Everyone should fast for a day ‘to understand Muslims’, says Boris Johnson
By taffyincanada September 4, 2009 Is it haram to for the mayor to be serving Londoners dhimmi soup during Ramadan?
Boris Johnson arrives at the East London Mosque with his Director of Communication Guto Harri this afternoon where he talked about the need for greater understanding of Muslims
MailOnline… London Mayor Boris Johnson today encouraged people to undergo a day of fasting to help understand their ‘Muslim neighbour’. He said Muslims in the capital were ‘challenging traditional stereotypes’ to show they wanted to be part of the mainstream during a visit to the East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre.
Mr Johnson’s visit coincided with the holy period of Ramadan in which participating Muslims fast from dawn until sunset. He said: ‘Whether it’s in theatre, comedy, sports, music or politics, Muslims are challenging the traditional stereotypes and showing that they are, and want to be, a part of the mainstream community. ‘That’s why I urge people, particularly during Ramadan, to find out more about Islam, increase your understanding and learning, even fast for a day with your Muslim neighbour and break your fast at the local mosque. ‘I would be very surprised if you didn’t find that you share more in common than you thought.’
He added: ‘Muslims are at the heart of every aspect of society. Their contribution is something that all Londoners benefit from. ‘Muslim police officers, doctors, scientists and teachers are an essential part of the fabric of London. ‘Islamic finance is contributing to the economy by changing the way Londoners invest, save, borrow and spend. ‘There are valuable lessons that people of all backgrounds can learn from Islam such as the importance of community spirit, family ties, compassion and helping those less fortunate, all of which lie at the heart of the teachings of Ramadan.’ Source: Vlad Tepes Blog
The Post-Racial Age Has Arrived in Germany
September 1, 2009 - Politically Incorrect …or: About people born on the right side. Twice. The post-racial message of America’s President Obama has finally arrived in Germany. How have we survived so long without it? The director of the publicly funded “Workshop of Cultures” (Werkstatt der Kulturen), “theatermaker” and ethnologist Philippa Ebéné (picture), decided Thursday to remove educational panels covering the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini from a planned exhibition at her premises to the disgust of a district mayor, the curator of theexhibit and the Berlin Jewish community.
(By the Editrix) The exhibit covers the immensely topical issue “The Third World during the Second World War” and three of 96 exhibit panels are dedicated to the REALLY topical issue of the mufti’s collaboration with the Nazis who had a decisive influence on the Holocaust (we reported manytimes already). Ebéné stated that she refused to display the information on Husseini out of respect for joint Arab organizations. Her decision was supported by migration commissioner of the Berlin Senate, Günter Piening. In a neighborhood (heavily dominated by Muslims) like Neukölln a “differentiated presentation” was paramount, Piening stated. Read all here: http://www.pi-news.org/2009/09/the-post-racial-age-has-arrived-in-germany/#more-493
 By Stephen Brown Forty years after the death of the “last lion,” Great Britain is producing men of straw rather than of Churchillian iron. It was only six months ago that the British government humiliatingly and shamelessly bundled visiting Dutch politician Geert Wilders back on to a plane to his native Holland to appease Muslim public opinion. Wilders had been invited to show his documentary film, “Fitna,” at Britain’s House of Lords, but, in a gross outrage, was denied entry to the country. That watershed moment of capitulation, however, was surpassed last week when the Scottish government released Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Magrahi from prison on “compassionate” grounds after serving only seven years of a life sentence for murdering 270 people, 189 of them Americans, when a bomb destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Al-Megrahi is said to be suffering from prostate cancer and given only three months to live, though many believe that he should have spend those final months in prison. To add insult to injustice, Libya welcomed al-Megrahi home with a hero’s reception – despite official promises that it would not do so. In a choreographed demonstration, al-Megrahi was greeted at Tripoli’s airport by hundreds of people, some waving Scottish flags. As al-Megrahi appeared before the jubilant crowd, Seif al-Islam, the son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, lifted his arm in victory. It was, indeed, a victory for terrorism, and an insult to the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and their still-grieving families. Read more ...Source: FPM
