for truth rather than comfort. A distaste for lazy thinking, and easy group thinking.
And yes, a neverending questioning of authority. It infuriated me when at university we were expected to question, indeed despise, conservatism. The new authoritarians, the PC Commanders, disingenuously included themselves in the "marginalized" category, and refused to see that the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" mantra they loved to repeat to us applied to THEMSELVES.
And there seems to be something else I notice here, a love of the English language. I particularly enjoy reading what Hugh writes, and I love jdamn's passionate prose...and so many others. It must be a part of the love people here have for the traditions of our culture, for exploring and delving and relishing what it has to offer, and finding nothing to match it in what our opponents have to offer.
But besides all that kind of thing, it is just so glaringly OBVIOUS that Islam is NO GOOD.

Beautifully written posts, Cornelius. Yes, I suppose I am a bit more optimistic than you are but I concede that your more pessimistic outlook could prove the more prescient. Too many young folk in the West have gotten soft, lazy and stupid, but especially in America there remains a large element of the young who are tough, informed and know full well that freedom isn't free. I know such young people. Many of them. Some of them are over in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Others are in our sterling military academies. They are the future of America. And as America goes, so goes the West. Those who live in the West, enjoy Western freedoms, and yet undervalue or even despise America, are parasites, as way too many Muslims in our midst are.

I like to think, though, that Ronald Reagan was eminently correct when he observed that truth is a very stubborn thing. Just so. And the truth of Islam can't but help come out more and more with each passing year. After all, to really know Islam is to hold it in the contempt it deserves. My trust in man's quest to be free of ideologies that enslave the mind (and you have to put Islam pretty much at the top of the list here) is what keeps me cautiously optimistic. Good beer helps too. Take care, my friend.

Astute observations, Hugh, Cornelius, et al.

My viewpoint on this is that most of those "in authority" are not much of "an authority" on anything; except a narrowly-defined field of expertise.

It's an interesting question: what unites anti-jihadis. I think the common thread is really patriotism (as PG attested) and a love of freedom. We're fairly expressive, opinionated people, to varying degrees, and we therefore understand what we stand to lose at Islam's bequest/conquest. Education may have something to do with it -- not formal education, but an awareness of how things are in Islamic societies and how antithetical all of it is to our values.

I think about the guy at the gun store who asked me about my faithfreedom shirt, which got us talking for 20 minutes about Islam. He was probably not incredibly well-read, or expressive, or cosmopolitan. It is unlikely that he had been burned somehow by a Muslim at some point. He was not just some intolerant redneck either, just more the talk radio-listening sort. He values his freedoms and loves his country and he understands whta Islam has in store for him.

People who yearn for knowledge, or who are feminists, or who are artists or intellectuals of some sort -- we're the ones who stand to lose everything. People who don't worry about Islam just know nothing about it and have blinders on (which I understand, having had them myself until a year ago). Then there are the far-lefties who just love everything horrible and destructive, but I think that even they, once aware of the truth of Islam and how truly illiberal it is (it's not conservative either, since it's bent on destruction, just illiberal), will hate it too. They just live in a parallel universe. Nothing like Islam to shake people out of that. Even lefties have values. They just don't realize it until they stand to lose that which they value.

It's a battle between "we the living" and the zombies, essentially.

While we're comparing notes on 'characteristics of the jihadwatch regular', here's my own thumbnail description.

Female. Middle-aged - just turned 45. Married with four children.

'Enlightened feminist' - yes, that describes me. (See D L Sayers' writings for an example of the type of feminism that I identify with).

Background - much the same as Cornelius has described. Some English, German, and Danish ancestors; but the dominant influence, however, would be Scots and Irish. The more I find out about Irish language and culture, the more I realize that even though my paternal Irish ancestor came out here from Ireland in 1864, there is still much that is 'Irish' about the way our family functioned, the way we talked and argued and made our political and religious choices. And 'questioning authority and a hatred of tyranny'...yes, I think I grew up in an environment where that was encouraged.

Love of history, language, literature and a fairly deep and wide knowledge and appreciation of western culture...check. No wonder I enjoy reading Mr Fitzgerald's erudite - and exquisitely well written - postings.

(Note that this awareness of the culture of both eastern and western 'christendom' hasn't prevented me from having an interest in and love of some of the beautiful things that other non-western and non-Muslim societies have produced or do produce - e.g. traditional Chinese poetry and painting, or Aboriginal Australian art, some of which is frankly stunning). I *know* what humanity stands to lose, if Islam - God forbid! - were to dominate the planet.

