Video: Muslims preach sedition at UK conference

November 2008

Full (long) videos of the conference here.


Robert Spencer

“You must destroy the West” -- so said a speaker at a recent conference in London. The conference featured Islamic leaders openly calling for the overthrow of the British government and the establishment of an Islamic state in Britain -- under the noses of British authorities who, just days before the conference, had announced a new crackdown against “hate speech” and “extremist” preaching. The episode was instructive -- or should have been -- for proponents of the Fairness Doctrine and “hate speech” laws in the United States.

The conference organizer, Anjem Choudary, declared at the conference that “as Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister -- Bush or Brown -- or Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah.” Instead of submitting, he called upon Muslims to rise up: “It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours. Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street.”

Choudary called on Muslims to dare to take the risks involved in participating in the violent overthrow of the British state. “There are three types of Muslims,” he said: “those in prison, those of us that are on our way [to prison] and non-practicing Muslims. Brothers and sisters, if you do not fear your home being raided by the Kufar [non-believer] police, you are not enforcing the Sharia [Islamic law].”

Speaking via a live feed from Lebanon, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, a jihadist leader formerly based in Britain but now barred from returning to that country, exhorted the conference attendees: “Do not obey the British law….We must fight and die for Islam -- this is the map and road to Jennah [Paradise].” He praised Osama bin Laden and asserted that Muslims had no obligation to obey secular laws rather than Islamic law...

Evening Standard

But the most provocative was student leader Abu Rumaysah, who spoke to the crowd as if they were trainee terrorists. "Delete unnecessary material from your computers, take precautions not to attract attention to yourself and prepare your family for [police] raids," he said. He added that they should support the families of Muslims who were arrested and that Islam will only take over the UK if Muslims are proactive and enforce Sharia law in their own communities.

"Women need to be covered up, men lashed for fornication [outside marriage] and hands cut off for theft and breaking Sharia law," he said.

When a woman in a burkha asked how he could justify this when Islam was supposed to be a religion of peace, the crowd mocked her. But it was Choudary who rose to put her in her place. "Islam is not a religion of peace," he said. "It is a religion of submission. We need to submit to the will of Allah."

Gordon Brown meets Saudi terrorist suspects

November 2, 2008

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with former Saudi inmates of the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay as he toured a de-radicalization facility on Sunday.

Saudi officials claim their efforts at rehabilitating extremists using months of reasoned argument against radical Islam have a success rate of 80 to 90 percent: Only 35 people out of 3,200 in the program have been re-arrested for security offenses...

Raymond Ibrahim...

"Radical Islam" is practically synonymous with Wahhabism, the Saudi endorsed "version" of Islam, which children are taught from the moment they can read. This assertion totally contradicts itself, but don't expect Brown to notice, or care.

Center for Religious Freedom, the Hudson Institute ...

This report compares the 2007-2008 textbooks that are currently posted on the website of the Saudi Ministry of Education with those analyzed in our 2006 study, and shows that the same violent and intolerant teachings against other religious believers noted in 2006 remain in the current texts.

They assert that unbelievers, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not share Wahhabi beliefs and practices, are hated "enemies." Global jihad as an "effort to wage war against the unbelievers" is also promoted in the Ministry's textbooks: "In its general usage, 'jihad' is divided into the following categories: ...Wrestling with the infidels by calling them to the faith and battling against them." No argument is made here that such references to jihad mean only spiritual and defensive struggles.

Lessons remain that Jews and Christians are apes and swine, Jews conspire to "gain sole control over the world," the Christian Crusades never ended, the American universities of Cairo and Beirut are part of the continuing Crusades, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are historical fact, and on Judgment Day "the rocks or the trees" will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews.

They teach that it is permissible for a Muslim to kill an "apostate," an "adulterer," and those practicing "major polytheism." Shiites are among those identified as "polytheists." One lesson states that "it is not permissible to violate the blood, property, or honor of the unbeliever who makes a compact with the Muslims," but is pointedly silent on whether security guarantees are extended to non-Muslims without such a compact. Other lessons demonize members of the Baha'i and Ahmadiyya groups.