 Dr. Sami Alrabaa To be more precise, SOME Westerners are naïve, greedy, and coward. Some Westerners, especially politicians, act in good faith toward Islamists and Muslim terrorists. Guantanamo will be closed, and its inmates will be rehabilitated in the U.S. and some European countries – although everybody knows that these men were not accidentally roaming Afghanistan as tourists, but were criminals fighting along side their Taliban comrades when they were arrested. Alongside Hamid Karzei, the Afghan president, and Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a press conference on May 6, 2009, that she “deeply regretted” the death of civilians in a recent clash with Taliban terrorists, and promised a thorough investigation. But Clinton should by now know that terrorists, whether they are Taliban or Hamas do not value human life. They use civilians as human shields when they fight the “infidels.” This has become a pattern in Afghanistan and Gaza. Besides, as these terrorists do not wear a uniform, it is difficult to tell whether they are civilians or terrorists. Most reports from Afghanistan corroborate the fact that the Taliban deliberately kill innocent children and women in clashes with Western troops to tarnish the image of these troops and present them as the aggressors. Of course, it is regrettable when innocent civilians are accidentally killed, but the Taliban is to blame and nobody else. Very often, Western soldiers risk their life in order to avoid killing civilians. Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, also regrets the death of civilians in Afghanistan and Gaza without mentioning the real culprits. After the latest strike of the Israeli forces, he visited Gaza and blamed the destruction on Israel. Ban Ki Moon never mentioned that Hamas terrorists use civilians as human shields and they are the ones to blame for killing innocent civilians. On the other hand, some Western politicians and bankers are greedy, and do not value human life. They would convert to Islam if that made them make money with petrodollars. They support regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia, which funds fanatic Muslims across the globe. Read more ...Source: FSMThe West
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 The Obama Administration is reportedly looking into ways of funding a Palestinian government that also includes representatives of Hamas. This, despite the fact that the Islamist movement continues to stick to its radical ideology and reiterates its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist and all the agreements that were signed between the Palestinians and Israelis since 1993. Ever since Hamas came to power as a result of the January 2006 parliamentary election, it has repeatedly rejected the conditions of the Quartet for dealing with its government, namely that it recognize Israel, abandon terrorism and accept previous agreements with the Jewish state. Attempts by the Egyptians and other Arab countries over the past three years to convince Hamas to soften its position have fallen on deaf ears. In late April, talks between Hamas and Fatah negotiators (in Cairo) over the formation of a Palestinian "unity" government failed after it became evident that the Islamist movement remained unwilling to make the slightest concession. According to Fatah representatives, the Hamas negotiators made it clear during the "conciliation" talks that they would never recognize Israel's right to exist or the Oslo Accords and other agreements between the Israelis and Palestinians. Moreover, the Hamas team emphasized their movement's "right" to continue "resistance operations" (including rocket attacks and suicide bombings, of course) against Israel. Mahmoud Abbas and Hosni Mubarak are reported to be extremely angry with Hamas for refusing to sit in a Palestinian government that recognizes Israel and is willing to renounce terrorism. Mubarak, according to reports in the Arab media, has even banned several top Hamas leaders from entering Egypt, holding them responsible for the failure of the talks with Fatah.
Abbas, on the other hand, is now considering the possibility of unilaterally forming a new government that would not include members of Hamas. But in Cairo and Ramallah there is deep concern over what is perceived as the new US policy of "appeasement" toward Hamas. The news about the Obama Administration's readiness to unconditionally channel funds to a government that consists of Hamas officials is regarded by Mubarak and Abbas as a severe blow to their efforts to convince Hamas to change. "Hamas should be weakened, not strengthened," said a senior aide to Abbas. "Hamas is not going to relinquish its radical policies as long as it feels that the Americans and Europeans are prepared to deal with it without demanding anything in return." An Egyptian diplomat expressed fear that Washington's new conciliatory approach toward Hamas and other extremists in the Arab and Islamic world will only undermine the moderates who already feel threatened by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Funding a government that consists of Hamas ministers means, in many ways, that the money will eventually end up in the hands of those who are planning rocket and suicide attacks. If Hamas is permitted to join any government without meeting the conditions of the international community, it will be seen by many Arabs and Muslims as a victory for violence. And such a move will only invite more terrorism. Appeasing Hamas means appeasing Osama bin Laden and the enemies of all the moderate Arabs and Muslims, as well as modern civilization. The terrorists will change, if at all, only once they realize that they are increasingly being isolated and have no chance of prevailing. Source: Hudson New York
1. Barbarians kill as West drifts
August 25, 2007 - Salim Mansour, Toronto Sun There comes a point at which diminishing returns on most issues begin to go negative. Such a point in denouncing Islamist terrorism and equally the Muslim majority's silence against this menace was reached sometime ago. As Islamist terrorism, however despicable, became mundane occurrence in the daily news cycle, the deafening silence of Muslims -- except for lonely voices of feeble opposition -- has given credence to growing numbers of non-Muslims that Islam is as much a religion of peace as the Klanmen's politics is an expression of multiculturalism. But there is another side to this abject reality. The Muslim majority's silence is greatly compounded by the appeasement mentality in the West of the mainstream liberal-left media, politicians trolling for ethnic votes and bureaucrats running public institutions.
