The Mosque On American Sacred Ground

September 11 lives for downtown residents of New York. The World Trade Center site is a constant reminder of human malevolence. It also speaks to political incompetence, of politicians compromised by double dealing and arrogance.

While the site shows signs of rebirth and a tribute will be built to remind Americans of the 2800 innocent people who lost their lives one crystal clear morning in September, an insult deep and penetrating is being launched two blocks away on Park Place with the building of a mosque that will overlook the World Trade Center site.

Mayor Bloomberg and the Downtown Community Board (by a vote of 29 to 1) approved of this religious center citing freedom of religion arguments. What they overlook, however, is far more persuasive then First Amendment defenses.

Freedom of religion like any freedom is not absolute; freedom is defined by limitations. Indians are not free to use peyote indiscriminately in religious services since drug use violates the law of the land. And religion that promotes hate or is an incitement to violence should be and can be curbed.

In the case of the downtown mosque several questions remain unanswered. If a mosque can be built anywhere, why is it being constructed adjacent to the former World Trade Center? Although denials abound, the title of the mosque, Cordoba House reveals a great deal. In Cordoba, Muslims built a mosque on a Catholic church as a symbol of their triumph in Spain. That symbolism may be evident at the New York site as well.

It is also instructive that the provenance of the $100 million for the project remains unknown. My guess – based on many global examples – is that Saudi petro dollars are behind the underwriting. If true, this mosque is likely to promote Wahhabist beliefs – the most radical brand of Islam.

The promoters of the mosque contend they are Americans who love their country and eschew violence of any kind. Yet they refuse to condemn Hamas and refuse to recognize it as a terrorist organization.

What this episode demonstrates is a form of liberal myopia, an unwillingness to recognize the optics in this situation. For Muslims around the world who deplore the West, specifically the “Great U.S. Demon,” this mosque is the symbol of victory. It shows that America doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to resist its enemies. It is as if a Shinto temple were to be constructed at the Arizona Memorial or a Nazi cultural center were built at Auschwitz. There are lines to be drawn on the matter of taste, patriotism and appropriateness that transcend reflexive adherence to the First Amendment.

As far as I know, no one is arguing against the construction of mosques albeit when a religion promotes hate against other faiths, believes apostates and other believers are less than human, argues against the separation of church and state, and is eager to undermine the Constitution, an argument can be made that this religion engages in sedition and should be banned or, at least, censured.

At this point, the pols have spoken. The mosque most likely will be built. But for those of us who reside downtown that building will not be an expression of tolerance, but rather a wound on the city and the nation. It will represent despair; it will serve as a permanent insult to those New Yorkers who lost their lives a decade ago.

In the midst of sacred territory there will be a constant reminder that those who despise our way of life and everything this republic stands for can use our hard fought liberties to desecrate this land. No matter what Bloomberg says, this is what New Yorkers will be reminded of whenever they pass the mosque on Park Place. As significantly, this is also what radical Muslims will see whenever television cameras pan to this religious edifice. What a shame; alas, what a disgrace.

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and America’s Secular Challenge (Encounter Books).

UMMAH ON THE MARCH, STEALTH JIHAD RAGES

RADICAL ISLAMIC MOVEMENT SPREADS THROUGHOUT AMERICA

The National Ummah – - a Muslim movement that seeks to transform American cities into sovereign Islamic states – - has gained a foothold in metropolitan areas throughout the country.

Few groups are more radical, subversive, and dangerous.

The movement is led by Jamil al-Amin, (H. Rap Brown) from his cell in a maximum security prison on the outskirts of Florence, Colorado, where he is serving a life sentence for killing two police officers.

Some of the Ummah mosques maintain armed militias. Others provide training in marital arts and guerilla warfare. Almost all operate beneath the radar of local, state, and federal law enforcement officials.

Last October, after conducting a raid on Ummah congregations in Detroit and Dearborn, Michigan, federal investigators said that the movement was small and regional with only a few hundred active members.

But thousands of African American Muslims pledge their allegiance to the Ummah (Arabic for “community”) and a short list of mosques affiliated with the movement is as follows:

The Universal Islamic Brotherhood in Cleveland

West End Community in Atlantic

Ta’if Tul Ministry in Los Angeles

First Cleveland Mosque

Masjid al-Islam – Washington, DC

Dar al-Hijrah – Falls Church, Virginia

Masjid Mohammad – Washington, DC

Peace in the Hood – Cleveland

Masjid Bilal – Lexington, Kentucky

Masjid Waritheen – Oakland, California

Masjid Ibrahim – Sacramento

Sankore Institute – Green Haven Penitentiary

Community Mosque – Winston-Salem

Adams Center – Washington, DC

Masjid Mujahidin – New York City

Masjid al-Mumin – New York City

Masjid al-Taqwa – New York City

The movement is an outgrowth of Dar ul-Islam, an Islamic street gang in Brooklyn. Many members of the gang ended up in Green Haven, a maximum security prison in upper New York where they established Masjid Santore, a mosque within the prison.

The prison mosque receives full funding from New York state legislators.

Another offshoot of Dar ul-Islam is Jamaat ul-Fuqra, an Islamic group that operates Islamberg and approximately forty additional Islamic paramilitary compounds throughout the country.

On October 28, 2009, the FBI raided a warehouse in Detroit and two houses in Detroit and arrested eleven Ummah members on charges of mail fraud, the illegal possession of firearms, trafficking in stolen goods, and altering vehicle identification numbers.

In the course of the raid on the warehouse, Luqman Ameen Abdullah, the ringleader of the group, opened fire on the federal agents and was killed in the ensuing gunfight.

Luqman Abdullah was the imam of the Masjid al-Haqq in Detroit, a mosque that was part of the Ummah network.

He sought to claim a section of blight ravaged Detroit for his group in order to establish a sovereign Muslim enclave governed by sharia (Islamic law).

In his sermons, Imam Abdullah called upon his followers to launch an “offensive jihad” against U.S. officials and to carry and use firearms.

Imam Abdullah was one of the founders of the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA). Another founder was Siraj Wahhaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and imam of Masjid al-Taqwa in Brooklyn.

MANA was formed to defend Jamil al-Amin and to advance the Islamic take-over of the United States by “cultural jihad” – - pushing for black/Muslim privileges under the guise of equal opportunity and civil rights.

The Lure of Radical Islam

According to a recent ABC report, “As many as three dozen criminals who converted to Islam in American prisons have moved to Yemen where they could pose a ‘significant threat’ to attack the U.S., according to a report on al-Qaeda from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. … Also of concern to U.S. officials, the Senate staff found, is a group of ‘nearly 10 non-Yemeni Americans who traveled to Yemen, converted to Islam, became fundamentalists, and married Yemeni women so they could remain in the country.’ … An American official described them as ‘blond-haired, blue-eyed types’ who fit the profile of Americans who al-Qaeda has sought to recruit for terror missions.”

These, of course, are not the first Americans — black, white, or in between — to convert to Islam and join the jihad: John Walker Lindh wound up fighting fellow Americans alongside Taliban forces in Afghanistan; Adam Gadahn became a major character in al-Qaeda’s propaganda machine; Gregory Patterson, Levar Washington, and Kevin James plotted terror strikes against the U.S.; Christopher Paul and Jose Padilla conspired to use weapons of mass destruction.

Then there are the countless European converts, such as the British “shoe-bomber,” Richard Reid, who attempted to achieve “martyrdom” by detonating explosives in his shoes while aboard a passenger aircraft; the late Germaine Lindsay, who did achieve “martyrdom” by killing himself and 56 of his fellow citizens and injuring over 700, in the London bombings of 2005; and Abu Abdullah, the native Briton-turned-fiery-Islamist-preacher who makes no secret of his vitriolic hatred of the West (all, of course, while enjoying that unique Western liberty, freedom of speech).

What causes such men, born and raised in the West, often from Christian backgrounds, to abandon their heritage, embrace Islam, and become radicalized to the point that they conspire to kill their fellow countrymen?

As for Islam’s intrinsic appeal, it has long been argued that, unlike Christianity, which can be “heavy” on theology, Islam is relatively simple and straightforward. Thus while Christianity may revolve around more metaphysical topics — the Trinity, Christology, etc. — Islam, in black-and-white terms, commands its adherents to do this and not do that. In fact, the Arabic word “Sharia,” that comprehensive body of laws Muslims are to obey, is etymologically related to the word for “pathway” — as in, “the pathway to paradise.”

Yet there is another, more subtle, factor that may attract men to Islam: traditional male roles are well preserved in the religion. This may appeal to Western men who find it difficult to assert their “masculinity” in what may be perceived as gender-free Western societies. Harvey Mansfield’s book, Manliness, defines that term as “a quality both bad and good, mostly male, often intolerant, irrational, and ambitious. Our gender-neutral society does not like it but cannot get rid of it.”

