| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch reader Max has alerted me to this story from The Guardian, which refers to this site in, well, in the way one would expect The Guardian to refer to it:
Since the cartoons were first published last year, all sorts of people with an axe to grind have muscled in on the row. A posting on the notoriously Islamophobic website, Jihadwatch, for instance, describes it portentously as "a struggle between exponents of a free society and organised thuggery". Meanwhile, several Arab governments - for their own political reasons - have busily fanned the flames in the opposite direction.
OK. So my observing that cartoon rage a struggle between the exponents of a free society and organized thuggery, which it most certainly is, is equivalent to Arab governments inciting their people to burn embassies, kill people, and issue murderous threats to just about every country in the West?
All right. Let's explore that question. How many Muslim cartoon ragers have been killed, or beaten up, or had their homes burned by angry Jihad Watchers?
"Notoriously Islamophobic"? Strictly speaking, "Islamophobia" would be defined as fear of Islam. Which is more fearful -- Jihad Watch, which published the Muhammad cartoons, or The Guardian, which succumbed to knee-knocking fear and didn't? Yes, that's right: I'm accusing the Guardian of Islamophobia.
What's that? Islamophobia doesn't mean fear of Islam, but hatred of Islam? Ill-chosen word, in that case. But anyway it's a false charge. To claim that those who oppose the ideology that led to 9/11, 7/7, 3/11, the Bali bombings, and hundreds of other terror attacks are just "haters" is to have the telescope the wrong way round; the real haters are those who are perpetrating such attacks, and planning new ones today, in the name of Islam. I am not going to be cowed by The Guardian or anyone else from exploring what motivates these attackers, and why they are doing what they are doing.
The resistance to jihad is a struggle to defend the human rights of those who would lose equality of rights under the kind of regime jihadists would like to establish -- particularly women, non-Muslims, and ex-Muslims. The Guardian wants to call that "Islamophobia"? More fool they.
Posted by Robert at February 14, 2006 8:29 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Maybe the good and learned folks at "The Guardian" might be described as "Islamophiles", then?
Posted by: Abscedere![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 14, 2006 9:02 AM
When the Guardian and resisting msm begin to print articles demanding an end to
'infidelophobia' then we'll be getting somewhere.
at February 14, 2006 9:07 AM
Once upon a time the Guardian defended the human rights of all, now they only defend the right to bully.
Posted by: Tziona at February 14, 2006 9:15 AM
"Which is more fearful -- Jihad Watch, which published the Muhammad cartoons, or The Guardian, which succumbed to knee-knocking fear and didn't? Yes, that's right: I'm accusing the Guardian of Islamophobia."
So how the "right honourable" so and so's at the Guardian seem the more phobic.
The pc bones they proffer to the islamic beast will not appease it, but rather encourage it to take larger and more ferocious bites.
at February 14, 2006 9:19 AM
It's great that the Guardian mentioned this site and were nice enough to provide a link. It's all good advertizing. I just hope it appeared in the printed copy too. I'm going to celebrate with a can of Carlsberg. Skol!
Posted by: Elephant at February 14, 2006 9:20 AM
Hi Folks,,
Check this out,,, interview with Whalid Shoebat,,
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=90
listen to the interview,, it's very enlightening.
Wiccan Freedom Fighter
living in Dar al Harb
HD4EVR
"freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose",, Janice Joplin
Posted by: solsticewitch13 at February 14, 2006 9:31 AM
Never fear, CAIR is here!
Don't worry citizens. For anyone who has ever wondered about this Muhammad character, all of your searches for the truth and worries are overwith, because the honesty enriched worker bees at CAIR are going to wash all of your fears and reservations away:
CAIR to Hold ‘Muhammad’ Campaign News Conferences Nationwide
On Tuesday, February 14, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will hold a noon news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to launch a major educational effort focusing on the life and legacy of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. See: http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1992&theType=NR
Similar news conferences will be held at CAIR offices nationwide. See the list below for local news conference details.
CAIR’s initiative, details of which will be announced at the news conferences, was prompted by the worldwide controversy over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad and is designed to turn a negative incident into a positive learning opportunity.
In other words, the American public is going to be wisked away into fantasyland, as this group of over dressed alley rats tries to pass the rapine, morally bankrupt Mo off as decent, clean, and pure. Will the Guardian have their correspondent there to pass along the word to all of us 'people of the book'?
Posted by: Asylum inmate
at February 14, 2006 9:35 AM
It just is a stupid school boy trick to call someone you don't like ''.
Sounds like they know they've lost the argument and are trying to find reason again somewhere in the bottom of the barrel.
Imli the Islamosceptic
Posted by: Imli at February 14, 2006 9:41 AM
"Maybe the good and learned folks at "The Guardian" might be described as "Islamophiles", then?"
If "islamophile" means "an irrational love of islam and everything moslem" then the description is probably appropriate.
Posted by: restitutor orbis at February 14, 2006 9:56 AM
I don't mean to nitpick, but strictly speaking Islamophobia is an illogical or irrational fear of Islam. As you well know, there are plenty of valid reasons to fear Islam and/or it's practitioners, and fear is in fact the aim of Islamists.
The word itself is completely inaccurate and it's use should be discouraged.
Posted by: Pablo at February 14, 2006 10:05 AM
Rather than complain about being called Islamophobic I think we should embrace this term for ourselves. I am definitely fearful of Islam and just wish more people were.
Posted by: Razdan at February 14, 2006 10:05 AM
So JihadWatch is Islamophobic? Isn't Islamophobia an un-reasonable fear of Islam? Well, there is is no such thing as an un-reasonable fear of Islam, because anyone who fears Islam is being quite reasonable. Therefore, there is no such thing as Islamophobia.
No dhimmis here, Guardian!
Posted by: Proud Infidel at February 14, 2006 10:06 AM
I think everyone has missed the importance of what is going on here. The Grauniad is now identifying Mr.Spencer and his site with the campaign against Islamic terror. There were many people in the thirties who were skeptical or hostile to Hitler, but there was one only who cast such a shadow that the appeasers felt the need to insult him at any opportunity: Winston Churchill. If the Grauniad, in spite of Daniel Pipes, Ibn Warraq, Magdi Allam, Hirsi Ali, Oriana Fallaci and many other heroic figures, picks up on Mr. Spencer as the leading "islamophobe" of our day, it is beginning to look as though the modest and humorous Mr.Spencer may well emerge as a leader. The time is coming when Islamophobia will emerge as an increasingly respectable and necessary position, and when it does, those who stood for the right position when it was tough may well find themselves promoted beyond their wildest dreams.
One of my favourite hymns:
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight -
And the choice goes on for ever 'twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble when we share her helpless crust,
Ere her cause brings fame and profit and 'tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses whilst the coward stands aside,
Till the multitudes make virtue of the faith they had denied.
...remind you of anyone we know?
Posted by: Paolo at February 14, 2006 10:09 AM
Thanks to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States, I can categorically assert that I harbor absolutely no fear of Islam and its thugs.
Here is a suggestion: I strongly recommend that Muhammedans residing in the United States start developing a high level of INFIDELOPHOBIA! Bubba is starting to take notes and it is only a matter of time before he decides that enough is enough. The last time that happened on the scale that I am certain is to come, was in December 1941. It is a miracle that the United States did not mobilize after 9/11. It is doubtful that Yamamoto's sleeping giant will remain so patient if he is disturbed again.
If the radiance of a thousand sunsWere to burst at once into the sky
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one ...
I am become Shiva,
The Destroyer of Worlds.
"The Atomic Age began at exactly 5:30 Mountain War Time on the morning of July 15, 1945, on a stretch of semi-desert land about 5 airline miles from Alamogordo, New Mexico. And just at that instance there rose from the bowels of the earth a light not of this world, the light of many suns in one." William Laurence, New York Times, September 26, 1945
The Muhammedan world, like the hapless denizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is on the path that will end with a fleeting glimpse of the Face of Shiva in the moment before they take their last breath. The people of the non-Muslim West control that destiny. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Be INFIDELOPHOBIC.
This is no game. We are serious as a heart attack. We pinned a medal on Paul Tibbets and have enshrined the Enola Gay as a national treasure. The USSTRATCOM is not a Hollywood movie set. The sovereign People of the United States mean business.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at February 14, 2006 10:16 AM
"Islamaphobia" is a pc bumper-sticker term that is meant to shut down debate on the issue of terrorism and violence that is coming mainly from Islamic regions of the world, particularly from what Zbigniew Brzezinski has termed "the Eurasian Balkans." This entire region, from the border of Russia in the north, to Yemen in the south, through the eastern part of Turkey in the west, to the border of China in the east, is a circle of violence and political instability.
In 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski (in his book The Grand Chess-board) accurately predicted that this region would percolate with violence in the first part of the 21st century, and that though China and Russia had strong interests in stabilizing the region, that only the US would be able to project power there to stop the violence and cahos. Brzezinski was particularly concerned (1997) that one of the countries in "the Eurasian Balkans" would get nuclear weapons.
The use of military force may be a short term strategy to contain the violence in "the Eurasian Balkans," but the long term answer is to move away from oil as the world's source of energy, and develope alternative energy. I believe that this will happen so quickly that in a decade "fossil fuels" will be considered primitive.
Meanwhile, "the Eurasian Balkans" percolates with violence and Iran must be stopped from getting nuclear weapons. Political Islam (which uses the US culture and Israel as a means to whip up Nazi style frenzy (as in Cartoon Jihad and Cartoon Kristalnact) is every bit the danger that Brzezinski said it would become in 1997. The violence in this region has the potential to cause World War 3, just as the violence in the European Balkans was the catalyst for World War 1.
at February 14, 2006 10:18 AM
Thanks, Paolo, but I am no Churchill. I don't even smoke cigars. The Guardian didn't call me a leader of anything; they just fastened upon me at this particular moment, which does not change the smallness of my particular potatoes. But however small or large our role may be, we all must do our part.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at February 14, 2006 10:18 AM
At least the Guardian article provided a link to Jihadwatch so people can decide for themselves.
Of course, that probably means jihadwatchers will have some fresh new attackers of Islamophobes...get ready guys...here they come.
Posted by: infidella at February 14, 2006 10:30 AM
A true leftist would do his darndest to subvert and attack that ugly religion and the reactionary mindset that it produces rather than making excuses for savages.
Posted by: Dumbo at February 14, 2006 10:37 AM
"notoriously Islamophobic"
This truly is history repeating itself on a grand scale these past few weeks, is it not?
Like it or not, Robert Spencer, you are a Winston Churchill in this transparent time, if not the only one. Others, like Daniel Pipes and Mike Savage, will be remembered also as the few in the public spotlight that had the courage to shout from the rooftops and kept shouting.
