Doc's Talk: Worth another look: Why We Need Islamophobia

Monday, February 21, 2011

Worth another look: Why We Need Islamophobia

Howard Bloom

An August 19th article by Daniel Luban in the Jewish publication Tablet calls fear of Islam “the new anti-Semitism.” Luban says that,

“Many of the tropes of classic anti-Semitism have been revived and given new force on the American right. Once again jingoistic politicians and commentators posit a religious conspiracy breeding within Western society, pledging allegiance to an alien power, conspiring with allies at the highest levels of government to overturn the existing order.”[i]

This is an admirable attempt at tolerance and pluralism, the key values that make America America. But it overlooks some overwhelming realities. And those oversights may someday threaten America’s very existence.

The Jewish threat was never real. There are roughly thirteen million Jews on the planet today, far less than the population of just one of Islam’s roughly 200 major cities–Cairo. But there are more Moslems on the planet than all of the world’s Americans and Europeans combined. In fact, there are nearly three times as many Moslems as Europeans and Americans. Think of that. Nearly three times as many. Not to mention the fact that there are 123 Moslems for every Jew.

The Europeans in William Shakespeare’s day despised the Jews. But they were terrified that the empire of Islam would obliterate the Christian world. They were afraid that the Moslem Ummah would exterminate Christianity in Europe the way it had already extinguished Christianity in Christ’s own homeland, Israel. And the way Islam had already wiped out Christianity as the ruling force in the massive empire assembled by Rome and ruled after the sixth century by the devoutly Christian city of Constantinople.

The fear of Shakespeare’s day was justified. World conquest is an absolute command from God’s own messenger, Mohammed, who said:

“Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake and I have seen its eastern and western ends. And the dominion of my Ummah [body of followers] would reach those ends.”[ii]

What means did Mohammed, the self-declared “Prophet of War”[iii] have in mind for taking over the world? Said he,

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger‑tips off them.[iv]

In case that’s not clear enough, he added this:

Slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).”[v]

Added one of Mohammed’s soldiers, “The Prophet used to promise us that we should eat the treasures of [the Persian emperor] Chosroes and Caesar [the Roman Emperor].”[vi] That was a ludicrous idea in the seventh century. Mohammed had a tiny army of illiterates in a world of massive and sophisticated hi-tech empires. Yet Mohammed’s promise came true. The Roman Empire of Mohammed’s day had shifted its capital to Byzantium, but it still ruled three and half million square kilometers of territory.[vii] And that vast imperium fell to Mohammed’s followers. So did the three and half million square kilometer, hyper-advanced Persian Empire. Byzantium, the capital of world Christianity for over 700 years, is Moslem Istanbul to this very day. And the Persian Empire’s capital, Ctesiphon, is a ruin. It’s been replaced by the Moslem city of Tehran.

All of this was well before Islam embarked on what Moslem demographer, historian, and Director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Ali Mazrui calls “competitive procreation.” All of it was before what Mazrui describes as “a “population policy, destined to transform a continent and affect the world.” Mazrui explains that with this strategy of super-sized families, “ “Procreation itself can be counted as a form of jihad.”[viii]

Today, the geopolitical thoughts of militant Islamic interpreters like the Ayatollah Khomeini, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq are supported by entire states and armies. Not tiny states like Israel. Massive nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan. Not oil poor areas like the barren hills of Jerusalem. Oil rich areas like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

What are those geopolitical thoughts?
“Any nonreligious [i.e. non-Islamic] power,” says the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini, “whatever form or shape, is necessarily an atheistic power, the tool of Satan; it is part of our duty to stand in its path and to struggle against its effects.” Khomeini doesn’t mince words.

“Such Satanic power,” he says, “can engender nothing but corruption on earth, the supreme evil which must be pitilessly fought and rooted out.”

What’s the Ayatollah’s conclusion? His action plan? To purify the earth, he says,

“we have no recourse other than to overthrow all governments that do not rest on pure Islamic principles, and are thus corrupt and corrupting, and to tear down the traitorous, rotten, unjust, and tyrannical administrative systems that serve them….”[ix]

As for use of what we in the West would call barbaric measures, Khomeini is curt and definitive. “Your concerns, your ‘humanitarian’ scruples, are more childish than reasonable.”[x]

Concludes the Ayatollah,

“All of humanity must strike these troublemakers [the governments of the West] with an iron hand…. Islam has obliterated many tribes because they were sources of corruption [i.e. sources of non-Islamic influence].”[xi]

Today the Ummah of Islam has the tools to carry out this “obliteration:” a vast and rapidly growing arsenal of powerful ballistic missiles, roughly 50 current existing nuclear weapons in Pakistan, and an upcoming surge of atomic warheads from Iran. The Ayatollah Khomeini—the George Washington and Thomas Jefferson of today’s Iran–declares that Islam demands the obliteration of non-Islamic powers. And that statement means far more than any statement in a falsified document of alleged Jewish goals for world conquest like Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It means that just as the soldiers of 7th and 8th century Islam “ate the treasures” of the Roman and Persian Empires, some of Islam’s jihadists now believe they are positioned to eat the treasures of two more continents: Europe and North America.

