| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"'There are the bloodstains on the wall, and here it is dried on the floor,' says Abu Muhanad as he walks through a torture chamber in a Baghdad mosque where more than two dozen bodies have been found." -- from this news article
A Master-List of Mosques Behaving Badly should be compiled. That list should include, from U.S. military records, all the shoot-outs in Iraq (and Afghanistan) with people who fired on American soldiers from mosques, or who ran to mosques in order to avoid capture and then used them as places from which to attack Americans (until the Americans stopped, as they eventually did, from holding back).
Such a list should also include the mosques in Western Europe that have been found to contain false papers (sometimes in false ceilings, as in the mosque in Milan on Viale Jenner), including forged passports and national identity documents. And don’t forget the mosques that have been discovered to contain AK-47s, explosives, and videocassettes of beheadings of Infidels, and audiocassettes to whip up the Believers to even greater deeds of derring-do against the Infidels. Yes, all that stuff has been found in mosques, that weaponry, those forgeries and counterfeits, those hysterical whippings-up of hatred for Infidels -- see what Saudi-supplied "literature" has been found in American mosques. By now the security services of the Western world are so used to all of that that they practically yawn at what they find, and often the rest of us find things out piecemeal, from a story here and a story there. But no one connects the dots.
Meanwhile in churches, last I looked, I could find hymnals, the Book of Common Prayer, candles lit in memory of the recently departed, information on volunteering for the food bank and soup kitchen, and disaster relief at home and all over the world, including such relief, notably, in Muslim countries.
Compare. Contrast.
Think.
And think what the ever-increasing presence of those mosques -- so many of them now built, and maintained, by money from abroad -- mean to the indigenous Infidels (and to non-Muslim immigrants, some of them refugees from Muslim supremacism and persecution), to the fabric and the quality of their lives.
For it is clear that the governments of the Western world must now, in order to protect their citizens, monitor those mosques. That means those governments will have to hire agents who 1) know Arabic and other relevant languages, Urdu, Turkish, Farsi, and who are 2) either non-Muslim, but can pass as Muslims (Copts, who are forced to receive some training in Islam, might be helpful; so too would Maronites, Arabic-speaking Jews, Chaldeans, Pakistani Christians, and Berbers who have turned) or, in a very few cases, those who may still call themselves Muslims, but becaues their beliefs have been so etiolated, are more accurately described as "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims. One would be foolish to rely on Muslim agents of the true-blue believing kind, to monitor the khutbas and other goings-on in mosques.
Monitoring the mosques all over the non-Muslim world, of course, is a tall order. And a very expensive one, added to all the other huge expenses incurred in the campaign to make Infidel lands safe from the very people who are, paradoxically, still allowed in, in even greater numbers, as "Muslim refugees" from Muslim lands (this makes no sense) when it should have been clear to eveyone by now what has come of this, and to some it was clear long ago what would come of this immigration of Muslims to the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels. Or rather, it would long ago have been clear, that is, to all who had bothered to study the texts, and the doctrines, of Islam, and the history of Islamic rule over non-Muslims.
These costs that spiral ever upward also include the added expenses incurred by the local police to monitor individuals, but also the costs for the lawyers and judges who must give their time to approving, or explaining, taps and search warrants and suchlike. They include the extra costs of guarding power plants and LNG terminals, and ports, and airports, and bus terminals. They include the costs of marshals on planes, of extra security around government office buildings, and national monuments (e..g., the Statue of Liberty). They include the costs of guarding Christian and Jewish day care centers and schools, churches and synagogues and Hindu temples, even some cemeteries, because of increased threats. areas on and on. Economists need to figure out just what the cost of this internal security against Muslim terrorist threats actually is. It would be instructive for taxpayers to know this: the real cost, in terms of all this monitoring and societal anxiety, and the constant need to worry about the latest demands -- for a prayer room in schools, or a lawsuit demanding that a Muslim woman be shown with her face completely covered for her driver's license, or all the other demands, big and small, ludicrous and plausible, that are made by Muslims who do not believe in pluralism. (That is, they do not believe in it except insofar as in the West they must use it to their own advantage, and only until they attain sufficient numbers.)