Some might even remember a few of us smaller cogs in the wheel. The loyal readership here at Jihad Watch plays no small role in spreading the word, so in that I completely agree with you. Collectively, we are all what is going to push this issue before the American people and the West and wake the masses to the ugliest of truths.
As Robert just stated: "...we all must do our part."
Absolutely.
Foehammer
Posted by: Foehammer at February 14, 2006 10:37 AM
What a ridiculus comment from The Guardian!
As has rigthly been said: A phobia is in it's definition irrational.
You are right Pablo: It's the oldset trick in the world to throw dirt on your opponents when you can't think of anything more to say....
Posted by: Freja at February 14, 2006 10:46 AM
Beyond the bumper-sticker-Re Brzezinski's "Eurasian Balkans."
Posted by: Frank at February 14, 2006 10:54 AM
Frank notes --
"Islamaphobia" is a pc bumper-sticker term that is meant to shut down debate"Precisely. Along with "racist", "sexist", and "homophobe" -- terms used by the PC priesthood to pronounce anathema upon apostates to the Liberal faith while effortlessly securing an imaginary moral superiority for themselves.
The moment I hear someone use any of those terms I know them for a fool.
Posted by: Zeno at February 14, 2006 10:57 AM
Denis Prager has the measure of these cowardly liars.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/02/14/186328.html
Posted by: Infidel33 at February 14, 2006 11:02 AM
Guardian writer Brian Whitaker: "It's [cartoon rage] all horrible and unnecessary."
Another manifestation of Whitaker's rampant Islamophobia. We must report Whitaker immediately to CAIR, as well as to British Muslim organizations, for uttering this Islamophobic comment at the end of his article.
Posted by: Archimedes at February 14, 2006 11:03 AM
The problem with Islamophilia, as Hugh says, is that it can turn into full-blown Islam!
Posted by: Cato the Elder at February 14, 2006 11:09 AM
I wonder if Brian Whitaker has by design, and not accident, managed to smuggle into the pages of The Guardian links to four websites that he thinks readers will, if they start to visit them, find out the kind of things he wants them to find out. Or if it was done with no affection aforethought, still -- the result is that the readers of The Guardian will now know about Jihadwatch, The Religious Policeman, The Sandmonkey, and the site of a critic of the Syrian regime. Not a bad result.
While this site is described in the article as not merely as "islamophobic" but as "notoriously" so (with neither the adjective nor the adverb being deserved), there will be readers, not all of them impervious either to the evidence of their senses (those mobs, those taqiyyya-and-tu-quoque appearances on British television by "Muslim spokesmen," those Qur'anic passages, those stories in the Hadith, those details of Muhammad's life) who will come here, and perhaps read around a bit, and one hopes they will also scroll down beyond the day's display to go a few days back, and see the kind of stories that might not ever have appeared in The Guardian, and might discover as well the relevance of Islam -- the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira -- to the observable behavior of Muslims, in Great Britain, in Western Europe, and around the world.
One hopes that Brian Whitaker, or someone else at The Guardian, will do a scathing piece on some of those "notoriously inaccurate" books that have come out, such as, for example:
"The Dhimmi"
"Islam and Dhimmitude"
"The Decline of Eastern Christiantiy Under Islam" -- all by Bat Ye'or
"Islam Unveiled"
"Onward, Muslim Soldiers"
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam"
-- all by Robert Spencer
"Why I Am Not a Muslim"
"Leaving Islam"
-- by Ibn Warraq
"The Legacy of Jihad"
-- by Andrew Bostom
"While Europe Slept"
-- by Bruce Bawer
"The Losing Battle With Islam"
-- by David Selbourne
Not to mention other books by scholars of Islam, including Antoine Fattal's book on the required treatment of non-Muslims under an Islamic legal system, the one which prevailed in Dar al-Islam until Western pressures in the 19th century forced changes, but the pressure for which, in Islam-ruled societies, remains and will always remain intense. That work, "Le statut legal des non-musulmans en pays d'Islam" -- needs to be translated.
But of course in England not just Hugo Williams and Julian Barnes and John Weightman and the late Richard Cobb, reads French with ease, so there should be no problem there.
I was just thinking of us, the Americans. The ones who can hardly read or write, and who understand the world so imperfectly, and who for some reason are so distrustful of Islam, and so disinclined to see the Lesser Jihad (against Israel), or the Greater Jihad (now in a country near you, against the entire Infidel world), in the way that those knowledgeable readers of The Guardian, so well-versed in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, so completely at home with the history of Islamic conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslim peoples from Spain to East Asia, over 1350 years, have been taught by their reporters and columnists and editorial writers, so carefully over the last three decades, to do.
Posted by: Hugh at February 14, 2006 11:16 AM
Simply brilliant deconstruction of the left and their phony neologism, "Islamaphobia". Well done Robert! And there is no "prophet Muhammad" because a false prophet is not a prophet
Damn right I'm phobic of this awful cult inspired by this awful Muhammad. The last man any sane person will model their life after
Posted by: dennisw at February 14, 2006 11:19 AM
To the short list of books above should be added articles.
The most important articles can be found at the following websites:
www.faithfreedom.org (directed by Ali Sina, and publishing his articles and those of other defectors from Islam)
www.secularislam.org (the website of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Societies), which has, under articles, a store of material -- so click on "articles."
One of the most important articles is that by Ibn Warraq comparing the belief-system of Islam and Fascism (using fourteen defining criteria for the latter that were proposed by Umberto Eco).
