Monday, September 20, 2010
A report from the Center for Security Policy | Sep 13, 2010
This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as "shariah." It is designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate "second opinion" on the official characterizations and assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government.
The authors, under the sponsorship of the Center for Security Policy, have modeled this work on an earlier "exercise in competitive analysis" which came to be known as the "Team B" Report. That 1976 document challenged the then-prevailing official U.S. government intelligence estimates of the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union and the policy known as "détente" that such estimates ostensibly justified.
As with the original Team B analysis, however, this study challenges the assumptions underpinning the official line in the conflict with today's totalitarian threat, which is currently euphemistically described as "violent extremism," and the policies of co-existence, accommodation and submission that are rooted in those assumptions.
Read the report...
Monday, September 13, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
By Alan Caruba | September 10, 2010
Whenever I drove into New York via the Lincoln Tunnel, I would join the other cars on the long, graceful curve leading to its entrance and, looking to my left, I could see across the Hudson River. At the tip of Manhattan, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center stood as symbols of our economic power.
On occasion, I had dined in Windows on the World, a restaurant located on the 106th and 107th floors of the North Tower and marveled at the panorama of New Jersey on one side, the outer boroughs on the other, and the dazzling view of Manhattan.
Whenever I think about September 11, 2001, I have only one emotion and that is a deep, unrelenting anger that a group of murderous, suicidal Islamists destroyed “my towers.”
They killed some 3,000 people when you factor in the attack on the Pentagon along with the passengers of the four commercial airliners used to perpetrate the destruction.
It is a wonder to me that Americans then and since exercised such restraint, such tolerance that the nation’s small population of Muslims not only did not suffer attacks, but today continue to build mosques for worship.
The effort to build one so close to Ground Zero demonstrates how obtuse and out of touch the political leadership is with mainstream Americans. The odious behavior of New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg is beyond comprehension. The President tipped his hand at a White House dinner held to celebrate Ramadan, backing away slightly the following day enough to deflect criticism.
Those proposing the Ground Zero mosque demonstrate the arrogance and contempt for Americans and for all “unbelievers” that lies at the core of Islam, but American leaders of varying religions have fallen over one another to excuse this exercise in triumphalism.
The Crusades from 1095 to 1291 were an effort to recapture the Judeo-Christian holy land from Muslim conquest. Having invaded Spain in 711, Muslims would rule for seven centuries until driven out of their last stronghold, Grenada, in 1492. In 1683, Muslims were decisively defeated near Vienna. How different Europe would have otherwise been.
Islam is a religion of the sword despite its widespread acceptance. Its barbarity is on display on a daily basis whether killing Christian missionaries in Afghanistan or Israeli civilians, a pregnant mother, her husband and their two children a week ago.
A sane society would have cleared away the rubble of 9/11 and rebuilt the Twin Towers, but Ground Zero, in terms of new structures nine years after the attack, remains barely begun
Al Qaeda and all those who subscribe to its intent to destroy the West, the civilization developed in the West, and the freedoms championed by the West, remain to be defeated, while they continue to threaten India and even Europe once again.
The further we get from 9/11, the dimmer the embers of anger become for those with short memories or no grasp of history.
The irony is that 9/11 reflects the long memories of many Islamists whose religion demands that all lands formerly conquered in the name of Islam be regained and that all people who follow a faith other than Islam be reduced to dhimmi, second-class citizens ruled by Muslims.
The World Trade Center belonged to the world. They were my towers and your towers. They represented a world bound together in trade, a world that set a value on all manner of goods and commodities, a world in which jobs and wealth were being created.
The World Trade Center represented a rational world.
Today, nine years later, the dispatches from the Middle East, from Afghanistan, the Palestinian enclaves, from Pakistan, from Yemen, and from an Iran bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, are filled with news of an irrational, dysfunctional society; an Islamist rat’s nest, still seeking to destroy Israel, and still testing our borders and defenses in order to destroy America.
It is a good day to get angry once more, to resolve that we and the West shall not be defeated.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Remarks of Brigitte Gabriel, delivered at the Duke University Counter Terrorism Speak-Out
I'm proud and honoured to stand here today, as a Lebanese speaking for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. As someone who was raised in an Arabic country, I want to give you a glimpse into the heart of the Arabic world.
I was raised in Lebanon, where I was taught that the Jews were evil, Israel was the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.
When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975, they started massacring the Christians, city after city. I ended up living in a bomb shelter underground from age 10 to 17, without electricity, eating grass to live, and crawling under sniper bullets to a spring to get water.
It was Israel who came to help the Christians in Lebanon. My mother was wounded by a Moslem's shell, and was taken into an Israeli hospital for treatment. When we entered the emergency room, I was shocked at what I saw. There were hundreds of people wounded, Moslems, Palestinians, Christians, Lebanese, and Israeli soldiers lying on the floor. The doctors treated everyone according to their injury. They treated my mother before they treated the Israeli soldier lying next to her. They didn't see religion, they didn't see political affiliation, they saw people in need and they helped.
For the first time in my life I experienced a human quality that I know my culture would not have shown to their enemy. I experienced the values of the Israelis, who were able to love their enemy in their most trying moments. I spent
I became friends with the families of the Israeli wounded soldiers: one in particular Rina, her only child was wounded in his eyes.
One day I was visiting with her, and the Israeli army band came to play national songs to lift the spirits of the wounded soldiers. As they surrounded his bed playing a song about Jerusalem, Rina and I started crying. I felt out of place and started waking out of the room, and this mother holds my hand and pulls me back in without even looking at me. She holds me crying and says: "It is not your fault." We just stood there crying, holding each other's hands.
What a contrast between her, a mother looking at her deformed
The difference between the Arabic world and Israel is a difference in values and character. It's barbarism versus civilization. It's democracy versus dictatorship. It's goodness versus evil.
Once upon a time, there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian "armed struggle."
However, once such behaviour is legitimized against Israel, it is legitimized everywhere in the world, constrained by nothing more than the subjective belief of people who would wrap themselves in dynamite and nails for the purpose of killing children in the name of God.
Because the Palestinians have been encouraged to believe that murdering innocent Israeli civilians is a legitimate tactic for advancing their cause, the whole world now suffers from a plague of terrorism, from Nairobi to New York, from Moscow to Madrid, from Bali to Beslan.
They blame suicide bombing on "desperation of occupation." Let me tell you the truth. The first major terror bombing committed by Arabs against the Jewish state occurred ten weeks before Israel even became independent.
On Sunday morning, February 22, 1948, in anticipation of Israel's independence, a triple truck bomb was detonated by Arab terrorists on Ben Yehuda Street, in what was then the Jewish section of Jerusalem. Fifty-four people were killed, and hundreds were wounded. Thus, it is obvious that Arab terrorism is caused not by the "desperation" of "occupation" but by the VERY THOUGHT of a Jewish state.
So many times in history in the last 100 years, citizens have stood by and done nothing, allowing evil to prevail. As America stood up against and defeated communism, now it is time to stand up against the terror of religious bigotry and intolerance. It's time to all stand up and support and defend the state of Israel, which is the front line of the war against terrorism.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
This article from Satyameva Jayate
T he purpose of this article is to show how the barbaric nature of Islam manifests itself in the cruel treatment of women.1. Lets start with the "great" Mohammed himself, the founder of this "fabulous" faith. Mohammed was married to Khadija Bibi, his employer and 15 years his senior. At that time Mohammed was 25 years old. He was Khadija Bibi's third husband. Khadija Bibi was a widow when she married Mohammed. For the first time in his life, Mohammed enjoyed a luxurious life.
This shows the parasitic nature of Mohammed who married his employer so that he can live a rich life without putting in a single day's work.
2. Khadija Bibi died when Mohammed was 49 years old. Between the ages of 49 and 63 the "great prophet" married at least 11 times.
This shows how he treated the institution of marriage. For him, women were nothing but objects for sexual fulfillment. Marrying at least 11 women in 14 years throws light on his insatiable sexual appetite.
Read on about the "greatness" of this prophet.
3. Mohammed's favourite wife was Ayesha Bibi who was 6 years old when she was married to him.
Marrying a 6 year old baby clearly shows that Mohammed was not only a womanizer but also a child molester.
4. Mohammed's adopted son Zayed was married to Zainab, daughter of Jahsh. But one day the prophet "beheld in a loose undress, the beauty of Zainab, and burst forth into an ejaculation of devotion and desire. The servile, or greatful, freeman (Zayed) understood the hint and yielded without hesitation to the love of the benefactor."
Mohammed was not satisfied with his own overflowing harem and had to marry his son's wife. His son being a devoted follower of the "great" prophet was more than happy to divorce his wife. What a great father-in-law Mohammed was, a model for all Islamic father-in-laws!
Mohammed preached what he practised. This is supported by the following verses from Quran and Hadiths.Quotes from the "Holy" Quran on Women
II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So go to your tilth as ye will...
Here you can clearly see how highly Islam treats women. Women in Islam are referred to as fields that are to be cultivated by man. What an honour for a Muslim woman!
IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other.. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.
First point to notice here is that Quran clearly states that Men are superior to women. Secondly, Islam instructs that a man should control his women through brutal violence and fear.
IV/15: (For women) If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ...confine them until death claims them.
IV/16: (For Men) If two men among you commit indecency (sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.
As you can see, for women any sort of sexual exploration is punishable by death. Whereas for a man, any form of perversion is pardoned by the all merciful Allah.
XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves , let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies...
Here we see, that a husband can easily accuse his wife (or wives) and eventually sentence her to death by merely declaring four times that the accusation is true. On the other hand, women have no such right in Islam.
Quotes from Hadith TIRMZI AND OTHERS
- If a woman's conduct is mischievous or immodest, the husband has the right to beat her up but must not break her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house if her husband does not like him. She has the right to expect sustenance of her husband. (TR. P 439)
- It is forbidden for a woman to be seen by any man except her husband when she is made up or well-dressed. (TR. P 430)
- A woman is not a believer if she undertakes a journey which may last three days or longer, unless she is accompanied by her husband, son, father
- A woman must veil herself even in the presence of her husband's father, brother and other male relations. (TR. P 432)
- She is forbidden to spend any money without the permission of her husband, and it includes giving food to the needy or feast to friends. (TR. P 265)
- A wife is forbidden to perform extra prayers (NAFAL) or observe fasting (other than RAMADAN) without the permission of her husband. (TR. P 300)
- If prostration were a legitimate act other than to God, woman should have prostrated to her husband. (TR. P 428)
- If a man is in a mood to have sexual intercourse the woman must come immediately even if she is baking bread at a communal oven. (TR. P 428)
- The marriage of a woman to her man is not substantive. It is precarious. For example if the father of the husband orders his son to divorce his wife, he must do so. (TR. P 440)
- A woman who seeks KHULA i.e. divorce from her man, without a just cause, shall not enter paradise. (TR. P 440)
On the contrary, a husband can divorce his wife at will.
- Majority of women would go to hell. (Muslim P 1431)
- If a woman refuses to come to bed when invited by her husband, she becomes the target of the curses of angles. Exactly the same happens if she deserts her husband's bed. (Bokhari P 93)
- Women who are ungrateful to their men are the denizens of hell; it is an act of ingratitude for a woman to say: "I have never seen any good from you." (Bokhari P 96)
- A woman in many ways is deprived of the possession of her own body. Even her milk belongs to her husband. (Bokhari P 27) She is not allowed to practise birth control either.
Chapter 540.The prophet said that he saw a woman coming and going in the shape of a devil and she fascinated him. So he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning leather and had sexual intercourse with her. That drove out what he felt in his heart.
Chapter 558. The prophet said: "When a man calls his wife to bed and she does not come, the husband spends the night being angry with her, and the angels curse her until morning. The one who is in heaven is displeased with her until the husband is pleased with her.
