Wednesday, October 25, 2006

The Caliphate And CAIR

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

In January of 2006, I composed a blog article largely based on the Washington Post article "Reunified Islam: Unlikely but Not Entirely Radical: Restoration of Caliphate, Attacked by Bush, Resonates With Mainstream Muslims." According to that Washington Post article:
"[T]he caliphate is also esteemed by many ordinary Muslims....Muslims regard themselves as members of the umma, or community of believers, that forms the heart of Islam. And as earthly head of that community, the caliph is cherished both as memory and ideal, interviews indicate."
Recently, discussion of the caliphate has resumed, in part because President Bush has been using the term in several of his speeches.

On October 23, 2006, Dr. Walid Phares wrote an essay entitled "The Caliph-Strophic Debate" and analyzed a recent article in Newsweek Magazine. Excerpt from Dr. Phares' article:
"It seems that the US is having a hard time winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims, but an equally serious problem can be observed in the intellectual circles of America where some have had a difficulty coming to terms with the terminology of the War of Ideas. If the educated elite of the United States is incapable of identifying the ideology and the strategy of the Jihadists five years after 9/11, we not only have a problem with handling the War in Iraq, but also with the future of American national security as a whole.

"An article published in Newsweek magazine on October 13, 2006 illustrates this problem....

"[T]he lesson from Newsweek article is that indeed the Caliphs were emperors and did wage wars. Some were benign, others harsh, as in any other empire. But that is important for average Americans to know and for Europeans to remember: Caliphs were involved in geopolitics and have declared Jihads, as did Christian emperors for centuries calling for divine wars. Hence, Caliphs aren’t spared criticism and aren’t shielded from historical analysis and judgment because they were strictly spiritual. Besides, even if they were, Caliphs aren’t deities and the Caliphate is a very earthly thing. Along with all other offices of power in world history, the Caliphates had blood on their hands and no one can dispute that.

"But what was missed by the writers was that the US President, and before him President Putin, US Congressional leaders from both parties and Arab leaders such as King Abdallah of Jordan and others, when they mention the Caliphate as a threatening goal, they are not playing historians. They are not talking about Caliphs Omar, Moawiya, Haroun el Rashid or Sleiman the Magnificent. Those are the Caliphs of history, not the commanders of 21st century al Qaeda. Adolph Hitler wasn’t a German emperor from the Middle Ages but he pretended he was their heir. Mussolini wasn’t Julius Cesar but he played his role. Hence when world leaders are warning about the 'Caliphate' they aren’t arguing with those who died centuries ago, but resisting the extremists who want to reawaken the dark ages again, but with modern weaponry."
Many Muslims, including CAIR, have objected to President Bush's use of the word caliphate. Some of these same Muslims also objected to the term Islamofascism. One wonders if any term getting to close to Islam's geopolitical ideology is objectionable. Too close to the truth?

In his essay, Dr. Phares writes the following:
"And to top it the article consults with the Islamist lobby on the issue and elevate it to the position of ex cathedra on all things Islamic. They write:

Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations, says bin Laden’s word choices distort Islam for the world, and he wishes the president would take more care. When Ahmed heard “caliphate” Wednesday morning, he thought of the way Bush used the word “crusade” after September 11. “There’s a fundamental misunderstanding with the president and his advisers on core Islamic issues,” Ahmed said. “He’s getting bad advice, they’re misinformed on Islamic terminology.” Either that, or he’s making a strategic rhetorical choice.
Perhaps a CAIR spokesman — Mr. Bedier, for instance — would share with us an acceptable term on his blog site. [Aside: Since when does a CAIR officer have his own Blogspot site?] Might that term be "a great religion"? "A religion of peace?" Those terms, however, do not go the distance to explain why so many Muslims long for the caliphate. Neither do those catch phrases explain why many ordinary Muslims, whom CAIR claims to represent, hold the concept of the caliphate in such high regard (See the above-cited article from the Washington Post).

Consider these words from Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's Director of Communications:
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
Also consider these words from a July 1998 statement by CAIR founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar M. Ahmad:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
Do those statements from Mr. Hooper and Mr. Ahmad reflect a longing for the establishment of a worldwide caliphate, with the United States as part of that caliphate? If so, could it be that such a longing is the reason that hordes of moderate Muslims have not come forth to take back their hijacked religion?

