Obama Stands with Muslims as He Promised

American Thinker
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
May 06, 2010

Now that Barack Obama is well into his presidency, it's clear that he is keeping at least one promise he made. He is standing with the Muslims.

In his chapter on "Race" in The Audacity of Hope, then-Senator Obama devoted a section to his post-9/11 concerns over the treatment of Muslim Americans. He makes special mention of meetings he had with Arab- and Pakistani-Americans, drawing attention to the "urgent quality" these meetings had taken after the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

[T]he stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their [Arab- and Pakistani-Americans'] sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. [Emphasis mine.]
 - Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 261

One Pakistani-American just learned that his citizenship meant a great deal of unmolested access to a whole host of possible terror victims. And since President Obama has taken a number of measures to ensure that no Muslim American feels "profiled" in any connection to terror plots, I think we can freely assume that until his arrest on board an Emirates airplane two days ago, Faisal Shahzad felt just as welcome and loved here as he did in the country of his birth and at his favorite mosque. As a naturalized American citizen, Faisal Shahzad moved freely, completely under the radar of any law enforcement entity or terror-watch agency.

Shahzad's bank knew far more about him than our so-called national security people. Our national security employees are those folks making big bucks to find people like Shahzad before they have a chance to blow any of us real American citizens to kingdom come. However, as was the case with the Ft. Hood terrorist, our national security and military personnel have become quite skittish in appearing to make any connection between the Muslim religion/political ideology and worldwide terrorism. Therefore, they don't look at the obvious until it is too late. Instead, resources are being squandered in the president's witch hunt against Tea Party grandmas and kiddies and middle-class homemakers and dads, all waving their American flags.     

Shahzad's real estate agent even knew something of this Pakistani's politics. Shahzad virulently hated President Bush and vociferously denounced the Iraq War, just as Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress did. 

From Shahzad's outspoken hatred of Bush and the Iraq War, we can deduce that Shahzad was most likely in full agreement with John Kerry's assertion that our troops were "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children in their homes in the "dead of night." Shahzad was most likely nodding his head the day that late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) publicly convicted -- without a shred of evidence -- the Haditha Marines of "cold-blooded murder." Those Marines, of course, have since been exonerated, but as their acquittals didn't receive nearly the media attention as the charges against them, I doubt Shahzad even knew the Marines were innocent of killing his fellow Muslim civilians in murderous with no cause. 

We can also infer that Shahzad may have even cheered the day he saw the video of Rep. Harkin (D-CA) standing in the floor of the once-great American Congress and screamed at his fellow representatives: "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." I doubt Faisal Shahzad was amused by this rant; he was most likely incensed.

Once Obama was elected, and as Obama had professed his intention to "stand with the Muslims," Shahzad may have expected an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Obama did not perform as expected, then perhaps Shahzad felt an urgent need to strike out at America, "the great Satan."    

Shahzad's work visas, prior to his request for citizenship being granted, were in the skilled-labor areas. He was a financial analyst, having earned two degrees at U.S. universities. He seems to have gone completely unnoticed by professors, who do not even remember him. Or perhaps, following this president's lead, these professors are simply refusing to remember any references their student may have made regarding his political/religious extremism.

Shahzad bought a house and lived an apparently quiet, unobtrusive lifestyle...that is, until he spent eight months out of the country, in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled hinterland.

Now, Faisal Shahzad is commonly referred to as the would-be Times Square Bomber. Yes, as his name and heritage indicate, he is a Muslim.

And yes, President Obama is standing with him. Though the president is taking great public pains to appear tough on terror and the real terrorists -- as opposed to the imaginary ones (i.e., conservatives and Tea Partiers) -- Barack Obama has actually gone to great lengths to make sure others like Shahzad remain utterly undisturbed. Others who at this very minute remain undetected among us, ready to strike on orders from radicalized Imams or terror-army chiefs, walk among us, now knowing that they have a true friend and protector in the White House. Barack Obama has successfully purged from the national discourse on terrorism -- excuse me, "man-made disasters" -- any mention of the religion/political ideology which is the undeniable common denominator.

Carefully protecting feelings can be a priority of a mommy tending her babies. Protecting a group's feelings at the expense of a nation's real safety is a huge no-no for a Commander in Chief. And if Barack Obama would prefer to be the nurturing mommy to all Muslims, he ought to resign from the presidency. Trying to be both a mommy to Muslim sensibilities and to perform adequately as our president is a losing formula for every real peace-loving American citizen.

It's a terrible thing when Americans have to face the day not only needing to know where their own children are, but also asking the haunting question:  Do you know where your Muslim neighbor is, and what he's up to?

We have to ask that question now because our president and his people will not.

So in the end, Barack Obama has brought about the exact scenario he has worked so hard to avoid. If Americans were assured that our president and our national security employees are doing the necessary watching and profiling, then we would also know we don't have to do it. We could be nice, hospitable, and open to our American Muslim neighbors and coworkers. 

But when we know that the people paid to fight terrorism refuse to see the obvious, then we are necessarily put on high alert. We take on their jobs. We watch. We stare. We shy from the company of those we know might become our worst nightmare.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.

 

 

Note:  Ah, if only more Americans had taken time to read the book of lies, written by Obama (or a Ghost writer) before voting on that fateful day in November 2008.  What is common knowledge today, was either denied or covered over by the faithful Obama media-worshippers.  He fooled lots of folks; anyone who dared question his background was immediately called a "racist" and his background is still a mystery that would cause a former game show "To Tell the Truth" to be stumped.

So, the cat is out of the bag now!  Yes, he is Muslim.  Some will say, "So what if he is Muslim", he is still our president and should be respected for being America's "leader".

Okay, I'll run with that thought for a moment.  It would not matter if he had not lied on the campaign trail and told the America people he was Muslim.  Why didn't he?  Perhaps because we we were (and still are) fighting a war on two fronts - dare I say it, a War against Islamic radical terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Perhaps it would have cost him votes, since Americans had not forgotten that it was Islamic terrorists - all nine of them - who attacked America on Sept. 11th. 

 

So, for whatever reasons known only to Obama, he lied to America before he became president.  Has he lied since becoming the 44th president?  You be the judge of that before next elections.  Has he fulfilled any of his promises?  

As the writer of this article states, "Yes - he promised to stand with the Muslims" and stand he does, with all the dictators and radicals in the world, while betraying the friendship of Israel, Britain, and other American allies.  Kyle-Anne Shiver is correct - he cannot bow and serve Islam, while his purpose as president is to "protect and serve" the United States.  The United States is NOT an Arab/Muslim nation.  The United States is a democracy.

 

 His loyalty to Islam gets in the way of the Constitution and America.  It was noted yesterday that the Palestinian leader, Abbas has stated "the United States has promised to get rough with Israel.  The United States shares the ideal of the Muslims."  When you have Arab leaders relying on Obama to get "rough" Israel, while supporting those same Arab leaders who honor terrorists by naming streets after murders of Israeli's, then yes, Obama being Muslim does get in the way of protecting, serving, and being loyal to America.  

As Kyle-Anne Shiver has presented so beautifully, let Obama resign and spend his waking hours defending Islam; we need a president who will defend America and America's allies - anything less, places our country in jeopardy.  Bee Sting

 

How Muslims Defeated the United States

The Brussels Journal.com

rom the desk of Diana West on Wed, 2010-01-27 10:49

Today, I am posting an extraordinary letter from a soldier currently stationed in Iraq, a sometime penpal of mine to whom I sent my three-part series on the aftermath of the surge to elicit his opinion. Knowing how thoughtful he is, I expected a substantive response. Given his time constraints alone, I did not expect an essay of this scope and I decided, with his permission, to present it here. It is unlike any commentary I have read from Iraq; it is both coolly reasoned and deeply passionate, and certain to challenge and disturb readers across the political spectrum: PC-believing liberals, Iraq-as-success-believing conservatives, Islam-as-a-religion-of-peaceniks of both Left and Right.

So be it.

He writes:

I apologize for the delay in my response. I have been putting in long days ... lately and I hadn’t had the time to put the thought and effort into writing this until now.

Your three-part column series wonderfully analyzes Iraq and reaches the correct strategic assessment that no one in power wants to acknowledge.

I have many things that I want to say but I do not wish to waste your time and I therefore put an executive summary at the beginning of this e-mail so you can skip the expanded version if you wish.

*****

You correctly assessed that we have not gained anything positive from our efforts in Iraq and that the nation is not our ally. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I will go as far as saying that the Iraqis are our enemies—enemies better equipped to wage jihad against us than they have ever been. We will regret what we have done. We will regret that we created this officially Islamic nation. And we will regret that we created an officially Islamic Afghanistan. We will regret that we have placed ourselves in the service of Islam, waging jihad worldwide as we advance the Religion of Peace and eliminate Christians in the process. (So much for the accusation that the U.S. is on a “Crusade.”) It is a shame that so many people refuse to recognize how horrible Islam is, and that the U.S. made a fatal mistake when it refused to declare war against Afghanistan and Islam—when it refused victory by binding the greatest military force of all time.

*****

The Full Analysis:

Parts 1 and 2 of “The ‘Surge’ and ‘Success’” correctly identify that we have gained nothing positive for our efforts in Iraq while the Iraqis have betrayed us. I do not trust any Iraqi or Middle Easterner. I do not care if anyone calls me a “racist” or “bigot” anymore. Those words have lost their meaning. Do I think that every single Iraqi or Middle Easterner is bad? No. But I think it is difficult to tell. An Iraqi or Middle Easterner will smile to your face or be your best friend one moment, and cut your head off in the next. It is odd that so many people cannot comprehend this. It is even weirder that those who pride themselves on being “culturally aware” cannot grasp that Middle Eastern culture and thought, and Islamic behavior and thought are completely different than ours (than ours on the Right, at least). Perhaps this ignorance partially explains why the U.S. had no reaction when Maliki declared victory over the U.S. when we moved out of the major Iraqi cities. But even if it is a partial explanation it still is no excuse.

The Iranian War in Iraq is a travesty and has been since it started under Bush. I still cannot believe that a nation can war against us and murder Servicemen, and not pay the price of oblivion for it. Our nation sits back and apologizes, and defends itself constantly from accusations of an “illegal” and “unjust” war yet Iranians, other foreign terrorists, and even Iraqis go about murdering American troops without any consequence whatsoever. We should war back against them. But we won’t.

I remember when people said that we had brought on the September 11 attacks because “we created Bin Laden.” I never understood that. In fact, that we had helped the Afghanis defeat the Soviet Union should have been even more reason for us to kill Bin Laden and destroy Afghanistan. We had saved their lives and they repaid us for it by murdering us on our own soil. Yet our government refused its God-given duty to its people to mete out punishment and justice. History repeats with Iraq. The Iraqis lived under oppression for decades and when we liberated their nation they repaid our unimaginable mercy and sacrifice with betrayal. It is sickening.

Part 3 (“Victory” in Iraq? Really?) perfectly summarized where the U.S. is now in our “war” in Iraq. Once we made Iraq an officially Islamic country I knew that it would become among our worst enemies. (The same is true for Afghanistan.) I said years ago that the end result of our efforts will be that Iraq will be a rebuilt nation better prepared than ever to wage jihad against us. You cannot create an officially Islamic nation and expect anything less. Regrettably, our leaders and our nation cannot identify Islam for what it is: evil. And so we continue our suicidal practice. The Iraqi betrayal of the U.S. started sooner than I expected it but I expected it nonetheless. This is outrageous. Yet the situation is even more unjust than this.

Muslims have waged jihad against the West since their insane, pedophiliac founder started their cult; they have waged jihad against the U.S. since our inception. But what is worse about our policy of establishing officially Islamic nations and pouring money, technology, weapons, and training into them is that we have been labeled as “occupiers” being on a “Christian crusade to wipe out Islam.” Think about that. We have been demonized as “occupying Christian crusaders” (if only!) even as we have waged jihad in the service of Islam, helped Muslims spread Islam and wipe out Christians, and died for ungrateful Iraqis even as terrorists from all over the war invaded and occupied Iraq, and slaughtered and oppressed Iraqis. (And don’t even get me started on the fact that we—the United States of America—are truly being invaded and occupied by illegal aliens warring on us!)

I am woefully understating the situation when I say that the U.S. has no clue how to fight wars any longer. We have allowed our enemies to control this war and make it one of media and information—information warfare / information operations . We have chosen not to win by refusing to reject the enemies’ preferred warfare; we have chosen not to wage a kinetic warfare where we could easily defeat our enemies in months if not weeks with our superior technology, tactics, and Servicemen. And through it all we seem not the least bit embarrassed that a “coalition” of dozens of nations cannot beat a primitive bunch of troglodytes. I no longer can express my outrage about this or any of the myriad horrors which plague our once great land. Every day there is something new which is more perverse and inequitable than the last day’s wickedness. I sit here in Iraq and do all I can do to stomach the disastrous excuse that passes for “strategy” in this war—a strategy where our leaders openly say that the lives of our Islamic enemies are worth more than ours; a “strategy” where the Army Chief of Staff openly states that the “death of diversity” would be a larger tragedy than the slaughter of Soldiers (and get away with it with but a whisper of outcry from the American people). I pray that I get out of here alive so I can complete my Army contract and get away from this nonsense and betrayal.

Two final things.

First, I wonder how many people have considered how successful the September 11, 2001 Islamic attacks were. Think about what they accomplished. They thrust Islam to the center of the world; they undoubtedly caused more people to learn about Islam than would have prior to their attacks. And the attacks combined with the near non-response of the U.S. doubtlessly gained them converts. Furthermore, what response the United States did produce resulted in the establishment, enrichment, and training of the officially Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the enrichment and training of countless other Muslim nations around the globe. Islam now stands better suited than ever to wage jihad across the world. The September 11 attacks also resulted in Muslims being portrayed as victims around the world (thanks to their leftist allies) and helped them (again, with an assist from their leftist allies) advance their jihad even as Muslims and leftists further vilified Christianity, America, and Western values. And finally the crowning achievement of the September 11 Islamic attacks: eight years after them the United States places as its leader a person whom can at best be described as an anti-American, racist, Islamic sympathizer (and who has the same name as an infamous Islamic dictator). This is stunning. It is bizarre. It is incomprehensible. Yet it is our nightmarish reality. The Islamic attacks on September 11, 2001 achieved success beyond the wildest dreams of the Religion of Peace cultists.

Finally, I would like you to know that I am willing to comment on other posts and articles that you publish, including some of your other posts that mention the debate that your three-part column on the Surge started. I am willing to comment for two reasons.

The first reason is that everyone on the Right needs to fight back against the Islamic War on the West and stop the jihad. And one of the ways to fight back is to speak out against it. The second reason is that I want to establish for posterity that I am firmly against this evil and every other evil. I will explain why this matters.

Leftists always rewrite history so as to demonize what is Right and so as to cover their real nature. They abhor the truth as much as the vilest of Muslims. And as a way to enable their rewriting of history they use political correctness to silence opponents; to vilify them so that they have no place in society. We have allowed leftists to use political correctness to emasculate us. In fact, political correctness is the leftist weapon of choice in paralyzing the Right and aiding their Islamic allies who also advance an anti-Christian, anti-Foundational America agenda. Political correctness is what prevents us from fighting back against the left, and what prevents us from fully fighting back against the jihad and ending the Islamic threat. Political correctness makes us acquiesce to the left so as to be “moderate” and “bipartisan.” Our capitulation to the left will doom us physically by allowing the Muslims and left to eliminate the last vestiges of the West and it will doom us historically as our enslaved descendants will look back and ask how we could have allowed the twin insanities of Islam and the left to control and destroy us when we easily could have defeated them both. Our descendants will condemn us for remaining idle in the face of evil . . . and the leftists of the future will use our submission and our descendants’ condemnation to manipulate history and blame us as the originators of the horrific agenda that they instituted. The future left will use our sinful surrender to pave the way for them to control and destroy civilization once more (all in the name of “progressivism” of course).

I do not want leftists to be able to do this. I do not want them to easily rewrite history in the future. I want to be a loud voice (wherever I may be) that opposes everything Islam and the left want. I want there to be no doubt that I, a Right-wing Christian, utterly reject them and their core beliefs. I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that, “It was the Christian Right who enabled and supported the worldwide jihad (not to mention the global warming hoax, the sexual perverts, and the freedom hating communists)! It was the Christian Right who wanted them to take over and destroy the world!” I want to make it all but impossible for future leftists to say that atheists, humanists, and secularists (like Bruce Bawer, Christopher Hitchens, Tammy Bruce, and a few others) tried to oppose the Islamic War on the West but “could not convince the mentally inferior but numerically superior Right-wing Christians to join them!” I want to counteract the in-name-only Christians and conservatives who have bought into the “Religion of Peace” and leftist nonsense, and who will do untold additional amounts of damage to civilization and our good name with their cravenness and rejection of Truth. And that is why I am willing to comment on more of your posts.

I know I am in the minority with my beliefs but I do not care. I want to be like the 300—not just the ones who fought at Thermopylae—but the 300 who fought with Gideon against the Midianites. I want to stand for the Truth.

Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,

A US soldier in Iraq

How did Jerusalem come to be so holy to Muslims?

Israpundit.com
Blog Archive

February 12, 2010
By Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Jerusalem

When the Prophet Mohammad established Islam, he introduced a minimum of innovations. He employed the hallowed personages, historic legends and sacred sites of Judaism and Christianity, and even paganism, by Islamizing them. Thus, according to Islam, Abraham was the first Moslem and Jesus and St. John (the sons of Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron - according to the Koran) were prophets and guardians of the second heaven. Many Biblical legends (”asatir al-awwalin”), which were familiar to the pagan Arabs before the dawn of Islam, underwent an Islamic conversion, and the Koran as well as the Hadith (the Islamic oral tradition), are replete with them.
Islamization was practiced on places as well as persons: Mecca and the holy stone - al-Ka’bah - were holy sites of the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and the Great Mosque of Istanbul were erected on the sites of Christian-Byzantine churches - two of the better known examples of how Islam treats sanctuaries of other faiths.

Jerusalem, too, underwent the process of Islamization: at first Muhammad attempted to convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community, and, by way of persuasion, established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to the north, towards Jerusalem, in keeping with Jewish practice; but after he failed in this attempt he turned against the Jews, killed many of them, and directed the kiblah southward, towards Mecca.

Muhammad’s abandonment of Jerusalem explains the fact that this city is not mentioned even once in the Koran. After Palestine was occupied by the Moslems, its capital was Ramlah, 30 miles to the west of Jerusalem, signifying that Jerusalem meant nothing to them.

Islam rediscovered Jerusalem 50 years after Mohammad’s death. In 682 CE, ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr rebelled against the Islamic rulers in Damascus, conquered Mecca and prevented pilgrims from reaching Mecca for the Hajj. ‘Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Calif, needed an alternative site for the pilgrimage and settled on Jerusalem which was then under his control. In order to justify this choice, a verse from the Koran was chosen (17,1 = sura 17, verse 1) which states (trans. by Majid Fakhri):

“Glory to Him who caused His servant to travel by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs, He is indeed the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.”

The meaning ascribed to this verse (see the commentary in al-Jallalayn) is that “the furthest mosque” (al-masgid al-aqsa) is in Jerusalem and that Mohammad was conveyed there one night (although at that time the journey took three days by camel), on the back of al-Buraq, a magical horse with the head of a woman, wings of an eagle, the tail of a peacock, and hoofs reaching to the horizon. He tethered the horse to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and from there ascended to the seventh heaven together with the angel Gabriel. On his way he met the prophets of other religions who are the guardians of heaven: Adam, Jesus, St. John, Joseph, Idris (= Seth?), Aaron, Moses and Abraham who accompanied him on his way to Allah and who accepted him as their master. Thus Islam tries to gain legitimacy over other, older religions, by creating a scene in which the former prophets agree to Mohammad’s mastery, thus making him Khatam al-Anbiya’ (”the Seal of the Prophets”).