This article can also be found by googling "Ibn Warraq" and "Islam" and "Fascism" (or "Facism" as the word originally appeared incorrectly)
www.dhimmitude.org A scholarly website, devoted to the subject of the history of the condition of non-Muslims under Muslim rule.
www.jihadwatch.org At this website, one should not simply look at the news of the day, but go through the archives, by clicking on past dates, or using the search-box.
At the top, by clicking on Articles, and then scrolling through the list, all sorts of things will come up, written by Robert Spencer et al.
Those articles do not date.
Posted by: Hugh at February 14, 2006 11:22 AM
I'm not fearful of Islam. I'm aware of the truth about Islam.
Perhaps Islam should fear me and others like me and some press editor can label that:
educatedinfidelophobia
Posted by: Foehammer at February 14, 2006 11:26 AM
To the list of Bloggers, I would add The Big Pharaoh and Congress Debate Koran.
Posted by: Gary at February 14, 2006 11:32 AM
This phony moral equivalence argument is not just in the Guardian. Many European columnists now speak about "fanatics on both sides", the other side being some vaguely defined "far Right", meaning not just "Islamophobes" like mr. Spencer, but also "nationalist parties" in Denmark and elsewhere, and those who published the cartoons in the first place, and more generally those who defend the freedom of speech with no "buts" around it. Somehow I have failed to see the "far right" people all over Europe shouting and screaming, burning Islamic embassies and demanding the death, massacre, beheading and exterminating all Muslims. But that, of course, does not matter.
Posted by: rahel at February 14, 2006 11:39 AM
Tziona, you hit the nail on the head about _The Guardian_ defending only the right to bully.
Elephant, I hereby raise two more glasses of Garlsberg (it's DANISH!) to you: \~/\~/ *** (I've never been much of a drinker).
The now sloshed-on-Carlseberg Kepha
Posted by: Kepha at February 14, 2006 11:41 AM
Robert (Mr. Spencer), YOU GO BOY! You are my hero! You and Mr. Dennis Prager too. Thank you for standing up to those who represent the Guardian, CNN and any other idiots who seem to think we are as stupid as they are.
I claim to be a lady, but I have to say, simply put, they just don't have any _alls! Neither do our leaders! Makes me wonder if they are even men - they sure aren't real men.
Why doesn't our devout Commander in Chief speak out for our Maker as strongly as those who are speaking out for Islam?
Also, thanks to Foehammer, Hugela Kahn, and any other good men (or women) who post here and are not afraid to tell it like it really is.
Posted by: bamabelle
at February 14, 2006 11:57 AM
A posting on the notoriously Islamophobic website, Jihadwatch, for instance, describes it portentously as "a struggle between exponents of a free society and organised thuggery"
What a Sherlock Homes this Brian Whitaker person is. Apparently this writer hasn’t a clue what certain words really mean. Which makes the whole article suspect. Perhaps this writer will one day do just a little google?
The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas
In the name of Allah the Merciful and the Compassionate
Palestine, Muharram 1, 1409 A.H./August 18, 1988
In the name of Allah the Merciful and the Compassionate
"Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it." [From the words of] The martyr, Imam Hasan al-Banna', Allah's mercy be upon him.
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD109206
Iranian President Ahmadinejad on the "Myth of the Holocaust" & a Message to "Aggressive European Governments...and the Great Satan":
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "The affront to the honor of the Prophet of Islam is in fact an affront to the worship of God, and to the seeking of truth and justice, and an affront to all the prophets of God. Obviously, all those who harm the honor of the prophet of Islam..."
Crowd: "Death to Denmark.
"Death to Denmark.
"Death to Denmark.
"Death to Denmark."
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD109106
How could we possibly believe this is a fight between a free society and organized Islamic thuggery?
Posted by: Bar at February 14, 2006 12:08 PM
Here's a link to one of the esteemed Mr. Whittaker's articles, on MEMRI. His agenda becomes rather obvious, since he uses Ibrahim Hooper (of the terrorist group CAIR) to support his contention that MEMRI is a propagator of anti-Arab hate; that most of the staff are ex-Israeli intelligence. If you wander further down Whittaker's article, you do find this statement buried: "Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output." So, it's not that MEMRI is inaccurate, but that....what...?? They're Jews?
Just mentioning it because Whittaker is the anti-Semite who wrote the Guardian article cited above.
Seymour Paine (PBUM)
Posted by: Seymour Paine at February 14, 2006 12:09 PM
Robert --
I enjoyed that "we don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world" passage you posted above in reply to Paolo.
But as Marge Gunderson (the Minnesota policewoman played by Frances McNormand in the immortal "Fargo") says at one point to Lou, a fellow policeman -- "I'm not sure I agree with you there, Lou."
at February 14, 2006 12:23 PM
Thanks for those links, Bar and Seymour, and "you're welcome" to bamabelle. I think it's time to post another blog entry myself with those links. I've neglected MEMRI for far too long and these recent translations are just too juicy to be ignored (or forgotten).
Posted by: Foehammer at February 14, 2006 12:29 PM
Notoriously Islamophobic"? Strictly speaking, "Islamophobia" would be defined as fear of Islam.
Islamophobia actually means unjustified fear of of Islam. Robert posts more factual descriptions and traceable references on JihadWatch than I've ever heard on the opposing side from Islamic apologists. In over 2 years I have neither seen anything unjustified on this site, nor is there any "fear."
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
We are watching the Jihad, and really the deception unfold, and it's not a "tiny" "minority" of extremists. "Adherents of militant Islam account for some 15-20 percent of the Muslim world..." www.meforum.org/article/168
Posted by: Report at February 14, 2006 12:43 PM
Here is a more extensive report on the "objectivity" of Brian Whitaker of the Guardian.
"Mr. Whitaker’s interest in the Arab world predates his joining the Guardian, as evidenced by the extensive Web site he created in February 1998 and still administers, that "aims to introduce non-Arabs to the Arabs and their culture" and "tries to celebrate the achievements of Arab culture and to discuss its failings openly." The site originally contained a listing for Palestine, but not one for Israel, which Mr. Whitaker explained was because he only included members of the Arab League, although it now contains a listing ‘Palestine-Israel.’ When mentioning Israel, Mr. Whitaker’s Web site stated, "we follow the definition accepted by most of the international community and the PLO, i.e. the boundaries existing at the start of the 1967 war."
Read more; it's pretty revealing of the mind of a British anti-Semite.
Seymour Paine (PBUM)
Posted by: Seymour Paine at February 14, 2006 12:56 PM
we don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world - from Hugh's post.
Equally appropriate for Valentine's Day and Jihad Watching:
"Jane, I know the problems of two people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but this is our hill and these are our beans." - Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen), The Naked Gun (1988).
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 14, 2006 12:56 PM
"Adherents of militant Islam account for some 15-20 percent of the Muslim world..."
-- from a posting above
I have no idea where that 15-20 percent figure comes from, and is stated with such evident authority, and then repeated by others. I think it is a figure simply plucked from the air.
I side with Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina. I think that the numbers are reversed, and that almost all Muslims, save for the most unobservant, most disaffected, support what is meant in the West by "militant Islam." That phrase, I take it, means those who do believe that Muslims have both a right and a duty to conduct Jihad in order to spread Islam until, at some distant time, Islam everywhere "dominates and is not to be dominated." I suspect that 90% or more of Believers subscribe to this. I do not see how, given what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, they can do otherwise. It makes no sense. Why that 15-20 percent figure is given such deference puzzles me.
Posted by: Hugh at February 14, 2006 12:59 PM
Robert...
Finding your site was a breath of fresh air exposing the evil of Islam...right up there with the Nazi Party. The Guardian is equivalent with the National Enquirer....Comparing apples with oranges will certainly expose the sickness of all Islam supporters but with all the embassy burnings and killing over cartoons about their child molesting "Prophut" surely is showing the world thier true worship of Satan...I mean "MO".
at February 14, 2006 1:00 PM
It's best to not allow journalists like Mr. Whittaker to think that they alone have the power of the pen on their side:
http://www.foehammer.net/2006/02/covenant-of-hamas-and-mr-whittakers.html
Posted by: Foehammer at February 14, 2006 1:05 PM
Paolo:
Thank you for that post. What is that song, and where can I a copy of it? Thanks.
at February 14, 2006 1:20 PM
Hugh sez:
"... I think that the numbers are reversed, and that almost all Muslims, save for the most unobservant, most disaffected, support what is meant in the West by "militant Islam."
I couldn't agree more. These statistics, telling unsuspecting westerners that only 15 to 20 % of Muslims are 'radicals' or 'militants' are a fantasy product just like the 'moderate muslim', like Tariq Ramadan.
Anything but! Those who want us to live under Sharia are at least close to 90 %.
Folks, 'war is deception', and 'terror made me victorious' as well as 'strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers,'
Mo's words, the real McCoy! The real thing: Infidel better take note!
Much of the media today is, at least in part, owned by Arab-money or dependent on those advertising dollars. Whether or not the reporters themselves are simply Jew-haters or 'on the take' or just plain ignorant or afraid; whatever: its probably a bit of everything.
Although this treasonous behavior is quite unacceptable, it is certainly no different or no more despicable than the spineless and treasonous wrangling of our political leaders left and right, west or east:
We pay the Arabs for oil, they use it for Jihad, weapons and propaganda and our destruction, and they make no beef about it: It is what they tell us daily!
Trouble is nobody listens. We prefer fairy-tales...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 14, 2006 1:48 PM
Texan, here is a link: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/oncetoev.htm. I also think it has a fine tune.
Posted by: Paolo at February 14, 2006 1:58 PM
Whoops! Sorry, Texan, the link seems not to work - at least, not on my side. Well, go to www.cyberhymnal.org, go to "titles", then to the letter "O", then look for the opening line.
Posted by: Paolo at February 14, 2006 2:08 PM
Hugh:
I don't suppose Whitaker included a link to "selective" memri.org too, suggesting that perhaps he really has had his blinkered eyes opened.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 14, 2006 2:40 PM
The Guardian is as bad as the NYTimes! both are cowards and should be tried for treason! someone above asked about what a "True Liberal " would do.. well they would not support anything islam stand for! yes where are the libs on human rights, women's rights... where are these libs??
at February 14, 2006 2:52 PM
The Guardian (also the Independent) is printed and read by people who are totally detatched from reality. They are in the business of apologising on behalf of evil. They are concerned for the Human Rights of terrorists rather than their victims. That is defined as sophistication and enlightenment in some sections of British society. But this sections is very tiny as you can see from the statistics below.
Times readers run the country,
Telegraph readers think they run the country,
Guardian readers wish they ran the country,
Mirror readers would run the country if the Times readers didn't run it already,
Mail readers don't know who runs the country,
Express readers don't care who runs the country,
and Sun readers don't give a damn who runs the country as long as her measurements exceed 38-24-36.