Indeed, with an ethical code that coalesced in the seventh century — when the Muslim prophet and “perfect example” walked the earth, enforced his will, and conquered his “infidel” neighbors — Islamic culture can hardly be deemed “gender-neutral.” Even philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who despised religion and preached the need for man to be transformed into an amoral “hyper-man,” professed some admiration for Islam, describing it as “noble and manly” (The Antichrist).

Of course, traditional masculine roles are not the sole domain of Islam; most civilizations have lived in accordance to such norms. So-called “gender-neutral societies” are, from a historical perspective, aberrant. James Bowman, author of Honor: A History, stresses that, when it comes to the West’s disregard for notions of honor and masculinity, “we are, in global terms, the odd ones out”; he further asserts that, up until the Victorian era, in the West, “honor was rather closer to the Arab and Muslim idea of it today.”

In this context, then, it seems only natural for disaffected young men, who feel they are not fitting into what they perceive to be a “gender-neutral” society, to find a religion which emphasizes “masculinity” appealing.

John Walker Lindh especially seems to fit this paradigm. Precipitating his conversion to Islam was his teenage discovery that his father was homosexual — an event that appears to have traumatized and alienated Lindh. Islam’s masculine ideals and unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality may have lured young Lindh, who, soon after his father left his mother and moved in with another man, converted to Islam at age 16. Shortly thereafter, he went a-jihading.

This is all further exacerbated by Muslims mocking Western masculinity — such as Osama bin Laden, who ridicules homosexuality in the West and has characterized the American soldier as “a paper tiger” who is “too cowardly and too fearful to meet the young people of Islam face-to-face” (The Al Qaeda Reader).

Whatever position one may hold regarding these issues, one thing is clear: If traditional masculine virtues are upheld in Islamic culture, so too do traditional masculine vices abound — for it is often a very fine line that separates hyper-virtue from hyper-vice. Honor, courage, and patriarchic ethics can — and do — easily morph into destructive pride (e.g., “honor killings”), disdain for life (e.g., suicide bombings), and rabid misogyny.

Nonetheless, for those more “adventurous” young men looking to add a bit of “excitement” to their lives, Islam offers avenues. Based on the Koran and Muhammad’s biography, raiding, killing, and plundering infidels (i.e., the “other”), abducting their women, and enslaving their children are all permissible, so long as they are done in a jihadist context, that is, in the “service” of Islam. In fact, that is how the Islamic prophet and first Muslims spread Islam — a historical fact, not a slander — as attested to by Islam’s sacred texts and histories, written and compiled by pious, authoritative Muslims.

Of course, such behavior was “normal” in the seventh century. Then, wherever one looked, men of all races, creeds, and religions were raiding, pillaging, plundering, and enslaving their neighbors. For Islamists, however, the actions of seventh-century Muhammad, no matter how at odds with modernity, must be emulated today no less than yesterday. Moreover, any moral scruples a potential jihadist may experience over such “antiquated” practices — that is, should his conscience momentarily get the best of him — immediately dissipate in light of Allah’s explicit approval. For instance: “Married women are prohibited to you [Muslims] — except for those taken captive in war” (Koran 4:24; see also 23:6 and 33:50-52).

Little wonder, then, that Islam appeals to certain Western men over Christianity: Aspects of it better comport with man’s baser proclivities — for war, possessions, and women — than, say, the passive and inhibiting teachings of Jesus: “turn the other cheek,” “pray for those who persecute you,” and “he who lusts after a woman in his heart has already committed adultery.” Even Islam’s version of paradise is far more alluring. There, a river of wine and dozens of “voluptuous women” await the jihadist who dies battling infidels (see Koran 78:33).

And so, like mischievous little boys who find the pirate lifestyle fascinating — raiding, killing, plundering, abducting, hiding in caves — so do some Western men find the lifestyle of the jihadist captivating. So they convert. Nor is it any small irony that the physical appearance of today’s Islamist heroes is reminiscent of those wily pirates of old — from the furtive Taliban leader, “One-Eyed” Mullah Muhammad Omar, to London’s radical ideologue Abu Hamza, who not only boasts one eye, but also has a metal hook for a hand, which he took to shaking menacingly when referring to infidels. (Like Walt Disney’s Captain Hook, he was affectionately referred to by his followers simply as “The Hook.”)

It goes without saying, of course, that none of this is to imply that Muslims are piratical by nature. It is to say, however, that persons naturally inclined to such activities — including would-be converts — can and do find exoneration under the rubric of “sunna” and jihad legal theory: if it was okay for Muhammad and the first Muslims to wage war on, plunder, and enslave infidels — so the logic goes — surely it is okay today.

This phenomenon is further highlighted by the obvious intersection between prison incarceration and conversion to radical Islam. Indeed, most of the aforementioned proselytes had criminal records previous to their Islamic conversion: Reid and Abdullah had convictions for muggings, Padilla for gangster activity, and Lindsay for drug dealing. Patterson, Washington, and James began their “cell” while serving time in prison for committing over a dozen armed robberies. And, most recently, the three dozen converts-turned-potential-terrorists who just fled to Yemen were all, as the ABC report puts it, “criminals.”

Traditionally, one of the reasons ex-cons turned to religion was to change their evil ways. Not so these Western-men-turned-Islamic-terrorists. Consciously or unconsciously, it would seem they embraced the most radical form of Islam merely to receive divine sanctioning for their otherwise violent and anti-social behavior, being transformed in the process from petty criminals to major criminals — terrorists and traitors.

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum

Jihad, Inc.

As we struggle to come to terms with the Fort Hood massacre, the first thing to do — if we want to prevent such terrorism from becoming a regular event — is to understand why it happened and who or what is to blame for it. Despite the mainstream media’s efforts to present Fort Hood as an unfortunate episode of random violence — a crazed gunman just happened to shout “Allahu akbar!” — there was nothing random about it. Rather, it was the preordained, indeed inevitable, outcome of the cancerous growth of radical Islam in America. Nor is Major Hasan’s transformation into a jihadist willing to murder his fellow citizens an isolated case. In the last six months alone, at least 20 homegrown Muslim extremists were arrested by the FBI for planning terrorist attacks in Colorado, Detroit, New York City, Dallas, and Newburgh, N.Y. Like Major Hasan, who was radicalized in Islamist mosques in Falls Church, Va., and Silver Spring, Md., these American Muslims embraced terrorism upon being radicalized by American imams and mosques.

So we must begin by trying to understand what radical Islam is, what it’s not, and how it turns American-born Muslims into jihadist time bombs. The problem is not simply that in radical Islam this country faces a well-entrenched domestic enemy, but that the current administration, like the three that preceded it, has not shown any sign of understanding this reality, let alone a willingness to confront it.

Simply put, radical Islam, though operating under the guise of religion and claiming to work in religion’s behalf, is less a religious movement than a revolutionary ideology akin to 20th-century totalitarian creeds like Nazism and Communism. It seeks religious legitimacy by embracing violent, reactionary, and obscurantist sharia doctrine — along with extremist interpretations of Islam, such as Wahhabism and Salafism — but it is quintessentially totalitarian in that it denies the legitimacy of Western civilization and the secular democratic order; these it considers to be jahiliyya — “barbarism” — in the words of the patron saint of Islamism, Sayyid Qutb. What is new in the Islamists’ presentation of the West as the implacable enemy of Islam is the framing of Islam’s conflict with it in apocalyptic, Manichean terms. The result is the demonization of the West as a subhuman civilization that must be destroyed if Islam is to survive and triumph. This demonization is coupled with the outright rejection of the possibility of peaceful coexistence between Islam and any other religion or ideology in the long term. Here it is important to note that radical Islam sees itself as the perfect, God-ordained fusion of state and religion (din wa dawla) and, therefore, non-religious doctrines such as nationalism, socialism, and capitalism are seen as threats equal to those presented by other religions.

Like its erstwhile totalitarian confreres, radical Islam advocates a millenarian utopia — to take the form, in this case, of worldwide Muslim rule by the “Caliphate.” Interestingly, the concept of the Caliphate is nowhere to be found in either the Koran or the Sunna; it bears more resemblance to the perfected societies dreamed of by Western dictators. Another concept borrowed by Islamism from European totalitarianism is the Leninist doctrine of the vanguard party. Much like Lenin vis-à-vis the proletariat, Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966), who first applied Lenin’s vanguard theory to radical Islam, did not put much stock in the revolutionary potential of the Muslim masses. He believed that a small core of professional Islamic revolutionaries was essential to the success of the Islamist movement. Qutb’s Islamist-vanguard theory, as further developed by today’s leading Islamist ideologue, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is a key to understanding the role of Muslim Brotherhood activists and affiliated organizations in making radical Islam the dominant idiom of the Muslim establishment in America.

