"The West was largely unaware of the situation, and it was only by coincidence that Rahman's case captured international attention."
-- from the article above

When will the leaders of the Western world stop being surprised, and surprised, and surprised again, by things done and said by Muslims, all over the Islamic world, and deep within the Lands of the Infidels? What will it take? Apparently attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center didn't do it. Seizure of a theatre in Moscow with 900 in the audience didn't do it. Attacks on a school in Beslan didn't do it. Bombs in the London metro and the Madrid Atocha station didn't do it. Riots in France denouncing the French state, and the rapes of assorted "brigittes" in France, and girls in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and thefts -- described by more than one imam (see Bruce Bawer, "While Europe Slept") as not theft but rightful helping oneself to the Jizyah due from the Infidels -- continue all over Europe, and that didn't do it. Plots uncovered, at the mosque at Viale Jenner, in London and north of London, in Lackawanna and Portland, Oregon and in Texas and in Virginia, that didn't do it. The spectacle of imams saying one thing to Infidels and quite another thing to Muslim audiences, didn't do it. The attacks on non-Muslims within Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Iran -- that doesn't do it.

So what will it take -- to do it?

Posted by: Hugh at April 3, 2006 6:16 PM

Christians in muslim countries are the most marginalised people in the world. For the last 50 years in the post-war world, when there has been ready availability of information, there persecution has been studiously ignored as if it were never happening. Even the genocide in Sudan was ignored for 10 years at the least, before it made a few lines in the MSM and the likes of the BBC.

I could never understand why this was so. What sort attitude in the West allowed muslims to pour in as asylum seekers claiming "persecution in muslims countries", while at the same time Christians from muslim countries were refused asylum. Even Abdul Rahman was turned back from Germany.

All I could think was that oil played a major role in the prejudice against Christians from muslim nations. In the wake of the Abdul Rahman case, I feel that another cause for this myopic behaviour by the authorities. Allowing these Christians to get asylum in the West would have been a tacit admission, that Islam was not the RoP that our governments would have us believe. That muslim nations routinely violate freedom of conscience and the rights of minorities, and that such acts are enshrined in the vile doctrine of the koran and shariah.

I hope though, that oneday, we will reverse this prejudice, and restrict muslim immigration and allow in Christians. It would be better for us all round.

Posted by: DP111 at April 3, 2006 6:31 PM

"The West was largely unaware of the situation, and it was only by coincidence that Rahman's case captured international attention."
-- from the article above

Precisely what I allured to in my previous post. Here again is an attempt to find an excuse for ignoring the plight of Christians - "We didnt know". Well even I, just an individual, with none of the resources of AP, BBC, etc, knew about of the plight of Christians in muslim nations. Now the MSM will desperately try to persuade the nation that they didnt know. THEY KNEW. It just didnt fit in with their worldview that Christianity was bad and other religions, particulary islam, was good.

After the barbaric and ritualised sacrificial slaughter of Daniel Pearl to the chants of allahu akhbar, some (and only some)in the MSM have begun to wake up. But there can be no excuse for this complete lack of objectivity or compassion for the persecuted, sacrificed on the altar of their prejudice. Millions of Christian lives in Sudan would have been saved if the MSM had for once questioned their prejudice, and asked some questions about islam. Why on earth didnt they just pick up a koran and read it?

Posted by: DP111 at April 3, 2006 6:45 PM

So what will it take -- to do it? Posted by: Hugh

Probably a mushroom cloud on some major city in Europe (Paris, Madrid, Cologne, Vienna,...), that takes out with it major pro-Islamic European leaders. Note that a mushroom cloud over a major American or Asian (including Israeli) city won't do it.

That too isn't a guarantee.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 3, 2006 6:50 PM

So what will it take -- to do it? Posted by: Hugh

Probably a mushroom cloud on some major city in Europe (Paris, Madrid, Cologne, Vienna,...), that takes out with it major pro-Islamic European leaders. Note that a mushroom cloud over a major American or Asian (including Israeli) city won't do it.