We should not be intolerant of individual Moslems. Not by any means. We should not exclude them from jobs, mock them, or fear them. And we certainly should not attack them, beat them, or harass them. In fact, we should befriend them and support them. Especially when they are committed to modernism, pluralism, and freedom of speech. But when it comes to Islamic militant leaders of nations like Iran and to organized terrorists like the Taleban, al Qaeda, Lashkar e-Taiba, it’s a different matter entirely. Fear them we must.

The idea of a Jewish world conquest is fraudulent. But the militant Islamic goal of world conquest is for real.

[i] The New Anti-Semitism

Recent attacks on Islam in the United States echo old slurs against Jews

BY DANIEL LUBAN | Aug 19, 2010 7:00 AM, Tablet, http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/43069/the-new-anti-semitism-2/

[ii] This quote is frequently used in Internet communications between modern Moslems. On March 7, 2006, this text appeared on 185 spots on the Internet in English and an uncountable number of sites in Arabic. It was particularly popular in postings on grassroots Moslem websites like myiwc.com, the Islamic Web-Community,american_muslims@yahoogroups.com, and khalifa.com (a group that calls for a one-world global caliphate). The quote’s source is Sahih Muslim. The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)’ of Sahih Muslim. Translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui. Book #041, Hadith #6904. In SearchTruth.com. Retrieved August 21, 2010, from the World Wide Web

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=the+ends+of+the+world+together+for+my+sake.&translator=2&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all. The full quote: “Thauban reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake. And I have seen its eastern and western ends. And the dominion of my Ummah would reach those ends which have been drawn near me and I have been granted the red and the white treasure and I begged my Lord for my Ummah that it should not be destroyed because of famine, nor be dominated by an enemy who is not amongst them to take their lives and destroy them root and branch, and my Lord said: Muhammad, whenever I make a decision, there is none to change it. Well, I grant you for your Ummah that it would not be destroyed by famine and it would not be dominated by an enemy who would not be amongst it and would take their lives and destroy them root and branch even if all the people from the different parts of the world join hands together (for this purpose), but it would be from amongst them, viz. your Ummah, that some people would kill the others or imprison the others.”

[iii] ’Ali Akbar Ghifari. Beacons of Light. Translated and annotated by Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub. Originally published in 1399. Beirut, Lebanon: 1979. Reprinted online by the Aalulbayt Global Information Center. ”to spread the Shi’ite culture through the WEB and create a kind of strong relation between the theological class and the public, [Aalulbayt Global Information Center] is being managed under the supervision of the office of His Eminence, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (may Allah protect him).” Retrieved August 21, 2010, from the World Wide Web

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/becons-of-light/03.htm. See also: ”The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) also said, ’I am the Prophet of mercy and I am the Prophet of war.’ Dr. Ahmad Abu Al-Wafa, Professor of the International Law at the Faculty of Law, Cairo University. “Killing Wounded Enemy Soldiers.” Fatwa Bank. IslamOnline

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:yL84yM3tRoAJ:www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp%3FhFatwaID%3D103297+%22the+prophet+of+war%22&hl=en&client=googlet.

And see “The Prophet of War” in Osama bin Laden. Complete Text Of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden’s Latest Message To Ummah, May 12, 2004.

Retrieved from the World Wide Web May 14, 2004: http://www.jihadunspun.net/intheatre_internal.php?article=572&list=/home.php&

[iv] Chapter 8. verse 12. The Holy Qur’an. Translation by Abdullah Yusufali.

[v] Chapter 9. verse 5. The Holy Qur’an. Translation by Abdullah Yusufali.

[vi] A. Guillaume. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. New York: Oxford University Press, 1955 , eighteenth printing, 2004: p. 452.

[vii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

[viii] Ali A. Mazrui. Islamic Doctrine and the Politics of Induced Fertility Change: An African Perspective. Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning, (1994), pp. 121-134.

[ix]. Ayatollah Khomeini, Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini: Political, Philosophical, Social, and Religious,, New York: Bantam Books, 1980: pp. 3-7, 27-28, 31.

[x]. Ayatollah Khomeini, Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini: Political, Philosophical, Social, and Religious,, New York: Bantam Books, 1980: pp. 3-7, 27-28, 31.

[xi] Ayatollah Khomeini, Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini, p. 5

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk