I vaguely remember the U.S. and the U.K., among others, going to a great deal of trouble to "liberate" Kuwait following the unwelcome advances of a neighbor. I also remember much of the gilded youth of Kuwait camped out in luxury in London, Cairo, etc. waiting for the "blue eyed slaves" of the kingdom to face danger in their stead. Odd that NOW Kuwait has the energy and temerity to tell us what to do in our own lands. Eff 'em!

Posted by: MP at November 1, 2007 11:24 AM

Islamophobia:

“When the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry -- that is a sad and troubling development,” Annan said. “Such is the case with ‘Islamophobia.’ The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety.”
--- Former Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan

The “world” was not “compelled to coin a new term” -- it was Muslims who coined the word, and they did so deliberately. For that word so deliberately kept undefined is merely a weapon employed to deflect criticism, to label all those who may offer criticism of Islam and of its adherents, basing their criticism not on some blind prejudice, but on their own observations and study. Indeed, the entire Western world -- its political leaders, its media, its university departments of Middle Eastern studies -- have all been engaged in a massive effort to deflect criticism or disarm it. It is despite all that that Infidels everywhere are coming to some conclusions about Islam, and the more they study, and the more they observe, and the more “Interfaith” gatherings and little Muslim Outreach evenings they attend, all of which end up being dismal exercises in Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque argumentation, the more wary, and critical, and indignant, and sometimes more, they become. The game is up. From a Beslan school full of children to a Bali nightclub full of revellers, from Madrid subways to Moscow theatres, from New York skyscrapers to Najaf mosques (where Sadr’s bezonians tortured, killed, and stacked the bodies of Iraqis who had opposed their reign of terror), from Istanbul to India, the evidence just keeps piling up. And the evidence, too, of what is actually in the Qur’an and hadith and sira -- and how many Infidels, a few years ago, even had heard of the “hadith” and the “sira,” or had any idea what was really in the Qur’an, or had ever heard of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya -- now online, and it can easily be read. And all the excuses, all the nonsense, can no longer be offered up -- for we Infidels, fortunately, have the guidance of defectors from Islam, ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq (whose own guide to debating Muslims, and how not to be intimidated or snookered, will for many prove invaluable).

Kofi Annan, as Oriana Fallaci notes in her Fallaci Intervista Fallaci, looks, on the surface, to be far more presentable, and far more decent, and far more intelligent -- grey hair, gravelly voice, grave mien -- than in fact he is. The words quoted above are the words of a simpleton. Perhaps Edward Mortimer, that early admirer of Khomeini and Nazi-Zionist conspiracy theorist, who feels a special responsibility to protect Islam, is the main puppet-master here, or perhaps it is Ms. Rishmawi (the “Palestinian” behind-the-scenes operative who was so influential with Mary Robinson, she of the antisemitic lynch-mob meeting in Durban in September 2001). Or perhaps it is Annan -- the man on whose watch for more black African deaths occurred than anyone since Leopold III of Belgium -- really thinks that the word “Islamophobia” came into use because it actually described a real, and deplorable condition; that it describes an unfair, unjust, prejudiced and irrational (i.e. without foundation, against reason and logic) phobia, or hatred, of Islam. What is unreasonable or irrational would be the opposite. That is, the continued ability of many Infidels to regard Islam as just another “religion” worthy of respect, perhaps at the edges a bit rough, but hijacked by a few extremists, or even many extremists, but having a decency at its core, a real religion of “peace” and “tolerance” as a number of Western leaders have insisted.

If, upon reading and studying Qur’an and hadith and sira, and if, after looking around the world over the past few years, and if, after having studied the history of Jihad-conquest and Muslim behavior toward dhimmis -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists -- you do not feel a deep hostility toward the belief-system of Islam and toward its adherents (for the category of “moderate” is nearly meaningless, given the dangerous use to which “moderates” can be put in continuing to mislead the unwary Infidels), then it is you who are irrational, and need to have your head examined.

