The Clash of Civilizations

'Looking Through The Veil Of Islam'

Thank you to Sigmund Carl & Alfred for the Canadian link.

The Liberal candidate for Mississauga-Erindale, Omar Alghabra, Canada, made his victory speech after winning the nomination. In that speech, he reportedly exhorted his audience, "This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam Won!" ... So what now, Islamic power is extending into Canadian politics?

Victor Fouad, a Coptic Christian, was disturbed to hear of such Islamist rhetoric from a Liberal who could easily become a Canadian parliamentarian:

"I was surprised that Prime Minister Martin showed no interest in such a dangerous mixing of religion and politics," said Mr. Fouad. "Since he has said nothing about it and this candidate is still representing the Liberal Party of Canada, I have to assume that Alghabra has the endorsement of the Prime Minister."

From Robert Spencer @ The Jihad Watch: "David Ragheb, a member of the congregation, reported that following Alghabra's victory speech, Markham Councillor Khalid Osman took to the stage and declared, "We have the east, we have the west, and now we have Mississauga"

Mr. Fouad has written a letter of protest to several Canadian newspaper editors:

Having won the Liberal nomination for Mississauga-Erindale, Omar Alghabra shouted to the audience, "This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam Won!" He went on to praise how "Islamic power is extending into Canadian politics". His performance was witnessed by hundreds including Rogers Cable, and his theocratic rant was cheered by many in the audience.

These are chilling words to a nation that has been identified as a terrorist target by Osama Bin Laden and has witnessed how "Islamic power is extending" itself into Western democracies through the slaughter of innocents in Madrid, London, New York, Beirut, Netanya, Bali and practically every country in the world. The Islamist declaration of Liberal candidate Omar Alghabra could have come from an al Qaeda mouthpiece.

And the Liberals dare to say that Stephen Harper is scary! I will take my chances with a free vote on same-sex marriage over a Liberal parliamentarian preaching the same expansionist Islamic rhetoric that incites those who will kill and maim innocent Canadians.

Clearly, the lives and values of Canadians are expendable to the Liberal party as long as they have a winning candidate."

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO UPDATE

Dr. Amr Sabet, Professor of Middle East Politics and Political Science in Canada:

"The lines are being sharply drawn between the West and its old nemesis, the World of Islam. Such demarcations reflect two distinct civilizational orders with their own specific and dynamic understandings of the nature of congruency between normative standards and social existence. Implicit in such a process are the fundamental considerations of epistemology and ontology and the very foundations upon which civilizations are to be built and consciousness shaped.

An Islamic state is a dialectical condition between socio-political structures and the Ummah's consciousness. Both support each other, and neither is effective without the other. An Islamic consciousness neutralized by an alien superimposition and a political regime governed by external principles constitute, therefore, the two-pronged dominative foundations of the Western discourse.

The potency of this discursive formation does not derive solely from its confrontational practice, but more so from its subtle nature and euphemistic language. Its intricacies make it extremely difficult for other than an elaborate deconstructive approach to expose its theoretical and practical meanings and implications. With the exception of Iran, this discourse has been largely successful in neutralizing the dialectical process of politics and consciousness in most Islamic countries.

For all practical purposes, liberal democracy may have freedom to offer to the West; for the East, however, it has only domination to offer. The East and the West, after all, are much more than mere geographical poles.

As long as those two poles are kept apart, liberal democracy as a dominative project will continue to slice irresistibly through the Ummah's consciousness irrespective of the nature of its ruling regimes. As a promise of salvation rooted in a Western discourse, it will displace political Islam. Unless this veil of salvation is torn down, the Muslim Ummah will remain in a perpetual state of spiritual and material defeat.

There are some salient aspects of the anticipated civilizational conflict that need to be addressed. Its basic contention is that the multi-dimensional conflict between the Muslim world and the secular West can only be resolved at the foundational levels of epistemology and consciousness. Only then could Muslims engage in the "politics of civilizations," not solely as the "objects of history as targets of Western colonialism," but "as movers and shapers of history." I will proceed by expounding some essential sources of conflict and by deconstructing liberal democracy as the political and ideological manifestation of the Western hegemonic system. I will further suggest the Iranian revolutionary experience as a budding nucleus of an Islamic transformation and propose criteria against which this phenomenon could be Islamically analyzed and understood in future and anticipated works.”

The extensive article in it's entirety: Introduction, Liberal Democracy and Islam, The Islamic Revolution of Iran: The End of A Discourse?, Conclusion

Just in case we think we are sitting cosily here, and this is someone else's problem, we need to know that Islam is the fastest growing religion in America. Today, the number of followers of Islam in the United States has reached 7 to 8 million Muslims in the United States. More than a quarter of a million people of Arab descent live in southeastern Michigan, making the area the second-largest Arab community outside the Middle East (after Paris, France).

One indicative example of their prolific growth in American is Dearborn, Michigan. Of a total population of 90,000 Dearborn residents, 25,000 are now Muslims and of all the Dearborn children under the age of 18, a full 58% are Muslim children. Other developing centers of Arab/Muslim growth are Florida, Texas, New Jersey and California and every year hundreds of mosques, which preach the extermination of all non-Muslims and the Islamization of America, are being added to the thousands already pointing their minarets skyward.