In his essay, Dr. Phares explores Newsweek's errors and why it is important to understand the historical and current significance to Muslims regarding the utopian concept of establishing the caliphate. Read all of Dr. Phares' essay here.

56 Comments:

At 10/25/2006 8:32 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Great post, Always.

The West is making a very big mistake in trying to separate one kind of Muslim from another. There is but ONE Islam (though there are several sub-sects within the 'religion').

Basically, there are practising Muslims and non-practising Muslims. Though I have no statistics to offer on this at this time, I would think it accurate to assume that practising Muslims far outweigh the non-practising, nominal ones.

Just as Westerners generally revere liberal democracy, because it stems from Greco-Roman and Christian thought, so Muslims revere the political system of the caliphate. This is only to be expected. Just as you and I wouldn't renounce our allegiance to liberal democracy, so a Muslim wouldn't renounce his allegiance to the concept of the caliphate.

As Muslims grow in strength in the world, through procreation and oil revenues, there will be more and more pressure for the establishment of a caliphate somewhere in the Islamic world. This is, after all, their ideal.

America, in my opinion, is not immune from this thinking, simply because Islam is growing in strength there, and Muslims in numbers. As time will pass, so the calls for the replacement of the American Constitution will become louder and louder.

The West is on a slippery slope. We are slip, slip, sliding our way into dhimmitude - into dhimmitude and subservience.

The news that there is a distinct possibility of a Muslim (who interestingly uses a Christian, or non-Muslim name) poised to enter your parliament should be a worrying, troubling development for all Americans. This, of course, will be one step closer to the formation of an American caliphate one day in the future.

With Muslims swelling in numbers as they are there in the States (as in Europe) that day might not be so far off.

©Mark Alexander

 
At 10/25/2006 9:19 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Well written and well thought. I'm surprised that Newsweek would mention geopolitical jihadist goals and the reestablishment of the Caliphates.

Recently I saw an article (I cannot recall the source) that Al Qaeda in Iraq wanted its operatives to stop the beheading of Shi'ites because it was divisive to the ummah.

This schism is Islams greatest internal threat. While Sunni Muslims would look to bin Laden, or his successor, as a possible caliphate the Shi'ite world would look to Ahmadinejad or maybe one of the senior Ayatollahs.

I think the United States should be doing more to exploit this divide. Perhaps dividing Iraq into three distinct states isn't a bad idea.
It could help drive a wedge between Syria and Iran.

 
At 10/25/2006 10:01 AM, Blogger nanc said...

your articles are always so well thought out, aow - as i've said before - you are a person to aspire to.

i took today off instead of friday and am compiling a list of people to contact. it's parent/teacher conference day also. no rest for the weary.

 
At 10/25/2006 10:16 AM, Blogger Steve Harkonnen said...

Mark's words are truly apocalyptic. I see a very bad future for America if this dhimmitude continues. I see small but effective bands of resistance against dhimmitude, and even the government, should dhimmitude take over the government.

problem is, our civilizations clash too much. Democracy and the way we live are too precious for us to allow our women and children be forced to wear certain clothing. I already have a hard time going to a Christian church, imagine ME being a Muslim? No way. The other problem is that Muslims cannot understand why WE don't want to submit to their subserviance.

It all starts with threats of lawsuits and the removal of our first amendment rights to speak out against them.

 
At 10/25/2006 12:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steve

As I have cautioned others CAIR does have a staff of lawyers on retainer. They will not hesitate to use a frivolous lawsuit to intimidate people. A David Horowitz has his own lawyers, but the rest of us do not.

John Loftus is an attorney and can easily represent himself or get a trusted friend to do so at no cost.

The average person can not tangle with CAIR.

 
At 10/25/2006 12:54 PM, Anonymous Seth said...

And that's a crying shame, that an enemy of our entire civilization can come into our country and use our own legal system against us.

I'd say, "what's this world coming to?", but it would be a stupid question. It's obviously "coming" to an age of Islamic rule, with the unwitting blessings of some very obtuse political leadership.