That too isn't a guarantee.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 3, 2006 6:50 PM

Apologies for the double post - somehow, hitting the post button didn't show the post coming though.

Hope your server troubles are fixed.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 3, 2006 6:52 PM

So what will it take -- to do it?

A major catastrophe will not do it. Sad though it is to say so, but only a personal loss will make the MSM and politicians realise the truth.

I have noted, that those who have once been fervently opposed to the death penalty, suddenly become advocates of the same if they have suffered a personal loss.

Recently a female Anglican vicar, generally the most PC in the clergy, announced her resignation as she could not reconcile the bitterness of the death of her daughter in the London bombings with her calling as a vicar.

Posted by: DP111 at April 3, 2006 7:28 PM

From the article
*Due to the danger of persecution, the convert's name has been changed and his picture is not shown.

And what it should read

*Due to the danger of being torn limb from limb, the convert's name has been changed and his picture is not shown.

Posted by: DP111 at April 3, 2006 7:32 PM

DP111: "It just didnt fit in with their worldview that Christianity was bad and other religions, particulary islam, was good."

I am more tempted to think that it didn't fit in with their worldview that white-skinned people are bad and brown-skinned people are good.

There is no debating that Islam is largely practiced among brown-skinned people. The issue of Christianity, though is obviously more complex because it also originated in the ME (skin color=brown) and is widely practiced among many non-white people, such as South Americans, Africans and Phillipinos. Nevertheless, Christianity is the dominant religion of white-skinned people throughout the world. And most of its brown-skinned adherents were introduced to Christianity through western colonialism. Thus I surmise, that a great many westerners view Christianity itself as inextricably woven into the issue of white western colonization and that THIS is the reason that so many white guilt-ridden, Marxist influenced westerners prejudice Islam in favor of Christianity - for primarily racial rather than ideological reasons.

Of course regular readers of this site are well aware that Islam as an imperialist ideology (brown-skinned people) has done very well for itself, thank you very much, and has succeeded in obliterating every vestige of the native cultures in which it has managed to infiltrate itself and is running full speed ahead on that score in both the far east and Africa as we speak, with Europe not far behind.

But until many westerners get over their reverse racism and the hubristic idea that only white people can be "imperialists" - until they can literally become "color-blind" and see IDEOLOGIES for what they are, irrespective of the races of those promoting them (as if all people DON'T in fact share the same basic human impulses, and that brown-skinned people couldn't possibly share the same impulses towards greed and imperialism that white people do), we will no doubt continue to see westerners denying asylum to Christians, even those with brown skin (because of the association of their religious beliefs with that of predominantly white westerners) while they privelege Muslims for reasons which essentially amount to racial ones in the end.

Posted by: Caroline at April 3, 2006 8:00 PM

Caroline posted:I am more tempted to think that it didn't fit in with their worldview that white-skinned people are bad and brown-skinned people are good.

Its the whole deal - White, Christian or Western culture -- BAD.

The rest just fine, until ofcourse some poor journalist or writer gets personally scorched.

Of course regular readers of this site are well aware that Islam as an imperialist ideology (brown-skinned people)

I would go along with Anwar Sheikh, that islam is an Arab imperialist ideology rather then a colour conscious one. The people of Darfur have suffered from this Arab imperialism for a long time. Churchill was writing about this a good hundred years ago - The River Wars.

Generally, I agree with your proposition,"until many westerners get over their reverse racism and the hubristic idea that only white people can be "imperialists" - until they can literally become "color-blind" and see IDEOLOGIES for what they are, irrespective of the races of those promoting them...we will no doubt continue to see westerners denying asylum to Christians, even those with brown skin (because of the association of their religious beliefs with that of predominantly white westerners)".

Posted by: DP111 at April 3, 2006 8:26 PM

DP111: "I would go along with Anwar Sheikh, that Islam is an Arab imperialist ideology rather then a colour conscious one. The people of Darfur have suffered from this Arab imperialism for a long time."

