Posts Tagged ‘Anti American’

Fitzgerald: Arab racism & black Muslims

October 23, 2008

October 23, 2008

Fitzgerald: Arab racism and black Muslims

You can find online complaints about Arab racism from black Muslims (or Black Muslims, that is members of the Nation of Islam, who are not considered real Muslims by the Arabs) in this country. Despite the universalist claims made for Islam, it is, and has always been, a vehicle for Arab supremacism. The reasons are not hard to find. As Anwar Shaikh (an ex-Muslim who was born in Pakistan and died in Wales in 2006) noted in his book Islam, The Arab National Religion, the Arabs consider themselves to be superior to other Muslims because they “received” the message from Allah. It was given to them and was in their language. Non-Arab Muslims are supposed to read the Qur’an, or listen to its recital, only in Arabic. Any other version, in any other language, is not the same thing.

Compare this to the missionaries for Christianity, who in some cases became extraordinary linguists in order to study native languages and dialects and translate the Bible into them. And they did this for languages that in many cases had never had a written form — thereby helping to preserve the language for use, and for study.

And when a Muslim prays, wherever in the world he may be, he is directed to pray — it is a matter of fantastic importance — toward Mecca, toward the Hejaz, toward Arabia, the center of his being.

And the Sunnah, one should not forget, is at least as important as the Qur’an. Some Arabs even say that it is possible to imagine a guide to life with the Sunnah alone, but not with the Qur’an alone. Both matter. And what is the Sunnah? It consists of “practice” — the customs and manners of the early Arabs, that is, of Muhammad and His Companions, that serve to gloss the Qur’an. And the Sunnah is derived from two texts — the Hadith, the written record of the sayings and acts of Muhammad, and the Sira, the biography of Muhammad, the first version of which appeared a century-and-a-half after the historical (if he was historical) Muhammad’s death. What matters is not what parts of the Sira were imagined or which Hadith were made up, and by what means, but which parts Muslims take to be the genuine details of the life of Muhammad, and what Hadith they believe to be the most “authentic” in the compilations of the most “authoritative” — by their lights — muhaddithin.

As Anwar Shaikh notes, the Arabs of Arabia needed their own “religion” to compete with, but not to be completely unlike, the earlier-in-time monotheisms of the lands they first conquered. These lands were inhabited by Christians and Jews. The Jews were not confined to the Land of Israel, but were to be found living, and for a long time, in many parts of the Middle East. They were living in Iran and present-day Iraq, and of course in Arabia itself — for how else could they keep being encountered by Muhammad, in Mecca, Medina (Yathrib), the Khaybar Oasis? The Arab “religion” that they created is clearly the result of taking bits and pieces of pagan Arab pre-Islamic lore (the djinn, for example), mixed with misunderstood and misremembered bits of Judaism and Christianity.

This amalgam was presented to the conquered peoples, the Christians and Jews, as not the New and Improved Version of their faiths (as modern Western marketers might have done with a detergent), but rather as something else — the True Version of Their Faith, which they had misunderstood and distorted or perverted. This made it less strange a faith, and those elements of pre-existing beliefs to be found within it, however jumbled, made it easier for Islam to insinuate itself into the minds of non-Muslims who often converted purely as a practical matter. They did so in order to join the side of the conquerors, to be free of the many disabilities that as non-Muslims they would have to endure (the three choices were: to be killed, to convert, or to endure forever the status of dhimmi, with all that that meant). How many Christians in America today, if they had, in perpetuity, to pay $50,000 per head to remain Christians, would do so? For how many would there be a falling off, and how many each year?

Islam has been a destroyer of other cultures and other languages. In a world that worships “diversity,” the thrust of Islam has been to efface diversity. Languages other than Arabic have received no sympathetic study or attention by Arabs or Muslim missionaries — the effort has been to efface the many languages and cultures that could once be found in the lands conquered. There are, here and there, pockets of Aramaic-speakers in some Syrian villages, a handful of Mandaeans and Yazidis (450 of whom were killed by Muslim bombs in the worst act of Muslim terror in Iraq). There are the Copts in Egypt, or what is left of them, they who once were virtually the entire population of Egypt. There are Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq, or what is left of them, they who were once…ditto. And so on.

The history of Arab oppression of blacks, whether those blacks became nominal Muslims or not, is too long. The history of Arab enslavement of blacks started far earlier, was much more devastating in its effects, and continued much later, than the Atlantic slave trade. A scholar has estimated that because Arabs specialized in seizing young black males for use in harems (contrary to the Western imagination, harems were not just for the rulers), and would castrate their hunted prey in situ in the jungle, the mortality rate among those then taken by slave coffle to the waiting boats that would take them to the slave markets of Islam reached 90%. See “The Hideous Trade” or google that title and “Jihad Watch” for more.