 
At 10/25/2006 12:55 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

Caliphate? What caliphate?

 
At 10/25/2006 1:14 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

The first moon worshippers liked the crescent too... although the tips of the crescents used to turn outwards a bit...

...and I hate to say this, but if I were to attempts to interpret the Islamic symbol for Allah... I could do a pretty good dance as to what each of symbol strokes represents based upon ancient Egyptian Ogdoad cosmology...

 
At 10/25/2006 1:40 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

As Earl Pitts would say: "Wake up, Uhmerikuh!!!"

Straight from the lips of CAIR: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

The only "relationship" that Islam is interested with America is that of a Sharia husband and wife: You shut up, put on your hijab, and do what we say, OR ELSE!

Excellent post, AOW, as always.

 
At 10/25/2006 2:53 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

"Recently, discussion of the caliphate has resumed, in part because President Bush has been using the term in several of his speeches."

It’s instructive to notice how the President’s few references to Caliphate and Islamo-Fascism resulted in many MSM and talk-shows discussing the concepts. Imagine if we had real leadership that understood the Islamic threat and spoke out against it vociferously and often. It would permeate every venue (like the topic of WMDs did) and result in a vigorous debate. The end result would be a heightened awareness on the part of the American people.

If only we had real leadership …

PS thanks for the good comments on L&C and Mark's. My friend who returned from Iraq surprised at the inter-group hatreds is a 45 year old Marine Colonel (reserves.) He wasn’t prepared at all for the culture.

 
At 10/25/2006 7:26 PM, Blogger Gayle said...

It is indeed scary, AOW! Mark's comment is absolutely correct.

I'll bet your Marine friend was probably shocked to the core regarding their culture; it's so archaic as to be almost unbelievable.

Brook said: ""Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." That is also unbelievable to me, even though I know how dispicable that organization really is. These people are complete radical extremists, and somehow they must be stopped. What is it going to take, another civil war?

 
At 10/25/2006 7:27 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Via this source, HERE is another Blogspot site of another member of CAIR.

 
At 10/25/2006 7:29 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

TO ALL COMMENTERS:
I will come back here to respond to comments. At the moment, I have a busy schedule with work, and I have some paper-grading and lit reading to do.

Off to make a few blog rounds before I settle in to do some teacher-prep work.

 
At 10/26/2006 6:09 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Beakerkin:

As I have cautioned others CAIR does have a staff of lawyers on retainer. They will not hesitate to use a frivolous lawsuit to intimidate people. A David Horowitz has his own lawyers, but the rest of us do not.

If what you say here is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then it is a sad day for America, because it means, effectively, that free speech is being closed down.

Now that's REAL progress for Islam! That's exactly what Islam wants. So why is America, the Land of the Free, allowing this to happen when all that needs to be done is close down the mechanisms in place to let this sort of thing happen?

 
At 10/26/2006 6:14 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Jason:

It’s instructive to notice how the President’s few references to Caliphate and Islamo-Fascism resulted in many MSM and talk-shows discussing the concepts. Imagine if we had real leadership that understood the Islamic threat and spoke out against it vociferously and often. It would permeate every venue (like the topic of WMDs did) and result in a vigorous debate. The end result would be a heightened awareness on the part of the American people.

So well and accurately stated. I'm sorry to say it about your president, but Bush has botched this. (To think I used to be a big fan of his!)

If only we had real leadership …

That's actually all we really need. But it is nowhere to be seen on the horizon.

PS thanks for the good comments on L&C and Mark's.

You're very welcome as far as I am concerned. It's always a pleasure to visit your website.

 
At 10/26/2006 6:34 AM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

I haven't commented, because it is pretty much covered here. The only aspect not covered, is the spiritual. We are in a war in the heavenlies, we have our part in it, and this is merely the Enemy trying to wreck that which is good! But this aspect is being ignored by the majority of people, because to modt, the here and now is all there is. We are fighting for more than what is readily apparent and we better get serious about it!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranata!

tmw

 
At 10/26/2006 6:50 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
It’s instructive to notice how the President’s few references to Caliphate and Islamo-Fascism resulted in many MSM and talk-shows discussing the concepts.