And it is impossible to grasp Islamist ideology without understanding that Islamic extremists consider Muslims who do not share their radical views no less the enemy than the infidels. The practice of declaring a practicing Muslim who does not agree with you an apostate (takfir) was first propounded by the founder of Wahhabism, Abd al-Wahhab, in the 18th century, but it was Sayyid Qutb who developed the theory of a “Muslim jahiliyya” and proclaimed that Muslim rulers and societies that have not imposed sharia rule are apostates to be treated accordingly. This not only stands the Koran on its head but is largely responsible for the fact that the vast majority of the victims of Islamic violence in the past decades have been other Muslims — a fact whose continuing truth is lamentably demonstrated, on a daily basis, by the Taliban.

Islamists believe that to achieve their objectives they must first destroy Western civilization — beginning with the United States, its most powerful protector. This does not mean that violence is always the first resort. Violence is invariably seen as an essential instrument in the Islamist arsenal, but, in the current state of Islamic weakness and American strength, the preferred tactics are proselytism, indoctrination, infiltration, and undermining American society from within. Islamists seek to destroy the West “with their [i.e., the West’s] own hands,” as one Muslim Brotherhood document put it — which is to say, by exploiting the rights and freedoms our democratic system guarantees.

It is important to keep in mind that while terrorism is the inevitable outcome of Islamic extremism in America, it is not the primary objective — or even a very important objective — of the organized Islamist networks insinuated into our society. Terrorism takes place, and will continue to take place, because individuals who have been indoctrinated by radical imams to hate their country and compatriots as the very incarnation of evil will often take things into their own hands. But for the leaders and ideologues of radical Islam, domestic terrorism could prove tactically counterproductive to the achievement of their larger objectives; they do not, as rule, encourage it explicitly.

This is not to say that leading U.S. Islamists and Islamist organizations disapprove of violence or suicide terrorism at all. On the contrary, most of them wholeheartedly support virtually all overseas terrorist groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, both morally and financially, as testified to by the large number of American Islamists already sitting in jail. To judge the role of radical Islam in America on the basis of whether it is involved in direct support for domestic terrorism is to dramatically underestimate a vastly greater threat this fifth column represents to our security. Terrorism is only a symptom of the underlying malignancy of Islamic extremism, and to deal with it while ignoring the malignancy is akin to fighting cancer by alleviating the pain it causes.

Armed with their radical ideology and amply endowed with Saudi funds, committed cadres of professional revolutionaries from the Muslim Brotherhood descended on America in the early 1960s and, as they did throughout the West, began to build an infrastructure for radical Islam, starting with the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in 1963. In short order, a great number of Islamist organizations, professional associations, youth groups, publishing houses, and charities were spun off from this “student” association, allowing it to boast that, under its auspices, “nearly every other major Muslim organization (in America) was formed.” Their formation was anything but haphazard. They were conceived as integral parts of a larger network designed to serve a clearly defined purpose. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), for example, was envisioned as an umbrella organization that would become the “nucleus for the Islamic Movement in North America.” The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was vested with control of Wahhabi-funded institutions, while the Islamic Circle of North America was designed to be the primary outreach agency for Subcontinental Muslims, with Urdu its official language.

The network has expanded greatly since then, with the MSA alone boasting 1,000 chapters in North America. ISNA and NAIT directly control many hundreds of mosques. Each of these groups is part of the same radical-Islamic construct. What all have in common, apart from their common roots and the ideology they share, is their persistent claim to be independent and mainstream representatives of American Muslims, a claim that is all too often accepted uncritically by government institutions and even law-enforcement agencies. And while all these groups routinely deny having sympathy for or ties to radical Islam, they don’t go out of their way to hide their true beliefs or their intimate ties to other members of the network. This is evident in their identical policy positions, their close and synergistic cooperation, and their vehement opposition to all U.S. policies seen as detrimental to Islamist objectives. It is especially evident in the network of interlocking directorships that links their close-knit leaders (or “vanguard,” in Qutb’s terms) — a network that leaves no doubt that they are indeed one and the same organization.

They also share a source of funding. It is impossible to understand the explosive growth of these radical networks — in both the U.S. and Europe, at a time when Muslim populations were still relatively small — without considering the role of Saudi money. Flush with cash after the 1973 oil embargo, which resulted in a nearly hundredfold increase in the kingdom’s oil revenues over the following ten years, the Saudis dramatically boosted their financial support for radical Islam worldwide, especially in the West. According to Saudi government figures, Riyadh provided $48 billion to support Islamic activities abroad between 1975 and 1987, or some $4 billion per annum. All in all, these figures show that in the period between 1973 and 2002, Saudi Arabia spent more than $80 billion to promote Islamic activities in the non-Muslim world alone. This truly colossal sum has built a huge network of radical Wahhabi-controlled institutions, including more than 1,500 mosques, 150 Islamic centers, 202 Muslim colleges, and 2,000 Islamic schools — all of these in non-Muslim countries. As a result, there is hardly a city of any size in America or Europe today that does not have a Saudi-controlled institution preaching extremism and spewing hatred against Western civilization, directly or indirectly advocating its destruction.

In practical terms, the Islamist networks in America have focused their efforts on several areas and produced results that, taken together, account for much of the radicalization of American Islam over the last three decades. These efforts included imposing their ideology on American Islam, taking over moderate Muslim institutions, radicalizing mainstream believers, indoctrinating the young, aggressively proselytizing among the infidels, infiltrating government institutions and the political establishment, and organizing support for extremist causes and jihad overseas.

In many of these areas, the Islamists have been hugely successful. On the issue of ideological penetration, Hudson Institute scholars Nina Shea and Paul Marshall have documented the universal spread of Wahhabi/Salafist ideology and literature in American mosques. Here are a few examples of the kind of religious wisdom they found disseminated:

— “Democracy is an evil system” and the “very embodiment of unbelief,” so Muslims must reject it.

— Interfaith dialogue is a “sinful call” because it “breaks down the wall of resentment between Muslims and unbelievers.”

—Freedom of religion is forbidden because “it allows denial of Islam.” Accepting any religion other than Islam makes you “an apostate, and you should be killed because you have denied the Koran.”

—“Believers must hate [the infidels] for their religion . . . and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”

—“Whoever believes that Christians and Jews worship God is an infidel.”

—“Innovative” imams are “heretics and their prayers are invalid.”

—“Muslims must be protected from the barbarian culture of Europe.”

Indoctrination (known as tarbiya) in Islamist ideology has been a main concern of radical groups. They seek to spread their ideas across all levels of Muslim society, with a special emphasis on children and youth. Today, unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans, there are schools in the United States that start their morning Pledge of Allegiance with “I pledge allegiance to Allah and his Prophet.”

The proselytistic effort to convert the infidels to Islam, known as dawah in Islamic jargon, is an important enterprise for the radical networks, and special dawah departments exist in virtually all Islamist organizations. Proselytizing campaigns are far from random; some social groups are deemed more responsive to the Islamist message than others and accordingly subjected to special attention. They tend to be groups seen as aggrieved and alienated from society, such as minorities and prison inmates. Black Americans became an early focus and were considered especially promising. Two subgroups of the black population were targeted in particular: those in the penitentiary system, and members of the Nation of Islam. Reliable figures about the success of this campaign are difficult to obtain, but circumstantial evidence seems to point to significant progress of dawah efforts among blacks. Prison officials, for instance, estimated in the mid-1990s that between 10 and 20 percent of the nation’s 1.5 million inmates — who are disproportionately black — identified themselves as Muslims, and some 30,000 black Americans were reported to convert to Islam in prison every year.

Last and most disturbing, radical Islam has without a doubt made significant inroads in its quest to infiltrate our government and institutions. Consider the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi, which is typical of the Islamist modus operandi. In October 2004 he was sentenced to 23 years in prison for terrorism-related activities, and he is currently in a federal penitentiary. Prior to that, he had been a kingpin of the Islamist network: He was a top official in a dozen major Islamist organizations and in five charities suspected of funding terrorism. Despite that, he evidently enjoyed unimpeded access to the White House under Presidents Clinton and Bush (43). He also served as a State Department “goodwill ambassador” in the Middle East and as a U.S. Information Agency speaker abroad. Most important, he founded an organization called the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council and established it as the exclusive authority for endorsing Muslim chaplains in all branches of the U.S. armed forces, enabling it to place extremists in the military virtually at will.

It was within this vast subversive enterprise that Major Hasan, like thousands of others, became radicalized — long before the war in Iraq came along. It is not difficult to trace his transformation into a mass murderer by simply looking at the institutions in which he was indoctrinated: First, Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., one of the largest and most radical mosques in the country, where his mentor was Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American-born advocate of jihad and suicide bombing; then the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md., under Imam Faizul Khan, another Muslim extremist, an influential figure in the Washington Islamist scene and an official at both the Islamic Society of North America (an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror-finance trial) and the Saudi-backed Muslim World League.

