Thursday, October 16, 2008


Fitzgerald: The "root causes" of Islamic disarray

Arabs and Muslims, it has been said, cling to their past. And it’s true: they do cling to "their" past, as long as that past is the past that came after the pre-Islamic past that went before, which is merely one long Jahiliyya, or Time of Ignorance. There is no real interest in that past, though one will find the Iraqi peacock-proud that "civilization started here" -- but he won't know about that "civilization." He won't have been part of the discovery and recovery and study of that "civilization" -- Ur and Babylon and Assyria. For that was a Western thing, a thing that Western Infidels, from Henry Austen Layard to Leonard Woolley, undertook. Copts in Egypt are a very different matter, because they know, even if they do not always say aloud, that they are the true inheritors of Egypt's civilization. They are the ones linked continuously back to Egypt's pre-Islamic civilization, including the language that existed before the Arabs arrived and came, in fits and starts, to reduce the Coptic percentage of the population. Massed forcible conversions were not unknown, especially in certain centuries when a ruler would be particularly aggressive in "spreading" the "truth" of Islam.

Islam is, as has been written here before, "history-haunted." It has to be. It has to be in order to make up for the obviously miserable actual state of Muslims, their civilizational disarray, their primitiveness in everything that should matter and by which civilizations are judged -- and that excludes the trillions of dollars in unmerited oil revenues, and will continue to exclude them, no matter how many Western skyscrapers and companies and luxury goods and palaces at home those trillions buy.

Instead, they look back to a mythical past, of highly exaggerated glories: the wonders of Old Fustat (Cairo), the splendors of Baghdad. In this narrative, the non-Muslims who contributed so much to what there was are not recognized. It's an "Islamic science" and "Islamic civilization" -- when, in fact, if you take away many who were Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians, or if they were not, if they had converted to Islam, then they were only one or two generations removed from being Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians, the numbers of non-Muslims were still sufficient to ensure that the milieu would not be bleakly Islamic in the first few hundred years after the initial Islamic conquests.

But now, because of the behavior of the Muslims themselves, they have been emptying out their lands of non-Muslims. The Jews -- who, for example, constituted a third, an important enlivening third, of the population of Baghdad in the 1920s -- are all gone, driven out, or killed. The Christians hang on, here and there, but they were killed en masse in Iraq -- 100,000 Assyrians massacred -- after the British left in 1932, and the exodus of the past few years, in response to the Islamic terror, has led to a dimidiation of Christian numbers, with more decreases to come. In Egypt, the Copts hang on, and even exhibit, at times, the usual depressing phenomenon of islamochristian attitudes when, with Muslims in power and of course vigilantly observing, they cannot complain as they would like about their status, and they often must parrot the party-line about Israel -- while they are held captive to Muslim masters in Egypt. When they attain freedom in the West, they can and are more candid, less frightened, less wary.

And of course all those Levantines -- those Greeks and Italians, as well as those Armenians and Jews and other nationalities, once made Cairo and Alexandria more interesting places, where in high-ceilinged coffee rooms, with newspapers including locally-produced French and English language newspapers, one could sit and read and talk to one's friends and play cards or possibly tric-trac. And now I find myself practically writing some Farouk-era scene -- or back, back further, to the last days of Lord Cromer -- for the script of some movie, to be filmed by some Egyptian director, full of nostalgia (see "The Yacoubian Building") for those Italians, and Greeks, and Jews and Armenians, and all the others, including British subjects, who were booted out by Nasser, and all of their property seized (that had been slowly amassed over many generations).

No, Ungaretti and Cavafy were both born in Alexandria. But there won't be any more ungarettis or cavafys coming out of Egypt. There won't, similarly, be much coming out of Baghdad. No latter-day mutannabis from a Muslim-only land will be coming out of a culture that thinks of poetry now as merely an extension of propaganda -- see Adonis on the state of "Arabic literature" (he says angrily that "there is no Arabic literature" but only propagandistic trash). Nor will they be coming out of the Maghreb, now that the French (and others -- Spanish, Italians, Jews) left Algeria, and Morocco, and Tunisia. The wasteland that Islam creates is obvious to all. That is why Muslims themselves keep harking back to some earlier time, some time when things were so different, their books exaggeratedly tell them (the Self-Esteem problems of an entire civilization is a difficult task to deal with), and they were sitting on top of the world.

But one wants to say, as one looks over the past thousand years or so of Muslim history, and failure to produce -- see the West, see the East (the real East) -- to the Islamic world, something like:

What Have You Done For Us Lately?

And then one would like to go further, and see how many of the most advanced people who were born into Islam and live in that world, can begin to catch a hint of a glimmer of why it is that Islam itself prevents the enterprise of science. Its view is that the individual is unimportant and merely part of a collective, the Umma, or Community of Believers, a mentally submissive Believer who must be a "slave of Allah" and never dare to question the rules set down by Allah (and derived by Islamic scholars from the Qur'an, as glossed by the contents of the Sunnah). A believer must be punished for any display of free and skeptical inquiry, which prevents the enterprise of science (though not of technology, not for example of computer engineering or certain kinds of medical practice -- but not scientific research, unless undertaken in the West, by someone who though nominally a Muslim, has become only a "cultural Muslim"). And art, the varieties of artistic expression that are simply haram in Islam -- all sculpture, and depictions in paint, or drawings, of living creatures, and most music, so that one is left with calligraphy and architecture.

All of this, at some point, intelligent Muslims and Arabs are going to have to recognize, little by little, and some are even going to have to discuss it openly. And that will be made easier for them if we Infidels show that we are perfectly at ease in recognizing that the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of Muslim states and societies, polities and peoples, are connected to the texts, and tenets, and attitudes naturally arising from those tenets, of Islam itself.

If we show that we not only can laughingly reject the nonsense about how the "root causes" of Islamic disarray, and violence, and aggression, and failures, have something to do with us and everything to do with them, and what's more, if we can articulate it (though never as well as the defectors from Islam are able to do, for they know where every little secret lies, and we don't), that is the only way to bring about the kind of "change" that makes sense in the Arab and Muslim world.

Posted by Hugh at October 6, 2008 2:47 PM

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The End of the Caliphate - and the dreams of ever reviving it

excerpt from Jean-Pierre Filiu's "Ghost of the caliphate"

When Atatürk abolished the caliphate in 1924, two years after toppling the Ottoman sultanate, he deprived the Sunni world of an undisputed guiding voice. Sharif Hussein of Mecca immediately tried to fill this void, but he was smashed by the rising power of Wahhabi Islam. Saudi Arabia was built on the ruins of this aborted caliphate, although its monarchs do not now claim a nobler title than "custodian of the holy places." Nowadays, to be called "commander of the believers" one has to be the king of Morocco, or Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, who assumed the title when, in Kandahar in 1996, he took up a cloak said to have belonged to the Prophet himself as a founding gesture for the Taliban emirate. The only Muslim leader who plays publicly with the notion of caliphate is Colonel Gaddafi, who recently saw in it the solution for trans-Saharan integration. The concept of caliph is rather flexible: its Arabic etymology just means "successor" and its institution was a pragmatic response by the nascent Muslim community to the trauma of Muhammad's sudden death.