GWB has previously flirted with the term caliphate, but he has been placing more emphasis on it lately. I believe that the term has appeared in four of his speeches.

What is even more interesting is the reaction to the term on the part of Muslim civil rights groups, as they try to disseminate the idea that the term is offensive and an anachronism. But the fact remains that many Muslims put great stock in establishing that utopian dream. Establishment of the caliphate is not being attempted merely by spectacular attacks.

 
At 10/26/2006 7:09 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

TMW,
You're correct: we haven't dealt with spiritual aspects in these comments. Thank you for pointing out the larger war--especially to those of us who are Christians.

Islamists says plainly and simply, "This is a holy war." But the West has become secularized and refuses to recognize the reality of the waging of a holy war.

A few days ago, Jason put up an interesting posting entitled "A Savage Enemy". First paragraph:

The inability to believe in evil, contrary to modern belief, is not an enlightened stage in cultural evolution but a sign of dilution and decay that is often a prelude to events unimaginable. In the 1930s, few could believe the evil unfolding in Germany and Russia, nor the savagery of Japan which was actually evident in the decades prior to Pearl Harbor. We wanted to believe all human beings harbor the same sensibilities, hopes, and dreams. While denying our vast differences, we believed we could appease the enemy that must surely want peace as much as we do. And we paid dearly for our delusions.

While Jason is an atheist, he makes several points which Christians should also consider!

 
At 10/26/2006 7:20 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beak,
I understand and appreciate your concern about criticizing CAIR. Mark gave an excellent response:

If what you say here is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then it is a sad day for America, because it means, effectively, that free speech is being closed down.

Now that's REAL progress for Islam! That's exactly what Islam wants. So why is America, the Land of the Free, allowing this to happen when all that needs to be done is close down the mechanisms in place to let this sort of thing happen?


Beak, consider the following statement by Mr. Bedier as pointed out by American Crusader:

"We are to the American Muslim community what the NAACP is to blacks in America. If you attack us, you are attacking the Muslim community and the religion of Islam in this country."

Two thoughts come to mind:
1. Do all American Muslims "belong to" CAIR?
2. Since when does scrutinizing an organization--a political lobby--amount to attacking an religion? Does the latter part of Mr. Bedier violate the separation of politics and organized religion?

According to Pim's Ghost, quoting Mr. Bedier:

You [Pim's Ghost] keep referring to the Jiziya (a tax imposed on non-Muslims who lived in an Islamic state) The non-Muslims were paying that because they were not required to pay the mandatory Annual charity Zakat. The non-Muslims received in exchange for the Jiziya, full citizenship in the Islamic state, full security and were treated just like the Muslims. You can't say the same for minorities living in Christian Europe. In fact no other religion was tolerated in many European nations.

Posted by Ahmed Bedier | 10/23/2006 3:34 AM


Is that statement not an oblique glorification of the caliphate, which exacted the jiziya?

 
At 10/26/2006 7:24 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mark,
Yes, freedom of speech is at stake. CAIR has been nibbling away at that First Amendment right. However, it is worth noting that CAIR did not win the law suit against Anti-CAIR. The dismissal of that law suit set an important precedent, IMO. Nevertheless, CAIR is attempting another strategy here in the blogosphere, which will relentlessly monitor the goings-on of CAIR.

 
At 10/26/2006 7:27 AM, Blogger kev said...

In my opinion, Bush does understand the threat, but every time he references anything evil and associates that with islam, he gets slammed by muslims, the media, and, of course, democrats. So I don't think the solution is to condemn Bush, but rather the opposition who would muzzle him.

I think jason hit the nail on the head with what he said about our inability to recognize evil when we see it. Saddam was evil personified, but there are those who still defend him, or at least not condemn him. There is no uproar from dems or libs over the savagery of radical islamists, who think nothing of killing innocents, even their own, or hacking off heads of living, breathing, human beings. Such people have not progressed in civility since the very early days of existence.

 
At 10/26/2006 7:27 AM, Anonymous Skylark said...

'Do those statements from Mr. Hooper and Mr. Ahmad reflect a longing for the establishment of a worldwide caliphate, with the United States as part of that caliphate?'