The moment I came across those ghastly Muslim texts that mandate the complete erasure or at best severe repression of representational art and all music, this conflict became personal: my husband is a chorister, one son and one daughter are very talented in visual arts (winning prizes already, and probably heading for careers in that area), and one of my daughters has inherited her father's musical gifts and has her sights set on - if at all possible - a career in musical theatre. *My family* is right in the crosshairs. Of course, there's also the fact that we're all practising Christians...

Another point that perhaps needs to be made - for it may apply to others on this comments floor - is that I grew up in a philojudaic/ philozionist environment; mainly because my father, having read and enjoyed Leon Uris's books such as 'Exodus' and 'MILA 18' was and is a frank supporter of Israel. I cannot recall ever hearing any antisemitic statement from ANY person in my immediate or my extended family, at any time during my upbringing.

jdamn: Yeah, we have a disagreement here and there, but your 11:20 P.M. post is a winner. My compliments. I do have a problem, though, with the term "feminist." I am fully supportive of equal rights for women, in fact I consider it a hallmark of Western Civilization, but it has been appropriated by the Left to too great a degree with all kinds of injurious consequences and so females who neither are mousey nor possessed of a chip on their shoulders about men, and yet won't take any crap from them either while still liking the company of men, I should think need a new appellation to describe themselves, though I don't proffer here what that term might be (please excuse this sentence of Dickensian length). Any suggestions?

dumbledoresarmy: Thank you for that information about your life. Your future posts will be even more respected by this reader, as if that was possible. Oh, please excuse my reservation about the term, "feminist," to "jdamn." Hopefully no harm has been done. It's just that I'm of the opinion that no-nonsense women like you and "jdamn" (and certainly my wife as well) deserve a more accurate, unadulterated descriptive than that one. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, if my quest for a finer appellation to characterize real women has gone awry.

Great input from all...

--------------------------------------------------

PG: "...it is just so glaringly OBVIOUS that Islam is NO GOOD."

It IS so obvious. In a sane world, this would be common knowledge.

--------------------------------------------------

Wellington,

I hear you loud and clear; in conversation, I often refer to our men and women in the Armed Forces as "the cream of society".

But then I have to contend with people like my nephew, a bright, intelligent, successful and very, very decent young man, but who nonetheless is so politically naive that he briefly bought into the 'troofer' bullshit until I read him the riot act.

Hang on to that optimism. Sometimes, hope is our last refuge.

-------------------------------------------------

JDAMN: "It's a battle between "we the living" and the zombies, essentially."

I wish it were that simple.

Those "zombies" are actually human beings, people who love their friends and family, who can be warm and endearing, who are often intelligent...and yet, who have somehow been successfully programmed to dismiss the naked truth staring them in the face.

It's maddening.

--------------------------------------------------

Dumbledoresarmy,

Thanks for the personalized insights. You and PG both made an interesting link between the love of history and a love of (and facility for) language. Fascinating.

I too am drawn to non-Western art, music, architecture, etc. Even the exoticism of non-Western women is - to me - utterly compelling. As you so clearly point out, these remarkable cultures may be someday extinguished under the heading of the 'pre-Islamic period of ignorance'.

Keep working on your liberal lady-friends; expose the barbaric and profoundly anti-woman essence of Islam, and then - presuming that they are reacting with characteristic indignation, immediately link its spread in the West to the enabling of liberalism and multiculturalism.

-------------------------------------------------

Good night friends.

Wellington, funny you should say that about feminists. I put "but who loves the company of men" after describing myself as female, but deleted it, thinking maybe some might think I had mistaken this site for RSVP or something.

Then again, maybe this site wouldn't be a bad place to find a dream mate...

Dda; At first I thought you were a man. Then I decided you were an old woman, as you know so much. Then you mentioned your "younger" children...By the way, my son is a choir-man too.

Jdamn: Only a year? Golly, I thought you must have been out in the battlefield for ages.

JW: You can delete all this cheery Christmas-party stuff if you like, well mine anyway. I won't be offended!

Its True not all Muslims are terrorists but right now ALL Terrorists are Muslims!! Just like not all Germans were nazis but all nazis were Germans.

The silent majority of Muslims by their silence are accepting the actions of the minority who take an extreme view in using Jihad to spread islam.