I am not familiar with Anwar Sheikk, but would agree that in its origins Arab imperialism didn't start out as as an imperialist ideology that was "color-conscious", although there does appear to have been a rather major "setting in stone" of what one might call an "Us vs them" mentality or "tribal dynamics" from Islam's very origins. And those origins were in the Arabian desert. That aside, though, there is certainly no reason to suppose that Arabs are immune to racism anymore than anyone else. And certainly Arabs are more light-skinned than black Africans. So I find it hard to imagine that racism doesn't play some role in the treatment of black Africans at the hands of the Arabs. But I also recall that Muhammad himself made some disparaging references towards blacks which might reinforce such supremacism, while I don't recall any comparable case of Jesus making disparaging comments about anyone based on their skin color. Come to think of it, I don't recall anything that Jesus said that might in any way suggest that Christianity priveleged anyone whatsoever from any racial or ethnic perspective.(I could be wrong about that and would welcome any correction on that score). But I'm not sure the same thing could be said about Islam, especially given its obvious tribal and conspicuously Arab origins.

In any case, you said: "Its the whole deal - White, Christian or Western culture -- BAD."

I agree. It is indeed the whole package. Which is why Christians from the ME seeking asylum and genuinely NEEDING it are denied it while the west continues to admit tens of thousands of Muslims (brown, non-Christian, non-western) who vocally state their intention to convert, subjugate or kill us.

Clearly at this point, to fight this, it is perhaps more important to get a grasp on the psyches of our own people who are willing to sell us all out to this invasion than it is to grasp our enemies intentions. Because our enemies intentions are really pretty simple and straightforward. While in contrast, the psyches of our own citizens and friends and neighbors appear to be hopelessly twisted - with guilt and hubris and arrogance and well - with reverse racism really. But reverse racism is still racism. When the all too human tendency to be racist and prejudiced and hateful reverses in upon itself (and it would be very interesting to explore the reasons for this widespread western phenomenon) one gets "reverse racism" and self-hatred. But self-hatred is still hatred. And I see nothing noble about hatred just because it happens to be turned inward, against the self.

Posted by: Caroline at April 3, 2006 9:48 PM

This morning, on KSFO, Ibn Warraq was the guest to talk about this topic. While I caught only 15 of the 20 minutes that he was on, I found his presentation embarrassing. I don't know whether his stammering, and taking long to answer was due to his attempts at disguising his voice, but even allowing for that, I found him to be a very weak advocate for the war against Islam.

Lee Rodgers, who was the host, asked him some brilliant questions, such as whether Arab Muslims mistreat non-Arab Muslims (a recurring theme here from Hugh). Warraq responded in the negative, and stated that it seemed true only about Saudi Arabia - no mention of Darfur or Kurdistan. The unforgiveable part about this answer was that it left the impression that this was a Wahabi trait, rather than an essential element of Islam itself. Another great question from Lee was whether Muslim apostates face death threats from their families were it to be known that they've quit Islam, which too Warraq denied (the evidence from Abdul Rahman notwithstanding.) When Lee pointed out a recent poll in Kuwait that pointed to the virulent anti-American sentiments there, and expressed his outrage about the lack of gratitude, Warraq simply expressed surprise at the result, and failed to point out that to Kuwaitis, the fact that the US was perceived to be anti-Islamic trumped all that we had done for Kuwait.

In short, this was an abysmally mediocre interview by Warraq with an extremely favorable interviewer. What was worse was that Warraq sounded like someone unsure about his material. I don't know how Ali Sina would have sounded (presentation wise), but he at least wouldn't have come off as an apologist, the way Warraq did. Anyone else here heard that interview and came out with positive impressions of Warraq?

Conclusion - Warraq is not the right guy to be batting for us on radio. However, this was an interview that would have suited Robert well. I do wish that someday Hugh surfaces on this program. Lee and Hugh, that's a conversation I'd like to hear.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 3, 2006 10:18 PM

1300 years ago when the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula abandoned reason and the fight against tyranny, they joined the madman Mohamed and began their decent into barbarity, stagnation and irrelevance.