The vast majority (80%) of American mosques are funded with Saudi Arabian money and most subscribe to 18th century Wahhabism that calls for the spread of Islam through violence. Many mosques, "Islamic Learning Centers" and Arab/Muslim Student Unions are distributing large numbers of pamphlets and leaflets attacking Judaism, Christianity and other non-Muslim religions and urging young Americans to convert to Islam.

A large number of African-Americans convert to Islam while in the prison systems. Most notably, in 1949, Malcolm Little became Malcolm X in prison (and died as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz). The National Islamic Prison Foundation, which coordinates a campaign to convert inmates to Islam claim an average of 135,000 such conversions per year.

It is a matter of 'demographic time' before Islam will become the religion of the majority, ruled by Shari'a, Islamic religious law. CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country. Really.

The threat of Islam is real. More so than Communism and Fascism ever was, because with Islam, Muslim activists are willing to kill and to die for the cause of spreading their religion. 'Jihad' (holocaust of non-Muslims), is a sacred duty for all Muslims to perform.

From Michelle Malkin today, on another American Jihadist who is asking for mercy. American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh has asked President Bush again to reduce his 20-year prison sentence.

An expert on the subjest of Islam, and a dear friend, who for purposes of this quote prefers to remain anonymous, explains the all important and mostly misunderstood subject of Jihad:

"Recently, apologists in the West have asserted that Jihad means primarily "spiritual struggle." There are several things to be said about this. First of all, the tradition to which they are referring is a late Sufi tradition, of the eleventh century, which divides jihad into a "Jihad of the Sword" and a "Jihad of the Spirit," stating that the former is the "lesser" Jihad and the latter is the "greater." This tradition is not contained in any of the canonical volumes of Sunni traditions, however, and has occupied, historically, only a very minor place in the Islamic tradition.

How do we know this to be so? There have been thousands of books composed on the religious duty of Jihad throughout the 14 centuries of Islamic history. Every last one of those books was about the "Jihad of the Sword" but one - and that one was composed only in the 20th century, by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a Shi'ite, and not exactly a pacifist. Second, and far more important: all that this tradition states is that the "Jihad of the Spirit" is the greater Jihad; it does not in any way abrogate the "lesser Jihad," the "Jihad of the Sword"- on the contrary. It is not accidental that the word for a Sufi monastery and for a fortress of volunteer border warriors (ribat) is identical in the Islamic languages; the same people who were "struggling in God's path" in the Jihad of the Spirit were simultaneously "struggling in God's path" in the Jihad of the Sword; even the Sufis who invented this tradition saw the two types of Jihad as being complementary, not mutually exclusive. Moreover, even had the late Sufi tradition actually been the dominant one in Islam, it would in no way abrogate the militaristic Qur'anic verses which order the believers variously to "fight' or to "kill" the unbelievers.

Every classical treatise on Islamic government has viewed the primary duty of a ruler as essentially that of ordering the world according to God's will. The world is divided into two mutually antagonistic parts: the "Abode of Islam" (Dar al-Islam), in which God's rule has already been established, and which is ruled according to Muslim law; and the "Abode of War" (Dar al-Harb); that portion of the world which is not yet under God's rule, but which the Muslims must eventually bring into the Islamic oecumene by force or by persuasion. What the apologists are not revealing when they talk of Islam as a religion of peace is that the "peace" they are referring to is a Pax Islamica."

Sigmund Carl & Alfred in another not to be missed post: "We can understand President Ahmadehijad's need to rewrite history and we can understand the enthusiastic support he receives from the Arab world for his efforts. It is only by rewriting history and denying the truth that Muslims can deny the last millenia was a regression into the dark ages for Islam."

Islam revealed in a 20 point plan.

Another great post from Baron Bodissey @ The Gates of Vienna, which I have linked to before: 'The Ahmadinejad's Kampf'

Related posts on ATB: 'If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer'  'The Enemy Within'   Extraction Of The Stone Of Iranian Madness 'The Islamofascist Manifesto'   'Secular Democracy Held To Ransom'  Les Muslimerables Torch A Girl

UPDATE DEC 25TH: I just received communication from Al Gordon @The Canadian Coalition for Democracies:

"The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) issued a press release that contained inaccuracies. We would like to correct those inaccuracies and to apologize for any misunderstanding that resulted.

Firstly, the date of the nomination meeting was December 1, not December 2 as reported. Secondly, witnesses reported that the statements attributed to Omar Alghabra were actually spoken by Khalid Usman, the individual introduced by Mr. Alghabra as his major supporter following Mr. Alghabra's nomination victory. Witnesses reported that Mr. Alghabra's celebratory actions on the podium appeared supportive of Mr. Usman's declarations, and that Mr. Alghabra did not distance himself from the comments nor offer any correction.

Mr. Alghabra said:

I categorically deny making this statement, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. I challenge anyone to produce proof that I linked politics and religion."

