January 3, 2013
An article has been doing the rounds of the “anti-Jihadi” websites, purporting to report on nearly 1,200 cars being burnt in France in the course of Muslim rioting.
From what I can find in the French press, there has been a gang-related practise in recent years of torching cars in New Year celebrations. Critically, there is no mention in the French press of Muslim riots.
So what can we surmise? That the report from Jihad Watch et al was altered to include the assumption of Muslim or Jihadi rioting and this alternation betrays an agenda which goes beyond combating Islamism. It betrays a casual suspicion of Muslims as carrier-agents of dissension and danger.
I discovered this report from my Facebook page and was immediately struck by the lack of sources. The report links to the Washington Post, whose own page corresponds with the Le Monde report above. But crucially, it links to a Russian website without external links for verification and to a Christian fundamentalist site – again lacking links for verification.
I am surprised that people have taken this up without checking the sources, although perhaps this is more common than I suspect.
Take a look at this photograph from the Russian website (ria.ru):
Is this photograph altered? From where was it sourced? Ria.ru has it labelled as Reuters but Reuters has nothing on this subject, so how could it be a Reuters photograph?
Let us be clear. There are problems, well attested, with parts of the Muslim population in European countries. But I hold that this is not the result of a malicious religion as the authors of the report would argue but of many have described as the culture of places like Pakistan where women are fair game for men to assault and foreigners are the enemy. The issue is not religion but civilisation and barbarism and a collective political failure to adapt.
However, we should always check the truthfulness of accounts before accepting them as true. If journalists are expected to do so, then so should we as responsible subjects under law.
July 24, 2010
This article by Sarah Hoenig spells out why it is in women’s interests that Islamic headdress be outlawed in the public sphere. The burka, niqub and hijab are symbols of male dominance over women in society. If we are as a society truly committed to women’s rights and sexual equality then this aspect of cultural barbarism must be broken. It starts with the law because the law is there to protect the invididual against pressures to which they have no other recourse.
“They got me. They caught up with me,” she intoned with a wry, wan smile.
At the beginning her husband was taunted about letting his wife parade about “promiscuously, like a Jewess.”
Then they called her a whore each time she walked down the main drag. She was harassed on the bus. Both she and her husband were threatened with physical violence. The straw that broke their backs were escalating jeers, sneers and bullying suffered by her nieces and nephews in school and even by her tiny children in kindergarten and at the playground.
“I was marked as a fallen woman. Even if I wanted to fight, I couldn’t bring shame on my whole family. My parents’ business was sinking into ruin because of me. So I gave in. I’m suffocated by the hijab, while my husband, father and brothers breathe free and stay cool… I hate this but I am scared,” she confessed.
“I can’t believe this is Israel, where women live like women do in the West. I used to take the hijab off out of town, but my neighbors come here too. They’re all over the place. People see me. Tongues wag.”
June 19, 2010
I recommend reading this book.
January 13, 2010
Good analysis on a controversial subject here.
August 4, 2009
If you can’t tell the difference in the essential traits of totalitarian attitudes towards dissidents and intellectual opponents, then don’t read this appeal by Dr. Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany of Eygpt.
He’s been “excommunicated” by the Islamist groups in Egypt and faces real danger. We owe him our support, though I have little idea what I could practically do. Any suggestions welcome.
December 7, 2008
Via Little Green Footballs, from here.
I’ve heard quite enough media pundits desperately trying to link the terrorist carnage in Mumbai to Western “issues”, whether Gaza (what starvation?), a mysterious failure to reach out to the Muslims of Afghanistan and Pakistan (sorry, does WD mean not fight against the Taliban and their allies?) or the usual hobby horse of the traitors anti-war groups, Western troops in the Middle East and the liberation of Iraq.
Read the account from above. It’s from the perspective of an Indian family caught up in the attack.
Once you’ve read it, remain open minded and ask yourself this: how do any of the above issues actually relate to the crimes committed in Mumbai? Does “secular political outrage” (the implications of WD) motive two young men to machine-gun a line of frightened civilians against a wall? Does “anger against the occupation” motive them to open fire on a crowd in a railway station or seek out tourists and murder them? Do any of the above motivate normal people to go and seek out a tiny house in Mumbai, which happens to be only Jewish centre in Mumbai, which houses a young rabbi and his family engaged on an outreach mission – a mission of charity? And then to torture and murder them?