Chpater 576. The prophet said :"Woman has been created from a rib, and will in no way be straightened for you."
Anwar Shaikh , the author of Islam: An Arab National Movement says:
"It shows the basic doctrine of Islam about womanhood, that is, she is basically crooked, and man has the right to keep her under his constant vigil; she must never be left alone."
In fact, another hadith expresses woman's position bluntly:
"I have not left any calamity more
hurtful to man than woman."
Chapter 619: Selling a cat, selling a dog (unless it is a working dog), and earning of prostitutes(unless they are non-muslims),... are all forbidden.
This verse encourages the Muslim invaders to convert women of other faith into prostitutes for their own enjoyment as prostitution by non-muslims is NOT forbidden. We can see plenty of examples of this throughout history, especially Indian history.
Chapter 1140: The prophet said : "The majority of those who entered the fire of Hell were women."
So Islam considers most of the women are evil in nature and they end up in hell.
Malik 362:1221 Ibn Fahd said "I have some slave girls who are better than my wives, but I do not desire that they should all become pregnant. Shall I do azl(withdrawal) with them?" Hajjaj said "They are your fields of cultivation. If you wish to irrigate them do so, if not keep them dry."
The next three verses are related to each other.
Malik 364:1234 If a woman suckles a baby, she becomes its foster mother and her husband a foster father. If a man has two wives, and one suckles a boy the other a girl, the boy can not marry the girl as the foster father of each is the same.
The next verse contradicts the previous one.
Malik 364:1239 The rule pertaining to foster relationship only applies to children under 2 years. Thus (Malik 365:1243) a grown up man fed with the milk of a woman does not entail fostership.
Read the next verse carefully.
Malik 365:1245 A man said, "My wife has willfully given my slavegirl with whom I used to cohabit her own milk to drink. What is my relationship to the slave girl ?" Omar said "Punish your wife and go into your slave girl".
What more can I say about these golden verses from the "Holy" Quran and the enlightening Hadiths-- guidelines for every true Muslim!
Gazzali, the renowned Islamic thinker summed up the 18 pains that had been visited on Muslim women as a punishment for Eve's transgression in paradise. The list eloquently shows the position of women in Islam and how the social customs were backed up by Islam. Here Islam goes to the extent of saying that even pregnancy and childbirth are punishments from God. Such is the nature of the all merciful Allah!!!The 18 punishments are:
- Separation from father and mother and marriage to a stranger
- Not having control over her own person
- A lesser share in inheritance.
- Her liability to be divorced and inability to divorce.
- It being lawful for man to have 4 wives but for a woman to have only 1 husband.
- The fact that she must stay secluded in the house
- The fact that she must keep her head covered inside the house.
- The fact that 2 women's testimonies have to be set against the testimony of one man.
- The fact that she must not go out of the house unless accompanied by a near relative.
- The fact that men take part in Friday and feast day funerals while women do not.
- Disqualification for rulership and judgeship.
- The fact that merit has 100 components, only one of which is attributable to women while 999 are attributed to men.
- The fact that if women are profligate they will be given only half as much torment as the rest of the community at the ressurection day.
- The fact that if their husbands die they must observe a waiting period of 4 months and 10 days before they remarry.
- The fact that if their husbands divorce them , they must observe a waiting period of 3 months or 3 menstrual periods before remarrying.
To enlighten the people who are ignorant about "Sati" Pratha in India, this custom was a result of Muslim oppression and brutality. The Hindu women of India, in order to save their honour, used to jump into the fire after their husbands were brutally murdered by Muslim invaders. The question that arises from this is why did they jump into the fire and kill themselves? Why didn't they just poison themselves? The reason for this is that the lecherous necrophiliac muslim invaders did not even leave the dead bodies alone. Yes, they had sex even with the dead bodies! How disappointing it must have been for them to find nothing, but ashes.
This is only a handful of facts that states the true nature of Islam.
Note: Works of A. Ghosh, Robert E. Burns, and Anwar Shaikh have been used to compose this article.
Checkout more articles here
August 22, 2010
The American Thinker
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
From the Canada free press
Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and prosperity to billions, while Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors, especially women, wholesaleBy Fred Dardick Saturday, August 14, 2010
It’s amazing that Obama lacked the foresight to see that supporting the construction of a $100 million mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero, something that 70% of Americans oppose, won’t end well. But I guess when your closest advisors are Valerie Jarrett the slumlord, Robert Gibbs the clown, Rham Emmanuel the communist, and Michelle Obama the millionaire’s wife, equating “religious freedom” with an Islamic cultural center whose purpose is to promote Sharia law is the kind of progressive garbage you get.
For you liberals who somehow got forwarded this column and still don’t know what Sharia law is, allow me to enlighten you. It is the literal interpretation of Islam that leads to the widespread abuse and enslavement of women. It’s also called the reality of “that woman in Iran who’s waiting to see if she’s going to get stoned to death for adultery” rules. Who knows if she really committed adultery? In Islamic societies all a man has to do to give his wife the proverbial dirt nap, is simply claim she did.
Under Sharia law, men are the judge, jury and executioners of women, and Obama apparently thinks Americans are too stupid to know this. While Obama may be able to lawyer his way around the Ground Zero mosque as a “religious tolerance” issue, the rest of us know a load of bs when we see one.
Americans don’t give a hoot what the college professors and attorneys think. Allowing the Islamist barbarians who keep their boots firmly planted on women’s throats and brought the 9/11 massacre to our shores, to build their Arch de’ Terrorism 2 blocks from Ground Zero can kiss our you know what.
Not only do Americans view the structure as anything but a bridge to understanding, Islamists around the world will also rightly perceive the mosque in a very different light than the simple “right to build a place of worship”. They will see it as spitting in the face of evil America and hold it up as a shining example in their enslaved societies to promote hatred of the West. It will become a “stupid Americans let us build a mosque on their graves, so let’s finish the job and kill them all” kind of thing.
Ever wonder how the Islamic Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem got built smack dab on top of the ancient Jewish temple mount? I can promise you, it was no attempt to “build bridges” either that put it there. It was more like “let’s take over the Jews most treasured religious site and plant a mosque on it to show them who’s boss”. That’s why Jews pray at the Western Wall, because if they tried to visit the top of the temple mount, the Arabs would riot.
Every time Obama speaks to Muslims, it’s always how wonderful and understanding Islam is compared to our knuckle dragging Judeo-Christian customs. Rather than apologizing endlessly for America, and in this case our opposition to the Ground Zero mosque, how about being honest for a change, champ?
Over the past 100 years, America has brought peace and prosperity to billions around the world, while at the same time Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors, especially women, wholesale. Talk about the war that never ends. Shia vs. Sunni violence has been going on for centuries and, by the looks of Iraq, will continue for centuries more.
The irony is if our President, who clearly feels his #1 job is reaching out to the Muslim world, had half a brain in his communist head, he would be out there speaking forcefully against Sharia law and educating his fellow Islamists to the dangers of a literal interpretation of the Koran.
Who knows, maybe then Obama could finally do some good for a change and save lives, rather than destroy them.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Article by Pamela Geller at Big Peace
Barack Obama this week extended his “best wishes to Muslims in America and around the world” and wished them a “Ramadan Kareem.” And he wrote, as he did in last year’s Ramadan message also, about “the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
Which principles do we hold in common? Death for apostates? The legitimacy of honor killing? I don’t begin to know what Obama is talking about here. Other religions are not tolerated in Muslim countries. Churches and synagogues do not exist in some Islamic countries, notably our “ally” Saudi Arabia, and where they do exist, they are constantly targeted and in myriad instances attacked. Churches in Nigeria and Indonesia have been attacked just recently.
Where is the dignity of women living under Sharia? Women’s rights under Islam are practically non-existent. Oppression, subjugation and gender apartheid define the treatment of women in Islam. Islamic anti-semitism defines the faith. Islamic aggression and intolerance of the Jews and the Jewish state have become the rallying cry of the ummah and the OIC-driven UN – abetted by Obama.
Obama also says that “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality.” Diversity? Where is the diversity? Non-Muslims are anging on in Muslim countries only as tiny, persecuted minorities. Maybe Obama doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, that the word abd in Arabic means both “black” and “slave,” and that throughout Islamic history Arabs have exalted themselves above non-Arab Muslims. Even today in Darfur, Arab Muslims are terrorizing and killing non-Arab Muslims.
“And here in the United States,” Obama went on, “Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country. Islam has always been part of America? Really? Since when? And as for the “extraordinary contributions to our country,” all I can think of is 9/11. To what else would Obama be referring?
While on its face, Obama’s goal of reconciliation with the Islamic world seems to explain his obsession with all things Muslim, it is hard to reconcile his obsession with dar al Islam and his rejection of Christianity in myriad ways. Take, for example, when Georgetown University covered over the monogram “IHS” – an abbreviation for the Greek form of the name of Jesus Christ — because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage when President Obama spoke at the university last year, and Obama told Georgetown to cover up all Christian signs and symbols there. Or Obama’s cancellation of the National Day of Prayer service at the White House. Or that Obama has still not joined a church, after being in office a year and a half.
The world’s preeminent historian of Islamic anti-Semitism, Bat Ye’or, saw this coming last year when she commented on Obama’s June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo:
Pres. Barack Obama was elected, by an overwhelming majority, on a program in which America’s rapprochement with Islam stands pre-eminent. This is a legitimate political aim in the quest for world peace. The questions are: how to achieve it, and why there is no reciprocal effort from the Muslim world represented by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This body could express its regrets for over a millennium of jihad wars, land expropriations, enslavements, and humiliations of the conquered non-Muslim populations on three continents.
That’s right: where is the mutual respect? Obama keeps reaching out to the Islamic world, and where are they reaching out to us? Where is the respect for the West and our unending patience and charity toward the Muslim world, and our increasing subjugation to Islamic law in the West? Defaming Islam is the great crime nowadays. Defaming Christianity and Judaism is the sport of the day, but dare to insult Islam and they’ll smear and maybe even prosecute you, the way the Dutch are prosecuting Geert Wilders. Free speech be damned in the age of jihad.
The OIC will never apologize, of course, because there is no self-criticism or self-examination in Islam, but the leader of the waning free world would never think to mention that kind of thing in his Ramadan greetings. It wouldn’t be in keeping with the spirit of the season.
See more here.
Some Sydney Islamic bookshops and online stores are selling guide books to marriage which encourage domestic violence.
A Current Affair reports one of the books, titled An Excellent Husband, contains a passage that advises it is okay for husbands to beat their wives.
"The Muslim husband wins the heart of his wife so she does not disobey him in anything.
"If they are guilty of open lewdness, then refuse to share their beds ... beat them, but not severely," the passage reads.
But Rebecca Kaye, an Australian who converted to Islam seven years ago, told the program the reference to beating in the book was a misinterpretation of a verse from the Koran.
"Islam does not promote the beating of women," she said.
"In Islamic ... and non-Islamic households, domestic violence is a crime."
"That's regardless of what appears in these books ... or those who use religion to excuse an attack on a woman."
Watch the video at NineMSN
TONY Abbott says he will take a stand against an extreme Muslim group he describes as "peddlers of hate" who have defamed Australian values.
In an exclusive interview with the Herald Sun, the Liberal leader revealed that if he won next Saturday's federal election he would move to prosecute the radical Hizb ut-Tahrir.
And an Abbott government would order intelligence and security agencies to keep closer tabs on the group and others like it, which he said "gives aid and comfort to terrorism".
He would also look to block visas to enter Australia for its members, leaders, sympathisers and supporters.
"We need to take a strong stand against the peddlers of hate," Mr Abbott said as he campaigned in Victoria.
"Organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir are stirring up hatred against people of the Jewish faith, and people of Jewish faith ought not feel threatened or persecuted in their own country, Australia.
read more here.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
THE Coalition will slash immigration by about 130,000 people - dramatically ending bipartisan population growth policy in Australia.
The cuts will focus on the family and student visa programs.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will announce the cut today ahead of Sunday's leaders' debate.
"A fair dinkum debate about population can't avoid immigration because that's what's driving the increase," Mr Abbott writes in today's Sunday Herald Sun.
read more here
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Maverick Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders says he is launching an international "freedom alliance" to spread his anti-Islam message across the West.
He told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday he will launch the international movement late this year, initially in five countries: the United States, Canada, Britain, France and Germany.
Geert Wilders told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday he will launch the movement late this year, initially in five countries: the U.S., Canada, Britain, France and Germany.
"The message, 'stop Islam, defend freedom,' is a message that's not only important for the Netherlands but for the whole free Western world," Wilders said at the Dutch parliament.
Among the group's aims will be outlawing immigration from Islamic countries to the West and a ban on Islamic Sharia law. Starting as a grass-roots movement, he hopes it eventually will produce its own lawmakers or influence other legislators.
Ayhan Tonca, a prominent spokesman for Dutch Muslims, said he feared Wilders message would fall on fertile ground in much of Europe, where anti-Islam sentiment has been swelling for years.
"So long as things are going badly with the economy, a lot of people always need a scapegoat," Tonca said. "At the moment, that is the Muslims in Western Europe."
Tonca called on "well meaning people in Europe to oppose this."
Known for his bleached-blond mop of hair, Wilders is a shrewd politician who has won awards in the Netherlands for his debating skills and regularly stands up for gay and women's rights.
But he rose to local and then international prominence with his firebrand anti-Islam rhetoric that has led to him being charged under Dutch anti-hate speech laws and banned from visiting Britain — until a court there ordered that he be allowed into the country.
He said he hopes to position the alliance between traditional conservative parties and far-right wing groups, saying that in Britain there is "an enormous gap" between the ruling Conservative Party and the far-right British National Party.
"The BNP is a party that, whatever you think of it, it's not my party — I think it's a racist party," Wilders said.
Wilders, who calls Islam a "fascist" religion, has seen his support in the Netherlands soar in recent years, even while he has been subjected to round-the-clock protection because of death threats.
His Freedom Party won the biggest gains in a national election last month, coming third with 24 seats in the 150-seat Parliament, up from the nine before the election. However, mainstream parties will not form a coalition with Wilders, leaving him on the margins of Dutch politics for the next parliamentary term.
Wilders is due to stand trial in October on hate speech charges stemming from his short Internet film "Fitna," which denounced the Quran as a a fascist book that inspires terrorism.
The film aroused anti-Dutch protests around the Muslim world, and he was banned for several months from entering Britain. But he is unrepentant and said he now wants to take his message outside the Netherlands.
"The fight for freedom and (against) Islamization as I see it is a worldwide phenomenon and problem to be solved," he said.
Wilders declined to name any of the other founders of the organization he is calling the Geert Wilders International Freedom Alliance.
He said he would hold speeches in the five countries where the alliance will first launch in coming months to drum up support.
Wilders has been criticized in the Netherlands for running his party as a one-man show that is shrouded in secrecy because he holds all the reins.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
THE Islamists have silenced Western intellectuals on their anti-Semitism.
IN our present Age of the Zipped Lip, you are supposed to avoid making any of the following inconvenient observations about the history and doctrines of the Islamist movement:
You are not supposed to observe that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient, political tendency, which arose in a spirit of harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930s and 40s. You are not supposed to point out that Nazi inspirations have taken root among present-day Islamists, notably in regard to the demonic nature of Jewish conspiracies and the virtues of genocide.
And you are not supposed to mention that, by inducing a variety of journalists and intellectuals to maintain a respectful silence on these awkward matters, the Islamist preachers and ideologues have imposed on the rest of us their own categories of analysis.
Or so I have argued in my recent book, The Flight of the Intellectuals. But am I right? I glance with pleasure at some harsh reviews, convinced that here is my best confirmation.
No one disputes that the Nazis collaborated with several Islamist leaders. Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, orated over Radio Berlin to the Middle East. The mufti's strongest supporter in the region was Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna, too, spoke well of Hitler.
Tariq Ramadan, the Islamic philosopher at Oxford, is Banna's grandson, and he argues that his grandfather was an upstanding democrat, and that everything the Islamists did in the past ought to be viewed sympathetically - as logical expressions of anti-colonial geopolitics.
Reviews in Foreign Affairs, the National Interest and the New Yorker have just now spun variations on Ramadan's interpretation.
The piece in Foreign Affairs insists that, to the mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler was merely a "convenient ally", and it is "ludicrous" to imagine a deeper alliance.
Those in the National Interest and the New Yorker add that "unlikely alliances" with Nazis were common among anti-colonialists. The articles point to some of Gandhi's comrades, to a faction of the IRA, and even to a dim-witted Zionist militant in 1940, who believed for a moment that Hitler could be an ally against the British.
But these various efforts to minimise the significance of the Nazi-Islamist alliance ignore a mountain of evidence, some of it discovered last year in the State Department archives revealing links that are genuinely profound.
"Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion," said the mufti of Jerusalem on Radio Berlin in 1944.
And the mufti's rhetoric echoes today in major Islamist manifestos such as the Hamas charter and in the popular television oratory of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi: "Oh, Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."
Foreign Affairs, the National Interest and the New Yorker have expended nearly 12,000 words in criticising Flight of the Intellectuals. And yet, though the book hinges on a series of such genocidal quotations, not one of those journals has found sufficient space to reproduce even a single phrase.
Why not? It is because a few Hitlerian quotations from Islamist leaders would make everything else in those essays look ridiculous - the argument in Foreign Affairs, for instance, that Hamas merits praise as a "firewall against radicalisation". The New Yorker is the only one to reflect even briefly on anti-Semitism. But it does so by chastising Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch champion of liberal values.