Deep down we know that Muslims long for this worldwide caliphate. As Mark Steyn remarked in one of his talks - the only way to deal with a Muslim minority is to whack a whole lot of controls on them and let them know who is in charge and most importantly -keep them a minority. In Holland it might be too late but I believe it is not too late for the US or Australia.

Today our Sydney Mufti said that girls not wearing a hijab are 'asking for it' and invite rape etc etc - fortunately there has been such an outcry and even two Muslims girls went on air condemning what he said.It was front page news but the pc commentariat are trying their hardest to kill the story. In fact many want him deported. We have to keep up the outrage and try to be the voice of sanity no matter what the obstacles.

 
At 10/26/2006 7:29 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

From "CAIR Didn't Win This One", an article I posted here on March 23, 2006:

CAIR's lawsuit against Anti-CAIR has been dismissed. Below is the announcement by Andrew Whitehead:


Statement By Anti-CAIR’s Andrew Whitehead Regarding Dismissal of CAIR Libel Suit

As you know, the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a $1.35 million libel suit against me because I made the following statements:

• “Let there be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America.”

• CAIR is an “organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection.”

• “ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries.”

• “Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the ‘moderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries.”

• “CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.”...
The parties in CAIR's lawsuit have settled. And check this out:
"The policies and procedures of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR) have not changed in any way as a result of the CAIR lawsuit settlement. ACAIR, and ACAIR’s founder, Andrew Whitehead, will continue to work to expose and present to interested parties any information regarding CAIR that they feel is of importance."

 
At 10/26/2006 7:46 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Kev,
I think jason hit the nail on the head with what he said about our inability to recognize evil when we see it.

Way back when, I found this essay by Jason Pappas:

Is Islam Evil?

"Sophisticated" critics usually react to the word "evil" with condescension and derision. Describing something as "evil," in their view, generally brands one as an unenlightened throw-back to the dark ages -- or the equivalent of a televangelist preaching hellfire and damnation....

Given the recent worldwide attacks by Islamic terrorists, why isn't the question "Is Islam evil?" With few exceptions (Turkey, for example), Islamic countries are fascist, autocratic or theocratic, where women are subjugated and minorities persecuted. Islamic countries are rife with poverty and have been for centuries. Polls show that in many Islamic countries a majority of Muslims lionize the man responsible for the atrocities of September 11th and the terrorist gangs who routinely slaughter civilians in Israeli buses and restaurants. In Arab schools and on Arab television, children are taught the glory of becoming suicide bombers. Almost everywhere that Islam borders other cultures, there is violence.

The idea, then, that Islam is evil has far more plausibility than the idea that United States is evil. But merely, raising the question, "Is Islam evil?" provokes an instant, inevitable outcry: "Bigot!" "Racist!" "Zionist!" Indeed, the attempt to suppress debate on this question is so intense that few people in the mainstream will ask it....


Read the whole essay.

It occurs to me that in the present controversy with the blogosphere and CAIR, CAIR is trying to do some suppressing. As Jason said, an instant, inevitable outcry: "Bigot!" "Racist!" "Zionist!" But now the outcry is that of "Hate crime!"

 
At 10/26/2006 7:57 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

In this comment thread, Mr. Bedier said, Who's trying to silence who? You and your friends are sooooo angry (I've read the hateful comments) that we have a voice on the web?? and Wow I didn't know I had such a fan club out there. I should start charging a membership fee. How about hosting a live chat with Ahmed Bedier. We can call it Bedier Raw, I'm joking of course.

How do you guys find the time to post and moderate and monitor, do you have lives?

I'm not sure I have the time to respond to all your questions and concerns or time to even respond to all the comments left on my blog.

But this is an interesting experience.

Hate bloggers: understand this, you will never be as credible as CAIR. No one cares about your hateful views. You are very shady folks with questionable backgrounds and motives. Continue to live your fantasy on the Internet.


Let's consider this portion: I'm not sure I have the time to respond to all your questions and concerns or time to even respond to all the comments left on my blog.