What is however clear, is that if you are a politician and you are standing on the podium at the nomination victory, next to an ardent supporter, and member of your entourage, who screams next to you, such a distinct statement such as "This is a victory for Islam, Islam has won", which reveals that particular group's true thinking, you would immediately crush that statement and distance yourself from it and the person making it. You would do that immediately, there and then without any second thought or premeditated action, and not a long time later i.e. three whole weeks later.

All of a sudden we are to believe that this candidate was so outraged by that statement that it took him three weeks to denounce it. He should have had the guts to do it there and then whilst standing next to his ardent follower on the podium, and not calmly listen to it without saying a word.

In short, as far as I am concerned we did hear the true thinking of Mr. Alghabra on that day, whether it was the voice of his or his inner circle makes no difference to me. The Islam agenda constantly attempts to be hidden, and Mr.Alghabra's celebratory actions on the podium at the time in support of it, are all too evident of his true thinking. Perhaps Mr.Alghabra did not think that the statement would cause such an uproar, and thought that his apparent support of it would go unnoticed. This is what is said behind closed doors, his friend was simply too stupid to voice it publicly.

Too little too late as far as I am concerned, and now I am being kind, I would prefer to say "It serves you right."

Comments

[Alexandra]

Thanks Nasty 90, but we dealt with all that already back on Dec.25th in the main text as well as in the comments above.
I had an exchange of personal emails with Alastair Gordon, the president of the Canadian Coalition For Democracies, quoted in your article, which I am definitely not prepared to disclose!
The official version of the Canadian Coalition For Democracies's apology is as I said dealt with already. Heh, is what I say....

[Nasty90]

My apolgies in not responding sooner concerning the article where this Omar Alghabra denies saying what he is accused of saying. Here is the link on the matter (I got it from the Daniel Pipes web site) READ THE DENIAL HERE

[Kenny Pierce]

...and now I am being kind, I would prefer to say "It serves you right."

Very nice paralipsis, Alexandra. ;-)

The failure to condemn those comments, immediately, was contemptible and indefensible. I can only imagine the outroar if the Governor of Texas were to be standing next to a person who was speaking at the Governor's victory celebration on election night, and one of his friends were to shout, "This is a victory for the master race!" -- even if the Governor immediately kicked him out of the party, much less if it took three weeks and a controversy for the Governor to address the issue.

Yes, my dear Alexandra, Advent is now officially over.

[Alexandra]

As Updated in the main text together with my comment:

UPDATE DEC 25TH: I just received communication from Al Gordon @The Canadian Coalition for Democracies:

"The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) issued a press release that contained inaccuracies. We would like to correct those inaccuracies and to apologize for any misunderstanding that
resulted.

Firstly, the date of the nomination meeting was December 1, not December 2 as reported. Secondly, witnesses reported that the statements attributed to Omar Alghabra were actually spoken by Khalid Usman, the individual introduced by Mr. Alghabra as his major supporter following Mr. Alghabra's nomination victory. Witnesses reported that Mr. Alghabra's celebratory actions on the podium appeared supportive of Mr. Usman's declarations, and that Mr. Alghabra did not distance himself from the comments nor offer any correction."

Mr. Alghabra said:

I categorically deny making this statement, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. I challenge anyone to produce proof that I linked politics and religion."

What is however evidently clear, is that if you are a politician and you are standing on the podium at the nomination victory, next to an ardent supporter, and a member of your entourage, who screams next to you, such a distinct statement such as "This is a victory for Islam, Islam has won", which reveals that particular group's true thinking, you would immediately crush that statement and distance yourself from it and the person making it, if that was what you truly thought. You would do that immediately, there and then without any second thought or premeditated action, and not a long time later i.e. three whole weeks later.

All of a sudden we are to believe that this candidate was so outraged by that statement that it took him three weeks to denounce it. He should have had the guts to do it there and then whilst standing next to his ardent follower on the podium, and not calmly listen to it without saying a word.

In short, as far as I am concerned we did hear the true thinking of Mr. Alghabra on that day, whether it was the voice of his, or his inner circle makes no difference to me. The Islam agenda constantly attempts to be hidden, and Mr.Alghabra's celebratory actions on the podium at the time in support of it, are all too evident of his true thinking. Perhaps Mr.Alghabra did not think that the statement would cause such an uproar, and thought that his apparent support of it would go unnoticed. This is what is said behind closed doors, his friend was simply too stupid to voice it publicly.

Too little too late as far as I am concerned, and now I am being kind, I would prefer to say "It serves you right."

[Al Gordon]

CCD Regrets Errors in its December 19 Press Release

For immediate release

Toronto, Canada - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - On December 19, 2005, The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) issued a press release that contained inaccuracies. We would like to correct those inaccuracies and to apologize for any misunderstanding that resulted.

On December 20, the Liberal Party of Canada issued a press release suggesting, among other allegations, that CCD had launched an "ethnic smear campaign" by commenting on the purported words of Mr. Alghabra on December 1, 2005.