Look at how many Mulsims cheer for the shoe thrower but say nothing when the terrorists kill westerners.

Muslims must fight demonisation of their religion by condeming those amongst them that wage this war and not on those who challenge them over it.

Hurray! I've been lurking for weeks now and have finally been moved to post.
As for the "characteristics of a jihad watcher":
female-mid fourties. I can't say that I was always a lover of history. I wasn't handed a history book until grade 10. Before that it was social studies, which bored me to tears.
I have a bachelor of science, took a lot of math & science classes. I read a large amount of science fiction and love Connie Willis & Robert Heinlein. He is a big reason that I have made an effort to become a "critical thinker". Science fiction and alternate history stories have lead me to an interest in true history.
Another thing that has lead me to be a jihadwatcher is a jewish in-law. He saw my interest and gave me some books to read. I read Robert's "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" at least a year before finding this site!

Welcome aboard 'Coffeeplease'.

Please let your friends and family know about this web-site. Insofar as Jihad and Dhimmitude are concerned, it is by far the best thing on the Net.

...and though you were a late-comer to history, the fact that you eventually got there is further confirmation of my theory, that a love for history is a common thread among Jihad-watchers, which is no insignificant factor. It means we are generally well-educated and well-informed; no one can accurately accuse Robert Spencer of being a rabble-rouser.

I'm a recent newcomer to this site too! Until 9/11 I was in abject dhimmitude also! But that all changed when I was seated next to my now ex-husband who watched a plane fly into one of my beloved towers and started saying, "Look at that! It's beautifu-" and cut himself off, looking at me. I finally understood that the enemy himself, a muslim who had no god in his heart, a muslim man because he was born muslim and thus privileged (in his eyes), the enemy was seated right next to me!

Sadly, that's the case with most muslims. They can't read their koran and they don't care to know its history. So they rely on word of mouth and "mis"interpretations, only spreading hatred and more lies and anger. I say "mis"representations because I too can only read it in English. I also don't believe for a nano-second that anyone who reads it in Arabic can come up with a complete "truthful" version either!

So, for the record, I am: 48 years old, a woman of typical American-mutt pedigree, happily divorced from a muslim Egyptian, have custody of my 11 year old son(who has proclaimed his Christianity to his much chagrined muslim dad), AND I am back in college after 30 years, loving English and History as always! I work in the medical field. (btw-I am Christian, but also believe in reincarnation and karma!)

And as for the word feminist, well it's right on target! I love it when men call themselves feminists, but it is a much maligned word because of the 80's when the term feminazi was coined. There is a new word being bandied about called "feminista." Perhaps that would work? jdam and dumblesdore, I am very very proud to have such articulate women like you around!

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS WHAT LINKS ALL OF US HERE ON THIS SITE! I know I'll never forget MY freedom of speech, especially after 9 years of NO freedom to a miserable muslim with no God in his heart. And I thank God everyday for my big-hearted, well-intentioned, head-in-the-sand country!

"I say "mis"representations because I too can only read it in English. I also don't believe for a nano-second that anyone who reads it in Arabic can come up with a complete "truthful" version either!"

I agree with you. Philosophers such as Spinoza or Kant can be understood without speaking Latin or German , provided you put thought and effort.
Yet mohamedans want to make us think that you need to know arabic to understand a mediocre book like the quran. What a joke

Wellington, thank you. I would draw the distinction between feminists and radical feminists. I'm an old-school feminist (and I'm not even old). I believe in equal rights for everyone, not making women or anyone else a special, protected class (although I admit that I believe that old people should be a special, protected class to some extent). The family unit is important, whatever shape that may take (unless that means polygamy, which destroys the nuclear family and the whole concept of it). I think that women should pull their weight in this world. I used to have a rabid hatred for housewives, but that is lessening in my old age as I see how badly schools are failing our kids and how important education at home is, and of course women like DDA, who served her country, don't even fit my definition of "housewife," not to mention all her service to the community, often the global community. I've also seen how few children intelligent women like her tend to have and it scares me for the future of this world. Radical feminists hate men and want women to receive the equivalent of jizya from them. That is sick.

I was lucky to have somewhat older parents who were way ahead of their time in terms of women's rights. They're traditional, but very egalitarian in their worldview. My dad pushed my mom to go to law school. She was the only woman in her class. She was the first female lawyer at a major law firm in this city to have had a kid (or two). Women's rights should never come at the expense of the family. Women have a responsibility to set a good example for their children of what women should be, and that should be more than just a mother, but also a badass individual aside from one's family. Doing that and having a healthy family is impossible without good fathers. You can't hate men and be a good mother.