So, not posting comments is a matter of time? Well, this entire controversy arose because comments at YouTube were not being posted. Mr. Bedier began selectively posting comments at his blog and at a few other blogs. I note, however, that he has not been "building bridges of understanding" by addressing the matters HERE:

- CAIR's financial ties to the terrorist-financing groups Holy Land Foundation, Global Relief Foundation, and Hamas. (Fearful of admitting in court CAIR's support for these terror groups, they refused to be “transparent” regarding these relationships).

- CAIR's relationship to the Islamic Association of Palestine [former employers of Awad, Ahmad, and Hooper]. The IAP was found civilly liable for murder. Also refused were questions of CAIR’s relationship with InfoCom, which was run by convicted CAIR board member Ghassan Elashi.

- CAIR's connections to individuals associated with Saudi Arabia. [Now what could CAIR possibly have to hide here? Mr. Bedier, care to answer?]

- CAIR's connections to terrorist Musa Marzook of Hamas. [We’d love to hear CAIR’s explanation on this one…but, once again, only silence from the CAIR troika.]

- CAIR's financial relationship with an identified Saudi prince known for financing Islamic Fundamentalism and supporting terror.

- CAIR's financial relationship with a known Saudi Islamic fundamentalist group that was formed and operating for the purpose of converting non-believers, by whatever means necessary, and who agreed to underwrite CAIR’s activities in the United States.

- CAIR's “key personnel” who were identified by FBI surveillance in a meeting with Hamas leadership right here in the USA. [Now why would CAIR officials want to meet with Hamas?]

- CAIR's position regarding Israel’s right to exist as a nation.

- CAIR's position regarding the Hamas Charter, [of which CAIR officers translated into English while working for the Islamic Association for Palestine, a terror front group].

- CAIR would not even admit that Hamas was responsible for the murder of innocent civilians.


In a comment to the above, I said the following in a comment:

At 4:43 PM, Always On Watch said...

...And here's an important litmus test:
CAIR's position regarding Israel’s right to exist as a nation.


When is CAIR going to issue a statement which says "We agree that Israel has the right to exist." Waiting....Waiting....

 
At 10/26/2006 7:59 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Steve,
It all starts with threats of lawsuits and the removal of our first amendment rights to speak out against them.

Such threats are another form of terrorism.

 
At 10/26/2006 8:01 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Skylark,
Today our Sydney Mufti said that girls not wearing a hijab are 'asking for it' and invite rape

I read about that! Any feminist groups picking up on that she-asked-for-it nonsense?

 
At 10/26/2006 8:08 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Farmer,
I hate to say this, but if I were to attempts to interpret the Islamic symbol for Allah... I could do a pretty good dance as to what each of symbol strokes represents based upon ancient Egyptian Ogdoad cosmology...

You certainly know how to do your research!

About those flags...Just last week my World History class was looking at a gallery of all those flags with crescents on them. They got the point, all on their own. Of course, they HAD seen the film Obsession, which I showed to the class a few weeks before when we were doing our study of the Middle East.

 
At 10/26/2006 8:21 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

A link for what Skylark said in a comment above:

"Muslim Leader Blames Women for Sex Attacks":

October 26, 2006
THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals....

The leader of the 2000 rapes in Sydney's southwest, Bilal Skaf, a Muslim, was initially sentenced to 55 years' jail, but later had the sentence reduced on appeal.

In the religious address on adultery to about 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

"The uncovered meat is the problem."

The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

"It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."...

Young Muslim adviser Iktimal Hage-Ali - who does not wear a hijab - said the Islamic headdress was not a "tool" worn to prevent rape and sexual harassment. "It's a symbol that readily identifies you as being Muslim, but just because you don't wear the headscarf doesn't mean that you're considered fresh meat for sale," the former member of John Howard's Muslim advisory board told The Australian. "The onus should not be on the female to not attract attention, it should be on males to learn how to control themselves."...

 
At 10/26/2006 8:59 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Kev:

In my opinion, Bush does understand the threat, but every time he references anything evil and associates that with islam, he gets slammed by muslims, the media, and, of course, democrats. So I don't think the solution is to condemn Bush, but rather the opposition who would muzzle him.