This troubling picture will surely get worse unless the U.S. government, at long last, decides to take a close look inside radical Islam within the United States.

The Islamic Republic is NOT Iran

Because unlike the mass-murderer, oppressive Islamofascist regime of the Islamic Republic, the Iranian people greatly cherish freedom and liberty...

---

"We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in, in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess. The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.” --- Michael Evans, Jerusalem Times, Jan 20, 2007

In 1979, the U.S. Government, notably, Jimmy Carter and company, with the help of its allied forces created the greatest Islamic terrorist nation on the face of the earth and the rise of Islamofascisim elsewhere. In fact, Jimmy Carter by his mere interference in another country betrayed the most valued friend to the West, the late Shah of Iran, and he is perhaps responsible for the formation of Islamicterrorism, not only in Iran, but around the world, including the United States. There have been more than 10,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 with 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured.

“Carter’s pro Human Rights campaign shocked the foundations of many American allies including the late Shah of Iran who was running an ancient country with cultural and historical complications that needed time to be corrected.”

“In November 1978 then President Carter nominated George Ball as a member of the Trilateral Commission. The commission acted under the direct control of the National Security Council’s Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ardent opponent of the Shah of Iran. This commission cultivated a clandestine Iran task force. While serving on this commission, George Ball championed cessation of United States support for the Shah and clandestine support for Ruhollah Ayatollah Khomeini who, albeit in exile, led a proletariat Islamic opposition.”

It is interesting that Carter’s UN ambassador, Andrew Young, called Ayatollah Khomeini, (an Islamist mass murderer) “a kind of saint.” Ironically, after 31 years of devastation of civility by the radical Muslims, Mr. Carter is still active in siding with terrorist groups such as Hamas and other terrorist organizations, something the current administration appears to be following.

“Jimmy Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy has had many catastrophic results. What we encounter today, as Islamic Terrorism mostly backed by the current Iranian regime, is one of the few gifts of Carter’s failed foreign policy. Had he shown resolve in dealing with the 1979 revolution and the US embassy hostage crisis, we would not be in this mess we are today. Diplomacy is a great tool to enforce your policies, if other tools of foreign policy including military might and economic incentive and disincentives correctly back it. Jimmy Carter didn’t apply these tools properly in order to handle many crises he faced during his 4-year presidency. All the blame does not lie with Carter’s failure but he played an important role in this.” Michael Evans

To most Iranians, including me, the name of the Ayatollah Khomeini was unheard of until the Western policy makers decided to remove the Shah (the best friend of the West) and install so called a “Holy Man” Ayatollah Khomeini and carelessly forced the Shah of Iran to leave his homeland. For 31 years, the U.S. is still making big mistakes with respect to its policy regarding Iran. It is as though the U.S. is unable to or unwilling to recruit experienced and capable people as advisors on Iranian affairs. For the past 60 years, every U.S. policy with respect to Iran has been failure upon failure. Currently, pro-Islamic Republic lobbyists known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) has been given carte blanche to the Obama administration. Instead of confiscating their assets, sealing their offices, and deporting them immediately, this pro-Islamic Republic group has comfortably found its way into the White House.

As early as December 1954, the Shah noted,

“the potentialities of friendly and close relations between the people of Iran and the United States are immense. There is a deep and fundamental identity of national interests which overshadows everything else. We both believe that the individual is the central figure in society, and that freedom is the supreme blessing. . . Iran has a great deal in common, in convictions with the Western world regarding freedom and democracy.”

During the revolution of 1979, the communists of course were very active in the original uprisings against the Shah. A very strange marriage took place early on between the Islamists (who were an insignificant minority) and the variety of communist factions. They buried their hatchets and supposedly "unified" the nation for a "common" cause, which was supposed to be the achievement of democracy and political freedom.

Unbeknownst to most Iranians who jumped on the bandwagon with these two main groups, the communists had the dream of socialism and the Islamists wanted to bring about Islamic fascism. They both lied to the people and betrayed their trust. Periodically the Islamists used the idea of "Taqeyya" or an Islamic lie, took the nation and its revolution hostage.

Then the Islamists started to arrest and murder the communists and anyone else they found to be against the establishment of an Islamic Ummah. This is exactly the way these forms of uprisings turn out. You can see it played out almost as a parallel in the October Revolution in Russia, which was the basis for George Orwell's book "Animal Farm."

For the past 31 years, Iranian people have been kept hostage in their own county by a group of barbaric Muslim terrorists who despise anything Persian and are slowly purging the remnant of pre-Islamic Persia as well as Persian textbooks. These pro-Arab invaders are not Iranians by any means. Iranian is defined by a state of mind, not by a place of residence. The barbaric Islamist mullahs and their mercenaries presently ruling Iran are not Iranians. They are Islamofascists who have betrayed their magnificent heritage and have enlisted themselves in the service of a most oppressive, discriminating, and demeaning ideology, Islam.

Iranians are proud spiritual descendants of King Cyrus the Great, the author of the first charter of human rights. Some of Cyrus’ children live in the patch of land called Iran. The overwhelming majority—free humans with human beliefs—live in every country, city, and village of the earth.

These world-wide people, one and all, irrespective of nationality, color, or creed are Iranians because they all adhere to the Cyrus Charter; they practice and defend its lofty tenets, and transfer this precious humanity’s treasure to the next generation.

What makes people different is not their biology, but the “software” that runs them.

There is ample proof to support the above assertion. A case in point is the present menace posed by the people whose life is programmed by the software of Islam: an ideology anathema to the Cyrus Charter. And the results are self-evident. Hate, superstition, violence, and a raft of other inhuman beliefs drives these religious fascists. These captive followers of the primitive Islamic Charter are both the perpetrators and the victims of much suffering. The result is backward Islamic societies that are intent at dragging the rest of the world into the same sorry state. Misery likes company, it is said.

We recognize that the dysfunctional Islamic software is deeply engrained in the minds of many Muslims who opt to remain in mental bondage rather than purge their minds of the Islamic programming and join the rest of the human family with a new emancipating program for life—liberty.

Islamic clergy, the parasitic prime beneficiaries of Islam, are master practitioners of the carrot-and-stick strategy. By drawing heavily from the Quran and the Hadith, the conniving mullahs and imams have assembled a potent arsenal of threats and promises to keep the faithful in line. They had little trouble in so doing, since Islamic scripture is replete with graphic horrific punishment awaiting the wayward and the unbelievers, while the rewards for the obedient docile, if he is male, are described as an endless variety of sensual pleasures. Anyone daring to leave the corral of Islam is apostate and automatically condemned to death. And that’s just for starters. The punishment awaiting the ungrateful deserter of the one and only true path, Islam threatens a raft of horrific eternal torment in Allah’s hell.

And for the true faithful—the mindless robot—the promised rewards, all physical pleasures, are infinite and eternal.

In spite of these horrid threats and empty promises, more and more people are beginning to recognize Islam for what it is. It is difficult, but not impossible to leave fraudulent Islam’s captivity. Millions of Iranians have done so successfully, yet aren’t able to announce it for the obvious reason, and hundreds of thousands of non-Iranians have left Islam as well and are enjoying the blessings of liberty.

A great threat facing free people is the recently petrodollar-energized Islam embarking on a campaign of recruiting more people under its dark banner. Millions of disenfranchised underclass in the non-Islamic world, and millions more mentally under-developed, may flock to Islam, deluded by its empty promises.

Islam is no longer in its own self-made cage. It has broken out and has established a powerful presence in much of the non-Islamic world. Islam is a charter of submission. It is a sworn enemy of freedom and views the Cyrus Charter as heresy. Freedom and tyranny are incompatible. Free people must do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty and assist others to break from the bondage of Islamic captivity.

The interdependent world community faces great challenges that demand a united effort, uncompromisingly based on justice, to meet the various ills it faces. We can no longer be complacent about events in a distant world affecting alien people. Distances are bridged and alien people are now diverse members of the human family.

We honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for proclaiming from a Birmingham jail, “Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere.” To demand justice for others, he risked his life, left his native Georgia, and ended up in jail in the then-bigoted south—Birmingham, Alabama. We “Iranians” of the world—free humans—must do no less. We must demand justice for our belief-kin who are suffering under the yoke of Islamofascisim in Iran or anywhere in the world.

Now the world is facing wall-builders of a different kind: the Islamofascists who have been at their shameless work for centuries. As their walls built with superstition, discrimination and blood are crumbling; they are intent at building walls in new territories.

But once again, human decency is rising to the challenge, this time in the voices and actions of billions of free people who proclaim: we are also children of Iran in the spirit of Cyrus the Great; “we meet any challenge and pay any price” to defeat Islamofascisim; and, we will not rest until humanity is completely free of the despotic rule of Islam.