The word “Islamophobia” must be held up for inspection, its users constantly asked precisely how they would define that word, and they should be put on the defensive for waving about what is clearly meant to be a scare-word that will silence criticism.

So let us ask them which of the following criticisms of Islam is to be considered “Islamophobic”:

1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9 -- because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advise as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya -- would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?

4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.

5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels -- all Infidels.

6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying marks on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law -- and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”

7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.

8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.

9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.

10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.

11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty -- and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.

12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here -- would you like me to read it now for the audience?

13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.

14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known -- and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.

15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.

16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.

17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want -- whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.

18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses -- and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.

19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete -- with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.

20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.

21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform -- except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.

22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages -- for example, from Leviticus -- that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”

23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.

24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves.

25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).

26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated." I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.

27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.

I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

If this is “Islamophobia” -- show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Posted by: Hugh at November 1, 2007 11:25 AM

Ah, the Culture of Peace. Any relation to the Religion of Peace?

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at November 1, 2007 11:26 AM

Must have made an impact if its going to the UN.

Posted by: Elric66 at November 1, 2007 11:27 AM

"Al-Khalifa touched on the significant role that could be played by the media and educational institutes to create a generation that condemns violence and hatred and can effectively spread the culture of peace.

He said Kuwait is sparing no efforts to spread the understanding of "moderation in Islam"...."
-- from the article above

For an understanding of "moderation in Islam," or rather, of the usefulness of the concept of the "moderate Muslim" in the thinking of those whose task it is to instruct and to protect us, see "Ten Things To Think When Thinking Of Moderate Muslims." [Google that phrase, and "Hugh Fitzgerald" and "Jihad Watch" or go to the list of relevant Articles, linkable on the bar above]

Posted by: Hugh at November 1, 2007 11:30 AM

Posted by: Hugh at November 1, 2007 11:25 AM

That comment is deserving a thread of its own. Bravo!

Posted by: justamomof4 at November 1, 2007 12:03 PM

For me, Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week began on September 11, 2001. As I recall, not too many of the Islamics protested that kind of "awareness"-those that did either sounded insincere or tepid.
In fact, our palestinian friends really enjoyed such "awareness" taking place. Now six years later when infidels who try to further inform others of Islamo-Fascism do so without violence
the cult of death and its simpleminded fellow travelers scream bloody murder. Now why is that?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 1, 2007 12:22 PM

"Kuwait condemned a campaign launched by some American universities against Islam and called on the International Community to take a firm stand against such racial measures."
==============================================

Playing the race card again? Send all US college students to the University of Delaware for mandatory re-education!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4A0F27E2-1583-4949-9660-56042464D7BF

'...a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”
--
CT Yank

Posted by: CTYankee at November 1, 2007 12:33 PM

They lack an English translater ?

Turtle Bay is a swamp subject to miasmal mists ?

When trying to protect the umma, you can say anything you want ?

Accuracy is a variable in islam, one just fires mortars blindly ?

Fundamental islam might turn out to be the disease that destroys a religion unless they change it soon.

Not my bad.

Posted by: dgene at November 1, 2007 12:48 PM

I would consider Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week to be successful.

I think it is FANTASTIC that these speakers may have upset countries on the other side of the world.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at November 1, 2007 12:49 PM

Koffi a simpleton? I doubt it.

Much more a very corrupt, sly and sinister operator who follows the money. An awful character by any measure.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 1, 2007 1:12 PM

By "spreading the culture of peace" is he talking about spreading islam? Of course the whole world would be at peace if everyone were muslim. . . well until some muslims decided that other muslims weren't muslim enough. Still no peace.

Further evidence that we need to withdraw from the U.N. and send em packing someplace more accomodating. . .like maybe Riyad or Tehran.

Posted by: walterc at November 1, 2007 1:14 PM

"He said one must firmly stand against those who seek racial and religious sedition because such acts represent a serious threat to the efforts made to spread the culture of peace."