In the New Yorker's estimation, Hirsi Ali's admiration of the philosopher Voltaire displays an ignorant failure on her part to recognise that, hundreds of years ago, even the greatest of liberals thought poorly of the Jews.
But this reeks of bad faith. Hirsi Ali is one of the world's most eloquent enemies of the Islamist movement. She makes a point of singling out Islamist anti-Semitism. And the anti-Semites have singled her out in return.
Six years ago, an Islamist fanatic murdered Hirsi Ali's filmmaking colleague, Theo van Gogh, and left behind a death threat, pinned with a dagger to the dead man's torso, denouncing Hirsi Ali as an agent of Jewish conspirators. And yet, the New Yorker has the gall to explain, if anyone needs a lecture on the history of anti-Semitism, it's Hirsi Ali.
Such is the temper of our moment. Some of the intellectuals are indisputably in flight - eager to sneer at outspoken liberals from Muslim backgrounds, and reluctant to speak the truth about the Islamist reality.
Paul Berman's latest book, The Flight of the Intellectuals, will be published in Australia in September by Scribe
Sunday, July 11, 2010
This article is from The heraldsun. Yeah, I know, I'm surprised too. - Dave
What an offensive corruption of our curriculum. Children are to be taught the fabled best of Islam and the imagined worst of Australia to blind us all to the real challenges Islam poses even to a country that’s peacefully integrated the many more Buddhists here:
EVERY Australian school student would be taught positive aspects about Islam and Muslims - and that Australia is a racist country - under a proposal by an education think tank.
The plan is outlined in the Learning From One Another: Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools booklet, published during the week by the Australian Curriculum Studies Association and the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies.
It says there is a “degree of prejudice and ignorance about Islam and Muslims”, and Australian students must be taught to embrace difference and diversity.
The booklet refers to the al-Qai’da of Osama bin Laden as “a famous name” synonymous with the traditionalist movement in Islam. It makes no reference to terrorism.
It says “most texts used in Australian English classes still have a Western or European perspective”.
How impudent for a largely immigrant community, comprising a very small minority, to demand English classes now be taught more from their perspective rather than the communal perspective of the country to which most chose to come - a communal perspective that reflects the values and institutions that have made this country worth coming to in the first place. It is particularly offensive in that the host nation is demonised as racist while the very real and in some cases lethal challenges posed by the newcomers are glossed over.
This National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies document is the well-meaning - but dangerously foolish and deceptive - work of Dr Eeqbal Hassim, a former research fellow in Islamic Law at the University of Melbourne, and Jennet Cole-Adams, director of Curriculum Services at the Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Most tellingly, it has only passing and vague references to Islamic terrorism, which is the key explanation for Australia’s alleged “racism” towards Muslims - something that might in many case might be more properly described as a natural caution, and one limited to Muslims here than to Buddhists or any other largely immigrant group that seems curiously immune to our “racism”. There is no mention at all of the Islamist killings of some 100 Australian in Bali, or of the Muslim terrorist plots in Australia itself, which have seen 20 people jailed.
Here is the document’s reference to Islamist terror groups, suggesting that Islamist terrorism is created by Western arrogance more than any sickness within Islam itself or Arabic cultures:
The rapid nature of this change has seen the Muslim world struggle to cope with modernity at times. The decline of Islamic influence has been met with two broad responses from the Muslim world. The first has been to adapt Islam to modernity, the approach of those we generally call the ‘modernists’ or ‘moderates’. The second has been to oppose it, an approach labelled, correctly or incorrectly, ‘traditionalist’ or ‘fundamentalist’. The first group focus on the inherent harmony between Islam and scientific progress, regardless of who is leading that advancement, and are not generally in conflict with the West…
The second group believe, in general terms, that the West has always tried to subvert and gain ascendancy over Islam. Their focus is on giving Islam global dominance once again. Some famous names synonymous with this movement are the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwanul-Muslimin) of Syed Qutb and Hasan al-Banna, and Al-Qaeda of Osama bin Laden.
After the Oil Boom in the 1970s and the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the 1980s saw an Islamic revivalism that reflected the second response. This revivalism has exacerbated tensions between Islam and the West. The mutual distrust between the Islamic and Western worlds is nothing new; it was evident during the Crusades. Often, this mistrust is caused by, and/or coupled with, ignorance and prejudice. The current tensions, particularly concerning Arab-Israeli relations, the oil trade, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and terrorism, are constant reminders of this distrust.
And that’s it. Oh, and the Crusades are presented largely as noble Muslims defending holy lands from barbaric Christians. You’d never guess that Christians thought they were recapturing holy lands from Muslim armies that had overrun them militarily.
Then there is this pious assertion, claiming an overwhelming public rejection by Muslims of Islamist terrorism that very few, if any, Australians would have actually heard:
On the contrary, most Muslims are outspoken in their criticism of terrorism, regardless of the perpetrator. This is because Islam only allows for a just war as outlined above. It cannot be denied, however, that some Muslims condone terrorism in the name of Islam. From their perspective, the ‘enemies of Islam’ are the terrorists and they are the warriors of the faith.
Well, at least the authors admit some Muslims here do indeed condone Islamist terrorism, which is precisely why many Australians are so jittery about the people they’ve invited here.
Nor is this the only grudging and muted acknowledgement of the difficulties we will have in integrating Muslim students here, and not because we are racist. In fact, the difficulties are of the kind and extent that suggest to me that in many cases we will fail to integrate Muslims, and perhaps to our cost.
Examples from this teaching guide for schools (and note the blameshifting from Muslim culture to Australian racism):
Muslim unemployment figures are generally higher than the national average. The reasons for this are numerous but underlying discrimination and prejudice towards non-Europeans in Australia may be a factor ...
Religious beliefs held by Muslims (and others, including Christians) can lead to concerns about some content covered within the science curriculum. Many Muslims oppose Darwinism and the theory of evolution, deeming these to be in opposition to Islamic creationism....
