So, as you can see, unless Obama agrees to pay special taxes – like ordinary Jews and Christians – he is looking at the Sword of Islam. What will Josh Ernest say about any of this?
So, as you can see, unless Obama agrees to pay special taxes – like ordinary Jews and Christians – he is looking at the Sword of Islam. What will Josh Ernest say about any of this?
Having already yawned and scratched myself at the plight of refugees, I have to admit it felt pretty good.
If you don’t mind…
EU ‘must accept 200,000 refugees’, UN says
David Cameron: UK to accept ‘thousands’ more Syrian refugees
Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland ready to take 1,000 refugees
‘People should not be afraid of migrant influx’
Easy for you to say. It may come as some surprise that I consider what I write here a good deal before I write it. And after. When I wrote earlier this morning that the undeniable misery faced by refugees was a problem, just not necessarily our problem, I meant it. But I was still troubled by it.
I’m no xenophobe—more of a xeno-realist. Massive influxes of foreign populations do not come without consequences. When the consequences are good falafel down at the corner shop, everyone’s happy (well, I am). When the consequences are unassimilated Muslim youth with too much time, anger, and lighter fluid on their hands, happiness is thinner on the ground. Think of the torched cars in the banlieues of Paris, or no-go areas of Malmo, Sweden.
But then I think of the Jewish refugees before and after WWII. How many were turned away, and what did they ever do to deserve such heartlessness? You’re a big Jew-lover, BTL—what do you have to say for yourself? Would you have turned away the Exodus?
Do I really have to enumerate the differences between Jewish refugees and Muslim refugees? I didn’t think so. Cancel the word “refugee” from both sides of the equation and difference is between Jew and Muslim. From Charlie Hebdo to Theo van Gogh to Lee Rigby to a culture of rape and child exploitation in Yorkshire, Europe has reason to fear some of its Muslim citizens. From its Jews…
Indeed, given the number of terror attacks aginst Jews in Europe already, the very last thing European Jews need is another 200,000 Syrians raised to hate Jews. Not that Europeans care.
But if you care about your culture, Europe, I can counsel only one course of action: change the channel. If you don’t, I suggest you empty your museums of all priceless artifacts. You’ll need the space for your new citizens, while they’ll have no use for your Rembrandts and Velazquezes.
The who, what, where, and when of ISIS is a long story. Their improbable rise from “JV team” (a strong competitor for the stupidest thing Obama ever said, among many strong competitors) to Dream Team takes more of an attention span than we can manage.
But the why? We think we know why:
Only, why do they slaughter people? The Islamic State in particular, with its Baatho-Islamist cadre—what is its motive? On this point, too, there is no mystery. The Islamic State has been eager to reveal its own thinking. The Islamic State slaughters for religious reasons—which is to say, for reasons that are bound to seem incomprehensible to us. It is piety that requires the efficiently organized jihadis to slaughter the poor unoffending Yazidi minority in Iraq; and to slaughter the Shia, which they have been doing for many years now, one suicide bombing after another; and to slaughter Christians; and would surely require them to slaughter the Jews, if only the Israeli Defense Force would do them the kindness of getting out of the way. Given the opportunity, the Islamic State would slaughter most of the world, if I understand the takfiri doctrine correctly. Slavery, too, is piety, in these people’s eyes. They pray before raping.
ISIS exists to be Islamic—a strong competitor for the stupidest thing I’ve ever written (among many strong competitors). But stupid only because it’s obvious. Islam is in all of their various names, and they can’t tell us enough that Islam is the basis of their actions and beliefs. They pray before raping.
We reject the notion, of course. Theirs is a corruption of Islam, which is a religion of peace. Piety and slaughter don’t go together. Piety and slavery, piety and rape, piety and knocking down old buildings—these are not expressions of faith. Except, of course, they are. Islam is not the only faith to have demanded cruel treatment of infidels and apostates. It’s just the only faith today acting on that demand. The Judeo-Christian God was more wrathful in youth, flooding and hellfiring the sinful at every turn; she’s mellowed in old age. Today, the village of Sodom would have bakers and florists on every corner, eager to cater any event; Gomorrah would look like Provincetown, Mass. Allah is less “evolved”, as Obama would say. Or so she is interpreted.