He means one must stand firmly against anyone who critizes Islamic beliefs and practices, and fails to accept those beliefs as the eternal and unchanging will of Allah.

Posted by: rational at November 1, 2007 1:19 PM

Hugh: Using books and news media to understand the fallacies presented by Islam is ineffective. While I agree with you on a more moderate scale, your position is indeed infected by some rather presumptuous viewpoints. I wonder if you've spent any time investigating your assertions of extreme prejudice towards infidels in the diverse Arab world. I would guess probably not.

I would say most of the things you wrote would define a radical muslim, but it's discerning to me, that someone so educated and knowledgeable with respect to History and the Qur'an, would fail to recognize that Islam is as diverse as American Christianity. I am surprised you don't understand being hostile to all muslims on the basis that they're muslim, is islamophobia, whereas hostility to radical muslims, as to any radical, is wholly rational and integral to the sustainment of our free world ideals and philosophy.

My take on the article: Who cares? Most Kuwaitis sure don't, and since when did smaller states have any voice in the UN, or the world in general?
Don't worry people, the not Kuwaitis nor Radical Muslims are going to take away our rights.

Perhaps it is you, hugh, speaking the rhetoric of an educated simpleton. If I am wrong in my assertion that you've never spent a good chunk of time in the Middle East, away from Westernized areas, please say so; but from everything you've said, it would seem all you've done was watch the news and read popular books and articles, which can never capture the true nature of those topics you discuss with such weight and conviction.

Posted by: njoeg at November 1, 2007 1:45 PM

njoeg

In the UN, the largest bloc of countries is the OIC, which is around 50 countries, including some which really have no more than 15% Muslims (Guyana, Mozambique). All that needs to happen is Kuwait or anybody else - even Brunei or Maldives will do - to squeal, and that'll suddenly become a major agenda item for the UN. After all, the way they work is that a majority of members is what's needed to pull off something, and there isn't any anti-Islamic bloc in the UN.

As far as the diversity of Islam goes, the fact that the Saudis wear that wierd headgear, whereas sub-continent Muslims all dress up like Imams, means little as far as Infidels go. In every country in the world that has a substantial Mohammedan population, there are campaigns to Islamify those places. Even when there aren't Muslims who exhibit supremacist views (and nobody has ever figured out a way to distinguish such people from the rest of the crowd), the fact that any particular area has even a Muslim plurality, let alone a majority, is enough to encourage Jihadi campaigns - look @ South Thailand, Macedonia, South Serbia (NOT Kosovo), et al. Given that factoid, it makes sense for us to be opposed to all Muslims just because they are Muslims, since that's a good pretext for more Dearbornistans and Londonistans, in addition to the Kosovos, Judeas and Kashmirs of the world.

For our own survival!

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 1, 2007 2:09 PM

Somebody needs to re-explain why we went to war to remove Saddm H. from Kuwait. I have forgotten.

Njoeg, I am not speaking for Hugh, but if you were to reply to one of my comments in the tone you replied to Hugh, I would remind you that one does not need to visit and insane asylum to understand the many and varied forms of phychosis.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 1, 2007 3:01 PM

"This came in the Kuwaiti delegation's speech addressed by Khaled Bader Al-Khalifa, late on Wednesday, at the United Nations General Assembly on the Culture of Peace."

"...serious threat to the efforts made to spread the culture of peace [clang]."
"...efforts to support the culture of peace [clang]...
"...effectively spread the culture of peace[CLANG]."
"...the best path to spread the culture of peace [CLANG!!]..."
"... the basic [sic] of the culture of peace [CLANG!!!!!]