A lesson from a tenth grade text now posted on the Saudi Ministry's website sanctions the killing of homosexuals and discusses methods for doing so...

Consistency is a virtue, for some.

Spencer on moderate Muslims

October 13, 2008

Journalists and experts talk all the time about moderate muslims but no one has ever come up with a definition of sort. Why?

Spencer: Because all the orthodox sects of Islam and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. What, then, is a moderate? Someone who is not waging jihad at the moment? A jihadist who is practicing Muhammad’s dictum “war is deceit” and trying to lull infidels into thinking there is no jihad threat? A lax or nominal Muslim who doesn’t care to wage jihad? An ignorant Muslim who doesn’t know about jihad? A genuinely reformist Muslim who rejects the violent and supremacist elements of traditional Islam? Most journalists and experts use the term “moderate Muslim” imprecisely and without definition because they don’t even know enough about Islam to ask the proper questions of these “moderates” or even to know what they should expect from them?

Imran Khan: terrorists 'wouldn't dare hurt cricketers'

October 11, 2008

PAKISTANI cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan said yesterday the Australian cricket team would have been safe from terrorist attacks if it had gone to Pakistan, as terrorists knew that such an attack would have lost them public sympathy.

More than 1300 people have been killed this year in a string of bombings by insurgents...

Cricket Australia's reluctance on security grounds to send the team to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy... caused great resentment in the country...

"They rely on public sympathy, which they have right now because the American war on terror, amongst the masses, is seen to be a war against Islam. So they have their sympathy."

So, despite killing 1300 this year, moderates are still teetering on being sympathetic with terrorists. They are indifferent to the bombings and blood and limbs strewn across the street: "hey, whatever man, that's Islam, that's Pakistan, that's life, it's America's fault, what can you do?". But if they dare bomb cricket, well, the mighty moderate Muslim will rise up and unleash fury. How pathetic. Khan doesn't even suggest a tiny minority of Muslims might be teetering on sympathising with terrorists. Nope, he bluntly admits they have sympathy "amongst the masses".

Moderate Muslims will allow their country to be bombed to smithereens, just don't touch our cricket. That's why a Muslim reformation will never happen. Because moderate Muslims hold "great resentment" for a cancelled cricket tour but no great resentment for terrorists. The only way moderates can overcome extremism is by one word: distance. They have to distance themselves ideologically, culturally, visually, and geographically from the terrorists - polarise the Muslim community with a great resentment for extremists. But how can you do that when Muhammad set such a fine example to follow? You can't.

Video: Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy

September 2008

Some quotes from a YouTube interview with Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness...

PR: President Bush on September 17th in 2001 said "Islam is peace".

AM: Sorry. Wrong. Nope, he's wrong...

PR (20:30): So is it true to say that even as you were successfully prosecuting Sheik Rahman in 1995 you were thinking to yourself "this is not the way to go about dealing with such people"?

AM: I wish I was prescient enough ... to say I realised that in 1993 at the beginning of the process, but by the end of the process, when you see the way it works every day, when you realise that this is really more of a war than a crime, and you realise that by complying with our due process rules that we are basically edifying the enemy about our intelligence, about our methods and sources of collecting intelligence while they are trying to kill us. I don't think that you could get a front row seat like I had for two years and not at the end of it come out of it and say "this is nuts"...

PR (22:20): I see your point and I see it vividly: criminal prosecution will not work on terrorists.

McCarthy's experience in terrorism prosecution...

RUSH: ... What was your role in the trial against the Blind Sheik?

MCCARTHY: Well, I was the lead prosecutor, and that informant turned out to be the main witness in the case, and he was my witness, so I spent, you know, quite a bit of time studying what he had done and also, you know, having to do the other odds and ends that you do when you do a case like this, one of which was to try to get prepared in the event the Blind Sheik decided to testify, which, you know, ultimately he didn't do but that didn't mean we didn't have to prepare for it. And that was an eye-opener. In fact, the whole experience in watching the dynamic of him and other people in the Muslim community throughout the trial was a real eye-opener for me. I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that we were putting out, you know, that he basically perverted who was otherwise a peaceful doctrine. But what I found was going through all of his thousands of pages of transcripts and statements, was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, to the extent he was quoting scripture or referring to it, he did it accurately, which shouldn't be a surprise.