Some Muslims also ask why some of their fellow believers are so socio-economically and educationally disadvantaged in the world today. They argue that the reason for this is not Islam; it is the fault of the former colonial powers who left Muslim lands unprepared for independence.
Many make the same argument about America’s involvement in various Muslim countries on the grounds of fighting terrorism and introducing democracy....
In visual art, some Muslim students and/or their parents will be uncomfortable with drawing and sculpting animate objects (people and animals). .. While most Muslims do not see any harm in drawing animate objects, some students have gone as far as defacing their works and the works of others…
Here are some of the opinions that you might encounter on this issue:
1. Music is prohibited in Islam except during the two Id festivals and at weddings… 2. All types of musical instruments are prohibited in Islam except for the daff, which may be used for musical purposes at all times....
Most Muslims recognise that swimming is an important life skill for all Australians, but some Muslim women in this country will not swim unless they can find an all female (and preferably all Muslim) pool....
Some Muslims see capitalism as a greed-driven economic system that leads to an imbalance in the global distribution of wealth. They argue that it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, noting that many Muslim communities live in poverty. They also see capitalism as a product of the West. However, most Muslim students will approach the study of business at school with an open mind…
The quotes below, from her interviews with Muslim parents, identify some of their common concerns. “Morally, Australia is not a good place to rear children. Smoking, drugs and illicit relations are a constant threat. We have to be particular about children’s friends, try to know the family and make sure that the child has good company."… “You cannot become part of mainstream Australian society due to the cultural difference. So, for the sake of maintaining one’s identity, you tend to find refuge in religion and start practising it more strictly."…
Muslim student absenteeism during Ramadan is common…
However, it is common for female Muslim students not to attend (school camps)…
While many Muslim states across the world do not adopt democracy, the Quran actually orders Muslims to engage in consultation (shura) in order to run their daily affairs. The system of shura is somewhat similar to democracy. However, many Muslims still live under authoritarian regimes and/or believe that democracy is the product of the West and should be dismissed…
While some Muslims believe (women are inferior to men under Islam), due to their cultural and family background, others strongly oppose it…
Some Muslims do want this (their own system of law) but the vast majority of Muslims will abide by the laws of the land.
Only a fool could not see a problem in importing more people from a faith that sets many so apart from, and at odds to, the culture of their host country.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Sadly though, most of the damage has already been done here in Australia. We have had so much immigration over the last 10-20 years or so, sometimes I get the feeling I'm living in India or Africa or some other 3rd world shit hole. The Australia I grew up in, the country I loved, the people I love, has been slowly transformed into a multicultural hell hole. My Australian culture and Australian way of life has been trampled on, shit upon, and generally treated like a used up old whore, and for what? I'm just glad it has finally been recognised that we ought to protect our culture, our way of life, for the benefit of all Australians and now and into the future.
Cultural relativity can go to hell.
VOTERS in Australia and Britain have had their fill of out-of-control multiculturalism.
AT first blush, Julia Gillard's volte-face over immigration would seem to be as unlikely as Osama bin Laden singing the Star Spangled Banner or Richard Dawkins taking holy orders.
Here is a politician with a solid pedigree on the "anti-racist" Left rejecting former prime minister Kevin Rudd's call for a "Big Australia" formed by continuing large-scale immigration.
Instead, Gillard has said she understands the anxieties of folk in western Sydney, western Melbourne or the Gold Coast growth corridor in Queensland.
As for the boats of asylum-seekers, Gillard has made clear she wants to be even more effective in stopping them in order to protect "our sanctuary" and "the Australian way".
In other words, Gillard is signalling that she sympathises with the concern that large-scale immigration and multiculturalism are threatening Australia's core values and identity, a position the Left denounces as bigotry.
Consequently, Gillard's remarks have produced predictable cries of "racism" and "dog-whistling". So why has the new Labor leader ventured into this particular cultural minefield? The explanation is that something tumultuous is happening, not just in Australia but in Britain too, something so unusual that people are stumbling around in a state of stunned disorientation.
It is that politicians are at last actually taking seriously what their electorates are saying to them about immigration and multiculturalism. This is that they will no longer put up with a policy which threatens to destroy their country's values and way of life, and will vote accordingly.
In Britain even more than in Australia - where at least John Howard or Tony Abbott have tackled such issues - race and culture have long been totally taboo. No debate has been possible about whether mass immigration might be a bad thing for communities or the country as a whole.
Even to question this has been to invite instant denunciation as a racist from the dominant left-wing intelligentsia, for whom anti-racism has long been their signature creed.
The Conservative leader and now Prime Minister, David Cameron, who is driven by the need to bury the label of "the nasty party" that was hung round the Tories' neck, was accordingly too nervous even to mention immigration during the recent election campaign, even though it was at the very top of the list of voters' concerns.
But Cameron didn't win the election, and is now forced to govern in a coalition with the left-wing LibDems. His failure to talk about immigration is said to be the reason why he failed to win an election that was thought impossible for him to lose.
Nothing concentrates the political mind so well as the spectre of defeat. And so now in both Britain and Australia a political sea change is taking place.
In both countries, voters are stating unequivocally that they have seen through all the spin about multiculturalism, all the false arguments about the alleged economic advantages of mass immigration, all the bullying and name-calling about racism.
They look at their neighbourhoods and realise that their culture and national identity are being replaced by something entirely new. No one has ever asked them for their consent to this. And they are simply not going to take it any more.
In Britain, the public services are buckling under the sheer weight of the numbers coming into the country.
More explosive is the cultural transformation, particularly by the large influx and expansion of Muslims who, rather than accommodating themselves to British society, expect it to accommodate itself to them.
So Britain is being steadily Islamised, with more than 1700 mosques, the development of a parallel jurisdiction of sharia law in Muslim enclaves, banks offering sharia financing, extremists given free rein on campuses and relentless pressure to suppress and censor any criticism of Islam or the Muslim community.