They not only think we are stupid, but deaf. Okay, okay, we got the new word for the new Muslim ad campaign. We got it.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 1, 2007 3:23 PM

pelayo,
True, but then you're denying the many forms of psychosis their individual meaning, which can be further grouped and so on. You'd be saying, "an insane person is an insane person."
But what you're saying here is, "an insane person is a charlie manson," which is simply not the case with muslims.
Apart from the extensive contrasts between a fairly linear science such as psychology, and one that shouldn't even be considered a science (political), I don't believe I wrote in a disrespectful tone to Hugh. I simply wrote in a similar tone to his, which I did not find disrespectful.

We removed Saddam Hussein for our own geopolitical/corporate interests, the Kuwaitis have no obligation to our good will, for there was none. At least that's the impression I get from Kuwaitis I know.

Infidel pride: Yes, there is an identifiable Pro-Islamist bloc in the UN, but it is also true that these nations are in poor standing, and the rest of the world is either staunchly anti-islamist, or weary of such activity. Nothing important or powerful can come from a bloc of poor and confused nations, in the face of a world angry at islamic terrorism.

your logic allowing you to essentially hate all muslims is exactly the rationale our enemies use, and doesn't allow for you to complete your goal of a sustained free world.
The most important thing is to identify the enemy and kill him, killing each muslim is not possible, practical or right. Our enemy is not the common muslim, for I could walk from Jahra to Manqaf in Kuwait(not that I'd want to) and be met with water, not bullets, from even the most fundamentalist of mosques.
The enemy is the man in Qatar who runs Iaisite.org, it's the boy ready to fire his weapon at an american patrol, it's mismanaged foreign policy and naive leaders. Most of all, it's our ignorance on islamic societies and the true nature of terrorism. Our greatest weapon is understanding who to kill, why, and the short/long term costs- you're not going to get anywhere near this by declaring every muslim an enemy of the free world.

Just as not every Arab wears a Disdasha and Gutra, (mandress and head thingy), not every christian is a potential recruit for civilizing missions, the U.S. Army, or KKK, definitely not every Muslim is a potential recruit for radical violent Jihad.

You must visit the asylum to understand that each patient has been affected by their own illness in a different way. If you're going to war against crazy people, you'd damn well better understand them.

Posted by: njoeg at November 1, 2007 3:48 PM

Yes, there is an identifiable Pro-Islamist bloc in the UN, but it is also true that these nations are in poor standing, and the rest of the world is either staunchly anti-islamist, or weary of such activity. Nothing important or powerful can come from a bloc of poor and confused nations, in the face of a world angry at islamic terrorism.

With all due respect, wrong! Name me one country that can be described as anti Islamic. US? Pro-Islamic on the Balkans, Turkey, Chechnya and Uzbekistan. Europe? Virulently pro Islamic on Israel and Chechnya. India? Pro Islamic on Iran. Thailand? Haven't heard of them being anti-Islamic. Israel? I might grant you that, even though their domestic policies are strongly pro-Islamic. What other country comes to mind?

And as for the Islamic countries, they are not in poor standing, particularly when it comes to their pushing pan Islamic causes. Granted, if there is a rift between, say, Saudi Arabia and Libya, the former may gain little support. But if one of them were to speak up for pan Islamic causes, say, Kosovo, they'd get a whole lot of support not only from the OIC bloc, but also from a majority of other countries. There isn't an anti-Islamic bloc so to speak; just that in different Jihad scenarios, you have different anti-Islamic voting groups - Serbia and Russia in one case, Israel and the US in another, India and Russia in yet another, and so on. Yet, on things like Iran and Syria, Russia is on the pro-Islamic side of the equation.

Just as not every Arab wears a Disdasha and Gutra, (mandress and head thingy), not every christian is a potential recruit for civilizing missions, the U.S. Army, or KKK, definitely not every Muslim is a potential recruit for radical violent Jihad.