This was quoted as an analysis by MPs of the readerships of the national papers in a Guardian diary piece in the early 1980s. There have been many variants of it (including 'FT readers pay to run the country', 'Mail readers know who should be running the country' and 'Mirror readers will run the country once the revolution comes'), but all tend to agree about Sun readers (though many in cruder terms).
The UK market for newspapers is unusual in the number of titles that are nationally distributed. These papers are analysed in the following sections:
Britain's national newspapers
The nationals are divided into dailies (10 titles) and Sundays (12). Within these two categories, they split into: popular red top/tabloids; midmarket; and quality products. Historically, the term 'tabloid' relates to the downmarket, popular or red-top dailies (Sun, Daily Mirror). However, the midmarket Daily Mail has long been tabloid and the distinction was lost when The Independent and then The Times adopted the A3 tabloid format in 2004 (though they renamed it 'compact'). The Guardian switched to the 'Berliner' format (a taller tabloid shape used by Le Monde) in September 2005. This left only the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph using the broadsheet format.
Daily newspapers Back to top
Title Type Owner Sales
(March 05)
Sun popular tabloid News International Newspapers Ltd 3, 273,116
Daily Mail midmarket, tabloid
Associated Newspapers (DGMT) 2,426,533
Daily Mirror popular tabloid Trinity Mirror plc 1,719,743
Daily Star popular tabloid Express Newspapers Ltd (Northern & Shell) 854,480
Daily Express midmarket, tabloid Express Newspapers Ltd (Northern & Shell) 948,375
The Daily Telegraph quality broadsheet Telegraph Group Ltd 907,329
The Times quality compact News International Newspapers Ltd 679,190
The Financial Times** quality broadsheet Financial Times Ltd (Pearson) 419,386
The Guardian quality Berliner (since 12 September 2005) Guardian Newspapers Ltd 366,645
Independent quality compact Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd 263,595
Sunday newspapers Back to top
News of the World popular tabloid News International Newspapers Ltd 3,649,466
The Mail on Sunday Associated Newspapers Associated Newspapers Ltd) 2,374,856
Sunday Mirror popular tabloid Trinity Mirror plc 1,534,736
The Sunday Times, quality broadsheetNews International Newspapers Ltd 1,400,873
The People popular tabloid Trinity Mirror plc 1,007,140
Sunday Express popular tabloid Express Newspapers 1,007,095
The Sunday Telegraph quality broadsheet Telegraph Group Ltd 686,779
The Observer quality broadsheet Guardian Newspapers Ltd (Scott Trust) 444,509
Daily Star - Sunday popular tabloid Express Newspapers 419,262
Independent on Sunday quality broadsheet Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd 208,563
The Business quality broadsheet The Business 204,005
Sunday Sport popular tabloid Sport Newspapers Ltd 151,892
*Trinity Mirror also publishes popular tabloid daily Daily Record and popular tabloid Sunday Mail in Scotland
** Most of the FT's circulation is outside the UK: 128,216 is the UK sales figure
Source: ABC
at February 14, 2006 3:13 PM
Rather than complain about being called Islamophobic I think we should embrace this term for ourselves. I am definitely fearful of Islam and just wish more people were. Posted by: Razdan
Razdan
Phobia means irrational fear of something e.g. claustrophobia being an irrational fear of closed spaces. But there is nothing irrational about a fear of Islam; on the contrary, the only rational reason for not fearing Islam is ignorance of Islam. If that's what the Dhimmis want to do, be my guest, but they are - consciously or otherwise - being advocates of ignorance. Somthing I wouldn't want to be were I in their shoes.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 14, 2006 4:29 PM
Note that the hymn discussed above by several posters -- "Once To Every Man and Nation" -- has been alluded to, even quoted from, twice before at Jihad Watch, First, at 11:41 a.m. on October 29, 2004, and at 2:36 p.m. on November 8, 2005 (google "Posted by Hugh" and "Once to Every Man and Nation"). Furthermore, the American writer of that hymn's words, James Russell Lowell (whose former mansion, Elmwood, was left to Harvard to be used as the official residence of its president), in 1884 gave a speech, the "Inaugural Address on Assuming the Presidency of the Birmingham and Midland Institute, Birmingham, England, 6 October, 1884" which contained this sentence:
"The world, on the contrary, wakes up, rubs its eyes, yawns, stretches itself, and goes about its business as if nothing had happened."
Those who read with attention will have noted that on February 9, 2006 at Jihad Watch a piece was put up with this title: "The world yawns, stretches, begins to open its eyes."
I had assumed Robert had chosen to allude to James Russell Lowell delberately, as part of the game of back-and-forth allusion that sometimes is indulged in, had been waiting for the right moment, after a long pause, to hit the shuttlecock back over the net.
But I asked him about this, and he says he did not have Lowell in mind, and thought the phrase he used was his. Years ago, possibly even as a bookish child, he may have read it, filed it away, and then it came out, close but not verbatim, decades letter.
A bit more on the theme of James Russell Lowell:
The 2002 winner of the MLA James Russell Lowell prize, incidentally, won for her "Cervantes in Algeria" which is about his life in Algeria, where he lived as a Christian slave for a Muslim master for five years.
The Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies (and master of Russian as well) at Harvard is the learned James Russell (but not James Russell Lowell). Nothing in common, save for the Armenian money that endowed both chairs, with the Gulbenkian Professor at Columbia, the comical Hamid Dabashi.