It would be instructive for taxpayers to know the full cost of protecting ourselves against (and accommodating with the other hand) those who do not believe that power should flow from the expressed will of the people, but from the codified will of Allah in the shari'a. It would be enlightening to know how much they cost, those who do not believe in the equality of the sexes, nor in individualism, nor in free and skeptical inquiry. Indeed, it is hard to see how, and in what way, Muslims who are true believers can possibly share many of the beliefs that are essential to, and defining of, our civilization. Why then do we so blithely allow ourselves to welcome into our midst, without the slightest qualms, those who do not wish us, our ideals, our society, our legal and political institutions whose principles are flatly contradicted by the Sharia', ,our solicitude for individual rights, our very beings, well? When those who have a duty to ensure that all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, appear in Infidel lands, how can this be anything but permanent trouble for those determined to retain their legal and political instiutions and social understandings -- that is, the very things that constitute those "obstacles" to the spread, and dominance, of Islam?
We have enough to worry about, at this moment in the heedless history of our giddy globe, and enough serious threats to our well-being. Why should we do things that necessarily will cause us to expend even more of our time and energy and money and attention on a threat that can be diminished, if -- at the very least -- we merely, and sensibly, and justifiably, do not permit the Muslim presence in the Lands of the Infidels to increase, do not permit its institutions dedicated to the spread of Islam in Infidel lands to be funded by malevolent states such as Saudi Arabia? On what theory are we required to endure any of this? When in human history have people done this to themselves? What sort of nonsense is this?
Posted by Hugh at August 20, 2008 7:03 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
“Stupid is as Stupid does”, as was immortalized in Forest Gump, pretty much sums it up. Or: like lemmings leaping off a cliff of indiscriminate discrimination to cultural oblivion!
Posted by: descendantofacrusader![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 20, 2008 7:58 AM
It is really amazing to take note of the actions of people when definitive news, such as this Mosque torture chamber, disagrees with the preconceived notions of a large body of people. The first thing we see is silence (from the MSM). The security individuals confronted directly with this scenario must be shaking their heads and wondering if anyone is out there listening. It makes me want to tell them loudly, yes, some of us hear you thanks to a few good people (like Jihad Watch, Hugh, and Robert) who are willing to tell the truth regardless of preconceived notions.
Between the preconceived notions of people and their living inside their individual cocoons; and with no help from the people they trust to bring them the news (MSM), I really wonder what it is going to take to get through.
at August 20, 2008 8:05 AM
'If you build it they will come'.
Mosques are satellites of Mekka. They are what allow Islam to grow and spread. Thats why the Saudi's and others spend so much money on them.
In America the mosques and the property they sit on is tax exempt. A slap in the face of the American dhimmi's while collecting jizya. Thats just to remind us to act subdued like good dhimmi's.
Solution...
A bulldozer for the day is cheaper than months of investigation and litigation...
at August 20, 2008 9:27 AM
Every Muslim approached for such work will gladly describe himself as "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only". It gets HIM on the inside - of our intelligence networks.
There's an old saying: if you want something done right, do it yourself.
The onus is on US, to learn Arabic and to become Muslim-in-name-only. Good, old-fashioned undercover work is called for. It may take years but it's the card we've drawn. Relying on proxies is dubious. You'll never be sure if you're dealing with friend or foe.
A good place to start is right here in the USA. Given Islam's desire for converts, it can't be that difficult for someone who doesn't know a lick of Arabic to join a mosque and take Koranic instruction. They'll teach him, won't they? He'd then be able to take courses in Arabic on the side without arousing any suspicion.
There's no reason Europeans can't follow a similar tack, if they have the desire to eliminate the threat. The question is: do they?
Those audiocassettes have been around since before the Iranian Revolution. Weren't they used by an exiled Khomeini to gain followers within Iran? We just shrugged.
at August 20, 2008 9:39 AM
Remind me, again, why is this a surprise to readers of this blog. It isn't to me.
Posted by: n.a. palm at August 20, 2008 9:58 AM
When I see a mosque, I find myself wondering: what evil plots are being hatched there? I see them as virus centers spreading the evil of Islam the desease.
In spite of the growing and increasingly overwhelming body of evidence documenting Islam's hostility to non-Muslims and the important roles mosques play tp spreading that hostility, the western world continues to allow the construction of these centers of jihad. It's time we make it as difficult to build a mosque in western lands as it is to build a church in Muslim lands.
Another excellent article by Hugh. It should be on the front page of major newspapers. Alas for us that it isn't anywhere to be found in the MSM.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at August 20, 2008 10:18 AM
Hugh, no surprises here. Ive been saying for a long time that our mosques here in the UK should all be registered and monitored too. I fervently believe that one day these people will emerge en-masse to attack us all in the West with whatever weapons they have stored away in their respective mosque. Mosques are not only used for religious indoctrination but are also used as political platorms, certainly after Friday prayers. Whilst living in Saudi Arabia we would hear an hour or so of weeping and wailing and serious religious fervour over the loud speakers from the mosques, after which time the tannoy would be switched off whilst the indoctrination continued. After Friday prayers I have seen muslims emerge here in the UK from small private houses, so-called 'Indian' restaurants, which incidentally they are not as most are run by pakistanis or bangladeshis, etc. etc., and I feel sure our stupid government is totally unaware of what is really going on.