We Iranians in spirit—free people of the world—greatly cherish liberty, where the mind is imbued with enlightenment, and every individual by the virtue of being born human is afforded measured freedom. It is within the open expanse of liberty that each and every person can be at his or her best. And when the individual person is at his best, humanity is at its best.

---

This article appeared in FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Time To End Islamic Appeasement!

Islamists have it all over everyone else in the art of intimidation – using freedom in western civilization as a weapon in the battle to rule the world. One reason this practice has been successful is that civilized societies cannot comprehend a doctrine so pervasive in its goal to take over the world that so many non Muslims are unwilling to accept that we are in a war between different worlds. But the threat is not extra-terrestrial; it is a real threat by real people.

To dedicated followers of Islam there is but one goal; replace all other religions and governments with Islam and Sharia law. In this, there is no compromise, there are no rules, and everything is allowed to achieve success.

We are the victims of our own tolerance and “political correctness.” Everywhere we are told that we should not offend anyone with words or deeds while Muslims are not, it seems, limited by the same rules. Curiously, criticism and lampooning the Christian religion is not out of bounds in art or politics but Islam is to be protected by law and custom from such behavior. Disgusting art denigrating Christ and symbols of Christianity are tolerated but cartoons of Mohammed elicit violence and mayhem without any organized and effective control of such actions.

Responsible for this situation, at least in part, is the news media that is filled with misinformation about Islam. Despite untold acts of atrocities by Muslims, Islam is still regarded in many circles as “a religion of Peace”; how absurd is that?

In Islamic countries the non-Muslims are treated like second or fifth class people and their populations are decreasing enormously. Countries that had significant numbers of Jews and Christians a century ago now have almost none. There are a handful of Jews left in Iraq. The Copts in Egypt are now only about 8% of Egypt’s population. Where did they go? They converted to Islam or went to the West.

Political Islam says that we live in “dar al harb”, the land of war. Proof that we live in the land of war is found in the refugees from jihad here in America. They are invisible; only a few like Nonie Darwish and Brigitte Gabriel are willing to risk their lives to bring out the truth about Islam and though their audiences are growing they pale in comparison to the numbers still unaware of the threat to freedom Islam poses. No one wants to know the history of Islamic horror. Actions of political Islam by jihad cause terrible suffering for the persecuted. Not only are their families and friends gone, but their cultures are gone too. The tragedy thrust upon these refugees is that no one wants to hear their stories. We must record and publicize their suffering to honor the dead and for use as weapons of war against Islamic imperialism.

We must develop all manner of propaganda: film, video and audio to inform the public about what faces the world if we continue to be complacent. Books are also an important tool but we must also have other sources of information such as a system of making films and videos that can implement our strategy of informing about the enemy abroad while confronting the enemy at home. This means that we need to engage in the effort not only through films and videos; we must address the financial culture and reveal the truth about Sharia banking and finance. We must also prepare propaganda [if you can call truth propaganda] that is directed towards the blue collar workers. None of the books written today are of any use for the working classes. Short audio MP3 files can be used by everybody.

While we take no or only limited action, political Islam has every single element of their strategy in place at the global, national, state, and local level. Organizations like CAIR (Council on Islamic-American Relations) are active both as lobbyists and plaintiffs in legal actions all over the country where anyone resists providing special treatment for Muslims so that they may continue “to practice their religion” in public institutions like schools, airports, places of employment and everywhere else that does not grant similar concessions to others.

There are four ways to discuss Islamic politics to show the world what Islam is really all about: history, current practice, Muslim’s personal behavior, and Koran verses and Sharia doctrines. Islamic history of violence and subjugation is almost unknown to many and has been suppressed by our own media and government [the Obama administration has even become its own lexicographer regarding terrorism]. Current knowledge of Islam is only what we see in the newspapers and on TV. This source is largely biased by the media elites who never report the truth about Islam. Judging Islam by Muslim’s actions is not accepted by many. Misconceptions of Islam in the modern era can be challenged if people become better informed.

Islamic doctrine is precise and is easily learned. The good news is that Islam never deviates from its “playbook” doctrine. Therefore it is easy to understand what they do and what they will do next. We must become bigot-proof because any challenge will invite accusations of racism.

Presently Muslims and Muslim practices cannot be criticized but it’s not bigoted to say what Mohammed did and to talk about Islamic politics. The facts of Islamic doctrine are shocking and repulsive. As long as we discuss doctrine we win. By informing the public when apologists discuss how bad the non-Muslim world is, how bad Christians are, or that they know a “good” Muslim; remind them about Islamic doctrine and Islamic cruelties.

In the 1800’s America sent its Navy and Marines to fight the Barbary pirates in North Africa. But the Muslims never called their naval raiders “Barbary pirates.” They called them ghazis, sacred raiders. Naming them “pirates” showed that we “kafirs” (non Muslims) had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam.

In the news these days the media report on the intifada and label it an uprising by the Palestinians against the Israelis. But the terms intifada, Palestinian, and Israeli are misnomers. If we look at the Koran we see that truer terms are jihad, Muslim and infidel (Jews and Christians are infidels because they are non-Muslims). The doctrine of political Islam clearly states that jihad is to be waged by all Muslims against all Jews and other “kafirs.” Today is no different than 1400 years ago in Islam.

One writer put it this way: “The events of 9/11 are recorded in the West as an attack by terrorists. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 attack, was a pious Muslim. He left a letter clearly stating his intentions: 9/11 was pure jihad. An attack is a single event, but jihad is a 1400-year continuous process. Therefore, a terrorist attack is not the same as jihad. Terrorism does not have the same meaning as jihad.”

We have been in a war declared by Islam for centuries and have defeated Islam twice before. Today we have tried a strategy of appeasement without changing anything; we have recently tried empty threats and when that did not work we have pretended that if we are nice enough, Islam will be nice. We refuse to believe the doctrine of political Islam. “It just can’t be true.”

We cannot fight a defensive war if we are to defeat Islam. The war must be offensive and fought with the idea of defeating Islam with such totality that, as Ariel Sharon said in his book ‘Warriors”, we instill in its political leaders a “psychology of defeat such that they come to believe they cannot win.” For far too long the West has believed that some form of defensive coexistence can work; it cannot. Such a practice against Islam has never worked during 1400 years and it won’t work now.

While Islam’s power grows daily, our government and others in the western world will not acknowledge there is a war against political Islam; instead we actually aid it through welfare, immigration and civil rights legislation. The time for appeasement is over. Those of us who understand Islam must band together to expose the enemy abroad and attack the enemy at home.

It is simple; we either fight or lose our civilization. Continuing denial and pacifism will be the end of our way of life and of freedom.

Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His blogs at www.vincentgioia.com

Fatima Leaves Islam

...there's too much wrong in Islam to even begin to justify the little good it contains. So Fatimah, her brother and two friends -- all from Pakistan -- have left Islam....

---

My name is Fatima Muhammad and I'm originally from Pakistan and born into a Muslim family. I was a Muslim for 19 years and went through many episodes of extreme devotion to Islam and sometimes less so. After watching many debates from Christopher Hitchens, Sams Harris etc., and also reading about Islam I gradually began to see a huge vacuum between what reality actually was, and how it was described by religion.

Also, Muhammad's extremely evil nature convinced me that he was just a man, who exploited the Arabs to get his own way. Even if he did everything perfect, there is no way to reconcile his marrying 6-year-old Aisha, and then sexual intimacy when she was 9. It doesn't matter if the Arabs practiced it. A man sent as a perfect example in all matters of life for the entire world till the end of times would never do this. And how could Allah's morality be so warped that he was unable to tell Muhammad that it would be considered inappropriate in later centuries?

Anyway, there's too much wrong in Islam to even begin to justify the good that it does occasionally contain. My brother and two other girls I know have also left Islam and we're all from Pakistan. I wish Pakistan as a country would give up Islam and re-join with India since India is a progressive country, whereas Islam has literally reduced my country to chaos. Peace to everyone (including Jews) :)

Pakistan and Islam

Just why I left Islam and why the Pakistani state should be dismantled...

---

Pakistan came into existence in 1947 on the basis of Islam and for Muslims. That was a wrong start, because a country should not be for any religion; it should be for the people living in it. It was also wrong in the sense that it is much better to live in a secular and democratic country like India than founding a country only for Muslims. Result of that foundation is clearly visible today—human sufferings, no democracy, no respect for human rights and so on.

Looking back to history, we know that Islam was spread using jihad and sword, and killing humans. As a result of Islamic jihad, the killings continue. Muslims, dreaming of reaching their fantasy paradise, continue trying to make this world hell. Such dreams are outcome of Muhammad and its followers. Pakistan, proudly claimed to be the only Muslim country founded in the name of Islam, has become a special attraction to jihadists of the world.

During the 1980s, Sharia laws were imposed in Pakistan. And at the receiving end of these laws were non-Muslims and non-believers, and even some Islamic sects. Thousands of people, who dared to think and criticize Islam, have been charged under this law. Every year many disappear even without any so-called trial.