Well, if Bush does understand the threat, as you believe, then he sure has a funny way of showing his understanding; and he is also doing some pretty strange things to combat the threat if he truly does understand it.

In my opinion, he is too close to those Saudis. They've got him eating out of their hands!

 
At 10/26/2006 9:00 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Kev:

I should have added:

But to be fair, the Saudis have got many Western politicians eating out of their hands, not just Bush.

 
At 10/26/2006 9:05 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Thank you for that link to the "Servants of Allah". It's amazing what Islam wants to take credit for. Now they are claiming the credit for the Civil Rights movement?

Beak..you make a good point that CAIR is not afraid to use its resources to silence individuals. That is why I caution people to refrain from bigotry and slander when responding to any post to CAIR or from CAIR. As long as truth is on our side, even CAIR doesn't have limitless resources.

 
At 10/26/2006 10:11 AM, Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

hey AOW...oh so Many Mussssssssssss-lims, including C-AIR, have objected to President Bush's use of the word caliphate.....which words DONT they ahem object to praytell! Let them write us dhimmis a list huh!

 
At 10/26/2006 1:55 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

But to be fair, the Saudis have got many Western politicians eating out of their hands, not just Bush.

It’s the sad truth. Rarely can you find a politician that will condemn the Saudi regime. At one point Liebermen was speaking out but he fell for the Saudi propaganda and changed his tune. Then there were none.

 
At 10/26/2006 2:04 PM, Blogger Steve Harkonnen said...

Steve,
It all starts with threats of lawsuits and the removal of our first amendment rights to speak out against them.


"Such threats are another form of terrorism."

Indeed they are. We should abide by what you're saying here. You might here me mentioning this in the future sometime. CAIR is using our legal system against us.

AOW, I couldn't help but ponder on my recent past when I re-read the words by Andy about the lawsuit. When I met him in Iceland, I knew from the start that he was a fighter. Andy's son suffered from a bad bout with cancer that left him with a learning disability. Andy had to fight for his son to ensure treatment. Sadly, when Andy got orders to Iceland, the Navy deemed his son being unable to get the treatment he needed up there. That meant Andy had to go up to Iceland unaccompanied without his wife and children.

That's where I met Andy. We became close friends and used to hike a lot off base together with our friends Gary and Deb. Andy's the only guy I know that can run down a mountain without thinking twice. In sneakers and jeans, too! Looking back, I see the fate: look where we are today. Look what Andy started (Anti-CAIR after we left Anti-Jihad International) and here we are, have gained the interests of a LOT of supporters. Andy has started a trend here for us to follow. I in particular, owe Andy a HUGE thank you.

May I remind all of you to voice your congratulations to Andy for a job well done. He can be reached at ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org.

 
At 10/26/2006 2:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AOW

The larger question is if we are allready in a war of Civilizations.
The war is handed down to us from extremists.

There are Muslim groups like the CIP that are trying to fight CAIR.
Sadly, when the media wants copy they select CAIR rather than CIP.

 
At 10/26/2006 3:02 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

The "red meat" sermon was atrocious, AOW!

There just aren't words...

 
At 10/26/2006 3:06 PM, Blogger nanc said...

CALIPHATE - CALIPHATE - CALIPHATE!!!

 
At 10/26/2006 3:21 PM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

Excuse me! But I am not abandoned meat, thank you very much! and don't talk to me or about me or mine that way either, idiot! Last I looked, I haven't seen any abandoned meat around here, except the dead squirrels in the road!
Man is obviously listening to "down below" not "up above". Seems to me that in Genesis, that G*D said there would be a special enmity of women by Satan, and this jerk spouts that line!

tmw

 
At 10/26/2006 4:23 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I’d thought I’d share an encouraging internet experience. Revisiting one of the websites where I argued about the dangers of Islam two years ago, I see one of my opponents is starting to get it after reading a book by Mark Gabriel. Now my opponent is summarizing Mohammad exactly the way I did in my essay “Is Islam Evil?” I’m tempted to pop over there to say “I told you so” but I won’t; I knew it would be a matter of time. I’m just glad another person comes to his senses.

 
At 10/27/2006 6:46 AM, Blogger Denny said...