CCD has no vested interest in any allegations that are not true and defensible, and would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

The December 19 press release from CCD was based on reports from several independent individuals who were present at the Liberal nomination of Omar Alghabra. While those reports were consistent, the resultant release was wrong on two key points and the inferences it drew from them. Firstly, the date of the nomination meeting was December 1, not December 2 as reported. Secondly, witnesses reported that the statements attributed to Omar Alghabra were actually spoken by Khalid Usman, the individual introduced by Mr. Alghabra as his major supporter following Mr. Alghabra's nomination victory. Witnesses reported that Mr. Alghabra's celebratory actions on the podium appeared supportive of Mr. Usman's declarations, and that Mr. Alghabra did not distance himself from the comments nor offer any correction.

On December 22, Carolyn Parrish, the former MP for Mississauga-Erindale, was quoted in the Mississauga News as saying that "He [Khalid Usman] made comments about Muslims eventually being [represented] in every riding in Mississauga ... He made it sound like [Muslims] were taking over. It was extremely inappropriate." Elias Hazineh, president of the Mississauga-Erindale Federal Liberal Riding Association, was also quoted as hearing the Markham councillor say, "this is a victory for Muslims."

Failing to distance oneself from inappropriate statements from a supporter that mix religion and politics is not the same as uttering those statements, and CCD regrets the mistake it made. CCD is forwarding this correction to all those on its original distribution list.

CCD would like to take this opportunity to respond to several damaging assertions in the Liberal Party of Canada press release of December 20 (below) distributed to media and others over the name of "Stephen Heckbert, Ontario Liberal campaign headquarters".

The Liberal press release claims that the errors made by CCD were part of an "ethnic smear campaign". This assertion is clearly false and extremely damaging, as a criticism of mixing of religion and politics stands on its own, regardless of the ethnicity of the individuals involved. Furthermore, those who alerted CCD to such statements were all of Middle Eastern origin and could hardly be accused of perpetrating an "ethnic smear". It was only the Liberal press release that generalized from the alleged actions of individuals to an entire ethnic group.

The Liberal press release is entirely justified in criticizing the admitted mistakes of CCD. However, the release emphasizes "strong Conservative ties" and even singled out individuals for their Conservative involvement from among CCD's 28-person board of directors. CCD's board consists of people from across the political spectrum. CCD's founder has been an active lifelong Liberal and campaign worker in most elections. The Liberal press release could just have reasonably concluded that CCD is a group with "strong Taiwanese ties" or "strong Hindu ties". To attempt to make any such connection is an unwarranted and damaging generalization.

The Liberal press release chose to disclose the name, private mobile telephone number and email address of Georganne Burke, describing her as "the Conservative Party's regional organizer in Toronto". Ms Burke had never herself publicly disclosed her mobile number, although Stephen Heckbert claimed that a third party had done so. Such an irrelevant disclosure clearly violated the privacy of Ms Burke as well as possibly endangering her safety. To falsely associate a woman with an "ethnic smear campaign" directed against the Muslim community and to send such a potentially libellous statement to the media is extremely threatening to the individual involved.

Prior to the Liberal release being distributed, Ms Burke received a telephone call asking if she was the regional organizer for the Conservative party of Canada. The caller then hung up without ever identifying himself. When Ms Burke called the number captured by the Caller ID, it turned out that the anonymous call has come from the Ontario Headquarters of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Within hours of the Liberal disclosure of Ms Burke's private mobile number, she received a threatening phone call from an individual who had been made aware of her private number through the Liberal press release.

The Liberal press release chose to identify members of CCD who happened to be associated with the Conservative Party of Canada, and who had no involvement in the press release containing the admitted errors. The author of the press release is not even mentioned, while those with Conservative connections are named. Had such a generalization been made on the basis of ethnicity, as opposed to party affiliation, the Liberal press release would itself have been an "ethnic smear campaign".

It is essential to emphasize that, despite the untrue inferences in the Liberal press release, no one involved with the Conservative Party of Canada had any role in the December 19 press release, and none was aware of its existence until it was distributed by CCD.

CCD acknowledges and regrets the errors in its December 19 press release and again offers its sincere apologies to Mr. Omar Alghabra. We would ask that the Liberal Party do the same with respect to potentially libellous statements in its December 20 press release.

We also would like to extend our best wishes to Mr. Alghabra and to all candidates in the present election, and to acknowledge the sacrifice that they are making in their chosen career, especially during the holiday season.

LIBERAL CANDIDATE TARGET OF ETHNIC SMEAR CAMPAIGN

Group with strong Conservative ties launches unfounded attack against moderate candidate

December 20, 2005

MISSISSAUGA The Liberal Party of Canada called on the Canadian Coalition for Democracies to apologize for issuing a blatantly false, politically-motivated news release targeting Mississauga-Erindale candidate Omar Alghabra.

The release, issued yesterday, alleges Mr. Alghabra said in his victory speech on December 1, 2005: This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam Won! .. Islamic power is extending into Canadian politics.

Mr. Alghabra said:

I categorically deny making this statement, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. I challenge anyone to produce proof that I linked politics and religion.