After the temporary and semi fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Talibans have been very active in Pakistan, especially in northern areas like NWFP and Baluchistan. Present government of Pakistan is playing double: on one hand, under the pressure of the West, particularly the USA, the army is fighting the Talibans; at the same time, the same government has been and is providing free hands to them. As a result, the Talibans in the Swat Valley not only killed, slaughtered and hanged people, but also burned all Girls Schools. According to sharia law, woman were totally forbidden to leave homes alone and uncovered.

Today in Pakistan, there are thousands of Quran schools, the madrasas, which have been playing the key role in preparing suicide bombers and the Talibans. Links of these Quran schools have been identified to attacks in different parts of the world.

Women in Pakistan still lack the basic human rights. They are considered to be property of men, and reproduction machines.

In Pakistan, those like me, who don't believe in Islam, are not only are forbidden to think, speak and do different, but also live under constant threat of sharia law and death penalty. There is a total lack of freedom of expression in this country. Instead, there are inhuman laws like sharia to control people's thinking.

There are so-called 'modern Muslims' in Pakistan, but when it comes to the point of taking the side of freedom of speech, critical thought, human rights and secularism, they fail miserably and become tools to crack on those, who don't believe in Islam, think different and do different.

Today Pakistan has nuclear bombs; Pakistanis call them Islamic bombs. At the same time, the country is one of the lowest ranked in the World Development Reports, where people lack food, education, healthcare, justice and so on.

Because of such reasons, I not only left Islam, but also see it as part of the problem and is the cause of human sufferings in the country. Because of the very same reason, am against the Ideology of Pakistan. In the first place, it was wrong to divide India and establish a country only for Muslims, when India is a secular and democratic state, offering space for people of all faith.

I not only hate Islam but also believe that Pakistan, as a nation, should be dismantled, simply because a country should be for humans, for its citizenry, not for a religion and not especially for a barbaric religion like Islam.

Is Great Britain Sleepwalking into an Islamic State?

Indeed so and it is happening fast with facilitation by all Muslim-appeasing mainstream politicians, who are hungry for Muslim votes for staying in power...

---

In the Previous article, Islamic State of Great Britain: The Inevitable Outcome of Muslim Appeasement, it has been pointed out that Britain's Labour politicians have adopted the disastrous policy of Muslim appeasement to capture their votes for staying in power. Nonetheless, Labour Party suffered defeat in the latest Parliamentary Election in May 2010, ending its long 13-year rule and a coalition government of the Conservatives and Liberals came to power, with Conservative David Cameron as the new Prime Minister.

The reader may also recall that David Sapsted wrote on April 17, 2010 about Muslim votes: “The Muslim votes would be a crucial element when both the Labour and Conservative parties are fighting a close battle to get an overall majority in the 646-seat parliament. Traditionally, the bulk of the Muslim vote has gone to the ruling Labour Party, which has been regarded as more sympathetic towards Muslim immigrants.”

In her article, A Terrorist by any other name…. Still Kills, Susan MacAllen wrote on Gordon Brown-led Labour Government's attitude toward jihadi Islamists:

Those living in Great Britain were relieved when the new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, responded to the attacks (in London and Glasgow on 30 June 2007) with firm resolve. His people, he seemed to say, would not be moved. They would be vigilant, and alert for the dark forces at work in their society who wished to destroy their way of life. And the people breathed a sigh of relief – this new PM seemed to have the backbone required to face realistically the future struggle with radical Islamist elements that had developed over past decades – and which many believe England to be a target as a direct result of her too-liberal immigration policies.

So it is no surprise that many inside and outside the British government were more than a bit disturbed when a few days later, Prime Minister Brown seemed to take a few steps back from his resolve, when he began to speak of his government needing to make greater effort to “win the hearts and minds of Muslims”, and word leaked through reliable press that he had cautioned his ministers to watch their language: apparently, they were not to use “inflammatory” language when speaking of the two bomb-wired vehicles ready to kill hundreds in a conflagration in London, or the fiery Jeep crashing into the Glasgow airport, loaded with explosives.

Conservative Government, too, adopts Muslim appeasement as a policy

It is needless to say that the Conservative politicians will also make all-out effort to have a good bite of Muslim votes. Recently the new Conservative Government displayed its sympathy with the Palestinian Muslims and denounced Israeli military intervention in the Flotilla affair to break the Israeli blockade on Gaza (see Proof That New British Government is Grovelling to Islamists, by Douglas Murray, a bestselling author and award-winning journalist based in London). The Government issued a statement expressing its grief for those pro-Palestinian Turkish activists, who died in the Israeli military intervention, and said: “The UK Government deeply deplores the loss of (Muslims’) life during the interception of the flotilla. …The UK Government agrees with EU partners and the UN Security Council that there must be a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation or inquiry in to these events.”

“Both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary made statements in the House of Commons today regarding the Israeli Navy’s interception of the Aid Flotilla to Gaza, and the subsequent deaths of a number of (Muslim) passengers. The UK Government believes that this week’s events underline the need to find a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to the problem of Gaza”, Douglas adds.

We Indians, having been observing and experiencing politics of Muslim appeasement at home for nearly a century, are accustomed to and well-informed of such politicians and their mode of talking and working. If someone in India speaks the truth about Islam, politicians label her/him a loathsome “communal”; if he/she tells lies about Islam and praises it and its followers, politicians call her/him broad-minded secularists. Likewise, in Britain or in the West at large, if some tries to expose the reality of Islam, Muslim-appeasing politicians call her/him a “racist” and a “propagator of hate”, and whatever he/she says is termed “hate speech”. Geert Wilders, the anti-Islamic Dutch politician is an example of this trend. He is called a “hate preacher” because he exposes the truth about Islam's danger, even risking his life. On the other hand, if a politician propagates lies about Islam and call it a 'great religion', a 'religion of peace', he is designated a prophet of tolerance and multiculturalism.

Nick Griffin of Britain

As unabated Islamization of Britain reaches a critical point and radical Islamist threat turn grave, but mainstream political parties, instead of stemming the tide, continue their appeasement of Muslims and fast Islamization of the nation, Nick Griffin, president of the long-dead British National Party (BNP), is trying to fill the vacuum by positioning his party as an anti-Islamization front, like Geert Wilders of the Netherlands.

It should be understood that BNP has a sullied racist past, but it is trying to slough of its racist skin and trying to be inclusive by attracting nonwhites, non-Christians and immigrants (Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc.) into its fold. And Nick Griffin, the BNP president, has a deep understanding of Islam and understands its impending threat to the secular-liberal Britain (see this three part video-lecture of him). And he is trying to reform his party and reposition it exclusively to fight Islamization of Britain, not against an inclusive and secular-liberal Britain.

But he is not being given any chance and is being labeled with the old brush as a racist, because of his stand against Islamization of Britain. For example, Barry Gardner—a long-serving Labour MP from the Muslim-dominated Brent North constituency (Wembley area, see this video) and hence highly dependent on Muslim votes—told the House of Commons: “Mr Speaker, I would like to bring to the knowledge of the Parliament the single most distasteful thing I have experienced as a member of the Parliament. Two days ago, I received an e-mail from a friend of mine, who urged me to go to a website and watch a Youtube video. That Youtube video was a promotional video by the British Welsh National Party. It was my constituency that it was filmed. It started with an image of Wembley football stadium and camera was then driven through Wembley High Street, focusing the people of Indian descent and African descent. Focusing on the people whose dress indicates that they are Muslims, focusing on the people whose dress indicate that they are Hindus.”

MP Gardner continued, “It then stopped outside of the mosque on the Ealing Road and showed the sign of the Muslim Welfare Centre and stands there and all the time the presenter, who was an individual from British National Party, was saying, “Look at that, that’s not for Britain should be, that’s not for Britain is like, that is not Britain should have been allowed to become.”

He continued, “I can’t this single most revolting thing and the most disturbing thing in my constituency as an MP. And I throw challenge to the BNP, come, come back to me, come back to Brent North. Dare, dare to stand against me in the next general election, dare to put what you have said in the film to the whole of the British public. Dare to put it before the people of Brent North. Because you claimed, you claimed that those individuals that your camera focused on were not British. But I refute that. But I say that those people are British. They are proud to be British. They are proud to be a part of this society. And I am proud to represent the most multicultural borough in this country and indeed in Europe. We have more than hundred and sixty different first languages spoken in our borough and hundred and thirty different first languages spoken in our schools. We are proud of that and we are proud of the fact that by the time our children reach to go to secondary schools, that they are achieving above the national average at the key stage two. Every single one of these schools in Britain. These children are our future.”