That “the Islamic State slaughters for religious reasons” is indeed “incomprehensible” to us, but it is the only plausible answer. What else unites so many Muslims from so many societies, classes, and cultures? Islam, or a common vision of it, is all they have in common. They tell us so, if we would believe them.
We are more comfortable explaining their piety as a pathology, and that’s not wrong either. The Islamic State’s barbarity is more familiar to us in politics, not piety; fascism, not faith. Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia (Tojo’s Japan)—these are the entities we speak of when we speak of barbarity. But ISIS is no different. The others subsume religion to the state—rather the state becomes the religion.
Islamic State say it all. So does Islam, which means “submission”.
If there’s anyone angrier at the arson attack in Duma than the Arabs, it’s the Jews.
Gaza Terrorists Fire Two Rockets at Israel
Netanyahu: Fighting Against Jewish Terror ‘A Matter of Humanity’
Arson ‘Revenge’: Arabs Try to Burn Joseph’s Tomb
Shaked: Jewish Terrorism Worse than Arab Terrorism
Mass-Scale Violence in Judea-Samaria, Jerusalem
You get the idea. As we wrote a few days ago, our hearts go out to the victims of the terror attack, but our minds can’t help wondering why Jews, who have suffered from these attacks for decades, have never responded in kind.
Youssef al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian sheikh who is considered Sunni Islam’s preeminent scholar and religious arbiter, says that he no longer supports the tactic of suicide bombing.
In a post on his web site, al-Qaradawi wrote that the use of suicide bombers was only permissible to those living under Israeli occupation.
However, since Palestinians are now able to hit Israel with rockets, missiles, and mortars, the use of suicide bombers, which is euphemistically known in the Arab and Muslim world as “martyrdom operations,” is superfluous and unnecessary.
Huh. You know, outside of Israel, maybe suicide bombings should be supported? How many Muslims have killed other Muslims with suicide bombs, sending all involved to Paradise? For so many years I railed against suicide terror because initially it was only used against Israel. Now it’s a “thing,” used everywhere for just about any slight. But it’s damn hard for them to enter Israel and use it, knock on wood. All these religious people who supported suicide terror, plus all the westerners who refused to take a stance against it, have gotten, and continue to get, a taste of their own medicine. Karma sucks, guys.
An apparent Islamic State recruitment document found in Pakistan’s lawless tribal lands reveals that the extremist group has grand ambitions of building a new terrorist army in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and triggering a war in India to provoke an Armageddon-like “end of the world.”
The 32-page Urdu-language document obtained by American Media Institute (AMI) and reviewed by USA TODAY details a plot to attack U.S. soldiers as they withdraw from Afghanistan and target American diplomats and Pakistani officials.
The undated document, titled “A Brief History of the Islamic State Caliphate (ISC), The Caliphate According to the Prophet,” seeks to unite dozens of factions of the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban into a single army of terror. It includes a never-before-seen history of the Islamic State, details chilling future battle plans, urges al-Qaeda to join the group and says the Islamic State’s leader should be recognized as the sole ruler of the world’s 1 billion Muslims under a religious empire called a “caliphate.”
“Accept the fact that this caliphate will survive and prosper until it takes over the entire world and beheads every last person that rebels against Allah,” it proclaims. “This is the bitter truth, swallow it.”
Why “bitter”? If you’re Muslim, smiting the infidel is a beautiful thing. Or is ISIS tipping its hand that it knows how subhuman its behavior is?
The document warns that “preparations” for an attack in India are underway and predicts that an attack will provoke an apocalyptic confrontation with America: “Even if the U.S tries to attack with all its allies, which undoubtedly it will, the ummah will be united, resulting in the final battle.” The word “ummah” refers to the entire global community of Muslims.
Striking in India would magnify the Islamic State’s stature and threaten the stability of the region, said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution who served more than 30 years in the CIA. “Attacking in India is the Holy Grail of South Asian jihadists.”
“Holy Grail”. Funny.
Meanwhile, the Islamic State has recruited tens of thousands of fighters and sympathizers from around the world.
The failure to target the radical Islamic ideas behind the group has given its fighters the opportunity to spread, Flynn said. “If I were in their shoes, I would say,’We are winning, we are achieving our objectives,’” Flynn said. “They have demonstrated an incredible level of resiliency and they will not be defeated by military means alone.”