When it comes to politics, there was never a golden age of Islam. Out of the four so-called "well-inspired" caliphs who followed the Prophet, three were murdered and, during their time, the bloody struggle for leadership ignited a civil war whose echoes are still felt today in the streets of Baghdad and Beirut. The road back to the caliphate is a dead end but, as often with global war and global jihad, the layers of propaganda surrounding it lend an appearance of substance to an illusion. Let us hope not too many people will fall under the spell of this ghost.

Prospect MagazineIssue 140 , November 2007

ZARATHUSHTRA: Prophet and founder

Monday, October 13, 2008

When Islam extinguished the sacred fire of Zarathushtra - Caliph Omar's Ultimatum to Persian King, Yazdgird III and the King's Response

Text of the ultimatum from Omar Ibn-Khat'tab the Calif of Islam to the Iranina Sovereign, Yazdgerd III:

Bism-ellah Ar'rahman Ar'rhim To the Shah of the Fars

I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save your acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled half the world, but see how now your sun has set. On all fronts your armies have been defeated and your nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might escape this fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god who created all that is. I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false worship of fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.

Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option. Allah u Akbar.

The Calif of Muslims Omar Ibn-Khat'tab


Response of the Persian King:

In the name of Ahuramazda, the Creator of Life and Wisdom.

From the Shahan-Shah of Iran Yazdgerd to Omar Ibn Khat'tab the Arab Calif. In your letter you summon us Iranians to your god whom you call "Allah-u-Akbar"; and because of your barbarity and ignorance, without knowing who we are and Whom we worship, you demand that we seek out your god and become worshippers of "Allah-u-Akbar".

How strange that you occupy the seat of the Arab Caliph but are as ignorant as any desert roaming Arab! You admonish me to become monotheistic in faith. Ignorant man, for thousands of years we Aryaee have, in this land of culture and art, been monotheistic and five times a day have we offered prayers to God's Throne of Oneness. While we laid the foundations of philanthropy and righteousness and kindness in this world and held high the ensign of "Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds", you and your ancestors were desert wanderers who ate snakes and lizards and buried your innocent daughters alive.

You Arabs who have no regard for God's creatures, who mercilessly put people to the sword, who mistreat your women and bury you daughters alive, who attack caravans and are highway robbers, who commit murder, who kidnap women and spouses; how dare you presume to teach us, who are above these evils, to worship God?

You tell me to cease the worship of fire and to worship God instead! To us Iranians the light of Fire is reminiscent of the Light of God. The radiance and the sun-like warmth of fire exuberates our hearts, and the pleasant warmth of it brings our hearts and spirits closer together, that we may be philanthropic, kind and considerate, that gentleness and forgiveness may become our way of life, and that thereby the Light of God may keep shining in our hearts.

Our God is the Great Ahuramazda. Strange is this that you too have now decided to give Him a name, and you call Him by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar".

But we are nothing like you. We, in the name of Ahuramazda, practice compassion and love and goodness and righteousness and forgiveness, and care for the dispossessed and the unfortunate; But you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar" commit murder, create misery and subject others to suffering! Tell me truly who is to blame for your misdeeds? Your god who orders genocide, plunder and destruction, or you who do these things in his name? Or both?

You, who have spent all your days in brutality and barbarity, have now come out of your desolate deserts resolved to teach, by the blade and by conquest, the worship of God to a people who have for thousands of years been civilized and have relied on culture and knowledge and art as mighty supports.

What have you, in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar", taught these armies of Islam besides destruction and pillage and murder that you now presume to summon others to your god?

Today, my people's fortunes have changed. Their armies, who were subjects of Ahuramazada, have now been defeated by the Arab armies of "Allah-u-Akbar". And they are being forced, at the point of the sword, to convert to the god by the name of "Allah-u-Akbar". And are forced to offer him prayers five times a day but now in Arabic; since your "Allah-u-Akbar" only understands Arabic.

I advise you to return to your lizard infested deserts. Do not let loose upon our cities your cruel barbarous Arabs who are like rabid animals. Refrain from the murder of my people. Refrain from pillaging my people. Refrain from kidnapping our daughters in the name of your "Allah-u-Akbar". Refrain from these crimes and evils.

We Aryaee are a forgiving people, a kind and well-meaning people. Wherever we go, we sow the seeds of goodness, amity and righteousness. And this is why we have the capacity to overlook the crimes and the misdeeds of your Arabs.

Stay in your desert with your "Allah-u-Akbar", and do not approach our cities; for horrid is your belief and brutish is your conduct.

Yazdgerd Saasaani

Saturday, October 11, 2008

The Battle of Tours (Poitiers) Revisited

.1276 years ago Charles Martel (the Hammer) and his Franks turned back the Saracen (Mohammedans) and kept them from taking over France and the rest of Europe

October 11, 2008
Raymond Ibrahim's "Today in History": Charles the Hammer saves the West from Islam at Tours

Precisely 100 years of Islamic conquests after Muhammad's death (632), the Muslims, starting from Arabia, found themselves in Gaul, modern day France, confronting a hitherto little known people—the Christian Franks. There, on October 11th, 732, one of the most decisive battles between Christendom and Islam took place, demarcating the extent of the latter’s conquests, and ensuring the survival of the former.

From and Continued at

Thursday, October 9, 2008

"Islamo-Fascism" or is it just plain Islam as mandated in the koran?


Rick Santorum: Is the average American going to be afraid of a guy living in a cave, we haven’t seen in six years -- that he’s going to destroy the United States of America? No.

There was a story that General Franks, Tommy Franks, told me soon after the war. He told me that about a year after the attacks of 9/11, he had an opportunity to be with the President. The President, for the first year or so after the war, would on occasion refer to the terrorists as cowards. He would call them cowards. And General Franks had an opportunity to talk to the President; said, “Mr. President, you know, you refer to these terrorists as cowards.” He said, “Mr. President, they may be many things, but they are not cowards. These are people who are willing to die for what they believe in. So they are not cowards. But more importantly, by calling them cowards, you tell the American public something very wrong.” Who is afraid of a coward? Who believes a coward will defeat us?

Words matter. How you define things matter, particularly in this war. Why? Because there will be no clean victories. So the path will be harder. It will take much more understanding for the American public to understand this. And they simply don’t.

And so I spent a whole lot of time trying to convince the President to do this. And as David mentioned, he did it one time -- he said the word “Islamic fascism” one time, about three days after I gave my last lecture to him about using that word. He did it, if you recall, the day the British foiled a plot where a group of people were going to blow up airlines coming across from Britain to the United States, 10 airliners. And he was asked at a press briefing a question, and he referred to the enemy as Islamic fascists.