Gardner went on saying, “I invite the British National Party to come, to come to Brent North, stand up in the next election. Because, of course they believe that these people do not even entitled right to vote. But they are. They are here. They are British citizens. And it is absolutely essential that we will be voting in a few days time, there is no any politics there. And in the core what we are doing in this place, equality is a must or form the essential heart of the British public life and the British. I was speaking to the women of my constituency who is second generation and the family came from east Africa in 1970s, family originally was from India. And she was telling me the discussions they had in her family over the dinner table of the appearance in question time of the representative from the British National Party and she told me how she and her husband have been trying to explain to their children that it was important that there should be free speech. He then explains the importance of freedom of speech in a democracy and says that in a democracy, every difference and dispute should be solved through debate and discussions.”

Finally, Gardner said: “The British National Party, I believe, has no basis in this society. They have defiled my constituency in coming into the way they did. And I issue once again the challenge to come (and face me in the coming election), put up or shut up. Don’t dare, don’t dare to speak about my constituency in the way they did in the future. Mr. speaker, etc. etc.”

In above deliberation, Gardner has not only tried to sully NBP with racist color (see in this video how Muslim-appeasing Labour attacks BNP politicians for telling the truth about Islam), but also exposed his colossal ignorance of Islam. He said that all the Muslim settlers at Wembley are British citizens and proud to be British. But he does not know that Islam is not a religion like Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc., but a political creed that aims to abolish all other cultures and replace them by the Islamic or Arabian pastoral culture. Islam’s goal is to end all other religions and establish Islam as the sole and supreme religion across the world.

Secondly, the concepts like nation, nationality etc., are absent in Islam. Hence a Muslim can never be a British, an American and so on. Muslims are proud to be Muslims alone. A true Muslim, settled in Britain, can never be loyal to the host country of Britain. They are loyal firstly to Allah, then to Allah’s messenger Muhammad and Allah’s revealed book Koran, then they are loyal to holy places Mecca and Medina and finally they are loyal to the Islamic Umma or international Muslim brotherhood. Here, I should repeat what I have said in an earlier article:

It should be mentioned here that a rise in population of the religious groups like Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs does not pose a threat to the host country. But a rise in Muslim population poses a serious threat to the culture and social fabric of the host Christian country. This is because Islam is a totalitarian political creed in the guise of a religion and it aims to destroy all other religions and establish Islam as the supreme religion over the entire world (see Koran 8:39, 2:193).

Islamic Psyche of Muslim Immigrants

Muslim immigrants, who come to Western countries to earn a good livelihood, also come with the desire in the core of their hearts to conquer that country for Islam and to rule it, and thus, to replace the present Judeo-Christian culture of the host country by Arabian religio-political and cultural order. In other words, they aim to turn that country into a colony of Arab religious imperialism.

It would be relevant here to say a few other words about Islam. Islam divides all the countries in the world into two categories, namely, dar-ul-Islam and dar-ul-harb. Dar-ul-Islam means those countries which have already come under the domination of Islam. At present, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lybia etc. are the examples of dar-ul-Islam. In these countries, Islamic governments or rule of Islam has been firmly established and the non-Muslim kafirs have either massacred, or converted to Islam or have been reduced into second grade citizens.

The literal meaning of dar-ul-harb is the land of warfare and bloodshed. It refers to those countries which have not yet been conquered by Islam and where Muslims are fighting with kafirs to bring them under their control. That is the reason why these countries are called land of violence and bloodshed. The ultimate aim of Islam is to turn the entire world into a dar-ul-Islam, or to bring the entire world under the banner of Islam. So, it becomes evident that this goal would be reached only when each and every dar-ul-harb on the earth would be converted into a dar-ul-Islam. Hence the Koran says, Go on fighting against them (infidels) till the rule of Allah is not established (Koran 8.39).

When a Muslim immigrant sets his foot on the soil of foreign host country, his Islamic psyche tells, “I am entering a dar-ul-harb or a land of the enemies of Islam and my aim is to conquer this land for Islam or turn it into a dar-ul-Islam.” So the Muslim immigrants, who have settled at Wembley, will enjoy all the benefits provided by the British Government, but they would never be grateful to Britain for providing a better livelihood, or feel proud to declare themselves British citizens. On the contrary, they would prepare themselves for a jihad against the UK. Who conducted the serial bombings in London on 7 July 2005? It was the immigrant Muslims settlers. Who conducted the attack in the Glasgow airport on 30 June 2007? It was the immigrant Muslim settlers. They are determined to continue such jihadi attacks until Britain turns into an Islamic State.

In addition, democracy, which counts every head as equal in deciding a countries political destiny, provides a great opportunity to Muslims. They can now occupy a country simply by breeding at high rates. It has been pointed out earlier that Muslim population is growing ten times faster than all other groups in the U.K. This policy is called “Reproductive Jihad”. The fertility rate amongst Muslims immigrants of the EU countries is 8.1 children per family; for indigenous people, it is only 1.38 per family. If this trend continues, the entire Europe will be Islamized within next 50 years.

So years ago the Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi correctly said: “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombs. The 50+ million Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

“Present 52+ million Muslims in Europe will grow into 104 million within next 20 years”, says a study by the German Government. It also says that a similar fate is awaiting USA and Canada.

Finally, Gardner has expressed his satisfaction that the Great Britain has emerged as a Mecca of multiculturalism and he is proud to see that 160 different first languages are spoken in the UK and 130 different first languages are being taught in British schools. It makes him proud to see the children of so many diverse language, so many diverse religions and cultures are living peacefully and growing up in Britain. After attaining age, they will be proud citizens of Britain. And these children are the future of Britain. But it seems that he has failed miserably to foresee that the Muslim children amongst those, whom he considers the future of his country, are firmly intent on enslaving him and his countrymen, and turn his motherland into a colony of Arab imperialism.

An Analysis of the Present Situation by BBC

A video, entitled “London: Ethnic cleansing and brainwashing of children”, produced by the BBC London, tells the truth. It says that the ethnic diversity of London is changing very fast. To begin with the discussion, the lady presenter says, “BBC news is looking at the changing face of London and that is for the capital. The figures so far collected suggest that the ethnic diversity of the city will change dramatically.” Then a young man appears with a display board and says, “The makeup of the capital has changed a lot in last 20 years. In 1991, the ethnic minorities was made up 20% of the Londoners and 80% were whites. In 2007, the most recent figure available showed that the number of ethnic minorities was 31%, while 69% were whites. And if this trend continues, after 20 years, in 2031, ethnic minorities will be 40% and 60% whites.”

Then the camera moves into a classroom of a primary school and it shows that there is only a single white boy and a white girl in the classroom and all other students are either of black or brown ethnic minorities of foreign origin, some from Nigeria, some from Ghana and so on. The commentator then resumes his narration and says that after 20 years, when these children will be grown up, more than 75% of the population will be ethnic minorities while only 25% will be whites. Indirectly, this means that by 2031, 75% of voters in London will be of ethnic minorities with only 25% white Christians.

Then the video proceeds to interview Ellen Doran, Chair of Governors, Tollgate School. She says that she is in teaching profession for the past 20 years and is now noticing much diversity among the people. But she assures that although of diverse communities, "they are integrated. That’s a good thing". But Doran does not know or willfully ignores that the Muslim immigrants would never be integrated. They will maintain their distinct Muslim identity through their religious rites, through their dress-code, through their food habits and so on. Muslims, due to their supremacist mentality, will hate to integrate themselves with the indigenous white Christian. Instead, they will keep their hatred alive against the indigenous Christian infidels. This hatred towards non-Muslim kafirs is the backbone of Islam and it is next to impossible for them to abandon it and integrate within mainstream Christians.

Then a woman passerby has been interviewed. She says that the demographic scenario of London has been totally changed from what it was 20 years ago. While asked whether this change is for the better or for the worse, she immediately replies: 'for the worst'.

With the fertility rate of 8.1 children per family amongst Muslims, simple calculation would lead one to conclude that Muslims will be the leading ethnic community in Britain and outnumber the indigenous white Christians by a large margin within a few decades. And according to the present democratic political institution of head-count, they will very soon grab the political power in Britain and turn it into an Islamic state.

Anti-Islamization politics or activism condemned

But pointing out this grim sociopolitical development in Britain is considered a sin by the Muslim-appeasing politicians. As mentioned above, Nick Griffin and his BNP is victim of the same sin for simply pointing to the increasing Islamization of Britain and the impending danger it poses to the secular-liberal fabric of the British society. BNP presently has shown no hostility to other racial or religious group, but a highlighting the real threat of Muslim immigration and advocating stoppage of immigration from Muslim countries. But they are attacked by mainstream politicians, who long for Muslim votes, as racist, KKK terrorists etc.