Reporters who were present for the speech, including reporters for Rogers Television, said they did not hear the statements in question. A videotape copy of the news story, with his acceptance speech, bears that out. The videotape is available for those interested in viewing it.

The organization who issued the release is the Canadian Coalition for Democracies. The executive director is Naresh Raghubeer, a former executive assistant of former Conservative MPP, and Mississauga-Streetsville Conservative candidate, Raminder Gill. The groups board of directors include Michael Mostyn, the Conservative candidate in York Centre, and Georgeanne Burke, the Conservative Party's regional organizer in Toronto. Ms. Burke can be contacted at 416-816-3412, and her email address is georgeanneburke@conservative.ca.

My reputation has been tarnished, and I am demanding an immediate apology from this organization and from all those who have published this falsehood, said Mr. Alghabra.

One of those quoted in the groups original release is Victor Fouad. Mr. Fouad has been talking about this false issue on internet blogs for two weeks, and he is quoted as saying that hes tried to contact the Prime Minister for his reaction to this allegation. What isnt quoted is his statement with respect to Muslim Canadians:

Attached is a proven plan to invade the democracy in Canada and to convert it to somewhat NAZI attitude by the MUSLIMS. Please do something before Mr. Martin sells it all to them. Sincerely, Victor Fouad. http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/11980.shtml

Mr. Alghabra is a well-known voice of moderation in the Canadian Muslim community. The former president of the Canadian Arab Federation, Mr. Alghabra is also a former member of the Toronto Stars community editorial board and a board member for the Canadian International Peace Project, a multi-faith effort to promote peace and understanding in the Middle East. Board members of that group include the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, and Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory.

This release does not withstand the most basic test of scrutiny, and legitimate news organizations have rejected this story quickly, said Mr. Alghabra, but the damage has been done on the internet and in blogs. I am seeking an immediate retraction to ensure smear campaigns such as this do not become the norm in Canadian politics.

-30-

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Stephen Heckbert,
Ontario Liberal campaign headquarters,
416-921-2844 ext. 338

-30-

For information, please contact:

Alastair Gordon
President
Canadian Coalition for Democracies
PO Box 72602
345 Bloor Street East
Toronto, ON M4W 3J0 Canada

Web: http://CanadianCoalition.com
Tel: 416-963-8998
Fax: 360-294-2839
Email: admin@CanadianCoalition.com

[Notta Libb]

Check out a funny site dedicated to the absurdity and satire nature of saying “It’s All George Bush’s Fault!"

http://www.iagbf.com
http://www.itsallgeorgebushsfault.com

I hope that you don't think this is spam. I really do think that you'd appreciate a site like this since we share the same idealogy. Hopefully you like it enough to blogroll

Regards,
Notta Libb

[weekenderman]

Joseph wrote: "So I ask again, what else do you want done in your defense that isn't already being done?"

I want President Bush to have the leeway to approve wiretaps without Congressional approval during a time of war. That Constitutional prerogative is being taken away by Congressional fiat -- in spite of the fact that those wiretaps have prevented any more 9/11 attacks.

I want our military to have the option to use WHATEVER MEANS ARE NECESSARY to extract information from prisoners during the war on terror. That option, as well, is being taken away by Congressional edict -- in spite of the fact the terrorists are watching CNN and realizing they have nothing to fear from the U.S. if they are caught.

Right now Saddam's courtroom defense is the same as the Democratic mantra regarding the war. Does that, in itself, not speak volumes????

[Alexandra]

"You should be a little better informed. Up until he crossed the Afghan border for the first time, JWL was is full compliance with American law. His study in a Muslim school in Pakistan was in no way illegal, nor was anything he did up to the time he went to Afghanistan. He may have turned to a radically fundamentalist Muslim view, but he had done nothing actionable under our law. Merely having such a view is not illegal. Acting on it may be, but there is no reason that it must be in all cases. It depends on what specific laws, if any, are broken."

You have still not explained to me why I should be "a little better informed"?!

[Joseph Marshall]

When they choose to express themselves in a way that threatens my values, beliefs and even my existence, well, I have the right the to defend myself in a manner consistent with the threat.

So I repeat, what extra defense do you propose we undertake? Particularly since so many here seem to be so exercised about the mere presence of Muslims among us, whatever they may or may not be doing. I think I can say with fairness that Alexandra certainly is.

Do you seriously believe that the tax returns and bank deposits of any Muslim business or charity here isn't a target of investigation by the Treasury Department's FinCen for money laundering to terrorists abroad? I don't.

Do you think any Muslim student association on any college campus is receiving no attention from the local FBI office? I don't.

Do you suppose that the Detroit FBI office, in particular, isn't all over Dearborn like a cheap suit? I don't.

So I ask again, what else do you want done in your defense that isn't already being done? If you don't want anything else done, why hyperventilate over it? If you do want something else done, come clean to yourself about what it is and then look the consequences of it in the face.

Now, I thought I made my meaning perfectly plain, Alexandra. What JWL was charged with was his actions in Afghanistan: visiting Osama, taking up arms and fighting with the Taliban, and so on. All of these things violated American law. He has admitted his own guilt to these things, pled the charges, and is currently incarcerated.

Follow me so far?

He was not charged with being Muslim, with travelling to Pakistan, with residing in Pakistan, with studying Islam in Pakistan, or with developing steadily more fundamentalist Islamic views. None of these particular things violated any American law.

If there is a plainer English explanation of what I mean, it is beyond my skill in prose to produce it.

I do hope, however, that you are making as strenuous an effort to understand it as I am to explain it.

[weekenderman]

What really ticks me off is that when the liberals try to tie the hands of our President behind his back, they are limiting the protection of the American people -- including me and my daughter and my friends (including Alexandra).

Who gives a rip about the liberty of jihadists? I'm much more concerned with the length of my toenails than terrorists having even an ounce of protection from our laws and our military.

[weekenderman]

testing testing, one two three :)

[RC]

the underlying problem with liberals/pagans
inability to understand and accept the existence of
evil in the real-world is their faulty
understanding of human-nature. The atheistic/pagan
understanding of human-nature is based on emotions
and sentimentality, instead of rational-reasoning
and reality.

rationalpi.com
simpletruth.org
powerforliving.com

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

Joseph- in a nutshell, even reality is palatable to those bound and determind to distance themselves from that state of being.

No one gives a rats ass about what JWL or muslims choose to believe. They are free to express themselves as they choose.

When they choose to express themselves in a way that threatens my values, beliefs and even my existence, well, I have the right the to defend myself in a manner consistent with the threat.

Flying planes into buildings, and threatening to do more of the same, or worse, gives me a whole lot of latitude in just how I decide to defend myself. Further, I take the threat just as seriously, if I'm NOT The prime target.

Screw with the Jews, you screw with me. Can you understand that concept? Ghandi was a lovely man, a pacifist and gentle being. That said, he was not God. He was perfectly within his rights to accept pacifism for himself. He was way out of bounds taking that free choice away from others.

Your remark is absolutely true that "we have centuries of experience worldwide with real Muslim human beings living in non-Muslim countries. And we have decades of experience with it here--particularly in Michigan."

Guess what? The Muslims we're dealing with aren't your fathers Muslims. There are Jihadis out there that would slit your throat and have a sandwich- in the name of God. If you need links to videos showing just that, let me know. There are thousands of others, not yet bloodied, that would delight in participating. They tell us that everyday, in their media, schools and holy places. Why on earth would a sane person disbelieve them?

Welcome to the real world and no, 'We can't just all get along', because for too many people, 'getting along' means subjugation. While that may not be an an issue for you, it is for a lot of other people.

Imagine that.

[Alexandra]

"You should be a little better informed."

I don't get your point Joe, YOU should be better informed. He pleaded guilty in a U.S. civilian court to supplying services to the Taliban government and carrying explosives for them.

What should I be better informed about? Are you actually defending this guy, or what are you even talking about in fact? Are you saying that an innocent man is in jail?

I am not even bohering to go further with your points until I understand what on earth you are talking about, saying that the man did nothing illegal!

[jeff stiles]

Don't worry, Joseph, we'll let you go back to sleep. :)

[Joseph Marshall]

So you mean he would have been fine to stay a member of the Taliban, which he was, as long as he was doing Jihad, and blowing people up somewhere else?

You should be a little better informed. Up until he crossed the Afghan border for the first time, JWL was is full compliance with American law. His study in a Muslim school in Pakistan was in no way illegal, nor was anything he did up to the time he went to Afghanistan. He may have turned to a radically fundamentalist Muslim view, but he had done nothing actionable under our law. Merely having such a view is not illegal. Acting on it may be, but there is no reason that it must be in all cases. It depends on what specific laws, if any, are broken.

I think I have heard you perfectly well, Alexandra. You are saying that following the Prophet itself is an act inherently incompatible with leaving your non-Muslim neighbors alone, and with being a law-abiding citizen of a non-Muslim state.

I hold no brief to refute your excursions into Muslim theology, but I do know that it would be quite possible to present a wildly distorted picture of Christian theology, and its relations to democratic government, with as little evidence as you have cited.

So perhaps you are right about Muslim theology. This I cannot judge. But, frankly, we have centuries of experience worldwide with real Muslim human beings living in non-Muslim countries. And we have decades of experience with it here--particularly in Michigan.

This empirical experience has far more to say to us than whatever theological hairsplitting goes on among Muslim scholars. Have you heard of any attempt to impose Shari'a on Dearborn? I haven't.

Huan's view and mine correspond precisely:

solution to 25k muslims in Dearborn is simple. expect them to uphold the laws of the US

Would you support this, too? There is no law in this country against believing anything you please, even jihad. And there are only very restricted limits [shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, personal libel,ect.] on saying or writing anything you please. There are many more on personal conduct, but the violation of them is obvious, and the remedy for this is already in place.

Do you propose to change this? Do you want to have the legal forced conversions of all Muslims such as occurred in Ferdinand & Isabella's Spain? Do you want to do to American Muslims what was done to Japanese-Americans in World War II?