The Left always takes good principles too far and distorts them into something evil. Equal rights come to mean "special, protected class" at the expense of equality for all. Women's liberation comes to mean degradation and oppression of men. We're all people and we should all treat each other as we would like to be treated. If you do that, the next generation will have a healthy worldview too. It's supremacism, and I hate supremacism.

I just believe in people. That means that we're all people, we're all entitled to the same rights, and when one class becomes special and protected, the rest cease to be people, and when one group loses their rights, they too cease to be people according to whatever worldview subscribes to that belief.

How about just "humanist" for a new/different moniker? My version of feminism is part and parcel of humanism. That has yet to be tainted.

As for my stats: 29, female, Midwestern, single-ish (I've had an on-again, off-again thing with a guy with whom I can neither live nor live without), educated, animal-lover. I'm a late-comer to history, like Coffeeplease, and have always been interested in language, literature, people (psychology, sociology). Sociolinguistics is my actual area of study. Jewish with a Christian education for which I am very grateful. Half-Italian, half Western European (Spanish, German) Jewish, with some Irish and French from my convert grandma.

Welcome, Coffeeplease. PG, I thought you were a dude! Especially after that statement about the graceful, polite girls of Sudan last week.

Lorfalcon, every time you talk about yourself it's fascinating. I would love to know where you go to school. I also love it when men call themselves feminists. I agree that freedom of speech is the greatest freedom, and most likely the thing that unites us all, but then again, I'm not an artist (kinda musical but I can't compose).

Funny thing jdamn - I too for some reason thought of PG (who is a fellow Australian) as 'male'.

Maybe we can call this the jihadwatch virtual Advent-and-Hanukkah party.

Here in Australia it is the 22nd of December and Hanukkah has already begun.

Happy Hanukkah to all Jewish posters and lurkers! Light those lamps! Defy the darkness of the Third Jihad.

And since Hanukkah is a feast of resistance and liberation and purification:

A toast all round to 'lorfalcon' for seeing what was in front of her - on 9/11 - and eventually liberating herself and son (it cannot have been easy).

Lorfalcon: when you look at your son, remember this: many Egyptians who today firmly believe that they are 'Arabs' are more likely the descendants of Copts who were seized by the Muslims and forcibly 'converted' as children, or who as adult victims of jihad and pogroms were 'converted' under conditions of incredible duress.

It is possible that your son's long-ago Egyptian Coptic Christian ancestors are looking down on him from heaven and weeping tears of joy that at long last one of their descendants has been freed from the bondage of islam and will live and grow up as a free man. Teach him to be proud of Egypt's magnificent pre-Islamic history and culture, pagan and Greek and Jewish and Christian; find out about the glories of Coptic Christian art; perhaps even take him to visit a Coptic church in America, sometime. Because *that* is his true heritage, as a non-Muslim of Egyptian parentage. Mr Raymond Ibrahim, a member of the jihadwatch board, is of Coptic background. Show your son people like Mr Ibrahim, and the scholar Walid Phares, and Nonie Darwish and Magdi Cristiano Allam. *They* are Egyptians worth admiring and imitating.

And seconding Cornelius - a warm welcome to 'coffeeplease'.

As for the posted article, and the pronouncements of Mr Ihsanoglu...I think Hugh has said all that needs to be said.

Hey DDA!

I read your post and thank you for your kind words! Yes, it was very difficult to extricate myself and my son from that "marriage." After all, I might have thought myself married but he thought himself a property owner.

Sadly though, my son has NO Egyptian blood in him. I wish that were so, but his father is a full-blooded Turk. Their family has been in Egypt since the ottoman empire, and were QUITE prosperous until King Farouk was tossed aside and all their lands seized. (A fact they bemoan until this day!) (perhaps fancy in other posts should note that all's not well under islamic rule either!)

Yes, there must be some Coptic blood in the muslim Egyptians, but it is really quite little compared to the Copts. The difference between the arab blooded muslims and Egyptian blooded Copts is quite astonishing when you compare features! The Copts oftentimes look like they have climbed down from the limestone renderings of Pharoahs and Queens in the funerary tombs. And the muslims have irregular features, most of them not very good looking at all. I say this not because I am prejudiced, but because I made this observation with my artist's eye back in 1988 during my first visit to Egypt!