Slavery is legitimate in Islam. Muhammad had slaves. Muhammad is the Perfect Man. Seventh-century Arabia allowed slavery. Seventh-century Arabia provides the Sunnah, the customs and manners that are to be followed. The Arab slave trade went up and down East Africa, with the chief entrepot for the local trade in African blacks being the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, held by the Arab rulers of Oman. The Arabs also went deep into Central Africa, and into West Africa too, while the European slave-traders never managed to penetrate the interior, preferring to remain on the coast of West Africa and having slaves delivered to them by local tribes.

Slavery was not abolished willingly by the Arabs. It was stamped out, rather, by Western powers. There is no Arab William Wilberforce. There never has been a declaration, by any Arab leader, or government, or theological institute, that slavery is always and everywhere morally wrong. And there cannot be such a declaration, because Muslims are hemmed in by the Example of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, and the practice of the Sunnah. If the French ended Arab enslavement of blacks in much of North Africa, it was the British — the Royal Navy — that helped stamp out the slave trade that continued between Africa and Arabia. This tale is told most fully in J. B. Kelly’s “Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1795-1880.” But the Arabs still managed, as the British presence on the seas diminished, to resurrect that slave trade, which continued into the 1960s.

In 1962, just before slavery was formally abolished — because Saudi Arabia was not yet rich from oil revenues, it had to succumb to Western pressure — 20% at least of the population consisted of black slaves. For more google “Arab slave trade in Africa,” or start here.

It is not surprising that in Dayton, a Muslim girl might have made up a story blaming black men. Nor is it surprising that the Arabs in this congregation want to move from a black neighborhood to a white one. Look at how unwelcome Arabs and Pakistanis have made black Muslims who wish to attend, in any numbers, the same mosques with them. Blacks are seen as fit fodder for conversion to Islam — without really letting potential converts know much about Islam. The proselytizers hold back so much, until their targets are deeply committed and can’t easily get out. They do this so as to swell Muslim ranks and perceived (and real) power, but are not so happy for the new converts to actually associate with Arabs and Pakistanis, who find such an association distasteful. Compare that with the welcoming practice of Christian churches, not least among those evangelicals who have become the butt of so much self-assured mockery.

Not only are most forms of art — sculpture and most painting — forbidden in Islam (look at any major museum at the “Islamic art” — Arabic calligraphy on ceramic plates, and Qur’anic calligraphy on paper), but it is difficult to conduct science within a society suffused with Islam, that discourages every sign of free and skeptical inquiry about the most important thing — Islam — and hence about everything else as well).

And then there is music. There is no Muslim equivalent to the church music of Christianity. Music is forbidden (Black Muslims in America may at times ignore this ban — one more sign of un-orthodoxy). Wherever strict Muslims are in power, they attempt to ban all kinds of music, the folk-music that naturally wells up, as it does in Afghanistan, because it responds to a universal need that the Shari’a laws do not allow to be met. The wedding-singers killed in Afghanistan, the gamelan players in Indonesia disparaged by local Muslims, the RAI singers (often Berbers) threatened or killed in Algeria — all of these are signs and symbols of the Islamic hostility to music. This does not mean that there are not singers. No one denies that there is Arabic music — that oud, those other exotic instruments, or even singers such as Umm Kalthum. But the role of music is much smaller, and it is despite Islam and its discouragement that music appears. The texts and the spirit of Islam, truly adhered to, would deny a role for music altogether. It distracts, you see: distracts from worship.

Sister Rosetta Tharpe begs to differ.

And in the earlier, pre-old-time-religion phase of her career, Rosetta Tharpe’s performance begs to differ with, and demands to ignore, just as much as does her later work, the hostility to music that is inculcated by Islam. And her many admirers — whose numbers may swell with the two examples of her art posted today — will agree.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/023209.php

Technorati – Non Arabs

Advertisements

Ignoring radical Islam will lead to peril

September 24, 2008

Ignoring radical Islam will lead to peril

September 24, 2008

“Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” a Liberty Film Festival winner for best feature documentary film in DVD form, is a must-see movie for anyone.
Advertisement

The president of the Hudson Institute, a respected think tank, writes, “If you haven’t seen it, you should! And if you have seen it, you should insist that others see it as well. Our future may depend on it.” United States Naval War College Professor Jeffrey Norwitz sees it as “expertly produced with solid historic research; … every viewer regardless of background will learn something.”