An evidence of this comes from Scotland. Theodore Dalrymple, a retired physician and prolific writer, in New York's City Journal reports: "In an effort to ensure that no Muslim doctors ever again try to bomb Glasgow Airport, bureaucrats at Glasgow's public hospitals have decreed that henceforth no staff may eat lunch at their desks or in their offices during the holy month of Ramadan, so that fasting Muslims shall not be offended by the sight or smell of their food. Vending machines will also disappear from the premises during that period." It is as if more diversity training for public officials, more accommodation of demands made by fundamentalist Muslims, greater willingness to self-flagellate for sins long past of western colonialism, more policing of what might be politically incorrect speech and writing about Islamists or Saudi Arabia's official cult (Wahhabism) of bigotry masquerading as a world religion, will somehow mysteriously translate into taming suicide-bombers and their masters to reciprocate kindly to the liberal-left sensibilities of people in the West. Dalrymple observes stories such as the one from Scotland tell us something about how civilizations commit suicide -- they "collapse not because the barbarians are so strong, but because they themselves are so morally enfeebled." What do barbarians do? Kill indiscriminately as in the recent Aug. 14 massacre in northern Iraq reported by the New York Post with the headline "Savages Kill 175 in Iraq Bombings." Four trucks were exploded west of Mosul -- Iraq's third largest city in the Kurdish north -- in an area predominantly inhabited by Yazidis, a people practising pre-Islamic faith. The toll of dead and wounded among this poor dwindling minority living at the edge of the Iraqi society far exceeds the numbers first reported.
This savagery is the work of al-Qaida associates preparing more predictable bombings ahead of the mid-September report in Washington to be given by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. BOMBINGS AND OPINION There is now a pattern in al-Qaida bombings arranged to influence American public opinion during key moments in public policy debates and general elections. But the liberal-left media, such as the New York Times, remains fixated with faulting the Bush administration for the savagery of Islamists while providing oxygen to apologists of terror spinning their endless refrain of "root cause" being oil and Israel for violence originating in the Middle East. How morally enfeebled, as Dalrymple opines, is the West? Imagine the uproar denouncing any suggestion that the mainstream liberal-left media, in appearance at least, is treasonously on side with the newest enemies of freedom and democracy. Source: http://www.islamicpluralism.org/articles/2007a/070825drift.htm 2. Europe placates foes of freedom31st January 2009 - Salim Mansour Europe, or a significant segment of Europe, unfailingly discloses its frequent willingness to appease totalitarian foes of freedom.
In modern times Europe gladly has served as a cradle of fascism on the right, communism on the left and in between all sorts of variations of the two, joined at the hip with a common blood-soaked bigotry directed at Jews.
Since 9/11, and despite Muslim terrorists striking on European soil, that segment of Europe ready to appease any totalitarian assault on freedom has contorted itself to accommodate the Islamist agenda. The latest evidence of this is the Amsterdam Court of Appeal's decision to prosecute Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, for hate speech offending Islam and Muslims.
Wilders is the most daring critic of the Islamist assault on Holland, and Europe, since the murder of Theo van Gogh in November 2004 by a self-confessed Muslim fanatic of Moroccan origin, and the marginalization in Dutch politics of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born critic of Islam.