There was a raft of stories. People were saying, “Ah, the President’s redefined the war.” I got -- I can’t tell you, because I’d just given a speech on it, saying the President needed to do this. My phone was ringing off the hook. “Have you convinced the President to change focus?” Well, three days later, he ended up going to the State Department. And at the State Department, rumor has it, he was confronted by senior-level administration officials at the State Department. And he was told that if he used the term “fascism” and “Islam” together, he would destroy the coalition of Islamic supporters that we have around the world. He would anger Muslims throughout the world and in this country; would incite more anti-American activity; and he has to never use that term again. And he never has since.

And as a result, we have a country that is walking through this war, just looking at blood and destruction, and not knowing why it’s happening. So what I’ve decided to do is to go out, and I’ve formed a project at a think-tank, Ethics in Public Policy. And I wanted to talk about this and one other thing that I noticed.

During the end of my campaign, I noticed there was something else going on; something else that I found rather disturbing. It was in a growing alliance between this radical group of Islamacists, particularly Iran, and people in Central and South America, Venezuela, Nicaragua now, Ecuador, Bolivia, and North Korea and other places -- that these alliances were forming. And no one was talking about it. In fact, we were ignoring it. You saw the United Nations, when Hugo Chavez got up and called the President a devil. And the American left and the college campuses -- they just loved that. Then Ahmadinejad got up, and he was excoriating the President; again, the American left -- they just loved this. Right before the election, it was great. They were tearing the President apart, showing, again, lack of respect for the President. But what I saw was something different. What I saw was a growing alliance that really disturbed me. So I went out and started to talk about that.

And for me, it was like -- I don’t play chess very well. But what I do know is that if you’re really a good chess player, as the game goes on, you can sort of see what’s going to happen. You can sort of see the moves and counter-moves. And you sort of having a feeling of how this thing’s going to end. Well, that’s sort of how I see this. There’s a lot of moves and counter-moves going on around the world. And I think I have a feeling -- an eerie one -- of how it may turn out.

We have an array of enemies against us. The one is Islamic fascism. But what we haven’t done is explain to you that there is not one brand of Islamic fascism. We tend to paint them as -- for simplicity’s sake -- as, you know, everybody in jihad. But there are two different sects, of Sunnis and Shia, and they believe two fundamentally different things; not theologically. Their theology is both based on the Koran. It’s not like Protestants and Catholics, where they have theological differences in the Koran. They have historical differences as who’s the rightful leader of Islam, which leads them to fight for power as opposed to theology.

The Sunnis want to reestablish a Kalifat. For a thousand years, Sunni Islam fought Christendom -- a thousand years. And in fact, for most of the time, won; for the most of the time, was on the offensive. It wasn’t till the late 17th century that Islam was stopped. And it was stopped at the gates of Vienna, in the heart of Europe, in Austria. The siege of Vienna -- the second siege of Vienna in 1683 -- that ultimately was the highwater mark of Islam.

Does anybody know when the highwater mark of Islam was? September the 11th, 1683. It was the very next day, on the plains of Vienna, that Christendom -- the Holy League, it was called -- united. All of Europe, with the exception of -- anybody want to guess? France, right, you got it. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

But with the exception of France, we conquered -- they conquered -- the Sunnis, and drove them into finally a treaty in 1699. And for 300 years, they have been silent. Why? Because they didn’t have the resources or the technology to compete with the modern world. For 300 years, they lay silent.

But now Sunni Islam, through al-Qaeda, which is Sunni; through resources, known as oil; through technology that is now off-the-shelf, and through frustration -- imagine you’re a Muslim. You are the person who has the faith that is the successor to the two incomplete faiths -- Judaism and Christianity. You are the final revelation. You are the one that is going to control the world. You are the one for a thousand years dominated the world. And for 300 years, you sit in a backwater, looking at Christendom thrive, while you sit in squalor and poverty. How can this be?

And so, strains of Islam started to come, like Wahhabism, that adopted tactics of the modern world, grafted them onto Islam in a corrupted way, and are now projecting itself through these terrorist organizations.

This is what we fight. They want to reconquer the world. They want to establish a new Kalifat that was eliminated by Turkey 100 years ago; by Atatürk. That’s one -- and by the way, it’s not just al-Qaeda. It is terrorist groups and nation-states that support these terrorist groups, like Saudi Arabia, all over the world.

Then you have the Shias. But they’re a minority. They were -- up until the late 1970s, they were considered the peaceful Muslims. They didn’t fight -- most of these wars, they didn’t participate and fight. They didn’t believe -- their history tells them, you know, that they’re not to establish a Kalifat. They are to wait to the return of the Mahdi, the return of the Twelfth Imam. It is only till then that they will establish reign in the rest of the world. And they are to wait until then. They are not to govern until the Mahdi returns. That’s what Shias believe.

So you say, Well, then, why do they now govern Iran? Why do they now take arms against us via Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations? Well, that’s thanks to a man named Ayatollah Khomeini, who has taken some of the roots of the modern world, and some of the roots of Sunni Islam, and grafted them onto the Shia religion -- which in my mind makes the Shia brand of Islamist extremists even more dangerous than the Sunni [version].

Why? Because the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi. And do you know when the Mahdi returns? At the Apocalypse at the end of the world. You see, they are not interested in conquering the world; they are interested in destroying the world.

Now I would suspect -- I could be wrong -- but I would suspect that some of you, if not most of you, had never heard any of this. And that’s the crime. Because we’ve been at war with these people, particularly in Iran, since 1979. And we have been in armed conflict with them for the last five years. And America has no knowledge of who we fight, and why they fight us. And thus, they despair.

So it is important for all of you to know who we fight. You are in the seeds of academia. They will never tell you who we fight. But you need to know. And you need to educate.

But it’s not just radical Islam; it is also the radical left. Because what we’re seeing now is the old adage you learned when you were a kid -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the left -- whether it’s here in this country, and certainly around the world -- sees America today as the enemy. They fight us on college campuses, and they fight us in the streets of Central and South American countries, in North Korea, in other places.

You’re seeing an alliance grow. There was just an announcement this past week -- there is now nonstop service, airplane service, between Karakus and Tehran. Interesting destination. You’re seeing Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez, sign a defense pact with Iran, start a $2 billion anti-American fund for Central and South America, spend more money on arms than any other country -- foreign arms sales -- than any other country in the world, create a million-person army, spending $30 billion to build forts, and [has] aligned country with Evo Morales in Bolivia to build forts -- where? On the border of Chile, on the border of Peru, on the border of Brazil and Argentina and Colombia; facing toward those countries. And who is going to be in those forts? Yes, there’ll be Bolivian troops. But the officers in charge will be Cuban and Venezuelan.

He has made it very clear -- the left is coming back. He has already, as you’ve seen, nationalized the telecommunications company, he’s nationalized the oil industries, he’s shutting down all the free press, all the television networks that don’t agree with him. And he is funding democratic elections. He’s funding the Communist candidates, like Daniel Ortega, who just won in Nicaragua, so they can take over. He is the new Castro, except he has one advantage that Castro never had -- oil. He has the money to do what Castro could never do.

And so isn’t it interesting that the radical left and radical Islam, who have very little ideologically in common, would join together? They see the soft underbelly of America, just like the Soviet Union did. And they’re going after it. And we stand by and ignore it.