Not surprisingly, this miraculous account contradicts a number of the tenets of Islam: How can a living man of flesh and blood ascend to heaven? How can a mythical creature carry a mortal to a real destination? Questions such as these have caused orthodox Moslem thinkers to conclude that the nocturnal journey was a dream of Mohammad’s. The journey and the ascent serves Islam to “go one better” than the Bible: Moses “only” went up to Mt. Sinai, in the middle of nowhere, and drew close to heaven, whereas Mohammad went all the way up to Allah, and from Jerusalem itself.

What are the difficulties with the belief that the al-Aqsa mosque described in Islamic tradition is located in Jerusalem? For one, the people of Mecca, who knew Muhammad well, did not believe this story. Only Abu Bakr, (later the first Calif), believed him and thus was called al-Siddiq (”the believer”). The second difficulty is that Islamic tradition tells us that al-Aqsa mosque is near Mecca on the Arabian peninsula. This was unequivocally stated in “Kitab al-Maghazi” (Oxford UP, 1966, vol. 3, pp. 958-9), a book by the Moslem historian and geographer al-Waqidi. According to al-Waqidi, there were two “masjeds” (places of prayer) in al-Gi’ranah, a village between Mecca and Ta’if, one was “the closer mosque” (al-masjid al-adana) and the other was “the further mosque” (al-masjid al-aqsa), and Muhammad would pray there when he went out of town. This description by al-Waqidi which is supported by a chain of authorities (isnad), was not “convenient” for the Islamic propaganda of the 7th century.

In order to establish a basis for the awareness of the “holiness” of Jerusalem in Islam, the Califs of the Ummayad dynasty invented many “traditions” upholding the value of Jerusalem (known as “fadha’il bayt al-Maqdis”), which would justify pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the faithful Moslems. Thus was al-Masjid al-Aqsa “transported” to Jerusalem. It should be noted that Saladin also adopted the myth of al-Aqsa and those “traditions” in order to recruit and inflame the Moslem warriors against the Crusaders in the 12th century.

Another aim of the Islamization of Jerusalem was to undermine the legitimacy of the older religions, Judaism and Christianity, which consider Jerusalem to be a holy city. Islam is presented as the only legitimate religion, destined to replace the other two, because they had changed and distorted the Word of God, each in its turn. (ghyyarou wa-baddalou). On the alleged forgeries of the Holy Scriptures, made by Jews and Christians, see the third chapter of: M. J. Kister, “haddithu ‘an bani isra’il wa-la haraja”, IOS 2 (1972), pp. 215-239. Kister quotes dozens of Islamic sources).

Though Judaism and Christianity can exist side by side in Jerusalem, Islam regards both of them as betrayals of Allah and his teachings, and has always done, and will continue to do, all in its power to expel both of them from this city. It is interesting to note that this expulsion is retroactive: The Islamic broadcasters of the Palestinian radio stations consistently make it a point to claim that the Jews never had a temple on the Temple Mount and certainly not two temples. (Where, then, according to them, did Jesus preach?)

Arafat, himself a secular person (ask the Hamas!), is doing today exactly what the Califs of the Umayyad dynasty did 1300 years ago: he is marshaling the holiness of Jerusalem to serve his political ends. He must not give control of Jerusalem over to the Jews since according to Islam they are impure and the wrath of Allah is upon them (al-maghdhoub ‘alayhim; Koran 1,7, see al-Jalalayn and other commentaries; note that verse numbers may differ slightly in the various editions of the Koran). The Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs (5,60). (For the idea that Jews are related to pigs and monkeys see, for example, Musnad al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, (Beirut 1969) vol. 3, p. 241. See also pages 348, 395, 397, 421, and vol. 6, p. 135.) The Jews are those who distorted the holy writings which were revealed to them (2,73; 3,72) and denied God’s signs (3,63). Since they violated the covenant with their God (4,154), He cursed them (5,16) and they are forever the inheritors of hell (3,112). So how can Arafat abandon Jerusalem to the Jews?

The Palestinian media these days are full of messages of Jihad, calling to broaden the national-political war between Israel and the Palestinians into a religious-Islamic war between the Jews and the Moslems. READ THEIR LIPS: for them Christianity is no better than Judaism, since both “forfeited” their right to rule over Jerusalem. Only Islam - Din al-Haqq (”the Religion of Truth”) has this right, and forever. (shay’I, the mufti of Jerusalem, in Friday’s khutbah 4 weeks ago, “Sawt falastin”, the PA official radio).

Since the holiness of Jerusalem to Islam has always been, and still is no more than a politically motivated holiness, Arafat would be putting his political head on the block should he give it up. Must Judaism and Christianity defer to myths related in Islamic texts or envisioned in Mohammad’s dreams, long after Jerusalem was established as the ancient, true center of these two religions which preceded Islam? Should UN forces be sent to the Middle East just because Arafat decided to recycle the political problems of the Umayyads 1250 years after the curtain came down on their role in history?

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, is a Lecturer in the Department. of Arabic Studies at Bar-Ilan University

Vive la France! Where Europeans Take Women’s Equality Seriously

PajamasMedia.com

Chesler Chronicles

There was a time, not long ago, when I viewed the French as arrogant Arab-lovers whose leaders chose to protect Yasir Arafat’s wealth and reputation, a people which sought to expunge their record as brutal colonizers and to continue their work as Holocaust collaborators by joining the jihad against the Jewish state.

As a lover of French literature (my college dissertation was on Stendhal) I was nevertheless clear that France was no longer the capital for expatriate artists and revolutionaries in search of each other. I could never embrace France as a place of refuge or exile.

But now, France under Sarkozy is becoming attractive once more. This President has stood up for the rights of democracy, both in France and in Iran. He believes that human and individual rights apply to all French women, including Muslim women. He does not see immigrant and/or Muslim women as a separate or subordinate species. Sarkozy understands that woman’s equality is the bottom line issue in terms of assimilation and integration.

President Sarkozy is absolutely right. Based on my own research, it is clear that when those Muslim women who wish to assimilate or modernize actually do so– they are often shamed, persecuted, and even murdered by their own families, by their religious leaders, and by those western leftists who argue for “multi-cultural relativism.”

Today, the French government has announced that immigrants (all and any immigrants) who wish to settle in France must make a commitment to “integrate.” This means that new citizens must agree to give up polygamy, forced marriage, the Veil, and female genital mutilation; such practices are forbidden. According to Nadine Morano, the French Secretary of State for Family: “Equality between men and women is a fundamental principle of French society.”

According to the French Prime Minister, Francois Fillon, a French “national identity” must be understood and embraced by all. To accomplish that, Fillon said “that French schools will now be ordered to fly the French flag and to have a copy of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in every classroom.” Young French citizens will have to “speak better French, know more about the values of the republic,” and engage in certain (undefined) ceremonies.

What will be most stressed is the importance of equality between men and women.

These plans are being mocked and scorned by French socialists and certain academics who view them as inflammatory, culturally insensitive, subject to challenge in European Union courts, etc.

As a thousand Norwegian-Muslim taxi drivers a day continue to demonstrate against the Mohammed cartoons; as the mad Dutch judges continue to try the heroic parliamentarian Geert Wilders in a case that is stacked against him; as the Danish government employs a prison imam who guides husbands on wife-beating; as the leftists and Muslims of Malmo continue to persecute the small number of Jews in Malmo, I say: Vive La France!

And, may America soon follow its example.

The Evil Truth About Prophet Muhammad

● Quran on non Muslims:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Quran (5:51)

"Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you." Quran (9:123)

"Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them." Quran (9:14)

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them." Quran (9:5)

"Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." Quran (4:89)

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Quran (8:12)

"Muslims that make friends with disbelievers will face a doom prepared for them by Allah." Quran (5:80)

"Don't let the disbelievers think they can escape. They are your enemy and the enemy of Allah." Quran (8:59-60)

"Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway." Quran (9:73)

"Scourge adulterers and adulteresses with 100 stripes. Do not show them any pity. Have a party of believers watch the punishment." Quran (24:2)

"Those with Muhammad are ruthless toward disbelievers and merciful toward themselves." Quran (48:29)

● Quran on thieves:

"Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah." Quran (5:38)

● Quran on women:

"You may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you see that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one, or marry those who have fallen in your possession (slaves and captives)." Quran (4:3)

"Men are the maintainers of women, for Allah has made some better than the other and men spend their wealth on them. Righteous women are thus obedient, guarding the secret which Allah has guarded. Those from whom you fear rebellion, scold them, desert them in the bed and beat them." Quran (4:34)

------------------------------ --


Muhammad's empire of faith has managed to thrive in the modern world for one simple reason: Muslims have kept Muhammad's dark past a secret. The truth about Muhammad had been one of the worlds best kept secrets.

Muhammad: Fake prophet, illiterate, pedophile, rapist, robber, genocidal maniac, polygamist, warlord and slave trader.

Islam: means submission to Allah, not peace.

Quran: Evil book with over a 109 verses calling for murder and torture of non Muslims.

Sharia law: Barbaric, inhumane evil legal system in some Islamic Countries. (includes: amputations of hands and feet for crime. Stoning women to death for adultery and murdering Muslims for apostasy.)

Muslim: Male or female of any race spreading Islam through conversions and jihad/war.

Al Taqiyya: deception, allowed to lie, if it benefits Islam.

Jizya: a protection tax levied on non-Muslims, to retain their religion (Jewish or Christian) and feel subdued. This option was not available to Polytheists and Pagans, their only option is convert to Islam or war, ordered by Muhammad.

◘ Truth About Islam and Muhammad

◘ He had sex with a nine year old girl, while he was over fifty years old.
{Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated Aisha: that the prophet married her when she was six years old, and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years}.
◘ He advocated beheadings.
◘ He described non-Muslims as "the vilest of animals" and "losers."
◘ He owned and traded in slaves.
◘ He married his adopted sons wife, in other words he married his daughter in law.
◘ He never performed any miracles.
◘ He ordered the deaths of his political opponents.
{Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369: Allah's messenger said "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle." Maslama got up saying "Would you like me to kill him?" The prophet proclaimed "Yes." Maslama said "Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him." Muhammad said "You may do so."}
◘ He approved of prostitution. Nikah Mut'ah, is a fixed time arrangement between a man and a woman that dissolves once the duration expires.
◘ He recommended wife beating.
◘ He hit his own wife.
◘ He killed prisoners of war.
◘ He killed apostates, Islam demands if a Muslim leaves Islam his to be killed.
{Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17: Allah's Apostle said "The blood of a Muslim cannot be shed except for the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."}
◘ He told sick people to drink camel urine to heal themselves.
{Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, no. 234: The prophet told them to go to the herd of camels and drink their milk and urine}.
◘ He would beat children who didn't pray.
◘ Muhammad had boys as young as 12 years old beheaded.
◘ He had 9 wives at one time.
{Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 6: The prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all (nine) of his wives in one night.}
◘ He approved of sex with minors (pedophelia).
◘ He lied whenever it suited him.
◘ He would have people stoned to death for adultery.
◘ He tortured others out of greed.
◘ He did not consider men and women as equal partners.
◘ He stole and looted.
◘ He had people killed for insulting him. Including four poets, one of whom was a female.
◘ He preached violent hatred for non-Muslims.
◘ He extorted money from other religions.
◘ He took women and children as captives.
{Hadith Ishaq 464: The Banu Qurayza only lasted 25 days against the Muslims and surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad confirmed the order that the men be handcuffed, while the women and children were to be isolated in confinement and taken as captives}.
◘ He kept women as sex slaves.
◘ He forced others to convert to Islam (Believe it, or else!).
◘ He used terror against those who rejected him and others he considered as his enemy.
◘ He Killed women.
◘ He captured women and raped them.
◘ He encouraged the rape of women in front of their husbands.

◘ It's only Muslims and their sharia law that believes it's ok to amputate criminals limbs for the crime of theft. No other religious group believes this.
◘ It's only Muslims who believe it's ok to stone women to death for adultery. No other religious group believes this.
◘ It's only Muslims who believe it's ok to murder people for apostasy. No other religious group believes this.

Secular tolerance for Arab and Muslim intolerence.

Israpundit

By Matthew M. Hausman

Former Israeli Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef recently took a public flogging for allegedly describing Islam as “ugly,” specifically with respect to its laws concerning marriage and divorce. The liberal blogosphere had a field day, calling the Rabbi a bigot and labeling his comments hate speech. But the bloggers provided no contextual counterbalance, such as a critical discussion of the defamation of Jews and Judaism that occurs routinely in the Arab press or the historical discrimination of Jews in Muslim society. Nor do they ever. Although these folks cry themselves hoarse concerning their right to free speech whenever challenged for their demonstrably biased reporting on Israel – or for lambasting comments such as those by Rabbi Yosef – they are silent whenever the subject is Arab or Muslim incitement or intolerance.

The story about Rabbi Yosef was reported on an Egyptian news website, which not surprisingly found his comments to be inflammatory. However, such expressions of moral outrage are curiously inconsistent with the Egyptian media’s routine publication of antisemitic content worthy of Der Stuermer. Egyptian media outlets commonly depict Jews as racially-distinctive, hook-nosed caricatures, report as fact a multitude of mythical Jewish conspiracies, exploit the antisemitic imagery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and provide a forum for devotees of the blood libel. The government-sponsored newspapers Al-Ahram and al-Goumhuriyya regularly run articles and cartoons in the classic antisemitic tradition, as do other sources throughout the Arab world. The media rogues’ gallery includes most major press outlets, including:

• Al Jazeera, which broadcasts the rants of clerics who quote Quran and Hadith in calling for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jews.

• Al-Arab al-Yaum, a Jordanian daily that has published such offensive articles as “Killing Children According to Jewish Faith,” (March 8, 2008), which reported that Jews kill Gentile children and use their blood for religious rituals. The Damascus Blood Libel is clearly considered historical fact.

• SANA, the Syrian Arab News Agency, which has run stories calling the Holocaust a Zionist myth and describing Jewish or Zionist plots to colonize the Mideast.

• Al-Riyadh, the Saudi daily, which has printed articles reporting the blood libel as historical fact. As reported by MEMRI, for example, the newspaper in 2002 published an article in which the commentator expounded on the holiday of Purim, stating among other things that:

During this holiday [Purim], the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare –– it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets . . .

For this holiday, the victim must be a mature adolescent who is, of course, a non-Jew – that is, a Christian or a Muslim. His blood is taken and dried into granules. The cleric blends these granules into the pastry dough; they can also be saved for the next holiday. In contrast, for the Passover slaughtering, about which I intend to write one of these days, the blood of Christian and Muslim children under the age of 10 must be used, and the cleric can mix the blood [into the dough] before or after dehydration. MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 354, citing Al Riyadh, March 10, 2002.

Arab and other foreign media outlets have often disseminated stories about supposed Jewish plots for world domination, schemes to control financial institutions, and conspiracies to manipulate the media. Other popular themes have included “scholarly” claims of intrinsic religious corruption within Judaism, or pseudo-scientific reports suggesting that the Temple never stood in Jerusalem or that the Jews did not originate in ancient Israel, but rather were descended from non-indigenous peoples who usurped a country – Palestine – that never existed.

The mainstream media in the United States is quick to denounce any perceived affronts to Arab or Islamic culture, and just as quick to condemn any alleged expressions of Jewish or Israeli chauvinism. But the media is reluctant to criticize antisemitic expressions from Arab or Muslim sources, draw any connection between Islamism and terrorism, acknowledge the history of Arab expansion and colonialism, or discuss the supremacist implications of jihad – even as it openly plays out in Europe. Rather, liberal pundits often wax dreamily poetic when discussing the so-called “golden age of Islam” or the myth of Islamic tolerance. Moreover, they tend to rationalize any antisemitic or anti-Western expressions in the Arab world as reactions to Israeli intransigence or American colonialism.

In reality, there was no real sense of tolerance for “infidels” in the Arab-Muslim world. Historically, Jews in Arab lands were relegated to the status of dhimmi who often lived in ghettos, were endowed with few if any substantive rights, and were subject to the whim and whimsy of their hostile neighbors. Although many in the West believe that Jewish life was more tolerable through the ages in the Islamic lands, the general treatment of Jews there was in fact not much different than in Christian Europe, and sometimes was even worse.

During the early Islamic period, for example, Jews were required to wear distinctive badges or metal seals around their necks, and starting in the 9th Century the Caliphate in Baghdad required Jews to wear the yellow badge – a practice that was later adopted in Christian Europe during the Middle Ages. Starting in the year 1005, the Jews of Egypt were required to wear bells on their garments, and in Medieval Baghdad they were often physically branded. In many Arab countries Jews were required to live in ghettos and were not permitted to use the same public bath houses as Muslims. At various times throughout Islamic history, Jews of the Mideast and North Africa were subjected to pogroms, massacres and forced conversions just as they were in Europe.

Despite the fantasy of the “Golden Age of Spain” when Jews were supposedly free, equal and prosperous, Iberian Jewry often fared little better in Muslim Spain than in Christian Europe. The reality was famously evidenced by the experience of Maimonides. Despicable though the anti-Jewish policies of the Catholic Church may have been, the Rambam and his family were exiled from their native Cordoba not because of Christian persecution, but because the conquering Almohads gave the Jewish community the choice of conversion to Islam or death.

This is not to downplay the severity of historical European antisemitism, which found expression in, among other things, the anti-Jewish legislation of the Fourth Lateran Council, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Spanish Expulsion, the Chelmnitzky massacres, the Pogroms and the Holocaust. However, for those who might use the Holocaust as a measuring stick to say that hatred of Jews was worse in Europe than in the Muslim world, one could argue that it was only the expression that was more severe, not the doctrinal hatred itself. And in this regard, one must consider Arab-Muslim complicity with the Nazis, particularly where, as in Bosnia, Muslim Waffen-SS Hanjar units recruited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem assisted in exterminating Bosnian Jews. Moreover, in his testimony at Nuremberg, Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann’s deputy and Hauptsturmfuhrer of Slovakia and Hungary, reportedly described the Mufti was an advisor to Eichmann and “one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry.”

In light of this history, any censure of Rabbi Yosef, who was born into dhimmitude in Iraq, can have no frame of reference absent a critical analysis of the traditionally precarious existence of Jews in the Islamic world. Those who wish to criticize Rabbi Yosef, or any other Sephardim or Mizrachim who lived in Muslim society, must first understand how the historical treatment of Jews under Islam molded their collective psyche. And when critical neophytes analyze the history, they must look beyond the revisionist myth of religious tolerance and instead focus on the harsh realities of jihad, dhimmitude, and the pervasive cultural denigration of the Jews and Judaism.

Interestingly, Western Jews who buy into the myth of benevolent tolerance are generally secular liberals and typically not of Sephardic, Mizrachi or Yemeni ancestry. If they were, they would be more likely to know – either from their own experiences or those of their parents and grandparents – what Jewish life was really like in Arab lands. And the stark realities of that life preceded the current geopolitical tumult of the Mideast by centuries. Indeed, Maimonides in his Epistle to Yemen in the 12th Century addressed the issue of Arab intolerance and persecution at a time when the Jews of Yemen were subjected to gross abuse and unspeakable violations. This dark chapter in Arab-Jewish relations clearly predated the Arab-Israeli conflict, and certainly attenuates the assumptions of those who claim that Arab-Muslim hostility today stems solely from Israeli aggression and is not endemic to that society.

Moreover, those familiar with the Quran know that the blueprint for dealing with Jews and Judaism is anything but benevolent, involving as it does the seminal account of the slaughter of the Jews of Yathrib (al-Medina). And the eschatology reflected in the Hadith speaks of the extermination of the Jews at the end of days. Against this backdrop, the experience of the Jews in Islamic society and Arab lands was typically perilous and often marked by social and economic repression, institutional indignities, and general discrimination.

This reality is ignored by secular liberals, and also by cultural naifs who believe that interfaith dialogue will bring about greater understanding. However, the doctrinal differences between Judaism and Islam are vast. Theologically, Judaism incorporates the belief system of the Jewish People, and the concept of “peoplehood” implicates an identity combining ethnic and nationalistic components as well as religious ones. The Jewish religion is particular to the Jewish People and, consequently, it has no conversionary mission or imperative to impose its beliefs on other peoples. In contrast, Islam is a conversionary ideology that is in a perpetual state of conflict with those whom it considers infidels. And in the absence of something akin to the Reformation in Europe, it is questionable whether any amount of dialogue will bring about the philosophical change necessary to foster compatibility with western ideals or Jewish values.