RUSH: So you went in thinking this guy might be a fringe little kooky and perverting Islam, and you were stunned to find out that everything he said or proclaimed had a root basis?

MCCARTHY: That's correct. There's no other way of putting it. And it shouldn't have been a surprise. I mean, he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence, graduated from Al-Azhar University in Egypt. Why in the world I would have thought that I or the Justice Department would know more about Islam than he would is beyond me now that I look back on it, but back then I was pretty confident that we must have been right when we said that he was basically perverting the doctrine.

And finally McCarthy, a terrorism prosecutor, actually admits that immigration has a role to play...

... Immigrants presumably come to a new place because it is attractive to them as is, not because they seek to reform it. More desirable would be real gate-keeping immigration policies that admitted only those of a mind to assimilate to the home culture, not the other way around. If that means people who would otherwise emigrate end up remaining in their home countries, is that such a bad thing?

And this thinking logically ends with (cue Lawrence Auster)...

McCarthy is making two distinct and correct assertions: that Islam is indeed the problem; and that Islam is not just a reaction against American freedom (as the president imagines) but is a coherent belief system with a billion followers, most of whom are passionately devoted to it...

I would suggest that McCarthy is touching on a contradiction in his own thought process that will eventually move him toward the logic I have been enunciating for the last few years:

1. Islam is the problem.
2. However, we do not have the ability to destroy Islam.
3. Nor do we have the ability to democratize Islam.
4. Nor do we have the ability to assimilate Islam.
5. Therefore, the only solution is to separate ourselves from Islam.

Because ...

If advocacy of and/or belief in sharia are grounds for barring an individual from the United States, then, given the fact that all Muslims are commanded by their religion to live under sharia and to expand sharia to non-Muslim lands when possible, and given that there is no way we can determine which Muslims will actually advocate sharia once they are here, or, for that matter, whether their children will advocate sharia once they are grown, isn't it the case that by the logic of this law all Muslims should be kept from immigrating into the United States?

Auster on Wilders

Sept 2008
Wilders interviewed by Beck

After his speech in New York City last Thursday Geert Wilders had a brief but punchy interview on the Glen Beck program. One stand-out moment: Beck said (close paraphrase), "Are you making no distinction between extremist Muslims and other Muslims, because I have a Muslim who works on this show, and he's a peace-loving guy." And Wilders said, "There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam, Islam is a fascist ideology." On the main point, which is the nature of Islam, he didn't given an inch. What he was really saying was, there may be individual Muslims who don't follow this ideology, but they don't matter. What matters is this ideology that threatens our existence. He then went on to describe the culture of Islam in the Netherlands as violent. So while reasonably acknowledging the existence of individual Muslims who are moderate, he made it clear, with a telegraphic minimum of words, that they are moderate because they don't adhere to the religion. He is unyielding in his characterization of Islam as inherently dangerous and destructive. He strikes no PC notes, and makes no bows to the liberal orthodoxy of non-discrimination. And this was on a mainstream American television program.

Thoughts on Wilders's important speech

Geert Wilders's recent speech to the Hudson Institute in New York City is exceptional. In it, he makes statements about the Islamic threat to Europe, about the European elites' support for the Islamization of Europe, and about the nature of Islam, that are more stark than anything I've seen him say before. For example, he doesn't just say that Islam is, an addition to being a religion, a political ideology; he says that Islam is in its essence a political ideology. He doesn't say, as he did in the movie Fitna, that certain passages in the Islamic scriptures mandate terrorism, or that the fascist parts of the Koran should be outlawed; he says that "the problem is Islam itself." Regretfully, he does not recommend what to do about Islam, but the speech is so powerful and cogent that somehow it doesn't matter. If Islam poses a mortal threat to Europe and the West, and if Islam is the problem, then whatever is to be done to save the West must go beyond the usual nostrums of trying harder to assimilate Muslims and to spread democracy. Of course, Wilders has elsewhere advocated the cessation of Muslim immigration into the Netherlands, and has proposed outlawing the fascist parts of the Koran. Even though it's not clear at this point what such a law would actually consist of, it would, if enforced, make the Netherlands seem so inhospitable to Muslims that at least some of them would start to leave on their own...