James Russell Lowell's "Once to Every Man and Nation," is now sung all over the world, and with special fervor in private school chapels in New England: Exeter, Andover, St. Grottlesex. Or at least, once upon a time, it was.
Posted by: Hugh at February 14, 2006 4:36 PM
Zeno: "The moment I hear someone use any of those terms I know them for a fool."
Some of them are fools, but the clever ones are not foolish at all. They know perfecty well that the uttering of these terms mesmerizes, the weak minded fools you refer to. This is the same kind of 'word magick', or 'word trickery' that comes from the Islamic clever. Just about everyone is being tricked by someone or something. The way to get over being tricked, is to get over being getting tricked. You Zeno, and most of the other posters here, have already done that, at least where Islam and the PC bandits are concerned. (The rest of your life, only you know about).
We are having a war of words,among other things. Words are being used as stinging missiles.
Not only must the effect of these word missiles be nutralized, the truth must be inserted in their place. Sublimation, where a bad idea is repaced by a better one, is a constanly used tool of the 'clever', both Islamic and the political left, mostly. The problem is that we may have severe dis-agreement over 'whats good' and whats not. Listen carefull to the 'words' of the speaker, if you detect BS, it probably is BS. Then you can act accordingly...A punch to the nose, or just change the channel...
at February 14, 2006 4:40 PM
An excerpt from the speech by James Russell Lowell referred to in a posting above, his "Inaugural Speech in Birmingham," is offred below.
Those who do not mind long sentences, and are not put off by thoughts expressed in a way not susceptible of expression in sound-bites, will forgive his syntax, as they forgive the syntactical curlicues of those who sometimes demand, but always fulfill their promise to repay, close attention.
In the excerpt Lowell discusses the nature of American democracy. In reading it, one may consider the relevance to the policy being pursued by the American government in Iraq today, the Instant Makeover of its political system and moral makeup, that has been so obstinately and naively pushed by those whose notions of democracy, in Iraq and perhaps equally important, in the United States, are now subject to question.
Here's the excerpt:
"The framers of the American Constitution were far from wishing or intending to found a democracy in the strict sense of the word, though, as was inevitable, every expansion of the scheme of government they elaborated has been in a democratical direction. But this has been generally the slow result of growth, and not the sudden innovation of theory; in fact, they had a profound disbelief in theory, and knew better than to commit the folly of breaking with the past. They were not seduced by the French fallacy that a new system of government could be ordered like a new suit of clothes. They would as soon have thought of ordering a new suit of flesh and skin. It is only on the roaring loom of time that the stuff is woven for such a vesture of their thought and experience as they were meditating. They recognized fully the value of tradition and habit as the great allies of permanence and stability. They all had that distaste for innovation which belonged to their race, and many of them a distrust of human nature derived from their creed. The day of sentiment was over, and no dithyrambic affirmations or fine-drawn analyses of the Rights of Man would serve their present turn. This was a practical question, and they addressed themselves to it as men of knowledge and judgment should. Their problem was how to adapt English principles and precedents to the new conditions of American life, and they solved it with singular discretion. They put as many obstacles as they could contrive, not in the way of the people’s will, but of their whim. With few exceptions they probably admitted the logic of the then accepted syllogism,—democracy, anarchy, despotism. But this formula was framed upon the experience of small cities shut up to stew within their narrow walls, where the number of citizens made but an inconsiderable fraction of the inhabitants, where every passion was reverberated from house to house and from man to man with gathering rumor till every impulse became gregarious and therefore inconsiderate, and every popular assembly needed but an infusion of eloquent sophistry to turn it into a mob, all the more dangerous because sanctified with the formality of law. 2 10
Fortunately their case was wholly different. They were to legislate for a widely scattered population and for States already practised in the discipline of a partial independence. They had an unequalled opportunity and enormous advantages. The material they had to work upon was already democratical by instinct and habitude. It was tempered to their hands by more than a century’s schooling in self-government. They had but to give permanent and conservative form to a ductile mass. In giving impulse and direction to their new institutions, especially in supplying them with checks and balances, they had a great help and safeguard in their federal organization. The different, sometimes conflicting, interests and social systems of the several States made existence as a Union and coalescence into a nation conditional on a constant practice of moderation and compromise. The very elements of disintegration were the best guides in political training. Their children learned the lesson of compromise only too well, and it was the application of it to a question of fundamental morals that cost us our civil war. We learned once for all that compromise makes a good umbrella but a poor roof; that it is a temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship."
Appetites whetted may be at least partially sated by googling "James Russell Lowell" and "Birmingham Inaugural" and then reading the whole address.
Nothing like this kind of thing is spoken by anyone today.
Why that is, why that should be -- well, that's the $64 trillion question, isn't it?
at February 14, 2006 5:10 PM
I side with Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina. I think that the numbers are reversed, and that almost all Muslims, save for the most unobservant, most disaffected, support what is meant in the West by "militant Islam."
Hugh, the more abstract the definition, the larger the percentage. Some time ago Daniel Pipes stated: "Adherents of militant Islam account for some 15-20 percent of the Muslim world" and I believe that number is accurate for the scope referred to, i.e. "adherents" those who are actively participating. If we want to include "supporting" Jihad, then perhaps the figure is 40-50%. If we want to include "allowing" Jihad, then yes, I can see an 80-90% possible figure. If 90% of all Muslims right now were actively practicing militant Jihad, a few thousand more things would be on fire right now than just a few consulate offices, and it may get that bad one day, no one knows. We can only come against Jihad that we can clearly identify. Exaggerations help no one, and Muslims apologists use exaggerations like water. In any case, 150 million people, at least, actively practicing militant Jihad is clearly a problem.