What brings Wilders into legal trouble with Dutch jurists is the 15-minute video he produced last year on Islam titled Fitna. In this short film Wilders juxtaposed verses from the Koran with passages from Hitler's rant, Mein Kampf, and urged Muslims to push for reform by removing "hate-filled" verses from their sacred text.
I do not share Wilders' views on the Koran, or on Islam, and I would be quite prepared to engage him if an opportunity presented itself. But I categorically disagree with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal's decision to prosecute him on the grounds of hate speech, thereby abridging the principle of free speech, for expressing his views on the Koran.
It is ironic that the announcement to prosecute Wilders comes on the eve of the 20th anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's notorious incitement (fatwa) to murder Salman Rushdie, the Indian-born writer, for his satirical novel The Satanic Verses.
Khomeini's incitement was an opening salvo in the Islamist agenda to silence any critic, Muslim or non-Muslim, of Islam and Arab-Muslim history.
Following Khomeini's directive to murder, Farag Foda -- a courageous and brilliant Egyptian critic of fundamentalist Muslims and Islam -- was gunned down in Cairo in April 1992. However Foda's compatriot and winner of the 1988 Nobel Prize in literature, Naguib Mahfouz, survived a knife assault by Islamists in 1994.
Islamist effort to silence critics is part of a larger agenda for the full and unreformed imposition of Sharia -- laws derived from the Koran and codified in the first millennium of the Christian era -- within the Arab-Muslim world, and its acceptance by governments in Europe and North America to enable Muslims residing in the West to live by a pre-modern legal code.
'DEFAMATION'
This push is backed by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) at the UN to combat "defamation of religions" under the international human rights code for the purpose of judicially silencing critics of Islam and Muslims.
The prosecution of Wilders, as the Dutch judges contort themselves to do the bidding of the OIC, will warm the hearts of Islamists everywhere. But Europe and the West could not be more warned of what embracing the Islamist agenda means than taking full measure of the Arab-Muslim world turned into a cultural wasteland by the unremitting Islamist assault on civilization.
 In Human Events today, I discuss the momentous first hundred days. And I expect that we ain't seen nothin' yet. “To the Muslim world,” said Barack Obama in his Inaugural Address, “we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” After 100 days, how’s that going? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad summed it up best, responding contemptuously to Obama’s offer to sit down to talk without preconditions and taunting Obama for his impotence: “We say to you that you yourselves know that you are today in a position of weakness. Your hands are empty, and you can no longer promote your affairs from a position of strength.” Ahmadinejad is also turning Obama’s campaign promise against him. When Obama indicated that he wouldn’t impose preconditions on negotiations with Iran, the Iranian saw an opening. Now, he’s apparently demanding preconditions for the talks by pressuring Obama for concessions on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Iran’s Thug-In-Chief spoke like an aggressor who has spotted an appeaser, and is determined to wring from him as many concessions as possible. How has it come to this so quickly? Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seem to have made it a top priority of their administration’s opening act to weaken our position with the Islamic jihadists: • They quietly dropped the term “war on terror.” Napolitano even went so far as to say that she preferred to refer not to acts of “terrorism” but to “man-caused disasters” (NOW had no recorded comment about her sexist language). Meanwhile, a DHS report on “right-wing extremists” had no trouble referring to veterans and conservatives of all kinds as potential “terrorists.” This suggested a disquieting will to silence and demonize the political opposition, all the while regarding the real terror threat with extraordinary myopia.
• Obama named Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy. Brooks is venomously anti-Israel and once wrote that al Qaeda was “little more than an obscure group of extremist thugs,” and that the Bush Administration had only imagined that it was a “vast global threat.”
• He has tapped Harold Koh to become the legal adviser for the State Department. Koh has said that he had no objection to Sharia’s being applied to “an appropriate case” in the United States.
• In a startling breach of protocol, Obama bowed deeply to the King of Saudi Arabia, implying an obeisance that isn’t going to free us from our dependence upon the oil sheikhs any time soon.
• While on a trip to Europe, he refused to visit the American Cemetery at Normandy, but made a point of visiting a mosque in Istanbul. He expressed, in an address to the Turkish Parliament, his “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world—including in my own country.” It’s unclear how he thinks Islam has shaped the U.S., other than to lead to innovations in airport security. His statement did nothing but embolden the jihadists who have dedicated their efforts to bringing Islamic law to the West.