If you don't want this, and if your view corresponds to Huan's and mine, then there is, functionally, no difference between a "liberal" view of Muslims and your own.

You can "wake us up" all you like, but unless you want us to do something different about the followers of the Prophet, you are waking us up for nothing.

[Nasty90]

Daniel Pipes had some information on this article. Apparently Omar is now denying he said what he is quoted as saying. I hope that someone in that audience recorded his speech and that it will be posted somewhere on the web. It probably won't matter that much to the liberals, they think of him as being "one of them". They have no clue that the teachings of Mohammed say that lying is a minor sin and really no sin at all when told to a non-muslim. It wouldn't surprize me if this is an example of the "jihad of deception".

[Buddy Larsen]

Those prison converts are of course all American citizens, with all the attached civil liberties. Enough enemies within could makes us into what they claim we already are. Long tightrope ahead, settle in, set your mind, don't be taken by surprise.

[Huan]

Joseph

solution to 25k muslims in Dearborn is simple. expect them to uphold the laws of the US. when they break the law, even as part of their religion and worship, as in practicing jihad, they should and must be prosecuted. no religious laws should ever trumps the laws of the US.
if they feel that they cannot worship Islam without practicing Jihad, then they should leave or be jailed for the jihads.

[Alexandra]

Joe,

You are separating the Muslim religion from Jihad. It would be like separating a Catholic from The Trinity. Read my latest post, it deals purely with the West's misconception of Jihad which is straight out of the Qur'an, and not the al-qaeda manual.

“John Walker Lindh is a paradigm case. He was tried and jailed for his illegal actions, not his beliefs. If he had simply stayed in Islamic school in Pakistan, there would have been no legal reason to charge him with anything, and if he were here he would have the same freedoms as you or I. At least we can hope he would.”

So you mean he would have been fine to stay a member of the Taliban, which he was, as long as he was doing Jihad, and blowing people up somewhere else? What would be the point of Jihad anywhere else other than on Western targets that are non-Muslim. Again I do not think that you understand Jihad, otherwise you would not be saying that.

You keep talking about the law, and the fact that as long as the Muslim community abide by the law in this country they will be fine. Again you are not listening. The Muslim community obide by the law of Shari'a, the Islamic religious law. And that law is above all else, and that law mandates Jihad. That happens to severely clash with ours, as well as our strange attachment to this life of ours.

Acting out Jihad is pointless on anyone else other than the non Muslim community. You must therefore be suggesting that if they need to practice their religion, of which Jihad is a major part, they need to go and blow up someone else instead of you?

Read my article today on Jihad, although I did dedicate three whole paragraphs above on that very subject, and I don’t think you could possibly have read it.

The theology of Jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

[Joseph Marshall]

No, I have not claimed any "absolute" freedom whatever, only such relative freedoms that already exist here, at least for now.

That "no one has proclaimed Islam illegal, and the muslims ought to be rounded up" is merely due to the fact that the parties who are so worked up about "jihad" are lacking either the clarity or the courage to acknowledge that this is the totally logical extention of what they are proclaiming.

If it isn't, well what do you do with 25,000 Muslims, many of whom are American citizens, in Dearborn MI?

[Huan]

Joseph

you are setting up a strawman, falling into the trap of perfection and relativism commonly trotted out as a slippery slope.
no one has proclaim Islam illegal, and the muslims ought to be rounded up.

but the principles enshrined in the bills of rights demands not just respect of those rights by the government but also by the people, as we are the government in a democracy.

when one group of people seek to impose their ideology by force ala jihad onto another group, that cannot be tolerated.
freedom of religion and worship do not extend to freedom to jihad. in any civil liberal democracy there has to be limits and absolute freedoms is not possible.

[Joseph Marshall]

if by "liberal democracy" you mean "moral-equivalence" democracy, then certainly the concept is doomed. however there is no such thing and never will be any such thing.

Well, what I actually mean by it is what we are already supposed to have here: legal guarantees of free speech, free press, free exercise of religion [or lack thereof], free political participation in voting or running for office, if a citizen, free conduct which does not contravene law [such as having children and teaching them what you believe], due process of law, and equal protection of law.

I seem to remember a document around here somewhere which guarantees all this. If we can find it again, I think it's worth keeping.

This "THE ENEMY IS WITHIN THE GATES!!!" business inhibits clear thinking about what all those freedoms really mean.

John Walker Lindh is a paradigm case. He was tried and jailed for his illegal actions, not his beliefs. If he had simply stayed in Islamic school in Pakistan, there would have been no legal reason to charge him with anything, and if he were here he would have the same freedoms as you or I. At least we can hope he would.

He received due process of law, since he chose to plead rather than go to trial. And he is asking [not demanding] clemency, which is his right [the asking is his right, not the clemency]. All of this is perfectly well in order with "liberal democracy" and nothing more needs to be done about it.

Nor does anything more need to be done about 25,000 Muslims in Dearborn, MI, except enforce the law. Nor does anything need to be done about the "hundreds" of mosques added to "thousands" of mosques [I strongly suspect this is hyperbolic exaggeration, by the way].