We laugh at this man Chavez and consider him a buffoon. I remind you, we laughed at Hitler. And we laughed at Khrushchev when he pounded his shoe on the table at the United Nations. These little men, these idiots -- they are neither. They are dangers and threats to the United States of America.

So this is what we are up against. And unfortunately, we see the United States standing on the sideline, or at least, when it comes to Central and South America. And now potentially, when it comes to radical Islam holding back or retreating from the fight -- you know, Winston Churchill once said that -- in his book, “The Gathering Storm,” he said, in the subtitle, “How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm.”

And so it is today. We are sitting back. We are debating whether we are going to confront this evil. And let me assure you, they are not going to go away. That’s what the left will tell you. That’s what the Democrats will say. If we pull back, they’ll leave us alone. If we pull back -- let themselves work it out -- it is not a concern to us.

Well, the American public believes this. Why? Because they don’t know better. We have to teach them. Teach them. The President of the United States has to turn from the Commander in Chief to the Educator in Chief, and so does everybody else who believes in this cause.

And so that’s why I’ve decided to do what I have led out to do. And let me teach you some things that I think are important, not just to describe who the enemy is and what the problem is, but to offer something that is difficult, which is hope.

But I say this with this proviso, with this caveat -- this will be a long war. This will -- remember, when they had the technological ability to fight us, they did, for a thousand years. A thousand years. This is hard for us to understand -- a country scantly 250 years of age. A thousand years is incomprehensible to us. It is not to them. It is not to them. Their history is that history.

And they know their history. They know who they are. They know who we are. And we have no idea who they are.

What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate.

Let me -- on the education side, this is -- people have likened this to World War II; that, you know, we’re sort of not getting it, like we didn’t get -- this is more like the Cold War. This is more like -- at the beginning of the threat of Communism, the Americans didn’t get it. And so there were all sorts of organizations, many on college campuses, that organized to educate the American public about the threat of Communism, about that ideology. The American left wasn’t going to do it; they were sympathetic. Hollywood wasn’t going to do it; they were sympathetic.

We need to do it. We need to educate. We need to define the enemy.

I have -- my staff, toward the end of my campaign -- if I ever said the word war on terror, we’re fighting terrorism or terrorists, I’d have to put a dollar in -- that used to be a quarter -- it was a dollar in the jar. Stop using that term. Never say war on terror, never say we’re fighting terrorists. Because we’re not.

They are in a whole new war with us. We can choose not to be in one; doesn’t mean we aren’t. We are in a war, and theology is its basis. Just like we were in a war against Communism, and ideology was its basis. We need to understand that.

We need to do more, as I said, to spread the ideas throughout your campuses, but you also have to explain to people what losing looks like. Because people don’t think we can lose to these folks.

What losing looks like is pretty easy, in my mind. Look at Europe. Europe is on the way to losing. The most popular male name in Belgium -- Mohammad. It’s the fifth most popular name in France among boys. They are losing because they are not having children, they have no faith, they have nothing to counteract it. They are balkanizing Islam, but that’s exactly what they want. And they’re creating an opportunity for the creation of Eurabia, or Euristan in the future. At their current population trends of Europeans having children -- of Westernized Europeans, not Islamic Europeans -- European population will be half of what it is today in 32 years. Europe will not be in this battle with us. Because there will be no Europe left to fight.

That’s what part of this will look like. The rest will be for them to control all of the oil revenues, for them to control all the other things that are important to making economies go, and drive us to our knees economically. This is not beyond the realm of possibility.

And there are many other ways through technology that they can attack us, without having to blow up bombs in New York City or Washington, D.C.

That’s what losing looks like. It looks like being alone and isolated, and without freedom and opportunity.

The second thing we have to do is engage the American people. You know, one of the things that we have not done is tell the American people what they can do to help. I think one of the things we can do is engage the American left.

On your college campuses, engage the feminists. Here’s how you do it. Have joint left-right -- no, wait a minute -- have joint feminist-College Republican symposium on how Islam treats women. Bring in women from the Islamic world who have escaped from the radical Islamic world, to talk about honor killings and mutilation, and polygamy, and all the other horrific things that happen to women in the Islamic world. Challenge them, in their own roots, to stand up and fight against something that they say that they’re against.

Have a joint symposium with the gay and lesbian organizations on college campuses. And talk about how Islam treats homosexuals. Talk about how they treat anybody who is found to be a homosexual, and the answer to that is, they kill them. Talk about why they’re not standing up and fighting for what they say they believe in, in fighting radical Islam.

You have an opportunity to shine light where there is now just heat. Engage them. We need to engage America. We need to engage America on energy. The President is trying to do that. I remind you, without oil, we wouldn’t be here. Without oil, there wouldn’t be a problem. We have to do something about our energy independence, and we need to engage the American people.

Evangelize. Now I don’t mean convert Muslims into Christians. But one of the things we do need to do is appeal to moderate Muslims. Christianity went through this. Christianity did not always -- even though the Bible said so -- separate church and state. The Bible was -- Jesus was very clear -- give unto Caesar what’s to Caesar and to God what is to God. But that was not practiced for hundreds, if not over a thousand years. The church and the state were one after the Emperor Constantine, for a long time, in many countries.

And so, we need to explain to them how we went through our change, our modernization of the faith, to allow religious pluralism. We need to engage. And that means you need to engage. Engage your Muslim club on campus. Ask them -- have a symposium about how we can achieve religious pluralism. And --

Unidentified Audience Member: [inaudible]

Rick Santorum: The other thing we need to do is eradicate, and that’s the final thing. As I said, this is going to be a long war. There are going to be pluses and minuses, ups and downs. But we have to win this war to -- fight this war to win this war. We cannot sit back and think that these folks are going to go away, because they simply will not.

We have to improve our intelligence. It is still woeful. The idea that we have absolutely no idea -- which we do not -- whether Iran is close to a bomb or not is just absolutely unacceptable. Our intelligence community is still in a woeful state. It is not allowing us to defend ourselves.

We need to improve. We need to get better. We need to take on one major threat. And the President is moving toward it, contrary to what everybody in the Administration says. And I think he’s moving toward it for the right reason -- because we cannot tolerate it. And that is we cannot tolerate the continuance of that government that is in control of Iran.

And I’m not suggesting that we have to go in there and blow them up. But I would tell you this -- there’s an article -- fact, a great article -- today in the Wall Street Journal by Michael Ledeen. And I would encourage you to get it.

The answer is you, the equivalent of you in Iran. Over -- I think it’s about half the people in Iran are under the age of 30. This is a young country. This is a country of young people that is not particularly crazy -- the majority are not crazy about the ruling regime.

We are doing nothing -- let me underscore this -- we are doing nothing to help the dissonants in Iran revolt and turn that country back to a real democracy. We are doing nothing, in part because of the State Department’s desire to negotiate with Iran and the CIA’s desire to stay out of the way of Iran.