Compare this to the history of the western Christian people. They, all through their history, have been assaulted by every conceivable form of tyranny and oppression and every time they have risen to the challenge, resisted and in the end vanquished the tyranny and the evil it brings.
Don’t be fooled by the Islamists use of the number game to justify their beliefs, 1.2 or 1.5 billion depending on the amount of exaggeration. Even if it were 10 billion – it is 10 billion who have abandoned reason and worship a false prophet and because of this it is a house of cards just waiting to fall with a quick exhale of the breath of truth.
The western Christian people only have to understand this and Islam will fall.
Our history shows how we face tyranny and Islam is just another form of tyranny . As for the the Islamists – they deserve nothing. They abandoned reason 1300 years ago and will eventually have to look themselves in the mirror and realise just what they have done.

Posted by: johnmac at April 3, 2006 10:35 PM

Probably a mushroom cloud on some major city in Europe (Paris, Madrid, Cologne, Vienna,...), that takes out with it major pro-Islamic European leaders. Note that a mushroom cloud over a major American or Asian (including Israeli) city won't do it.

That too isn't a guarantee.
Posted by: Infidel Pride [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 3, 2006 06:50 PM

Probably a mushroom cloud on some major city in Europe (Paris, Madrid, Cologne, Vienna,...), that takes out with it major pro-Islamic European leaders. Note that a mushroom cloud over a major American or Asian (including Israeli) city won't do it.

That too isn't a guarantee.
Posted by: Infidel Pride [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 3, 2006 06:50 PM

Apologies for the double post - somehow, hitting the post button didn't show the post coming though.

Posted by: Infidel Pride [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 3, 2006 06:52 PM.

Actually, Infidel Pride's double post was regrettably felicitous: it probably will take at least two mushroom clouds to wake up the West.

Posted by: Television at April 4, 2006 12:09 AM

Not as dhimmified as they seemed:

1. Jill Carroll:

Carroll was abducted by armed militants in Baghdad on January 7 and has described her captivity as a horrific ordeal in a cave-like room sealed off from the world for months.

Ex-hostage Carroll's editor praises US role

2. Prince Charles:

"I think of Christians living within some Muslim nations, who find themselves fettered by harsh and degrading restrictions, or subject to abuse by some of their fellow citizens. And I think of dreadful acts of terrorism and violence across the world carried out in the distorted name of faith."

Mark's Steyn's Mailbox

Mark comments that that passage:

"went unreported in all London newspapers".

And sums up thus:

I think the words did have a kind of courage, but chiefly by comparison with the silence of other western leaders, temporal and spiritual, on this issue. However, if you read the entire speech, His Highness presented this passage within the context of misunderstandings on both sides.

So two steps forward and one back ... and the mainstream media even tried to take the sting out of what was there.

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 4, 2006 3:49 AM

This was a really terrific article posted at LGF today - "Islam's Imperial Dreams", from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008181

I appreciated the clear wake-up call being sent to westerners in this passage towards the end of an excellent summary of the history of Islamic imperialism:

"Whether in its militant or its more benign version, this world-conquering agenda continues to meet with condescension and denial on the part of many educated Westerners. To intellectuals, foreign-policy experts, and politicians alike, "empire" and "imperialism" are categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States. In this view of things, Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, are merely objects--the long-suffering victims of the aggressive encroachments of others. Lacking an internal, autonomous dynamic of its own, their history is rather a function of their unhappy interaction with the West, whose obligation it is to make amends. This perspective dominated the widespread explanation of the 9/11 attacks as only a response to America's (allegedly) arrogant and self-serving foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As we have seen, however, Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining, in Zawahiri's words, the "lost glory" of the caliphate. Nor is the vision confined to a tiny extremist fringe."

What do we have to do make liberal westerners understand that their refusal to see Islamic imperialism for what it is (instead always turning the poor Muslims into "victims" of western imperialism) is, as the author writes CONDESCENDING, not to mention arrogant, self-important, and, as I was clumsily trying to convey in my comments yesterday - essentially RACIST!

Posted by: Caroline at April 4, 2006 8:03 PM