You missed my point above - how do you tell 'moderate' Muslims from radical ones? Also, how do you foresee whether those moderate Muslims might become more radical after, say, a Hajj? Our point has consistently been that the onus of proving themselves innocuous has to rest on the Muslims: noble as it may sound, the Infidel world cannot afford to accord them the presumption of innocuous until proved dangerous. I don't agree with your analogy with an asylum: usually, in those cases, those people are there either to be cured, or at least kept out of harms way (both theirs and ours). In the case of Muslims, while you may not like the sound of it, we are their enemy. Their texts say so, and there is no way of telling how many Muslims dissociate themselves from the Quran, and that too which parts. Which is why I maintain that the onus of proving themselves innocent (something more convincable by converting out of Islam to anything - Christianity, Scientology, Rastafarianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, whatever) - has to be on them Muslims, and not us Infidels.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 1, 2007 4:20 PM

Oh, and the gov. is serious, betw. the U.N and congress, they're trying to sneak an anti-hate bill thru again:

House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

I don't know whether to give on on this bill or to write to protest. AS IF IT WOULD DO ANY GOOD!

Posted by: allat at November 1, 2007 4:25 PM

Infidel Pride:
You're right! The United States is interest-driven first (as is the case with nearly every other nation). Just because the United States supports Pakistan, doesn't mean we don't support the efforts of anti-islamic groups, specifically secular and liberal movements in every Islamic country. I would say those examples you gave are evidence that the United States is more about national interest, rather than an affair with Islam. The most powerful nations on earth do not support the radical islamic agenda, which is anti-islamist enough to stop such an agenda in it's tracks from progressing as a serious issue within the UN and the world in general.

Take the Iraq war for instance; aside from all the great strides made by the war, it's also created a deafening complication of diplomacy and policy for every nation in that region. At a time when Islamic nations should be up in arms due to the infidel occupation, there is no such movement. There is terrorism, and radical islamic backlash.

Pro-islam, anti-islam, are all most complicated than I know, but I am under the impression that if egypt wanted to pass a resolution requiring that women wear hijaab at UN meetings, the "western world" would deny them.

I understand that you don't know how to differentiate a radical from a moderate muslim, but more than a Hajj, prosecution and hostility will make anyone defensive, but non-action to a radical will hardly ever prompt any action.

It's usually very easy to see who's radical or not, but it's something I can't explain very well:
I have personally experienced non-persecution by muslims in an Arab country, simply because I wasn't being obnoxious. There are many Muslims that might as well be atheists, there is hardly any persecution of them. There have also been times when you can tell by the crowd, their clothing, the features of their faces and their message, if they're radical or not. I have not ventured anywhere near a Hamas rally, because you just know they're radicals by their flag and chants.
Plus, it doesn't even matter if you can tell or not, if you're in an Arab country, you'll never see the person who tries to kill you. Same everywhere else I presume- probably because americans are big and buff, whereas most arabs are skinny and without muscles and don't want confrontation.

I do have to go pick my sister up from school. sorry my response isn't sufficient!

Posted by: njoeg at November 1, 2007 5:02 PM

njoeg:

"your logic allowing you to essentially hate all muslims "

I think you've lived among the islamics too long, that you've become an apologists for them. Yet you haven't sat up and looked around you - and seen the perfidy, the violence that the islamics perpetuate TODAY.

Don't bother talking about what the West has done in the past - or - -the Crusades - we're talking about today.

Don't bring up the War in IRaq either, because even before than, the islamics were up to their old tricks of attacking helpless. black African farmers in Ethiopia, Nigeria, Niger, Sudan, and finally Darfur (which the islamics see to have divided into an islamic province now), and other Central African provinces. Not to mention the helpless, innocent Buddhists in Thailand.

At any rate, none of us here, hate moslems/islamic peoples - they are just poor, devils, caught in a fishnet, trap of religion and made psychotic and schizophrenic. You'd be the same if you had to adhere to contraditions as presented in the koran.