Posted by: Report at February 14, 2006 5:28 PM
Blah blah blah!!
Get that reporter to stand up - nice and tall - shoulders back and have him say something publicly that he does not like about Islam.
We can put one of those 24hr internet cameras on him - it will be only a few days, if that ~ before we have to stop filming ~ as he would have become a martyr to his absentminded cause.
The Guardian paper is like that anyway - they probably backed those kidnapped peace activists who went over to the Middle East. The George Bush is so Bad Brigade, now someone has to go through the trouble to rescue them.
at February 14, 2006 8:09 PM
duh_swamit wrote:
Just about everyone is being tricked by someone or something."Ain't it the truth. We humans are made to be programmed. It's a rare bird born with the capacity to think for itself. Sometimes the programming is beneficial, often it is not. Probably there is some evolutionary value in this -- we can't all be captains, there needs to be a crew. (Woe to the ship with a wicked captain!) But how can it be that even the most patently evil programming goes unopposed? Or that a mostly decent people can suddenly turn into depraved zombies staggering about in search of souls to steal? Creepy. And I wonder how much of the zombie is in me.
What a world.
Posted by: Zeno at February 14, 2006 8:25 PM
Hugh wrote:
"Those who do not mind long sentences, and are not put off by thoughts expressed in a way not susceptible of expression in sound-bites, will forgiveThose who do not mind long sentences, and are not put off by thoughts expressed in a way not susceptible of expression in sound-bites, will forgive..."
"Nothing like this kind of thing is spoken by anyone today."
at February 14, 2006 9:14 PM
Hints of Carlyle, Chapter 17 of Ulysses, and the dying words of Dutch Schultz. I'll take it.
Posted by: Hugh at February 14, 2006 10:53 PM
Zeno
So true, so wise. Just add to your encomium that
Hugh is a master of the "period," an art unknown in this land's performing literary syntax.
at February 14, 2006 11:09 PM
Makes my brain hurt, Zeno. Think I'll go memorize the koran instead.
Posted by: Infidel33 at February 15, 2006 1:19 AM
These moralists at Guardian are so pathetic.................I think when all Europeans are dead and gone they will still be blaming the West, democracy, Islamophobia - mf******.
Feeling particularly low today at the passivity of the British govt. 86% of people are simply not happy with this situation - yet the govt. does nothing.......
The situation seems so hopeless - we live in a complete and absolute leadership vaccum - God save us all.
Posted by: Psing at February 15, 2006 6:07 AM
The problem we've got with Guardian and the like is that they still believe in a "marxist" confrontations between the "poor" (muslims) and the rich ("the west").
In their "world" a poor cannot be wrong. They don't care if this poor is a muslim or a budhist or a christian. They only look at is his/her social condition (and they always blame the rich...).
This logic is profoundly biaised. There are clear evidences (New York, London, Madrid, Paris, Amsterdam, oppression of christians in Sudan, etc.) that there is something profoundly rotten inside this religion.
They have exactly the same problem that most "leftists" had with the Anarchism terorrism early in the XXth and communism terrorism in the 70's. They simply cannot accept the fact that a "poor" can be wrong.
I can even accept that there is true "pacifism" inside Islam (like the sufi sect...Note that this sect is considered as heretism by a lot of Muslims). Or true "moderate" muslim, (simply read the Egyptian sandmonkey blog...And read comments left by non moderate muslims).
But You have to "fear" (beeing phobic) Islam when you see the biggest western cities under fire in the name of their God. If you don't, you are a lunatic, a dangerous lunatic.
Something else: Islam isn't a race. It is an ideology/religion. Nobody has been labelled racist for being anti-communist. There are true racists (particularly in Europe) who use Islam as a tool to condemn a whole "race" (middle-east christian orthodox/catholic included). I'm not one of them.
Always keep in mind that their ancestors built the Egyptian civilization, the Persian one, they have imagined the first alphabets, first agriculture, early naval commercial activities, the biggest library ever built, dozens of inspiring architecture, first legal code, etc. In a word this "race" has proved that they can do great things and they have the potential to do great things for the hosting society.
If they are true hardworkers, respect our laws, accept our way of life and leave all the backward traditions/believes responsible for the declining state of their native country, They are welcome. Otherwise they should stay where they are or be sent back home.
Olivier
Posted by: olivier laurent at February 15, 2006 7:02 AM
Maybe we shall all emmigrate to Denmark, the government there at least have a backbone.
Posted by: boma at February 15, 2006 9:27 AM
RE: CAIR) will hold a noon news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to launch a major educational effort focusing on the life and legacy of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.
Seems like CAIR has it backwards. We see what is happening, why do we need to be "educated"?
CAIR should travel to the Middle East and remind their Muslim brethren whom are rioting that Islam is a "religion of peace and tolerance"
What should be done is America should label CAIR a terrorist organization and expelled from the Country as its founders had links to terrorists.
Sadly, if this were done, the outcry from the ACLU the Democrats would be horrendous. America is truely a divided Nation and I fear for Her!
Posted by: learjet0450 at February 15, 2006 5:58 PM
I'm not academically inclined and can only say that I totally support the comments of the article.
I look forward to the day when all the west get balls enough to speak freely about the islamic abomination.
at February 16, 2006 2:01 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)