I mean, think about this. You’ve heard about these EFPs, these new projectiles that we found that were made in Iran, that are being used against our troops? And these EFPs -- and you think -- well, I don’t know if you’ve seen the pictures, these little -- looks like little copper bowl, little copper dish. You think, Well, you know, what’s the big deal? Little copper dish. I’ve seen pictures of Abrams tanks -- not Humvees, not up-armored Humvees -- but Abrams tanks that get hit with one of these things, these little cylinders that won’t look like much. They look like a tin can after some maniac, you know, crushed it against his head. It’s unbelievable what these things do.

And Iran is behind it. And guess what? We have known for years that Iran has been behind providing weapons and logistics to the Shia and Sunni insurgents. They don’t care who kills each other, as long as they’re destabilizing Iraq.

So a radical Shiite regime is funding al-Qaeda, who doesn’t like radical Shiites. Why? Because they just want to defeat us. They want to defeat democracy.

We’ve known this -- our intel people have known this for years. But Congress didn’t know it. I can tell you for a fact. I stood in briefing after briefing, after I got word from troops and others that Iran was helping kill our troops in Iraq, and I went to briefings, classified briefings, asking if that was true and was repeatedly told no. And I think I know why. Because if they told us it was true, if they told the President it was true, then we’d have to do something about it. And the CIA didn’t want us to do anything. Because they didn’t have any good alternatives for us to do.

Now, we have to change the government of Iran. And it will be a tough thing to do, but we need to do it.

Let me just -- let me close with one of my favorite quotes, as I think about the times that we’re going through. It’s a quote by Sir Winston Churchill. It was given in June of 1940, June of 1940, a year and a half before the United States would get into World War II. “What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of our enemy will soon be turned upon us. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to do our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This is their finest hour.’”

Tom Brokaw called that generation of Americans the greatest generation. Yet, remember, it was a year and a half after Europe fell that this greatest generation halted hesitantly, and ultimately didn’t get involved until we were ourselves attacked. In the face of this great evil across the ocean, [inaudible] of this lethal evil, this greatest generation of Americans said no to combating it. As our closest ally was being bombed into oblivion, we stood on the sideline.

What we’re experiencing here in America is nothing new. Americans don’t like war. They don’t like suffering and dying. No one does. If this is to be our greatest and finest hour, we, like Britain, will be alone. We, unlike Britain, will be scorned and ridiculed by everyone else around the world for doing it. Unlike World War II, this war will not last a year or two or three or four. This will be a long war. This will take more from your generation than even the greatest generation gave America.

It may have been Britain’s finest hour, even during the years of ‘41 to ‘45. World War II may have been America’s finest hour. But it was not, and is not, our greatest challenge. Your generation, the young people sitting right here before me, are the ones who will have to shoulder the burden of what I believe will be the beginning of the greatest struggle the West has ever seen.

The question is, will we have the wisdom, the courage and the perseverance to answer this call? I pray, and I ask you all to pray, to God that we do.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Jihad - Terror Attacks by Islamics

On September 11th 2001 America suffered the worst and bloodiest attack in its history. Nearly 3,000 innocent civilians were brutally murdered in the unprovoked assault. They were murdered because they lived, worked and prospered in America, the world’s beacon of liberty and the guardian its freedoms.

Their murderers were a cadre of Islamic terrorists who were part of a vast global network of religious fanatics who have declared Holy War on the United States and the West and, as part of their Jihad, pronounced a death sentence on every man, woman and child living in our borders. With the potential for mass destruction made possible with modern technology, this Jihad confronts us with a threat our civilization has never before known.

This threat did not begin with 9/11. The 1990’s were marked by a series of Islamic terror attacks against the United States. The response of our elected officials was mainly passive in the face of these attacks. Missiles were launched into Afghanistan and Iraq by the Clinton Administration but to little effect and not as part of a sustained response. Neither the American public nor our military forces on the ground were mobilized or engaged. Our government remained inert as the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole were bombed. The threat grew; terrorists were trained, deployed and then organized into cells that stretched across Europe and the United States. The result was a catastrophic attack on the very same building, the World Trade Center, that had been attacked by the jihadis eight years earlier in 1993.

After overthrowing the Taliban, the theocratic regime that had provided a base for the 9/11 attack, we returned to our illusion of peace and safety. When the Bush Administration summoned us to war against a second base of terror in Iraq, only half the nation responded to the call. This war has been called a “distraction” from the war on terror, even though the terrorists themselves, beginning with Osama bin Laden, call it the central front of their jihad and have described their goal as making Iraq the next homeland for their terror apparatus. Because of the campaign by the “anti-war” opposition in our own country, we are in a state of denial about the reality of the war that has been declared on us. Consquently, we are grossly unprepared for the dangers that surround us and unwilling to do what is necessary for our safety. Our populace as a whole is ignorant of the threat, underestimates our enemy, and is unaware of its true intent, capabilities and resolve. That lack of understanding and urgency is particularly apparent on our college campuses, where an unwillingness to focus on the face of the enemy is often compounded by a tendency to blame America first.

To dramatize the struggle for survival our nation faces, we concerned students have decided to launch the Terrorism Awareness Project. We will provide informational literature, films, posters, advertisements, speakers, and panel discussions s whose purpose is to make our fellow students aware of the Islamic jihad and the terrorist threat, and to mobilize support for the defense of America and the civilization of the West.

The cost of continued complacency will be lethal. The terrorists will attack us again. The only questions are Where? and When?

The war against the Islamic jihad and its religion of terror will be decisively won if we both understand the nature of the threat that confronts us and have the will to face it. The Terrorism Awareness Project will assist in achieving both these objectives. Under its banner, college students across America can take their place in defending America, which is under siege both abroad and at home.

from Terrorism Awareness Project (TAP)

Terrorism Awareness Project is a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Kabylia Observer: A Muslim’s Way Out of Islam

A Muslim’s Way Out of Islam
by Zorro

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Hossain Salahuddin, a poet, essayist and an ex-Muslim who is the author of several books. He is the editor of the magazine Maverick, which promotes literature, freethinking and rationalism.

FP: Hossain Salahuddin, welcome to FrontPage interview.

HS: Thanks very much for having me. It’s a real pleasure to be here.

FP: Tell us about your childhood and your upbringing within Islam.

HS: I was born in 1984, into a Muslim family in Bangladesh . My family was rather orthodox and they made sure I learn the Quran properly even before they enrolled me in a school. I had a home tutor Mullah, who taught me reciting Quran in Arabic- and I was actually good at it. I remember completing the whole Arabic Quran three times before I turned 12 without even understanding a word of it. If I try to remember, I can feel that it was pretty suffocating with all sorts of do’s and don’t. You can’t do this, you can’t do that, and there was that constant reminder- “You are a Muslim, you should act like one.”

So, yeah, my childhood was not something that I am really proud of. There were all sorts of religious restraints around my neck and that actually affected my relationship with my family members. But, I should say I was still a believer back then; only there was a slight discomfort in me with the practicing form of Islam. I admit that I had a rather troubled childhood but I didn’t turn into a rebel just yet.