I had often told my ex that I thought he was Jewish blooded because of certain things he did (and also to tick him off..lol) and that his entire family back in Cesspoolistan in the craphole town of Wans was probably converted by the sword. How fitting would that be?... But he always denied it.

And now I will tell a funny story that really freaked my ex out!

Once, when my son was about 5 and just in kindergarten, he was eating cereal at the table and turned to me and asked, "Mom, what are you?" I asked what he meant and he answered, "What do you believe in?" I replied, "I am Christian." "And Dad? What is he?" My answer, "He is muslim." "And me Mom? What am I?" I thought for a moment and gave him my steadfast answer, "Son, YOU are whatever you choose to be, no matter what your father says." My son chewed his cereal while mulling that, and after a long while answered, "Well then... I choose Jewish!"

By God I almost laughed out loud but managed not to do so! My little Libra boy was trying to be fair between the two of us and choose a direction in the middle. A middle path that enraged my ex who berated me mightily that day, but I STILL think the story funny. (And who knows? Maybe my son is Jewish blooded! Got to look into that dna testing....lol)

jdamn-I go to Cuyamaca community college in San Diego. I am self-educated but I am trying to get my associates degree after all these years. I want to be a nurse anesthetist so that I can help children around the world when I retire. There is an organization called "SmileTrain" which works with impoverished children around the world who have cleft palates. In the end, I just want to comfort the little ones, the ones that will be the future of this world. I feel that if we can help one child at a time, then there just maybe hope for the world.

I wish there were a way in these postings where we could choose to communicate privately...

Lorfalcon,

You can ask the other posters if it's okay to have their e-mails and Robert will give them to you with their permission.

Wow, did I miss an interesting thread. But I have to put my two cents in because I am a freak for history. I only read non-fiction (except for Dickens and Jane Austin...A Tale of Two Cities has been my favorite book since freshman year in high school and Elizabeth Bennett is my girl!) I figure when I get finished with all the non-fiction I'll start on the fiction. Approaching the big 5-0 next summer, it isn't likely I'll get to it, although I plan to write some.

I am not a feminist but I'm clearly a non-conformist. I've never felt the need to label myself like that because I am a woman who knows who I am and why I'm here. I've always done what I wanted to, even if it went against the grain. For example, in high school when the band leader told me I should play the clarinet and not the drums since there already were six freshmen drummers I said, "no thank you", and strapped on a base drum, even though I was only 5 feet tall at the time. The following year I played tenor drum and loved it and then the snare. When I was a junior that same band leader told me he was very pleased with the way I played and felt I had come a long way. (I was a bit of a trouble maker before that year.) I never thought it was anything amazing just because other people did. It was just simply what I wanted to do.

I've always been a traditional Catholic. While I took three years of French in school, I've read Latin almost every week of my life and love the roots of words. While I've at times struggled with the Church's stand on birth control, I understand why it is important, at no time in history more than ours since the never ending proliferation of Muslims could overwhelm us if we continue to only have 2.1 children. I think it's ironic how some woman proclaim their absolute right to manage their bodies as they see fit and yet if they don't have children and the Muslims get the upper hand, it won't matter a hill of beans what any American woman thinks her rights to her body are because Muslim men will take them anyway and if she doesn't like it, kill her in the bargain. So much for absolute rights.

It's important in this fight to be able to contemplate things, dissect them and come up with solutions. It must really piss off Muslim men that we free women have so many more smarts than they do. I guess that's a big part of why insecure Muslim men need to control their women. Too bad they'll never get their chance here.

Have profited from this thread and enjoyed it too. To jdamn, Isabellthecrusader, lorfalcon, dumbledoresarmy, PG and coffeeplease, thanks for your posts. It's good for a middle-aged man like myself to encounter female give and take from time to time; it helps provide needed perspective, though my own lovely wife has supplied that in spades through the years. But, hey, can't get too much of a good thing, eh?

To you specifically, coffeeplease, since you mentioned you're rather new to historical writing, may I strongly recommend Paul Johnson's, "Modern Times." It remains for me to this day the single finest one-volume history of the twentieth century which I have ever come across. There is great insight and wisdom on almost every page. It's a masterpiece and bears reading many times over.

Very interesting insight into Islam and Muslim Mindset.Thank you folks

All the while I was under the impression that Turkey and Turks were a Saner lot in Islamic world.Is it turning out otherwise?