All we want is for the islamics to mind their own business, they can keep to themselves if they want to live in the 7th century impovrishment and the 7th century rags, and drink camel urine, if they want - leave us, the West alone - to wroship, or not the way we want. Leave us, the heall alone -

Unfortunately, this DEALTH CULT has been on the march of conquest since the 7th century. You can see the horrors the islamics committed - are still committing in ex-Northern India - and are still doing in Eastern Europe - and the horrors of the islamics Turks ( fi they did these things in the past - what makes you think that when they have power again in Eur. the Turks won't do the same again?)- and the utter nerve of going to Scandia, and attacking and raping women in other people's countries.

We're finally started to wake up to our danger. Our committee, and meetings and Councils are our ways of defending ourselves - the FREE COUNTRIES - from these peerpetual invaders - TALK ABOUT INVASIONS! -

WHY SHOULD WE ACCEPT A CULTURE SO RETROGRADED!?

We don't want an islamic culture, we want our own. We want things our way.

ANd no matter what you or others like you say, we're going to prevail!

Posted by: allat at November 1, 2007 5:13 PM

"I understand that you don't know how to differentiate a radical from a moderate muslim,"

And I say: Yeah, but in every instance, I have only heard of a handful of any "moderates" speaking out - walking their talk. The majority of islamics is very happy to right on the coat tails of the jihadists, and violence, and take over the host country. Western countries that have given them refugee against the violence and poverty of their home land. And why is there such prevalence of poverty there, I wonder?

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

" probably because americans are big and buff, whereas most arabs are skinny and without muscles and don't want confrontation."

And I say: But I'll warrant that the members of the monarchy are big and buff ( because they eat well).

"whereas most arabs are skinny and without muscles and don't want confrontation."

And I say: Yeah, the islamics are quite good at coming behind your back, and stabbing you with a knife. ANd they're good at cutting your throats.

And the poor, common islamic, little fellows that they are - both men and women, are experts at cutting the throats of little girls!

That's part of their culture. Why should we accept that?

What a most contemptable "religion.!!

Posted by: allat at November 1, 2007 5:28 PM

Fundamental islam is evil and muslims are carriers of that disease, whether it is latent or manifest.

And it's the latent part might get you - like second generation muslims in the West.

And it aint book larning what brung me to this kernclusion, njoeg, it's me lyin eyes.

Posted by: dgene at November 1, 2007 5:29 PM

Plus, it doesn't even matter if you can tell or not, if you're in an Arab country, you'll never see the person who tries to kill you. Same everywhere else I presume- probably because americans are big and buff, whereas most arabs are skinny and without muscles and don't want confrontation.

What a bizarre generalization, especially coming from one who appears to be chiding us for not drawing distinctions among people.

Posted by: MarisolJW at November 1, 2007 6:23 PM

Bizarre?
lol...more like schizophrenic.
lol

Posted by: jcom972 at November 1, 2007 6:32 PM

Njoeg, what part of this did you not understand:
"I would remind you that one does not need to visit and insane asylum to understand the many and varied forms of phychosis."

Did you miss "many and varied forms?" Did you ignore it just to make a pointless point?

You said that I was "denying the many forms of psychosis;" I actually used those words in my comment. I am just mystified.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 1, 2007 8:53 PM

Njoeg, throughout my life I have met many and veried Muslims. Because of my insulated interaction for the past forty plus years with many (and varied) Americanized Muslims, I sort of believed Bush when he first stated that infamous peaceful religion nonsense. I have studied Islam more than I ever wanted to. I now realize that my first assessment of Islam was wrong. The violent (jihad) part of Islam is not a variation, it is the foundation.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 1, 2007 9:10 PM

Cheers and stampings for Hugh Fitzgerald's resounding post above, made at 11.25 am.

How about we call it '27 Theses Against The Empire of Islam'? Or change the pronoun to 'We Deplore...". Or head it 'Free Infidels of the World, Unite!'

Print it out, broadsheet size, with whatever heading you think suitable - and add www.jihadwatch.org.

If you are of German, Italian, French, Spanish, Hindi or other nationality, you could attempt a basic translation into your mother tongue and circulate that (duly credited).