FP: What caused your second thought and your ultimate abandoning of Islam?

HS: Well, when I was around 13 or 14, I developed a great interest in creative writing, especially in poetry and I started to spend a lot of time reading books and writing poetry. I remember borrowing up to ten books at a time and reading them in a row. History, Science, Philosophy, Religion, Literature name it, all sorts of books. It was a fascinating time I can tell you that. I guess I was mentally a bit matured than my actual age, and I really cherish that part of my life as a period of illumination.

I think books taught me to think and judge things rationally, to escape from the world of prejudice and irrational beliefs. Books were my true liberator, it’s the best companion I ever had. But, it wasn’t always fun. My family didn’t take it lightly as they were noticing some change in me and also my teachers at school. In fact it was the teachers who gave me all sorts of trouble. Unfortunately, most of my teachers were very orthodox Muslims and they didn’t like my writings. They even banned my writings from the school magazine which really upset me given that I was probably the only student who could write creative things. And they were constantly reminding me that Islam doesn’t approve poetry, music, painting, mixing with non-Muslims or reading texts of other religion and it really confused me.

There was only one way to find out: by reading Quran and Hadith in my mother tongue. I read the Quran over and over again and couldn’t believe what I was reading. I started to mark the questionable verses and wrote comments beside them. I wondered, are these versus full of hate being spread and preached everyday in all corners of my town? I was completely dumbstruck. Initially, I thought it was the translation that was to be blamed. But I collected many different translations of the Quran and very reputed Islamic scholars translated some of them. You can say I was really shocked and I spent almost two years of my year 9 and 10 searching for answers.

At year 10, my first book of poems was published and by year 11, I was convinced that Islam itself was a very violent belief. By reading Quran or any other Islamic text in your mother tongue, there can be two effects on you: you could either turn into a violent, brainwashed Muslim ready to eliminate anything that opposes you, or you could abandon Islam altogether and become a free man. I choose the former path and at a very young age.

FP: Did you face the threat of violence for leaving Islam? Are you still in danger today?

HS: Well, leaving Islam was not an instant decision; it was rather a gradual process. I think by the time I reached 12, I consciously abandoned Islam altogether. And some of my closest friends knew about my views on Islam. I think some of them were really shocked. So, leaving Islam was a private matter at the beginning, I didn’t share it with lot of people initially.

Obviously there was the fear of making a majority of Muslims upset. So, what I did was, I started to question a lot to spread my message. I learned it from the life of Socrates, that’s what he used to do, and it can be very effective sometimes. I started to question Islamic beliefs and traditions in a lot in my writing and that put me in trouble. Although I had some like-minded friends and we used to call ourselves Freethinkers, I made some nasty enemies as well and I was aware that they were watching my every step. But, you know I was young and careless—so I kept going.

Finally, the waiting game was over and they physically attacked me one night- I was very lucky to escape only with some sharp cuts and bruises. After that incident I slowed down a bit, stopped going outside and tried to concentrate on writing at home. I think it was in 2002, when an Islamist organization published a book and declared me a Nastik-Murtad or “Apostate-Infidel”. So, I didn’t really have to declare leaving Islam publicly, they did the honor for me.

After that I decided to leave the country and in 2003 I came to Australia as a student. And if you are asking whether I am still in danger today, well all I can say is that I never underestimate their reach. It’s not just me, anyone who is non-Muslim, or a born-Muslim who doesn’t care about Islam much — anyone who is different from them is in danger today and it’s the sad reality.

FP: What are your thoughts on Arab imperialism and Islamic colonialism? And how does a non-Arab convert’s mind work in this context?

HS: What always struck me the most was that Islam is another form of Arab colonialism in disguise. In South-east Asia you will see people constantly cry about the British Colonialism and how they are still a victim of it. However, no one ever talks about the Arab colonialism which is very active in every single non-Arab Muslim country. Islam is in its origin an Arab religion, and it is not a religion of conscience, private belief or spirituality; it is very political and imperial. Its holy places are in Arab lands, its sacred language is Arabic, and its historical figures are all native Arab. So what happens to a non-Arab convert’s mind is very interesting.

A convert starts to dislike his own culture as non-Islamic and he becomes fascinated by the Arab influence and wants to be a part of the Arab story; ironically, he starts to praise the Arab Warrior who conquered his land. And to do that the first thing he does is to turn away from everything that is ethnically his and he lives in a world of fundamentalist fantasy to purify his non-Islamic culture.

You can see this neurosis and nihilism in the mindset of converts and you can say it is an incurable mental disease which has been affecting them and disturbing the societies for thousands of years. Arab colonialism is both political and cultural and I think it is the longest surviving form of colonialism. You see it is now a fashion to blame European Imperialism and colonialism, west and Israel in general - for every ill in this planet; Muslims are never ashamed to join this blame game. But, when it comes to Arab imperialism or Islamic colonialism, Muslims feel proud and they admire the warriors who once came from the Arab world and conquered their forefathers’ land.

This way, Islamic colonialism and Arab imperialism together have conquered and destroyed many advanced and ancient civilizations and brought catastrophic changes in the cultures of the conquered lands. You can say Arabs were the most successful imperialists of all time, because the faithful converts love to be conquered by the legendary “Holy Warriors” of the “ Holy land ” – it is some sort of salvation for the converts.

FP: Your interpretation of Islam’s holy war?

HS: Islam has always been associated with political expansion and that’s where Jihad or holy war comes into affect. Quran and Hadith repeatedly say that nothing is greater, so far as goodness goes, than Jihad in the name of Allah. Some apologists will try to tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, Jihad is allegorical, and it does not mean violence etc. But the bloody history of Islam tells us a very different story. And the Quran is actually supposed to be taken literally. Muhammad repeatedly said that the Quran is not poetry or allegory; it is the clear voice of Allah himself so that everyone can understand and take it seriously; it is actually blasphemous even to think the Quran as an allegory.

In Hadith, the collection of traditions, Muhammad asked his followers to stop any un-Islamic practice by force many times. As a religion, Islam has a long tradition of deep rooted hatred towards unbelievers. In the Quran, Allah repeatedly commanded Muslims to engage in Holy war and promised unlimited reward in the afterlife if one becomes a martyr in the war for the glory of Allah.

If you ask a Turkish Sufi Dervish who does that beautiful swirling dance, you won’t get the literal picture of Islam. You will rather get a pleasant humanitarian view of the Mystic Sufi philosophy. But, unfortunately, Mainstream Islam considers Sufis heretics and they were regularly persecuted by orthodox Muslims throughout history.

To find out the true meaning of Jihad, you have to look at the life of Muhammad, his companions and the later rulers and thinkers of Islam. You will get an extremely violent picture. Even Muhammad’s immediate successors used the term Jihad to refer to the conquest of new territory, so I don’t see much scope for misunderstanding here.

No matter what apologists try to tell you about the meaning of Jihad, to most Muslims it simply means Expansion of Allah’s Kingdom in the command of Allah himself. If they die in the pursuit they are a martyr or Sahid, someone who is guaranteed by Allah to go to heaven straightway without facing the trial in the judgment day.