The western media’s refusal to acknowledge the theological divide is puzzling given its seeming preoccupation with denigrating traditional religious beliefs in its own cultural backyard. Mainstream journalists routinely lampoon conservative Christians as ignorant and bigoted, and often depict observant Jews as fanatical, right-wing zealots. Yet, they are reluctant to apply the term “jihadist” to Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter with ties to al-Qaeda, to identify as an Islamist terrorist Umar Abdulmutallab, the attempted Detroit plane bomber, or to examine the doctrinal underpinnings of the acts of either.

The press instead takes its cue from President Obama, who refers to such terrorists as “extremists” so as to distance them from both the religious inspiration for their actions and their status as heroes amongst many within their faith community. Not surprisingly, the typical news analysis tends to ignore the religious motivations for their acts of terror, and instead focuses on “personal disaffection” or “loneliness” as mitigating factors. The media’s consistent refusal to acknowledge and condemn what is clearly religious-based terrorism leaves one to wonder whether its worldview is shaped by any affinity for western democratic values at all, or by a dogmatic political correctness that has become a dysfunctional secular religion.
While one may certainly disagree with Rabbi Yosef’s remarks, one cannot deny the history that may well inform his viewpoint.

Traditional Arab society never treated Jews with respect or tolerance as those concepts are understood in the West. Although Jews may be considered “People of the Book,” they are still considered infidels who occupy a dubious position within Islamic society. An objective review of the history shows that Arab-Muslim antipathy for Jews did not spontaneously arise in 1948 with the modern rebirth of Israel – any more than German antisemitism was created by the Nazis. And unless the Arab-Muslim world can change the way it regards Jews, and acknowledge their historic connection to and presence in the Land of Israel, there can never be true peace or acceptance, only a cold, Balkanized status quo.

Lights Dim on West: Prosecution Widens Charges Against Free Speech in Geert Wilders Trial

Atlas Shrugs
By Pamela Geller

Lights Dim on West: Prosecution Widens Charges Against Free Speech in Geert Wilders Trial

They are creating new charges against Geert Wilders, this century's Winston Churchill. This is bad news for Wilders but worse news for us. For Wilders is merely our proxy in this war on Western civilization and values. This is our battle.

The escalation in the persecution of Wilders is directly related to his popularity. He is now the number one party in the Netherlands (origin of recent Muslim plane attackers). So not only is Wilders being prosecuted but so are a majority of beleaguered Dutch folks.

Islamic jihad can keep up its relentless destruction of the West but do not dare talk about it.

The trial begins January 20th.

Geert Wilders hate speech charges widened (hat tip Liz S)

The charges against far-right MP Geert Wilders have been extended to include inciting hatred towards Moroccans and non-Western ethnic minorities, de Volksrant newspaper reports.

Up to now the Freedom Party leader has been charged with inciting hatred against Muslims through his remarks in the media and his anti-Islam film Fitna. MrWilders has compared the Qur’an to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and called for it to be banned.

However, the public prosecutor’s office has now decided to widen the charges, based in part on Mr Wilders response in a 2006 interview when asked what he would do if he came to power in the Netherlands: "The same day the borders would be closed to all non-Western immigrants." Mr Wilders has also expressed this view in parliament. The decision to widen the charges is striking because initially the public prosecutor’s office decided that Mr Wilders had no case to answer. It only went ahead with the prosecution when an Amsterdam court ruled last year that Mr Wilders should indeed face charges of insulting Muslims as a group and inciting hatred and discrimination towards them.

Insight

The lawyers who brought the case against Mr Wilders have welcomed the public prosecutor’s move. Haroon Raza of anti-racism organisation NBK told de Volkrant he was “extremely satisfied”. NBK argues that Mr Wilders is not only anti-Islam but also racist. Amsterdam lawyer Gerard Spong described the public prosecutor’s decision as a sign of “deepening insight”. It was he who brought the appeal against the initial conclusion that MrWilders should not be prosecuted. The public prosecutor’s office has not commented on the reasons behind its decision to widen the charges . A spokesperson told de Volkskrant that the motivation would be explained during the initial hearing in the case, set for 20 January.

Objections

Mr Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moszkowicz will set out his objections to the charges in a closed hearing on Wednesday. He argues that there are no grounds to prosecute his client for insulting Muslims as a group. MrWilders argues that his criticism has always been directed against Islam as a religion, and not against Muslims. He is attending the hearing in person although his Mr Moszkowicz said he did not enter the court by the main entrance due to the death threats which have been made against him.

Past remarks by Geert Wilders: “Introduce an immediate halt on immigration for people from Muslim countries. Forbid the burqa and the fascist Qur’an.”

“Let us reconquer our streets. Let us ensure that finally the Netherlands really looks like the Netherlands. […] Time for the big clean-up of our streets.”

“There is no moderate Islam. Islam is as I see it is a fascist ideology.”

Israel's Muslim Problem is Not Unique

Sultan Knish
ByL Daniel Greenfield

The visit of Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov to Israel this week is a timely reminder that Israel's problems with Islam are not unique. Like Israel, Bulgaria was ruled over by the Ottoman Empire, which exported their population to Bulgaria, oppressed the native Bulgarians, seized their lands and attempted to become the dominant majority. And when the Ottoman Empire lost control over Bulgaria, it left behind a huge Muslim population in Bulgaria.

The key difference between Bulgaria and Israel, is that Bulgaria since the 1870's forced much of its Turkic Muslim population to leave. As a result millions of Turkic Muslims left Bulgaria, leaving it a quieter place than neighboring Yugoslavia or Russia, or for that matter modern day France. Muslim clothing was banned, mosques were torn down and lands held by the Ottoman Muslim settlers were returned to native Bulgarians.

Today Bulgaria still has a troublesome Muslim minority of under a million, led by Ahmet Dogan, and backed by Turkish intelligence, which under Islamist PM Erdogan has branched out into promoting Jihad, much as Pakistan had. But despite Turkish attempts to intervene in Bulgaria, the country's Prime Minister, Boiko Borissov is a staunchly anti-Muslim leader, who has challenged Turkey's EU bid over its expulsion of Bulgarian in the 1920's.

Bulgaria is an example and a warning not just to Israel, but to Europe, Russia, Australia, America and many other parts of the world as well. Had Bulgaria not made life uncomfortable for Muslims, its fate in the 1990's would have probably resembled that of Yugoslavia, torn apart by foreign backed civil war and then carved up by Clinton and Albright. That same fate is now overtaking Israel and will overtake Europe as well.