Perhaps you can find documented, actual factual images to illustrate some of the examples - make sure the material is verifiable and from reputable sources. In this fight, we are not lying - we are screaming the truth at the tops of our voices. To catch the eye, a nice color printout of a news photo of, for example, the Bamiyan Buddhas being blown up - or that doubledecker London bus from July 2005 - or the Twin Towers - or the Madrid trains. Or scan something out of Bat Yeor or Bostom. Put on the reverse side of the sheet (thus: image one side, text the other).

To illustrate, perhaps, Islam's grim public erasure of the beauty of the human female form and face, find a picture of Juliette Binoche or Cate Blanchett (beautiful lady of your choice in Western dress) and stamp over it the red circle-and-slash that we now all understand to mean 'FORBIDDEN!'. Do the same to a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, or Giotto's St Francis or Rembrandt's Jewish Bride or Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring... Or to an image of Kiri te Kanawa or Maria Callas - since music is deeply suspect in Islam. Or a nice bottle of wine or a gorgeous pedigree pup (no wine! dogs are BAAAD!). Beside such images, include a relevant Quranic text or Hadith snippet, and, for the ban on music and fun in general, Khomeini's rantings as well - that appalling quote "there is no fun in Islam".

Tack it up on any and all public noticeboards, official and unofficial, that you may have access to - you know, that wall near the railway station, or near the cinema, that is always plastered with posters advertising bands, or political meetings, etc? The power pole that has the 'lost dog' ad, or the 'make money in your spare time' ad stuck to it. That university residential college common room noticeboard papered with 'rooms for rent' and ads for the latest student revue? Hey, tape it up to the inner doors of the campus toilet cubicles.

Or slip the sheet into the gossip magazines at your dentist/doctor/hairdresser/barber, etc (kudos if you've already got them 'on side' so they're letting you do it 'with permission').

Leave it on the seat of your commuter train/ bus/ ferry.

"The words of the prophets are written/ on subway walls and tenement halls'...

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 1, 2007 10:04 PM

PS - In one paragraph of my posting above, being a Western Christian, I naturally chose images from my own milieu to illustrate what we would lose were the grim Forbiddings of Quranic Islam to be applied.

A non-Western Infidel wishing to take up my suggestions will, of course, select images appropriate to their own culture to illustrate what Hugh is talking about. For example, an Indian jihadwatcher might select one of the more delectable traditional representations of the beautiful Sita, or images of some of the glorious and scandalous erotic sculptures of ancient India, in order to show why Hugh so vehemently deplores Islam's blanket ban on representative art AND its terror of the public exposition of female beauty.

An African, or an Afro-American, or a Native American/ First Nations person would, equally, choose images representing those treasured aspects of their own cultures - music, art, sculpture, feminine traditional costume (think Hawaiian dancers, for instance!) and the rest - which are mortally threatened by Islam.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 1, 2007 10:25 PM

I have to admit my first reaction to IAW was who cares what a bunch of sofomoric, ivory tower college students think?
But it is very clear that the efforts put forth are yielding some pretty impressive pumkins.

Keep up the dialog. At least when these eyesight challenged people come here they will read their own writings and just maybe the scales will fall from their eyes.

Welcome to all the college students who take time out from picking up their kid sisters to an intelligent dialog.

We might even..
set up some bleachers out in the sun
And hold it out on Highway 61

Posted by: Aunt Bea at November 2, 2007 8:36 AM

He said Kuwait is sparing no efforts to spread the understanding of "moderation in Islam" where the cabinet issued a decision to form a committee aimed at spreading the understanding of moderation.

Great! Any plans to start spreading your "moderation in Islam" curriculum first in Taliban country?

Posted by: yadayada at November 2, 2007 12:39 PM

What specifically is Kuwait doing to encourage moderation. If Kuwait is serious about encouraging moderation then I would recommend that it incorporates Sam Solomon's 'A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding' http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/EuropeCharter.pdf into its constitution.

Posted by: Aeneas at November 3, 2007 9:33 AM