I’m not convinced of that. The anti-nuke types tell us that we have enough weapons to kill everyone on the planet several times over. Tens or even hundreds of thousands radicalized Islamists shouldn’t present an insurmountable problem. If all we have to do is kill them.
If instead we should “target the radical Islamic ideas behind the group [that] has given its fighters the opportunity to spread”, how is that our job? What ISIS fighter would listen to America on the subject of what Islam is really all about?
ISIS is not creating demand, as its ease at recruiting fighters makes clear. ISIS is merely capitalizing on existing demand.
Mohammed may not be a p*g—is not a p*g, I mean—but the whole situation around the Al Aqsa mosque is a sty
Police arrested a 26 year-old Jewish Israeli on the Temple Mount on Tuesday, after he stated “Mohammed is a pig.”
This marks the third arrest over insults to the deceased initiator of Islam on or near the Mount, after police arrested another young Israeli for similar remarks on Monday.
20-year-old Avia Morris was arrested last Friday for saying “Mohammed is pig” after she faced hostile Arab women hurling threats at her on the Temple Mount – including death threats. She revealed to the press on Sunday that the police were unwilling to intervene to protect her until she had uttered the remarks.
In making the arrest Monday, police said they would not allow provocations and disturbances to public order by both Jews and Muslims at the site. However, in the case of Morris, she and other Jews were arrested while the Muslim women who provoked the standoff by surrounding the Jews and shouting “Itbach al-Yahud” (slaughter the Jews) were not arrested.
If you’re ever drowning or otherwise facing imminent peril, just shout “Mohammed is a p*g!” You’ll have the Navy Seals (or Israeli commandos) at your side before you can say “deceased initiator of Islam.”
We do not agree with what this woman said, but we defend to death (hers, not ours) her right to say it:
A young Jewish woman was arrested Friday night, after she was recorded stating insults about the Muslim prophet Mohammed during a clash with Arab women on the Temple Mount.
The Arab women, apparently part of the “Morabiton,” a gang of Muslim women who get paid by Islamist groups to disturb and harass Jews that visit the site, were shouting “Allahu Akhbar” repeatedly at the group of Jews making their way to the Mount, and could be seen actively trying to get physically close to the group.
At one point, the Jewish woman, who remains mostly quiet, says “Mohammed was a pig” – and was then arrested for it.
The exchange was recorded by leftist and Arab activists, as can be seen in the video, and the Israel Police apparently arrived at the Jewish woman’s door at her Binyamin home later that night after one of the Muslim women complained, Walla! News reports. Her husband was also detained.
As we have reported countless times before, she could have been arrested merely for praying. So, if you’re going to do the time, you might as well enjoy the crime.
Justice eventually prevailed, sort of:
Judge Bar-Asher Zaban released the woman and wrote that “during the hearing, video evidence was presented to me of what seems to be a full video of a group of young Muslims shouting ‘Allahu Akbar,’ and the remarks were in response to those cries.”
“The video clearly shows that an uproar began even before the Jews arrived to the area,” she continued.
The Judge eventually released the young woman, with the provision that the woman be prevented from visiting the Temple Mount area for a few days to calm down the security situation.
Not everyone has been so lucky.
Iran will have an arsenal of nuclear weapons in five years (I plan to be around to collect on that bet); the Afghani government is negotiating terms with the Taliban; it may not be Islamic, as many Muslims desperately tell us, but there is a de facto Islamic State across the Levant (not bad for a JV team); a recently radicalized Muslim with Palestinian roots in Jordan shoots dead six US military personnel—and the media calls him depressed…
During an interview with the Hamburg-based news magazine “Stern,” editor of the French weekly “Charlie Hebdo” said he would no longer draw comics of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
“We have drawn Muhammad to defend the principle that one can draw whatever they want. It is a bit strange though: we are expected to exercise a freedom of expression that no one dares to,” Sourisseau told “Stern.”