Islamic scholars like Taqi al din ibn Taymiyyah, Mohammad ibn abdul Wahhab, Sayyid Qutb, Abdullah Mawdudi, Hasan al Turabi have a lot to answer for in this matter. Modern Jihadists frequently cite these scholars as their source of inspiration. They argued that Muslims are in a cosmic battle against the force of darkness. These forces of darkness should not be tolerated, and although Allah is ultimately responsible for the destruction of darkness, Muslims are required to fight it. That’s why as of today no famous Muslim cleric or Muslim country condemned terrorism. You see, almost everything of the western way of life contradicts Islamic belief - the West automatically becomes the target, hence, Islamic scholars divided the whole world into two different spheres: Islamic World or Land of Peace and Un-Islamic World or Land of warfare.

FP: So Islamic terrorists are not misinterpreting Islam?

HS: No, terrorists are not misinterpreting Islam; in fact they are interpreting Islam very correctly. Theologically, it is a Muslim’s holy duty to fight until the whole world turns to one Allah because there can not be any other God. Allah is pretty autocratic among the Gods and he doesn’t like to co-exist with any other deity. It sounds funny but its true; how many Muslim countries practice democracy? Liberalism, individual privacy and freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of belief - all of this and any other component of modernity you can think of directly contradicts Islamic belief.

No matter what apologists say, “Islam” and “freedom” are two opposite words with opposite meanings. You see, unlike Christianity and Buddhism Islam is not a personal religion; Islam is very practical, social, highly political, and unspiritual and its goal is to win the world empire. Islam penetrates even very personal aspects of human life and dictates. Islamic law or Sharia is considered divine legislation and it dictates every single aspects of human life, from using toothpicks to how to perform sex; from slaughtering animals to what verse you should recite when you are in a toilet etc. Anything you can think of.

FP: What are your views on Muhammad and his worshippers?

HS: To me, Muhammad is undoubtedly one of the most influential characters of human history in the sense that billions of Muslims are still ready to die for him, and it is unique given the extent of his influence. However, one of Muhammad’s few likable characteristics was that he never claimed himself to be perfect although billions of Muslims think so today.

I think Muhammad was always aware of his human shortcomings and he did everything to ensure that he is not worshipped instead of God. But, to Muslims Muhammad is sinless, the most perfect and greatest man who ever lived in this planet, and he is even the greatest of all prophets. Every Muslim worships Muhammad, knowingly or unknowingly and reacts with unprecedented violence if he is defamed by a cartoonist or a novelists or anyone in that matter.

However, if you follow Muhammad biography recorded by famous Muslim scholars such as Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Al tabari you will find many incidences of Muhammad being far from a perfect, sinless man. His cruelty towards Jews, Meccan Pagans and his rivals is well recorded by Muslim historians. He massacred three entire Jewish tribes - Banu Nadir, Banu Qurayaza and Banu Qaynuqa; killed the prince of Khaibar and made his wife captive to his tent: there are numerous examples; you just have to read the Muslim biographers in any translation you wish.

Apologists of Islam will try to justify these actions with there hollow logics; but if you are a prophet you should have a better moral outlook than the average human. Muhammad married 12 or 13 times — which contradicts his own preaching of a maximum four marriages, but what I find most disturbing is, Muhammad married his closest friend Abubakkar’s 6 year old daughter Ayesha. Now if you do that in a modern civilized world, you will be disgraced as a pedophile and spend the rest of your life in prison.

In another disturbing incident, Muhammad was attracted to his adopted son’s wife Zayanab and later even married her. As a leader, he failed to announce his successor which led to the bloody Shia-Sunni division in Islam and you see the second, third and fourth Caliphs of Islam all were assassinated as a result of this power struggle. These are just a few of the incidents of a very eventful life of a very influential man. But, as far as I am concerned, Muhammad was no saint. No doubt he is extremely influential, but I don’t see a perfect-sinless man in him as Muslims try to idolize.

FP: Let’s talk a bit more about Islam as a totalitarian belief system – as you discussed earlier.

HS: As I said earlier, Islam is in a cosmic battle against the un-Islamic world. I think - apart from the mystical Sufi sects, who are mostly branded as heretics by mainstream Muslims - the rest of the Islamic world and its belief systems are undoubtedly totalitarian in nature.

You see, followers of no other religion try to create international associations of nation-states that are based on religion. Only Muslims do and they call it ummah or followers of Muhammad, very similar with socialists and communist revolutionaries.

In personal label, Islam tries to penetrate every phase of life; the sole purpose of Sharia law is to control religious, social and political life of mankind in all of its aspects. Jihad and Sharia are two ultimate tools of Islam’s control mechanism. Muhammad’s life reflects the very nature of a totalitarian system. There was no separation of church and state; not just a prophet Muhammad performed as a statesman, lawmaker, judge, community leader and in many other roles.

So, you can clearly see the beginning was totalitarian in nature. Muslims are required to follow the Quran, the Hadith (deeds and words of Muhammad) and the verdict of Islamic scholars in case the answer is not found in the scriptures. Interestingly, while all other law is human and constantly evolving, Sharia is divine and immutable - human intelligence cannot criticize it, it must be accepted without any doubts and questions.

So, you can see a very tightly controlled society here without any hope of individual freedom. Sharia contains all sorts of crazy principles, such as, intolerance towards pagans and Jews, inequality between man and woman, religious, social and financial restrictions for non-Muslims citizens, acceptance of slavery and polygamy, barbaric punishments like chopping hands and feats from opposite sides to pulling out eyes and beheading — all sorts of things.

These laws were handed down over a thousand year ago and they didn’t evolve since then. Clearly Sharia is out of touch and not compatible in our twenty-first century. In the last thousand years we have progressed a lot, but the Islamic law and its worldview is stuck in the medieval desert, for generations Muslims are stuck with it as well and they need rescue. No surprise, there is hardly any intellectual progress in Muslim societies. How can there be progress if they regard the Quran as eternal truth and the final solution for all the problems? Progress requires change, Islam is unchangeable. This is why Islam is not just a religion, it is a totalitarian belief system and Muslims are the first victims of it — but very few of them realize that.

FP: How about those Muslim reformers who are trying to bring Islam into the democratic and modern world? Is there any hope for their efforts? If they asked you for help, what advice would you give them?

HS: Look, I don’t think you can be a Muslim and a reformer at the same time; it’s a paradox and contradictory in terms. Islam forbids reformation, and Muslims feel proud boasting that unlike the Bible, the Quran didn’t go through different editions and versions; it is pure, holy and untouched.

Muhammad insisted throughout his life that the Quran is the literal word of God - the truth once and for all, that’s it. So how can you bring reformation and remain a true Muslim? That’s a puzzling contradiction and I think it is misleading too. These reformers will keep telling you that Islam is the religion of peace and real Islam doesn’t approve the actions of the Talibans, Islam has nothing to do with Jihadists etc. You will eventually get tired of that. This denial is pathetic, you don’t have to go that far to see if real Islam has anything to do with these barbaric acts or not. Just read the Quran, Hadith, Sharia - Islamic texts and they are everywhere. That’s why it is so important to permit debate and criticism about Islam across the globe. Honest and sharp intellectual engagement is very crucial to create a democratic and modern nation.

FP: What advice would you advise to those who want to save western civilization? How best can we fight our enemy in the total war?

HS: London , New York , Sydney - all these big cities have one thing in common: most Muslims go there to improve their economic condition - big cities are like beauty queens- used by all and loved by none.

Most Muslims have already made it very clear that they have no intention of being assimilated into the host society; instead they are repeatedly asking to implement Sharia Law in Canada , UK , and Australia — as if it is up to the host society to change instead.

To a Muslim mind, Islam is a universal religion and he hopes some day the whole of humanity will embrace Islam. So, there is an element of expansion mentality in them, because Islam is not limited to home and personal relationship. To Muslims, Islam is a complete code of life and society must adhere to that code. So, you see, the world view of Islam is very totalitarian and you have to fight it intellectually, not just militarily. It is also a war of ideologies, we must not forget.

Unfortunately, some western societies continue to turn a blind eye when there is a Muslim-on-Muslim violence: such as, teenagers forced by migrant parents to follow Islamic codes. Some western societies are too politically correct to take any action when a freethinker is attacked for his unbelief, scared of losing the popular Muslim vote or political support. I believe that the West must always adhere to its secular principles and take prompt actions when there is violence against women or somebody is forced to follow Islamic codes. This will send a very clear message to Islamists and potential jihadists. There are an increasing number of Islamic schools in western countries, this is another way to brainwash children at a very early age and isolate them from the mainstream society by implying that We are Muslims, they are Christians; we are different. They eat pig, we don’t; we are different, by forcing girls to wear hijab sends a clear message: we are sacred, they are not, and they are whorelike.

So, it is very dangerous to turn a blind eye in such incidences in the name of promoting multiculturalism. Respect for other cultures, other values is important and a crucial component of secularism and democracy; but, if these other values are here to destroy our own civilization and modernity - then we have fight them vigorously- with reason, argument, criticism, legal and military means if it turns into violence- so that our values of civilization are protected.

Religious belief is fine; but the practices, literal submission to scriptures; religious institutions should not be tolerated. By saying that, a Muslim should have absolute freedom to his personal religion; but if he jumps up and demands the death penalty of a writer or preaches hatred in a community he should be disciplined accordingly by law.

As I said, the West must adhere to its secular principle and defend its democratic right and freedom at all costs and politicians should stop being too politically correct and they should be unapologetic when it comes to defending the core values of civilization.

However, we should remember it is not necessarily a battle between the west and Islam — as some like to portray it to fulfill there own agenda. As I said before, Jihadists divide the whole world into two spheres - Islamic world and un-Islamic world. I won’t do that. To me, it is the ultimate battle between those who value freedom, peace and humanity and those who do not, and we must triumph at all cost for the sake of our own existence.

FP: Hossain Salahuddin, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. Thank you for your bravery and your fight for freedom and truth.

HS: It’s an honor. Thanks.

The kabyle people: a blind colonized

by Zorro

The kabyle people is not aware that it is colonized because this colonization is pernicious, insidious and takes a legal and legitimate forme. The kabyle people believes it suffers simply an injustice on the part of his rulers. Kabylia harbours no Arab-Muslim owners or no military troops patrolling streets and villages. The only form of colonization that the Kabyle recognize is similar to the French colonization. Kabylia does not interests Arab-Muslims for two reasons. The first is that it is a barren land where we must work hard to expect to pull something. The terrain is not suitable for Arab-Muslim lifestyle. That’s precisely why they had abandoned Kabylia to all the rebels, the never submitted, the protesters of any time to seek refuge there.

It was a place of revilement of all those who refused the Arab-Califal order. The Aurès of Chawi had the same status and as well for the Tuaregs in the end funds Sahara, as well as the Mozabits at the desert doors. One can say that these places were and are always sorts of open-air areas prisons in which Cultural prisoners never have been free to live their culture and their language in a proud and flourishing way. The detained are subject to rules laid down by guards outside the prison world. Only a few guard posts are scattered here and there to ensure that the Rules of Procedure of this huge prison is respected. these guard posts are Wilaya seats, seats of daira, gendarmerie posts, barracks, courts, schools, mosques and so on … None of these guard posts is democratically administered by Kabyles, nor in the interest of Kabyles.

Moreover, the population is exclusively kabyle and nobody has challenged their property, their intra-mural language, their circumscribed culture. It’s like in a real prison where “residents” are doing their small business, creating a language, practices, behaviors that guards and the administration did not acknowledge but punish some times when the authority of the prison institution is threatened. It is therefore no direct colonization such as France had done. It is a physical and moral encirclement. The Arab-Islamism is working to “contain” the Kabyles in Kabylia and to keep them under its authority.

This remote colonization has lasted so long that the kabyle collective memory eventually find it normal. With the FFS, the RCD and Arouche, Kabyle believes that this kabyle prison extends even throughout Algeria. This is why they are demanding democracy, and therefore freedom, for all algerians. The algerians laugh at their noses and Arab-Muslim elites are offended that sub-citizens (Kabyles) are demanding freedom for citizens (Algerians) who have always been free to be what they want, to live their culture, promote and develop their language, practice and impose their religion … It’s like a the series STALAG 13, where a band of American officers prisoners of the Germans in 1943, intend to help the German people to get rid of the Nazis who were elected democratically.

It’s funny! The Algerian administration controling the Amazigh and the kabylity prisons offers only two alternatives to the Kabyles:

The first to leave their region in a mass but gradual exodus to merge individually in the Algerian Arab-Muslim mass, without organized communities everywhere. I worked in a few Algerian cities and I noticed that all Kabyle I knew got their homes much faster than the Arab residents of these cities. Let them acculturate themselves in the Arab-Islamic social game (friends, mosques, talking, parties, language, local expressions etc. …..)

The second alternative is that the Kabyles allow to Arab-Islamize themselves on the spot to come into harmony with the local guard posts. In a way, cultural prisoners must redeem and arabize themselves so their goalkeeper does no appear anymore as guardians imposing regulation (laws, customs). Thus the prisons opens and the Arab-Muslim can come from outside, move, blend into the crowd now totally arabized and islamized, purchase goods, funds commerce, buildings, land and so on. .. This is a release by mutation. It eliminates the socio-cultural problem specific to kabylia and there will be no problem.

The Algerian regime is moving towards one of these solutions, or both together. The Kabyle have not yet understood and persist to behave as cultural inmates demanding better life conditions in prison. The Kabyles believe that the maximum Arab-Islamism can do is to surround the Kabylity in order to not let it spread. But the Arab-Islamism wants more: delete kabylity in a very short term because the number of Kabyles discovering their situation is growing more and more. The more the Algerian regime arabize the Kabyles, the more the Kabyles who refuse arabization become effective, strong, determined, resilient and ready to act.

Arilès Translation: Jugurten