In parts of Australia too there are similar worries about the growth of the Muslim community, the pressure not to criticise any aggression it may display and the simultaneous onslaught upon Australian values by the likes of [Muslim cleric] Sheik Hilaly.
Listening to such concerns pays electoral dividends, as shown by Abbott, who has made such headway by defending the traditional values and national integrity of Australia as an entirely justifiable and moral position.
So Gillard is now humming the same tune, saying she sympathises with voters' desire for strong management of Australia's borders, and pledging "sustainable population" increase with the "right kind of immigrant".
A similar political convulsion is occurring in Britain. The Conservative Home Secretary, Theresa May, has promised to put a cap on immigration, a pledge that was in the Conservative manifesto but rarely mentioned during the election campaign.
Even more striking is the abrupt change of tune among several contenders for the leadership of the defeated British Labour Party. While front-runner David Miliband is sticking with its open-door immigration policy, his younger brother Ed has said "we never had an answer for the people who were worried about it".
Former Labour health secretary Andy Burnham claims the party has been "in denial" about the issue, which was "the biggest doorstep issue in constituencies where Labour lost".
Most jaw-dropping of all, former education secretary and hard man of the Left Ed Balls has said high levels of immigration under Labour had affected the pay and conditions of "too many people", and has called for better protection for British workers if the European Union expands any further.
Such death-bed conversions are of course driven by cynical political considerations. Nevertheless, they are levering open an ideological fixation which has not just sunk democratic politics into disrepute but driven culture and morality in both Britain and Australia off the rails altogether.
For the doctrines of anti-racism and multiculturalism have not ended intolerance, prejudice or discrimination. They have instead institutionalised reverse discrimination and up-ended truth, morality and justice.
Following the Marxist doctrine that prejudice is restricted to those with power, they have given Third-World ethnic minorities special protection from rules or conventions that apply to everyone else.
They have also served to falsify the history of both Britain and Australia in the minds of countless thousands of young people, who are taught propaganda based on a false or distorted story of national oppression and shame.
Multiculturalism threatens to undermine societies, by removing the cultural glue that binds all citizens together and balkanising the country into interest groups fighting for supremacy.
Once upon a time, the need to have strong borders and endorse a historic cultural identity were axiomatic elements of citizenship and national survival.
But mass immigration and multiculturalism are predicated on what is called "transnationalism", the belief that the nation is the source of all the ills of the world and must be replaced by supranational institutions and cultural identities.
This is precisely what -at a visceral level - the people of both Australia and Britain understand and are refusing to accept.
And at last, in both Australia and Britain, politicians are being forced to listen.
Melanie Phillips is a columnist for the UK Daily Mail.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march.. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts -- the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Emanuel Tanay, M.D. 2980 Provincial St. Ann Arbor , MI 48104
*Dr. Emanuel Tanay MD is a well-known forensic psychiatrist who has been an expert witness in many famous cases. He has served as an officer or committee member on the Michigan Psychiatric Society, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and others. He is a diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and of the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry and a distinguished fellow of the APA and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFC).
A Holocaust survivor himself, Dr Tanay coauthored a book about the survivors of the Holocaust and was asked by the German government to consult on just compensation for the Holocaust survivors. Dr. Tanay has served on several journal editorial boards, authored many publications, and presented countless times on forensic medicine. His efforts have also produced many awards and commendations from groups such as the Michigan State Medical Society, APA, the Detroit Institute of Technology, and AAFC, among others.
I hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!
Monday, June 21, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Well done Oklahoma, well done. Hope this sensible stance spreads, and quickly. - Dave
Read more here ABC US
Oklahoma is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban state judges from relying on Islamic law known as Sharia when deciding cases.
The ban is a cornerstone of a "Save our State" amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that was recently approved by the Legislature.
The amendment -- which also would forbid judges from using international laws as a basis for decisions -- will now be put before Oklahoma's voters in November. Approval is expected.
Oklahoma has few Muslims – only 30,000 out of a population of 3.7 million. The prospect of sharia being applied there seems remote. But a chief architect of the measure, Republican State Rep. Rex Duncan, calls the proposed ban a necessary "preemptive strike" against Islamic law coming to the state.
"I see this in the future somewhere in America," Duncan, who chairs the state House Judiciary Committee, told ABC News. "It's not an imminent threat in Oklahoma yet, but it's a storm on the horizon in other states."
Sharia – which means "path" in Arabic – governs many aspects of Muslim life and influences the legal code in a majority of Muslim countries.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The New Islamic Representatives in Australia. How much more Un-Australian can you get?
Read how the Green Left is plotting to turn Australia into another Islamic Sharia state.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Criticism of Islam is exactly what the press ought to be doing, something up until now which has been sadly missing, criticism which desperately needs to be part of healthy public discussion. - Dave.
Full article here at The AGE.
A bizarre form of political correctness is preventing us from an open discussion about what is, in fact, female subjugation.
It would seem there are some things in Australia we are not allowed to discuss. A ban on the burqa is clearly one of them. But the time has come to get over our fears and cultural fragilities - and grow up. The call to ban the burqa is receiving serious consideration in European parliaments. And it should here, too.
Belgian legislators voted last month to outlaw the burqa in public places. On Wednesday, a bipartisan resolution passed by the French parliament deploring the burqa - on the grounds of "dignity" and "equality of men and women" - was presented to the French cabinet, and a ban is expected later this year. Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Canada are also grappling with the issue.
But in Australia, in a sign of cultural timidity and intellectual weakness, we seem intent on shunning any meaningful debate about the burqa and its place in a liberal democracy. At one level this is understandable, given the issue has become a confusing tussle between feminists and well-meaning liberals; nervous libertarians and right-wing ideologues; and the usual smattering of racists and dog-whistling shock-jocks.
Unfortunately for Muslim women, the burqa is not just a garment. It has become a weapon in a war of ideology: a war in which women are the battleground and their rights and freedoms are at stake.