Too true. As Mark Steyn said:
This was the only publication that was willing to publish the Muhammad — the Danish Muhammad cartoons in 2006 because they decided to stand by those Danish cartoonists. I’m proud to have written for the only Canadian magazine to publish those Muhammad cartoons. And it’s because The New York Times didn’t and because Le Monde in Paris didn’t, and the London Times didn’t and all the other great newspapers of the world didn’t – only Charlie Hebdo and my magazine in Canada and a few others did. But they were forced to bear a burden that should have been more widely dispersed…
We will be retreating into a lot more self-censorship if the pansified Western media doesn’t man up and decide to disburse the risk so they can’t kill one small, little French satirical magazine. They’ve gotta kill all of us.
That can be arranged.
Back to Hebdo for a second:
The editor said that the magazine had done what it set out to do.
“We’ve done our job. We have defended the right to caricature,” Sourisseau said.
There’s no one left to draw the prophet anyway.
“‘Shut up’, they explained” is Islam’s way, as Steyn noted last week:
Speaking of Islamic imperialism’s varied strategies, ten years ago this September an obscure Jutland newspaper published the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and opened up a new front in the clash of civilizations: free speech and jokes. The inarticulate goon imams threatened to rain down death hither and yon, and then began actually doing so.
On the fifth anniversary, I had the honor to appear in Copenhagen with a handful of friends from Scandinavia, the Netherlands and elsewhere at a conference to consider the question of Islam and comedy. There were six of us on stage that day: our host Lars Hedegaard, the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, the pseudonymous Dutch cartoonist Nekschot, the comedians Shabana Rehman and Farshad Kholghi, and me. Nekschot, for security reasons, was obliged to appear disguised in a burqa, and has since been forced to abandon his identity and the cartooning life entirely; Lars Hedegaard dodged a shot at point blank range by a man at his front door who subsequently fled to Turkey, where they’re refusing to extradite. Lars Vilks was the target of the jihadist attack on a free-speech event in Copenhagen this Valentine’s Day in which a Danish film-maker and a synagogue security guard were killed, and so he too has been obliged to retire from public life. Shabana Rehman has had her family restaurant firebombed. So, of the six of us, that’s an impressive 67 per cent hit rate for Islam.
The Times-es of London and New York, Le Monde, all the other bastions of mainstream media didn’t censor the Mohammed cartoons out of fear. They did so out of…well, I was going to wrote “political correctness”, but that sounds too lame. What is political correctness but self-loathing? You claim to believe in something—freedom of the press in this case—yet you deny your beliefs. On this subject only. Not, as I maintain, out of fear—the newsroom on West 43rd Street would not be the easy slaughterhouse the offices of Charlie Hebdo were—but out of submission.
Islam says no graven images of the Pro-Mo, yet Islamic art over the centuries is chockers with his bearded visage. Just not in the New York Times, not anymore. Remember that one of the first of the Ten Commandments also forbids graven images, but I don’t see the New York Times blotting out The Big Guy in Judeo-Christian art. And any day that the Times has to pass on reprinting an image of “Piss Christ” or the Madonna smeared with elephant dung is a wasted day.
From battlefields to newsrooms to timeless monuments of ancient civiliztions, radical Islam is on the march, with precious little standing in its way. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the ruins of Palmyra, and our own civil liberties are mere casualties of war. Put up a plaque and move along. How about those shark attacks, huh? And can you believe Donald Trump?
You won’t silence us, you won’t intimidate us. No religious intolerance will make us cower or blink.
Don’t like it? Tough titties.
The New York Times was caught in an obvious double-standard of what art it considers “fit to print” when it featured a portrait Tuesday of Pope Benedict XVI made of 17,000 condoms.
Mocking Catholics is A-OK at The Times. Muslims are a different story.
In January, The Times used respect for religion to justify its decision to withhold images of the Prophet Muhammad that appeared on the cover of Charlie Hebdo magazine — images of unquestionable news value since they prompted attacks by Muslim extremists on the magazine’s offices in Paris.
“[Some] Muslims view any depictions of the Prophet Muhammad as blasphemous,” the Times explained, adding “some of the more inflammatory Charlie Hebdo drawings are purposefully offensive — featuring, for example, drawings of the prophet in pornographic poses.”
Yet Times editors OK’d the portrait of the pope, titled “Eggs Benedict” by Niki Johnson, certain that it would be offensive to many Roman Catholics.
The New York Times’ hypocrisy regarding displays of “offensive” religious imagery runs unabated. An article yesterday about the sale of Chris Ofili’s controversial painting showing the Virgin Mary clotted with elephant dung against a porn-collage background, was accompanied by a photo of the offensive work.