Posted by: bee at August 20, 2008 10:20 AM
"When in human history have people done this to themselves?"
Unfortunately, Hugh, history is replete with instances where "infidels" have collaborated with invading Muslims. Muslim conquerors were able to avail themselves of a remarkable and extensive pattern of treachery, opportunism and collaboration from elements among their opponents. The forces of the dar-al-harb were always plagued at the most inopportune times by rebellion, civil war, religious conflict, schism and heresy. Renegades ready to join the Arabs or to “turn Turk” abounded just before or immediately after the warriors of Islam invaded. Often, non-Muslim technicians, mercenaries and scholars seemed to queue up in seeking patronage from Muslim caliphs and sultans. Ambitious non-Muslim rulers and politicians sought alliances against their co-religionists with the Muslims. Many of these were eager to make use of the fierce military energy of Islam and turn it to their own purposes. Suffice it to say that those who played with fire usually themselves ended up burned. The following is an incomplete list:
Mansur ibn–Sarjun (Gr. Sergius), who figured in the treacherous surrender of Damascus
The local Jews and Christians of Emesa who barred the gates of their city before the Byzantine army
Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria turned his city over to the Arabs
Units of the Sasanian army who joined the Arabs
The Berbers who betrayed their prophetess leader to the Arabs in 698
Julian, count of Ceuta who provided ships for the invasion of Spain
The shepherd who revealed a flaw in Cordova’s defenses to the Arabs
Bishop Oppas whose treachery betrayed the Visigothic army
The Christian potentates in southern France who sided with the Muslim invaders against their overlord Pippin
Euphemius, the Byzantine admiral who betrayed Sicily to the Aghlabids
The duke of Naples who appealed for Aghlabi support against a local potentate besieging his city
The cities of Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta who assisted the Muslims against their fellow Christians
The treasonous officers who betrayed Romanus at the battle of Manzikert
The Smyrniote who built a navy for the Turks
Pseudoalexius who employed 8,000 Turkmen
followers of Emir Arslan in 1192
Michael, a rebellious official, obtained troops from Sultan Rukb-al-Din
Manuel Maurozomes obtained Turkish troops to ravage the valley towns of Bithynia
Theodore Mangaphas commanded the Turkish troops who sacked Caria and enslaved its population
Kir Farid and Cassianus delivered the towns over which they were governors to Turkish commanders
Philaretus, members of the Gabras and Comnenus families, Armenian governors of Seveverek and a number of Georgian chieftains betrayed their people to the Turks
Evrenos the governor of Bursa who with other leading Greeks, surrendered the city and embraced the Moslem faith
A Greek Emir by the name of Maurozones served in an expedition against Cilician Armenia
Five brothers, the Awlad I Ferdahli from the empire of Nicaea fought for the Turks
Michael Palaeologus served as kondistabl in charge of the sultan’s Christian troops
The Frankish mercenary Istankus defended Erzerum for the sultan
Many of the Akritai, the Greek frontier warriors joined the Turks
The act of betrayal by the Fourth Crusaders against Constantinople (sounds like America in Serbia)
The Venetians who became the largest slave traders in Central Europe, selling even Christian slaves to the Muslims
John Cantacuzene who invited the Ottomans into Europe
Empress Anna, Cantacuzene’s opponent, also sought Ottoman aid
Orban the Hungarian cannon founder built the enormous cannon with which Mehmed the conqueror battered the walls of Constantinople
Francis I who invited the help of an Ottoman fleet and after they began raiding and enslaving his own people had to pay them an enormous bribe to induce them to leave
The European technicians who in the 18th century restructured the Ottoman armies
Treachery was rife in India as well as the West:
Buddhist fifth columnists of the city of Nerun betrayed their city to ibn Qasim
The Brahmin of Debal who revealed to Qasim the way to take his city
The Tomar traitor who betrayed Rana Sangha to the Moguls at the battle of Kanga
And so on and so forth.
at August 20, 2008 10:26 AM
"tannoy"
-- from a posting above
Glad you made me look that formerly unfamiliar word up.
Posted by: Hugh at August 20, 2008 10:32 AM
Hey, I'm sure Christian churches have similar things in their basements. After all, there's not much difference between Islam and Christianity, right?