• Obama said also that “the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam” -- indicating that he had no intention of addressing the ideological challenge that Islamic jihadists present to the West, or of acknowledging the fact that although the U.S. is not at war with Islam, many Muslims consider Islam to be at war with the U.S.
• Obama invited to the White House the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a 56-nation body that has declared its intention to compel the United Nations to criminalize all criticism of Islam.
• He has declared his determination to open negotiations with “moderate elements” of the Taliban, despite the fact that no such people have ever been found.
• He has declared his determination to close Guantanamo, despite the fact that over 60 former Gitmo detainees have returned to the jihad. All this and more in just 100 days. The Obama Administration apparently doesn’t know the difference between appeasement and diplomacy. A diplomat will sell you and your nation for a price. An appeaser will give it away without getting anything in return. Source: JihadWatch
 As Islamists try to bully the West into stifling free speech, we must not tolerate the intolerant.By Mary Madigan When discussing religion, how do we know when respecting apparently faith-based beliefs leads to contempt for our beliefs? Should we tolerate the intolerant? These questions are particularly relevant when a secular political body, the United Nations, recently passed an anti-blasphemy measure (backed by the 57-state Organization of the Islamic Conference) combating “defamation of religions.” The Columbia University School of Law conference Candor or Respect: Talking About the Religion of Others, held on February 26, was supposed to focus on the treatment of all religions within the realms of the public sphere (governance, diplomacy, and journalism). It was not supposed to concentrate solely on Islam. But these days, when a discussion focuses on religion, and when panel members agree that “there is reason to believe that a failure of either candor or respect could be profoundly dangerous,” the subject of Islam will tend to take center stage. Read more ... Source: Pajamas Media
By Leslie Sacks Now that appeasement is back in vogue, the post-9/11 notion that we must "understand" the terrorists-their unique motivations, their sad backgrounds-has re-emerged among the talking heads and diplomatic elites. The presumption is that such understanding will grant us insight and empathy, confirming our inherent similarities and bringing us reconciliation, compromise and resolution. The terrorists are merely aggrieved – not evil. Therefore, they are eminently capable of negotiation. Is it not strange that the victims are pleading for reconciliation, thereby donating their victimization to the perpetrators? Is not every citizen of the world – six billion plus people – in some way aggrieved, at some stage denied justice? What then separates these six billion aggrieved from the tens of thousands of active Jihadists, suicide bombers and terrorists? Read more ...Source: Family Security Matters
 Mladen Andrijasevic As an American citizen I did everything I could to stop this from happening. I voted for McCain. But now in Israel as I watch as Obama appeases the Iranians I wonder if we in Israel will be able to survive.
Obama apparently believes that appeasing totalitarian regimes works. His Nowruz address will become the classic example of such an attempt. But the history of appeasement is not very encouraging. It has not worked with the Nazis, it has not worked with Arafat's regime, and least of all has it worked with the jihadists. For those in Europe who have for years believed that their appeasement has brought them less terror and cheap oil can only look around and see what Europe has become with the recent protests in Luton and Malmo.Is it not better to have some dialogue with Iran? Are there no benefits at all? John Bolton thinks not. The US would survive the collapse of its appeasement policy toward Iran, even the scenario of an EMP attack. Israel would not. Israel should not be made to play the role of a victim of a failed appeasement policy, a learning curve unfortunate error in judgment of a rookie American president. For the lesson learned would have been that an Iranian-Israeli nuclear war would be a disaster not only for Israel but for the US as well. So why make the error in the first place? As an Israeli citizen I therefore voted for those who have already experienced the futility of appeasing the jihadists in more than 15 failed peace process attempts in the last 15 years and who will in protecting Israel's survival be protecting American interests as well. Source: American Thinker
By David J. Rusin Muslims are not the only ones who follow special practices for Ramadan, which coincides with September this year. While adherents of the Islamic faith fast from dawn till dusk, adherents of the multicultural faith spend the month bending over backwards to accommodate Muslim needs, both real and imagined. Three fresh examples come to us courtesy of European officialdom. Read more ...Source: Islamits Watch
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