If you’re still engaged with the diseased thinking of relativism, you’ll probably accuse me of being Islamophobic to suggest that this was an Islamic agenda, inspired by the relevent verses in the Koran (Mohammed eagerly murdered an entire unarmed Jewish tribe – highest example of conduct to Muslims) that was being carried out on the streets and in the buildings of Mumbai. This is the same agenda that is played out against Israelis time and time again.
The disease of relativism is to ignore the reasoning of the terrorists and to dehumanize the victims by implicity accusing them of complicity in their governments “crimes”. It would not matter a jot what crimes had been committed against you if your response was the animal and barbaric agenda played out on the streets of Mumbai.
Perhaps the correct response might be the avatistic feeling that begins to emerge in one’s breast when this has happened again: revenge.
December 2, 2008
He’s right and has summed up the central dilemma that should be afflicting the left – “Why the rabbi?”
“I’m sure there are plenty of Deobandi followers who are in no way violent or dangerous, but one sees here an ideology, a psychosis in search of a grievance, not an expression of an existing grievance. And it will always find a grievance. ”
Read it yourselves.
July 31, 2008
Thinking about the impact of mental illness, I wonder if Mohammed, Prophet of Islam was afflicted with schizophrenia or voices in his head.
These need not occur regularly, but can resurface periodically and would provide a secular explaination for the beginnings of Islam and revelation. There is an interesting article in The Atlantic, published in 1999 (before the terrorist attacks on New York and therefore before the liberal press became terrified appeasers) which explores the implications of textual scholarship on the Koran and its implications for Islam’s future.
July 16, 2008
“Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and never has been,” Obama in his recent NYT op-ed.
Ok. To whom has he been listening when he has needed evidence? I think this is still sucking up to the anti-war left, while peddling a defeatist line just this side of acceptable.
The problem is that Al-Qaeda declared Iraq to be the central front in its war against the west. But wait! We’re not going to seriously believe that Republican neo-con pro-zionist nonsense about Al-Qaeda actually being a major force in the past chaos in Iraq? Surely not. Why then we would have to trust the evidence of our own eyes!
Better to remain talking inside our heads, comrades. Much more ideologically safe there.
Excellent article on the differences between McCain and Obama, or, “He who gets it” and “surrender monkey”.
July 14, 2008
Perhaps it is tiredness at 01:23 in the morning, but I feel hopeless and depressed about the situation in which the West finds itself. We are at war with jihadi Islam, in particular with Iran. Yet the vast majority of (especially) the political elite will not face up to that fact and I don’t know if they even recognise that in 1979 fundamentalist Iran declared war on the West and that in 2001 Al-Qaeda declared war on the West. They don’t want to recognise that we’re not the villains but the victims of a reawakened aggression from our distant past.
In 1683, Vienna was besieged by the Ottoman Empire. That siege was no mere act of statecraft – it was a Jihadi war, a holy war aimed at the permanent conquest and conversion of non-Muslim states.
What puzzles me is what do we do? How can we fight this? The best answer that I have is democracy, secularism and the Enlightenment. We have the first functioning Arab democracy in Iraq – ok, I don’t like the inclusion of Sharia in the constitution but it can theoretically be removed and history is full of surprises. Afghanistan is not lost though it is on a knife-edge long term at the moment but that can be solved by a number of ways, more troops, better coordination and a more sustained political and financial effort here but above all by taking the war into Pakistan. The tribal areas have been turned into Islamist havens and we owe a duty to the inhabitants to free them from these medieval barbarians (and I use that word in the most bestial of senses).
But for the long term this starts with being honest. We have a fundamentally dishonest governing Labour Party, which will not make the sacrifices (moral or intellectual) that are required. And I don’t believe the Tories under Cameron will make those sacrifices – but I am open to being surprised. I believe that the best we small band of believers can do is to keep on saying and writing the truth that we are in a war and that these barbarians are our enemies. We cannot bargain with them or “understand” them because their objectives are the destruction of our society. We did not bargain with the Nazis in the last resort and we said then and will say again, “Thank goodness that we did not.”