As noted before, the Times isn’t afraid to run all religiously offensive images. The paper has, in the past, run approving pictures of Ofili’s painting, which caused controversy when it hung in the Brooklyn Museum in 1999. On Friday, ignoring its previous self-righteous comments on not offending “religious sensibilities” when it comes to Muhammad, the Times once again ran a photo of the Virgin Mary.
But when it comes to any depiction of Mo/Mu-ham/m-ed/ad (pick any three), the Times gives you this:
How come we can spell his name any old way we like—I’m partial to Moohomied—but we can’t draw his face?
Oh. Okay. So just issue a fatwa to post the pictures higher than the tallest dog’s penis. I’ve read stranger ones.
Hew Jews, could you knock it off?!
Palestinian Cleric on PA TV: Israel Corrupts the Muslim World
Sheikh Dr. Imad Yaaqub Hamatu: Our conflict with Israel is a conflict between spirit and matter. The global media of Israel has expanded, and it has launched its war against the Arabs and Muslims, by spreading the sex-craze throughout the world. As I have said in a previous lesson, Israel has resorted to this sex-craze, in order to crush all types of spirit among the Arabs and the Muslims. Everything is dead among the Muslims except for their urges. That is why we have begun to see all sorts of abominations and shamelessness on many TV channels. We see ads for penis enlargement and for all sorts of things, which are shameful and offensive to one’s modesty. Why is this? Because, as said in the Quran, the Jews are the people of matter, not of spirit.
Everything is dead among the Muslims except for their urges.
Don’t yell at me. Take it up with Dr. Hamatu.
If they had stuck with the Allah-praising, we might not have a problem:
Several Boston-area terror suspects, including the man killed by police earlier this month as he allegedly sought to behead cops and two alleged associates, have frequently attended sermons given by firebrand imam whose message to the faithful doesn’t match the conciliatory tone he struck when contacted by FoxNews.com.
Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, of the Mosque for the Praising of Allah in Roxbury, Mass., has been seen on videos of his fiery sermons exhorting worshipers to commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. In videos of Faaruuq preaching, the former Northeastern University chaplain appears to skirt the line between metaphor and incitement.
“You must grab onto the rope, grab onto the typewriter, grab onto the shovel, grab onto the gun and the sword,” he railed in one video reviewed by FoxNews.com. “Don’t be afraid to step out into this world and do your job.”
Typewriter? Who has a typewriter anymore? Then again, who uses pressure cookers—and see what a weapon they made.
In addition to preaching at the Mosque for the Praising of Allah, Faaruuq gave sermons at the mosque that Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev attended.
When FoxNews.com reached out to Faaruuq to ask about his teachings, including the sermon in which he mentions taking up the “gun and the sword,” the imam said he was simply advising his followers to learn to protect themselves.
[O]ne active member of Boston’s Muslim community, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Faaruuq’s words were not ambiguous.
“There are two types of people in Islam; radicals, and those that are peaceful,” the man said. “We never talk of killing, and never talk of taking out our ‘swords,’ even as a symbolic measure.”
The man said sermons like those given by Faaruuq are calibrated to stoke rage and promote radicalism.
“For a young mind, these statements carry weight,” he said. “That young mind now thinks it can change the world with the sword.”
So, according to this anonymous Muslim, there is no such thing as “symbolic” violence in Islam: a sword is a sword, and a gun is a gun. Remember that next time you hear an antisemitic sermon from a Palestinian pastor. They want blood.
And they get it:
Faaruuq told his congregation it must defend MIT graduate Aafia Saddiqui, known as “Lady Al Qaeda,” who is serving 86 years in prison for attempting to kill FBI agents in Afghanistan and planning a chemical attack on New York City. ISIS tried to trade American journalists Stephen Sotloff and James Foley for Saddiqui before beheading the men last year.
In the video, Faaruuq praises Saddiqui effusively.
“They say she took up a machine gun while they held her captive in the other room and was ready to attack her captors,” he said. “What a brave woman she is. And if my mother was in the same place, she would have taken her West Indian machete and cut her way through those kafirs (infidels).”
Her “symbolic” machete. To cut through those “symbolic” kafirs.