Likewise in the Netherlands, the leftist Labour Party, Partij van de Arbeid or PvdA, currently led by Job Cohen, is playing the same role as of the Labour in Britain in Muslim appeasement. PvdA plays the leading role in opposing and criticizing Geert Wilders, the well-known anti-Islamization Dutch leader and producer of the 17-minute film FITNA. PvdA filed a case against Wilders and took him to the court for telling the truth about Islam; this amounts to persecution of Wilders for exercising his right to free expression, in defense of freedom and Dutch way of life—a right, guaranteed in the constitution.

In a video, titled Dramatic breakthrough for common sense in the Netherlands”, Wilders says in criticism of the Labour's Islam-appeasing policies: “New planes arrive everyday full of new fortune seekers. The Netherlands has completely lost control of her own borders. The European Union decides for us who we can allow in. And our government thinks that is fabulous. The problems of mass immigration have still not been solved yet, but the sluice gates are wide open. Every day, we are confronted with mass immigration. Headscarves, burkas, minarets, social welfare dependency, crime, it just does not stop. Entire suburbs are being Islamized. 40% of all social welfare is paid out to non-Western foreigners. Moroccans in the Netherlands are five times more likely to be suspected in crime than the Dutch people. More than 60% of Turks (in the Netherlands) think that Dutch women have too many rights and freedoms. Half of all the Muslim in the Netherlands supports the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001. The Labour Party (of the Netherlands) now has Job Cohen as its leader. He is 100% pro-Islam. Here he supports the founding of a radical mosque. Cohen supports an Islamic culture in the Netherlands.”

Undoubtedly the Britons are confronting similar problems with mass Muslim immigration and the U.K. Labour Party is deceiving them as the Dutch Labour Party is doing in the Netherlands.

Queen Elizabeth Approves Policy of Muslim Appeasement

It may be mentioned here that Queen Elizabeth is also a supporter of the policy of Muslim appeasement like the mainstream parties: Labours, Conservatives and the Liberals. A video, “Queen Elizabeth against the BNP”, says: “The Queen has declared war on Nick Griffin’s BNP for trying to hijack the war-time legacy of Winston Churchill.”

Sir Winston Churchill

Sir Winston Churchill, the singular leader who stood with unfailing resolve against the Nazi tyranny, had said about the politics of appeasement of Hitler by many leaders at home and abroad that “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. He had understood Nazism as much as he did understood Islam. Commenting on Islam, he wrote: "No greater retrograde force (than Islam) exists in the world.” So those, who are now following the policy of Muslim appeasement, disregarding and sacrificing the national interest, have to decry and trample the shining wisdom of a patriot and defender of freedom like Sir Churchill.

Conclusion

While all mainstream politicians are resolved to Muslim appeasement, facilitating fast Islamization of Britain, the British citizenry must wake up from slumber instead of sleepwalking into the Islamic state of Great Britain. Islamization means slavery, slavery of the Arab Islamic imperialism. They must come forward and follow their great leader Sir Winston Churchill. They should resist the policy of mass Muslim immigration and discard the policy of Muslim appeasement adopted by their treacherous leaders. They should support leaders, who oppose Islamization of the country in order to maintain her secular, liberal and democratic order.

Prophetic Traits of Allah's Apostle

A list of moral traits of Prophet Muhammad... Fitting for an Apostle of God indeed...

---

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LOVER

We, in the West, talk about equal opportunity for all today, but our heavenly prophet implemented it 14 centuries ago.

Our prophet had eleven wives (including permanent sex-slaves Rehana and Maria Quptia). He was so fair in love-making that whenever he had an urge for sex with one of his lovely teenage wives and made love to her, he considered it his moral obligation (i.e. fairness to all wives) to have sex with all of them including the ones he had zero attraction (like fat old 50+ Sauda) on the same day (or night). It did not matter if it took him a whole day or night to accomplish that duty. (due to his old age, it took him longer to recuperate after each encounter)

1. "The Prophet used to visit (have sex) with all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." (Bukhari, 1:5:268)
2. "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night." (Bukhari 7:62:6)
3. "Aisha said, "I scented Allah's Apostle and he went round (to have sex with) all his wives."" (Bukhari 1:5:270)

A WISE ADVISOR

Abu Hudaifa was an aging Arab, who had a teenage slave boy (Salim) and a beautiful young wife. He used to harass his wife on the suspicion that she and the slave boy did hanky panky behind his back. Finally, she got sick and tired of his accusations and went to the prophet to get his prophetic advice. He told her to suckle Salim her breasts so that (by sharia) he becomes her son, which would make sex between the two haram. She came and told Hudaifa about this. He liked the idea and made Salim suck his wives breasts. After that, his mind was put at ease and he could go out of town for days without worrying about them making out. Salim had now become a bonafide son of Hudaifa’s wife and could suckle on his young mom’s bosoms whenever he felt like it. That year Hudaifa’s wife gave birth to a baby boy. Hudaifa’s friends told him that his little son looked very much like his older brother Salim.

Bukhari, Book 008, Number 3425:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. Hudaifas’s wife came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (purbety) as men attain and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that Hudaifa is getting suspicious of Salim and me.Wereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.

WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO MEET HIS WIVE’S SEXUAL NEEDS

Islam considers a woman during her menstruating dirty and sick. She is not allowed to touch the Quran, observe fast, offer obligatory prayers, or even enter a mosque. Her husband is not allowed to make love to her or even touch her during her menses. However, the Prophet realized that urge for sex in a woman is at its peak during her periods, and he wanted to help them out. He therefore went out of his way and gave those dirty menstruating women sexual gratification and fulfillment by fondling them, instead of going and having fun with those, who were clean. However, not to violate the sharia requirements by touching skins of the dirty wives during those fondling sessions, he made them cover their private parts with their izars (underclothing).

Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad:
(on the authority of his father) 'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could."

Bukhar, iVolume 1, Book 6, Number 300:

Narrated Maimuna:
When ever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar.

TIMELY COMMUNICATIONS WITH ALLAH

Quran 33.26,27: "Many ye slew, and many ye made prisoners.”

During slaughtering the Quraiza Jews, a big problem arose. All males above the age of 13 were ordered to be beheaded. To avoid beheadings, many older males were lying about their age; they were claiming to be 11or 12, when they were actually much older. The problem was brought to our prophet's attention, who was supervising the massacre. He asked Allah to send him a wahi regarding this problem. A wahi then promptly arrived that a boy, who had pubic hair, was to be beheaded; one without it was to be spared.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
"I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair."

Some boys were just 7 or 8, but had grown pubics, and were beheaded; some looked like 17 or 18, but had sneakily clean shaved their pubics, were spared. The divine law had to be followed to the letter.

MERCIFUL & JUST

During the Khaibar jihad raid, the Prophet let Dihya choose a sex-slave of his own choice from a group of enslaved women. He chose 17-year-old gorgeous Safia (wife of Khaybar leader Kinana) and took her away to a lonely spot to enjoy her ...Some jihadis saw him making out with her behind a bush. They were so impressed by her beauty and sexy figure that they went to the prophet and described her to him.

Sahih Muslim 8:3329:

Anas, (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Safiyah (Allah be pleased with her) fell to the lot of Dihya in the spoils of war, and they praised her in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: We have not seen the like of her among the captives of war.

Prophet got aroused by the description and immediately cancelled Dihya’s booty and ordered Safia to be brought back.

Dihya was rudely interrupted in his love making and Safia was brought back with Dihya in tow... He told Dihya to choose another slave-girl in exchange of Safia… Dihya, already furious by the interference, refused to part with Safia, cried foul, and protested loudly. Any other Chief would have been pissed off and punished him severely for insubordination. But our prophet came as a mercy for all. He instead treated him with kindness and haggled with him. Dihya demanded seven women including two younger cousins of Safia in exchange for Safia. The Prophet most graciously accepted his unreasonable demand and gave him what he wanted. Safia had a very traumatic day... Her brothers and father were killed and her husband was tortured and beheaded in front of her. On top of that Dihya had publicly disrobed her and was trying to make out behind a bush. The Prophet covered her with his own robe, took her inside his tent and made love to her tenderly to soothe and jolly up her bereaved mind. The next day he further honored her by covering her in a burqa and making her a part of his harem... Hadiths say that Safia loved prophet dearly for his kindness and affection...

Sahih Muslim 8:3328:

There fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful girl, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) got her in exchange of seven heads.

WON FREEDOM OF SLAVES

In the raid of Mustaleeq Jewish tribe, pretty teenager Juavaria, whose husband (Mustaleeq Chief) was killed in the attack, fell to the lot of a jihadi, named Thabit Ibn Qais (was he gay?), who was more interested in making money than making love. He said he could free her for seven oaks of gold, an outrageous amount, which no one could pay…

Our Prophet’s generosity had no bounds when buying the freedom of an unfortunate young and pretty widow whose husband was killed in front of her... He not only paid the outrageous price to the greedy jihadi to win her freedom, but he also gave the bereaved widow a place in his harem and made love to her on the same night (to cheer her up!)…