Hans Jansen: Islam for pigs, apes, mules and other beasts

March 2008

It seems that Dutch Arabist professor Hans Jansen from the university of Utrecht had enough. Enough of relativism, enough of uninformed people and enough of the over the top cowardliness, especially when voiced by the Dutch government. On his website he announced his upcoming book as “Reading the Koran for unbelievers”. But now with all the idiocy going on in The Netherlands about the Islam critical film Fitna, he seems to have changed his mind. The title of his new book is now “Islam for pigs, apes, mules and other beasts”.

The title of the book is of course a reference to how the Koran speaks about the unbelievers. A book that, so believe the Mohammedans, is the literal and eternal word of god. Thus it’s God him selves that describes unbelievers as either pigs, apes, mules or worse. This is of course, from our Western viewpoint, not a very flattering picture about Islam. But Jansen does want to provoke Muslims. He wants unbeliever to understand the religion, as far as that is even possible if you’re not grown up with these dogmatic teachings. At a very minimum people should at least understand that Islam is in important aspects very different from Christianity...

What parts of the Koran are according to people like Wilders, who criticize the Islam, a danger to the Western legal order?

As good as all parts of the Koran in which unbelievers are threatened with violence (there are many) can be regarded as anti Western by any body.

Every call for the application of sharia, can be regarded as openly voiced support for actions that are contrary to Dutch law and the universal declaration of human rights.

That outsiders are not aware of this, is of course a pity for them, but that does not change this fact. Sharia calls for corporal punishment and dead penalty, also in cases of religious transgressions – something most Dutch don’t even know what it means. Sharia limits the religious freedom, undermines the position of woman and humiliates everybody who is not a Muslim...

The Koran preaches peace. True or false?

True, but that peace will only come about when every body has submitted to Islam. Only then there will be peace. In the mean time, every where on earth evil and unbelief has to be attacked.

More at Will Holland Survive? and Jihad Watch.

Hijacking Terrorism Studies - Mervyn Bendle

17 September 2008

Dr Mervyn Bendle of James Cook University in Townsville was one of the first people to warn of the dangers associated with Saudi Arabian funding coming into Australian universities. Last week he was the guest speaker at the annual Quadrant magazine dinner, and he focussed on the rise of a new academic field - Critical Terrorism Studies - which treats terrorism as a construcrt of the Western imagination, or else as a rational and justifiable response to Western evil.

ABC radio interview here (mp3). Quadrant speech here.

In his speech on Thursday night Dr Bendle focused on what he says is the rise of a whole new academic discourse in our universities, known as Critical Terrorism Studies. As much as possible it avoids mention of the religious roots of terrorist groups like al-Qa'eda. Instead, it sees terrorism as a construct of the Western imagination, and at the same time, paradoxically, as justified by Western misdeeds.

'In fact', he says, 'such arguments are based on a Manichean view of the world that has prevailed in the West for some 50 years, according to which the West is inherently evil and only the non-West is good, a great amorphous, but intrinsically benign 'Other' condemned to suffering by Western wickedness. Consequently the West deserves to be destroyed and has no moral right to fight back or protect itself.'

Well, in a week when Abdul Nacer Benbrika and six others have been convicted on terror offences in the Victorian Supreme Court, Merv Bendle says in the war on terror, our universities have become a major new battleground, and it is in the universities that the war of ideas is being lost.

Videos: Brigitte Gabriel - the truth about Islam

Introduction


This is just the introduction. See YouTube for the 8 part series.

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

May, 2007
Documentary which reveals the truth about Islam, the Koran, and Muhammad. This is just the trailer. Watch the full video here.

Geert Wilders’ Speech at the Danish Parliament

June 04, 2008

Mr. Wilders gave a speech at the Danish Parliament, at the invitation of the Free Press Society, where he explains his movie Fitna and the dangers of Islam in Europe.