The notion that anything more needs to be done than enforce the law among Muslems is simply corrosive to the true values of this country. Period.

The law also includes all legal inquiry about them, by the way. So, in conformance with law, the FBI can snoop around them to our heart's content, if it makes us all feel better. This is not very pleasant if you are the snoopee, but it is part of the deal, too-- as is the snoopee's right to put up a public fuss about it.

To be perfectly honest, I frankly find it breathtaking and dismaying to actually have to say these things. And it is not to the credit of anyone to be so saturated in Islamophobia that this little rundown of how liberty under law works is necessary.

[weekenderman]

The December 17 issue of WORLD magazine has an intriguing interview with a man (Richard Miniter, author of the new book Disinformation - Regnery, 2005) who says that our border with Canada is much susceptible to terrorist entry than our Mexican border.

1. Many major Canadian cities have a significant Muslim immigrant population, making it easier for al-Quada members to blend in. Mexico does not have a significant Muslim population.

2. Captured al-Quada manuals instruct cell members to get on welfare so they have free time to do terrrorism instead of working a real job. Mexican, for all intents and purposes, has no welfare system.

3. Canada's law enforcement treats terrorists the way its fishermen treat trout: "Catch and release." In other words, Canada is quickly becoming more like France than we'd like to admit.

Yes, our border with Mexico is a problem. But more than likely the terrorists will enter from the North.

[MarcH]

Concerning Islam in America, readers may be interested in a recent episode in Hamtramck, Michigan, an unincorporated neighborhood in the center of Detroit. In 2004 Hamtramck was the scene of a dispute between old time, mostly Polish residents and newcomers, mostly Muslim immigrants from Yemen, Bangladesh, the Balkans and Pakistan. The dispute centered on a local mosque which wanted to broadcast the muezzin’s call to prayers five times a day from loudspeakers to the neighborhood. Proponents argued that broadcasting the Koranic call to prayer from loudspeakers was equivalent to ringing church-bells. The American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee got involved and accused opponents of “resentment and negativity”. The matter is discussed at the following news site (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/national/main612805.shtml).

[Huan]

Joseph

if by "liberal democracy" you mean "moral-equivalence" democracy, then certainly the concept is doomed. however there is no such thing and never will be any such thing. for example we do and will not tolerate child molesters to live the way they want to live, love the way they want to love, be who they want to be, etc. there are moral codes to be enforced, especially when an individual's liberty infringes upon another person's liberty. that really is the crux of the problems with the left is that in the pursuit of absolute liberty, they find they must adopt moral equivalence. they rationalize theories over the practical principles of reality. repugnant.
but the left does not represent the true values of "liberal" where the respects for individual liberty is balanced by principles of ethics and morality. thus a "liberal democracy" certainly can exist, where the people are the fount of political power, and power to respect what is good, and deride and extinguishes that which is not.

[RC]

Joseph, the Swiss have the right-idea and a very
sane-policy concerning immmigration into their
country. Their country isn't on fire, they have
their own distinct currency, and they are a
"liberal democracy".

swiss.com
(the Best commercial-airline on earth)

[Joseph Marshall]

If you follow the implications of your own train of thought, they lead in only one direction, and one which is not very compatible with "liberal democracy".

People will think what they think, say what they say, worship God in the way they choose, and even marry and have children whom they teach to do the same thing, whether or not it annoys or frightens the neighbors.

If you wish to stop it, there is really only one way to do so. And even Michelle Malkin, who has come, I think, closest to stating it openly, hasn't had quite the face to actually advocate it.

[RC]

kentimmerman.com/news/2005_12_15christians.htm

answering-islam.org

leadingtheway.org/broadcasts/radio_Dual.asp

[David Steinman]

Dr Amr Sabet goes on to say "At one level, there is an Islamic consciousness that is required to shape reality; at the other, there is a Western reality that attempts to shape consciousness. It is at the heart of this process that the Western project of cultural domination is consummated and where the dilemma of Muslims' existence and adaptations in modern times lies.

Does not the West's belief in the rule of law and the West's belief in democratic institutions trump the
Ummah's Consciousness? Is this not what "establishing
democracy in the Middle East" is all about?

Fear not.....
D. Steinman

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

It is ironic that the 'Clash of Civilizations' is to a very large degree, predicated on the clash Islam has with itself- acceptance of truth and reality.

The single minded, dogged determination of radical- and even more benign versions of Islam, is predicated on a complete detachment from reality and truth. Take away the conspiracies, plots and secrets, and there is little left to base outlandish and ridiculous beliefs.

To quote Dr Sanity, "Societies, like individuals, can adopt mature defenses and deal with reality; or they can deny reality and look elsewhere for the source of their problems. Many countries, like individuals, prefer to put the blame for their own failures onto an outside source, since that is safer for the self-image. A "healthy" country, like a healthy individual will evaluate the facts and utilize mature defenses to cope with and change the situation they find themselves in. They are not afraid of their aggressive impulses because those impulses are reigned in by reason and not indulged in lightly. When necessary, healthy societies look inward. When necessary, they focus outward."