I thought that I was going to leave a short comment, but everything that needs to be said has already been said by always on watch and others.


I guess that's short enough.

 
At 10/27/2006 9:28 AM, Blogger Mark said...

So now we are to view all women as "red meat", huh? Aren't these people something else?

Now, all women without a hijab or veil are asking for trouble. They are like red meat in the park, waiting for the cats to come and devour them!

This argument came from the 'mufti' of Australia. But such opinions are readily aired by ordinary Muslims in places like Saudi Arabia (and most other places where Muslims are to be found), too. We have a strange future ahead of us, folks!

 
At 10/27/2006 10:53 AM, Blogger Farmer John said...

...it's a good thing they invented mace and stun guns small enough to fit inside a purse.

 
At 10/27/2006 11:22 AM, Blogger cube said...

Scary stuff indeed. Forget the mace and the stun guns, I'd rather
introduce those 'hungry cat' moslems to my friends, Mr. Smith & Mr. Wesson.

 
At 10/27/2006 12:48 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

Ahhhh, the great equalizer!

"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

 
At 10/28/2006 6:30 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Farmer,
Ahhhh, the great equalizer!

"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."


A sign I was saw in a restaurant in southern Virginia: "Believe in life after death? Trespass here and find out."

Hehehe.

 
At 10/28/2006 6:31 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Cube,
I'd rather introduce those 'hungry cat' moslems to my friends, Mr. Smith & Mr. Wesson.

Does our exercise of our Second Amendment rights prevent the kind of rioting which is going on in Europe? I tend to think so!

 
At 10/28/2006 6:34 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Farmer,
it's a good thing they invented mace and stun guns small enough to fit inside a purse.

I have one of those purse-sized mace units. Hot pepper spray is good too.

 
At 10/28/2006 7:06 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mark,
So now we are to view all women as "red meat", huh? Aren't these people something else?

Now, all women without a hijab or veil are asking for trouble. They are like red meat in the park, waiting for the cats to come and devour them!


Can't you just hear the outcry if certain Christian groups were to insist on modesty at public beaches? Yet Muslims in Oz are trying to foist their beliefs on a country to which they or their ancestors immigrated!

And just try to prance around in a bikini in an Islamic nation? See what that gets you!

Whatever happened to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"?

 
At 10/28/2006 7:09 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Denny,
I thought that I was going to leave a short comment, but everything that needs to be said has already been said by always on watch and others.


I guess that's short enough.


LOL to that last sentence.

And, really, what IS there to say? CAIR won't answer the questions. Instead, the organization keeps repeating a mantra "Not in the name of Islam." Yet, CAIR won't specifically name whom they condemn. Hmmmm....

 
At 10/28/2006 7:10 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Denny,
Addendum: Except for us "hate-filled bloggers." But the questions raised still remain unanswered!

 
At 10/28/2006 7:12 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Brooke,
The "red meat" sermon was atrocious

Gives a clue, huh? Women exist to be denigrated by men. Talk about medieval!

 
At 10/28/2006 7:13 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

WHT,
hey AOW...oh so Many Mussssssssssss-lims, including C-AIR, have objected to President Bush's use of the word caliphate.....which words DONT they ahem object to praytell! Let them write us dhimmis a list huh!

The approved words are "religion of peace" and "Islam is a great religion."

Were such mantras to appear in students' essays, I'd slam them for writing cliches.

 
At 10/28/2006 7:15 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mark,
the Saudis have got many Western politicians eating out of their hands, not just Bush.

That amounts to foreign involvement in Western governments. Dangerous!

 
At 10/28/2006 7:17 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Steve,
May I remind all of you to voice your congratulations to Andy for a job well done.

Andy blazed a legal trail. CAIR couldn't shut down Anti-CAIR. Pity, though, that the law suit was dismissed before CAIR's finances were exposed.

 
At 10/29/2006 7:21 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
I see one of my opponents is starting to get it after reading a book by Mark Gabriel. Now my opponent is summarizing Mohammad exactly the way I did in my essay “Is Islam Evil?”

A few months ago, a friend of mine gave me Gabriel's Islam and Terrorism. I wonder if that's the same book which your "opponent" read?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home