Wilders hoped the film would spark debate about Islam inspired violence. Alas, the debate has largely failed to eventuate.

USA Billboards: "Sharia law is hate"

August 9, 2008

The Central Florida chapter of the United American Committee, a nonprofit group that seeks to educate Americans on the threat of Islamic extremism, is raising money to purchase a six-month contract to display the billboard, which the group hopes will awaken the public to discussing the full extent of Islamic law...

... Sharia law recognizes no separation of church and state...

"Under Sharia law if you are accused of stealing, a hand and foot from opposite sides are amputated. If you are caught having an affair, the woman is stoned to death and the man is given 80 lashes. If you change religions, you can be charged under apostasy laws and given the death sentence by a legal Sharia court. If you want to marry a nine-year-old child, Sharia law condones pedophilia, because Mohammad married Aisha at six and consummated the marriage at age nine. I find these and many more practices of Sharia law despicable and hateful," said Kornman.

Fitna: the movie

March 27, 2008


Robert Spencer says "The film is accurate. Will Muslims rage against the truth?"

Jihad Watch: The "Islam is Peace" Campaign

October 03, 2007
Robert Spencer takes a look a the UK's Orwellian "Islam is Peace" campaign, which is actually designed to fight critics of terrorism, not terrorism itself.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam - Robert Spencer

August 14, 2006
KFI-AM 640's Bill Handel interviews Robert Spencer, the author of (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And The Crusades)

Hirsi Ali discusses democracy and Islam - ABC radio

5 August , 2008

A brief interview with Mark Colvin on ABC radio.

Postmodern path to student failure

August 04, 2008

POSTMODERNISM is hobbling Australia's best and brightest university students by locking them into narrow, prescriptive and politically correct ways of thinking and using language.

The domination of postmodern theory, especially in humanities courses, is setting up a generation of students for educational failure, University of NSW professor Gavin Kitching argues in a book to be published this week. Based on an analysis of all honours dissertations written by politics students at the university over 23 years, Professor Kitching concludes that the students had abused their intelligence in writing their theses.

Let's hope some left-wingers like Kitching will likewise take their concerns over literacy to the supremacist teachings of the Koran.

Hirsi Ali downunder talking about new book

August 02, 2008

On her short visit to Australia, she talks about the ideas she will present in her next book. Shortcut to the Enlightenment, due out in 2010, will explore the key differences between Islam and the West through imagined conversations in the New York Public Library between the prophet Mohammed and three of her favourite philosophers, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek...

"I followed intently the debate in books, on television, in newspapers. And it became clear to me that there were three fundamental incompatibilities between Islam and the West, and three philosophers, whose work I had read and admired, each of whom wrote about one of these issues." ...

"Ideas are very powerful. Ideas inspire people to do things. I think it's good to have the ideas of Western liberal society and Islam put starkly side by side so the reader can see why they are incompatible."

Robert Spencer: Turkey's Dilemma

July 31, 2008

The Turkish court has good reason to suspect that the AKP is working to undermine Turkish secularism and impose Islamic law over the country. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), while Mayor of Istanbul in the 1990s (and a prominent member of the Welfare Party), Turkey’s current Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan railed against Turkish secularism. “If the people want it,” he declared, “of course secularism will go away. You cannot rule this people by force; you don't have the power to do that. This [i.e. secularism] cannot work in spite of the people.” And the people, he suggested, wanted Islamic law: “But the fact is that 99% of the people of this country are Muslims. You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular!...For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says ‘I am a Muslim’ to go on and say ‘I am secular too.’ And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!”

His saying that Allah “has absolute power and rule” was not merely an expression of piety. Islam has historically always been a political and social system as well as an individual religious faith. Islamic law, Sharia, is a comprehensive system governing every aspect of individual behavior. It also contains laws for the governance of the state and the ordering of society. If it is imposed in Turkey, women and non-Muslims would be subjugated under a system of institutionalized discrimination; the freedom of conscience and of speech would be restricted; and the relatively Westernized aspects of Turkish society would wither away.