Posted by: Mo at August 20, 2008 10:43 AM
Orban the Hungarian cannon founder built the enormous cannon with which Mehmed the conqueror battered the walls of Constantinople
Did Orban build it for the Muslims and give it to them, or did he just build it and they somehow got their hands on it later?
at August 20, 2008 11:47 AM
Orban's cannon for Mehmet Fatih is not the only example. All kinds of Infidels, or recent converts, put their skills at the disposal of the Ottomans, as they did before with the Arabs in what is called High Islamic Civilization, but which in reality had many achievements attributed either to Arabs or to Muslims (especially in the translation of Greek texts) that were the work of Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians, or in the case of algebra and the concept of zero, from Sanskrit mathematicians, and in the case of gunpowder and paper (see Dard Hunter) inventions of the Chinese.
The first printing press with Arabic type constructed by a Muslim was built in 1727, and the man who did it was, like Orban, born a Hungarian Christian. He was Ibrahim Muteferrika ("head of household"), and he finally obtained permission to do so from the Sultan or possibly the Grand Vizier. Before that, of course, Christians and Jews had built printing presses in the Ottoman lands, as early as 1493. And even in Venice, which became a center of Jewish printing (think of the Soncino press), while there were certainly Turkish merchants to be found, there was no printing of Arabic texts, as far as I know, save for the "Paganini" Qur'an (a copy of which was on display in the Metropolitan show, "Venice and the Ottoman Empire" a few years ago). The printing press was innovation, bida, not to be trusted.
The Muslim attitude toward that kind of technological innovation has changed. They willingly exploit Western (and Eastern Asian) technological advances, in order to promote the cause of Islam and the cause of Jihad: audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, the Internet. Too bad.
Ibrahim Muteferrika's untended grave, with paths overgrown and tilting tombstones, can be seen -- in a far corner of the mevlevi (dervish) cemetery in Istanbul. The untendedness was part of its charm, the failure to keep it up fitting, and when I went to visit that grave, not too many years ago, I found it all the more moving as a result.
Posted by: Hugh at August 20, 2008 12:46 PM
RBLA/Hugh
Interesting..thank you.
at August 20, 2008 4:58 PM
Hugh, I would not put the various significant intellectual figures who found themselves under Muslim rule in the same category as the active betrayers of their own civilizations – a category that will one day be seen to include many of our own academics, officials and journalists. The dominant presence of non Muslims, converts or offspring of converts in the ranks of the intellectual elite in the first centuries of Muslim rule is astounding. Using the description of significant figures in Hitti’s massive History of the Arabs, I once tabulated the numbers of such figures in the Arab East from the 7th through the 16th centuries. Out of 171 significant figures, 131 lived before the year 1050 when there were still large numbers of dhimmis and pre-Islamic memories were still strong. Over the eight centuries 51% of the figures were non Muslim or of identifiably recent non Muslim background; 54% of scientists, philosophers and mathematicians were non Muslims or of non Muslim backgrounds. In the first four centuries of Muslim rule, out of 60 scientists 34 were non-Muslim and 3 were of recent non-Muslim background. It is probable that many figures listed as Muslim were also of recent non-Muslim family backgrounds but there was insufficient information to make that definite.
Re algebra and the zero, the Arabs must be credited not with inventing algebra, but with making it more accessible for the solution of simple problems. As for the ultimate origin of modern algebra there are three schools of thought: one emphasizes Hindu influences, another stresses the Mesopotamian, or Syriac-Persian, tradition, and the third points to Greek inspiration. The truth is probably approached if we combine these three theories. I quote historians of mathematics Carl Boyer and Uta Merzbach. “It is probable that al-Khwarizmi typified the Arabic eclecticism that will so frequently be observed in other cases. His system of numeration most likely came from India, his systematic algebraic solution of equations may have been a development from Mesopotamia, and the logical geometric framework for his solutions palpably was derived from Greece.”
at August 20, 2008 5:34 PM
Years ago I thought "speaking in tongues" was an unusual behavior for inside a place of worship. But that pales in comparison to "cutting off tongues" as is documented in modern-day Islamic torture practices. (I'll omit the video link)
Posted by: Xero G at August 20, 2008 6:37 PM
xxx
Posted by: HotSpur at August 21, 2008 12:48 AM
All Mosques behave badly - they are the source of violence, hate, killing and world domination. And we give Mosques the license to kill. We cannot blame the Muslims. If we license them to kill us we should not complain when we see them doing what we licesned them to do in the first place.
I have never heared of a good thing coming from a Mosque and I would never expect to - nothing but bad stuff.
Posted by: American at August 21, 2008 10:40 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)