That is because Israel's Muslim problem is not unique. Israel, like so many other lands, was overrun by Muslim conquerors who repressed the native Jewish population and settled their own population in its stead. The only unique thing about Israel's dilemma is that when the Ottoman Empire was defeated, Israel did not receive its freedom. Instead a British Mandate that was supposed to create a Jewish state, instead tried to create an Arab client state by expanding Arab immigration to Israel, while restricting Jewish immigration.

Had Israel received its freedom after WW1 when its Ottoman overlords departed, it would have never been overrun by Egyptian and Syrian Arabs who were magically transformed into "Palestinians" in the 70's at the behest of the KGB. Nor would the Holocaust have claimed a fraction of the lives that it did, had Israel existed as an independent nation capable of taking in refugees, instead of having its ports shut to refugees by a British Empire more interested in appeasing Muslims and using them to establish client states under their control. And the worldwide Jihad and Oil for Terror are the aftereffects of British and American appeasement and coddling of Muslim desert sheiks then.

But the past is in the past. The challenge of the future is to learn from it. The long term effects of Muslim expansionism around the world has embedded Muslim minorities in countries across Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Those minorities have always served as a local powder keg, which is now being lit with the help of Saudi petrodollars. Now a new wave of Islamic expansionism through immigration and Jihad is spreading even into regions that had never known the tyranny of Islam such as Australia, North and South America; as well as Europe where Islam had not succeeded in taking root before.

The toxic brew of religious supremacism and nationalist racism represented by Islamic expansionism is a threat to nearly every country in the world, whether they choose to admit it or not. And while Israel's troubles with Islam are more likely to become front page news, because its presence some 700 miles from Mecca is a perennial thumb in the eye of the Jihad-- it is also the canary in the coal mine for the rest of the world.

Islamism insures that Muslims cannot co-exist with non-Muslims except under a harsh dictatorship. Which leaves free nations with a choice between tyranny and removing the Muslim minority within its borders. The absence of Islam within one's borders does not guarantee peace, but the presence of Islam insures that conflict will come sooner or later. The examples of that are unfortunately all too numerous across the globe, across entire hemispheres where blood is being spilled in the name of Islam. From suicide bombings to honor killings, from Muslim insurgencies in the countryside to Islamist parties creeping in from within, from Sharia at the point of a sharpened knife to riots in the streets-- where there is Islamism, there can be no peace.

Israel's great mistake was its belief that it could co-exist with Muslims, and for its entire existence has bent over backward to accommodate them. From accepting the UN Partition Plan to sending troops to urge fleeing Arabs to return to Israel, to leaving the Temple Mount in Muslim hands, to the entire disastrous attempt to negotiate a peace with terror by agreeing to the creation of a terrorist state within its borders-- Israel's folly has been to seek peace with an ideology that uses the promise of peace as a lure to convince you to cut your own throat.

Where Islam exists in a nation, it will sooner or later either be suppressed or it will come to dominate. That is a scenario that every nation with a Muslim minority must understand and address, or it will become a Muslim nation with the native population reduced to an oppressed minority or butchered in the night. A totalitarian ideology cannot be made peace with. Either you will defeat it, or it will defeat you.

The Last Nail in Europe's Coffin

AmericanThinker.com

Because of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership between the European Union and Islamic states in the Middle East, by the year 2050, the Islamic population of Europe will be 25% to 30% of the total population. There will be perhaps over 100 million Muslims in Europe.

Partnership? More like a suicide pact. Fifty million laborers with families. The effects on European civilization, and on Europe's relationship with the United States, are all too easy to imagine. And the U.S.-Muslim engagement document, the blueprint for the Obama administration's relationship with Muslim countries, parallels these plans. It contains the same "cross-culturalization" plans that are discussed and recommended in the Euro-Med partnership. In other words, it's a charter for our dhimmitude, our subservience to Islamic law.

It's all parsed out in a series of "Association Agreements," which delineate the concrete terms of the new relationships between the E.U. and the Islamic countries involved in the Euro-Med Partnership. One Euro-Med webpage explains that there are "certain common aspects" to all these agreements, including "political dialogue, respect for human rights and democracy, establishment of WTO-compatible free trade over a transitional period of up to 12 years, provisions relating to intellectual property, services, public procurement, competition rules, state aids and monopolies, economic cooperation," and most significantly, "cooperation relating to social affairs and migration and cultural cooperation."

Take a look, for example, at the Association Agreement with Egypt. The links in the online version significantly have all been suspended, and they are routed to a new site for the European Union that offers no information. They are hiding everything having to do with this. But surprisingly, one Euro-Med page is still up, and it explains that the agreement with Egypt will involve the "training of persons working in the cultural field" and the promotion of "cultural cooperation of a commercial nature, production, investment and marketing, training and exchange of information."

"Cultural cooperation": That's where the rubber meets the road on immigration and related issues. It means Europe will conform to Islamic norms and not attempt to challenge them. And one main arena of this cultural cooperation was formally launched on June 9, 2008 in Slovenia: a new Euro-Med University. Based in Piran on the Adriatic coast, the university invites established European universities to become partner institutions -- in Britain, the Universities of Westminister, Cambridge, and Bristol have shown interest in such a partnership.

This cross-culturization among universities and colleges will lead to education and history being filtered through an Islamic prism, which in turn will lead to institutional fascism and historical revisionism. If you go to the EMUNI (Euro-Med University) site, it gives you a clear indication of what they are up to. Front and center is the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)'s Alliance of Civilizations.

The great historian Bat Ye'or said the following of the Alliance of Civilizations in a speech given at the Counter Jihad conference in Brussels in 2007: "The Alliance of Civilizations, created to oppose the clash of civilizations, that is jihad, has also added pressure. On 13 November 2006, the High-Level Group of the Alliance of Civilizations presented its report, which sums up the request of the OIC at its Mecca Summit in 2005, after the Cartoons affair. First, it adopts the Islamic view of history and politics by claiming that everything was fine between the three monotheistic religions until the 19th century, when the evil of European colonialism and Zionism destroyed this harmony."

Ye'or adds that the Alliance "affirms that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main source of Christian-Muslim antagonism, not the jihadist war and ideology that deny for others the right to exist. It proclaims that this conflict 'remains one of the gravest threats to international stability' and formulates recommendations that again echo the OIC requests. Such views mirror Hitler accusing the Jews of fomenting World War II, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, praised in the Hamas charter, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood which denies Israel's right to exist."

Why would Europe get involved again with such evil and simultaneously take in such a diabolical and disastrous immigration bomb? And that's what this is. Geert Wilders said it in a speech at Columbia University in October 2009: "Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography."

Why cause that social strain? Why expose the European Union to the inevitable violence? The Euro-Med Partnership could be the final nail in the lid of Europe's coffin.

By Pamela Geller Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America (Simon & Schuster).