The film is “about a radical worldview, and the threat it poses to us all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike,” according to the nonprofit, non-partisan organization that made the film. The organization’s mission is to educate Americans about national security issues through documentary films, Web sites and educational materials.

The one-hour film is especially valuable, as in it the radical jihadists tell the story themselves. Unedited footage from Arab television shows rare scenes, from the education and indoctrination of Arab children in the classroom, where they are taught to value jihad and “the love of fighting, … for the sake of Allah,” to a suicide-bomber induction ceremony and fiery speeches in Middle East mosques and in London and New York City streets, preaching the Islamization of the world and the destruction of the Jews, the Americans and the British.

What Wikipedia called “notable counter-terrorism figures” provide the analysis in the film. Among them are Egyptian-American writer Nonie Darwish, a graduate of the American University in Cairo, daughter of an Egyptian lieutenant general who headed Fadayeen terror operations against Israel, and was assassinated by the Israelis in 1956 when Darwish was 8; Bethlehem-born Walid Shoebat, with a Palestinian father and an American mother, an anti-Israeli activist turned supporter of Israel after Sep. 11, 2001, a controversial former Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorist; West-Bank-born Khaled Abu Toameh, with an Israeli Arab father and a Palestinian Arab mother, a graduate of the Hebrew University, and a senior reporter for the Jerusalem Post; Alfons Heck, a member of Hitler Youth who became a Nazi officer, described by Wikipedia as “a fanatical adherent of Nazism’s ideologies.”

The film contains footage of radical Muslims’ global jihad attacks in New York City, London, Madrid; in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe — “all fronts of a global jihad,” says one analyst.

Analysts were unanimous that “history repeats itself,” as the film reviews Hitler’s Mein Kampf of the German “Aryans” against the “Jewish peril,” connects “the dots” showing parallels between radical Islamists’ jihad and the Nazi holocaust, the similar propaganda techniques of continuously demonizing enemies, the remarkable resemblance in manipulating young minds toward fanatic hatred and training followers to accept death — the difference being death for the Fatherland was dictated by Hitler, a man, while death for the sake of Allah claims the sanction of the Almighty.

As the film shows, the 1998 Jordanian and Palestinian school book teaches, “This religion (Islam) will destroy all other religions through the Islamic Jihad fighters,” a final goal of the radical jihadists.

“I was an intense believer in the Nazi ideology,” says Heck in the film. “I know what a supreme dedication to an ideology can do.”

“We need to understand the culture that produces terrorism,” says Darwish. After 9/11, people asked “why do they hate us?” Some blame themselves and U.S. foreign policies. This “distracted” from the real reason of an “ideology that wants to destroy us.”

Professor Robert Wistrich of the Sassoon Center for Antisemitism thinks of a “particular strand” in Islam represented by the radicals that challenges the “sacredness of life” embraced by Western culture.

The film shows Sheik Ibrahim Mahdi speak on Palestinian TV: “We must educate our children on the love of Jihad for the sake of Allah. And the love of fighting ….” And Palestinian TV footage of 1998 shows children recite, “I march quickly toward my death.”

The former dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University laments, “We have not succeeded in making our children love life ….”

Analysts asked in the film: If radical jihadists dehumanize the West and preach every day that it is evil and must be destroyed, and if Palestine and Saudi TV preach kids to want to become suicide bombers,”what do you expect will happen?

Palestinian journalist Toameh says, “As a Muslim I feel pretty worried, … and I feel shamed; … Islam has been hijacked by different fanatic groups.” He hopes it is “out of fear and not out of sympathy” that the “silent majority” of Muslims don’t speak up.

Professor Wistrich asserts that that there is “No evil that simply has disappeared on its own accord.” He laments, evil triumphs “because there is not enough people who stand up” to defeat it.

You “can’t claim ignorance anymore,” says Darwish, and analysts in the film agree if we continue to ignore radical Islam, we do so “at our own peril,” and “risk our own demise.”

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080924/OPINION02/809240327/1014/OPINION

You Must Watch ‘Obsession’ because CAIR doesn’t want you to know the truth about Radical Islam

September 24, 2008

You Must Watch ‘Obsession’ because CAIR doesn’t want you to know the truth about Radical Islam

Topics: Understanding Islam

Via Dan Riehl, I see that CAIR is once again “Outraged” – this time in Fla – and they want to shut down the distribution of copies of the movie, Obsession, being distributed in newspapers there. Apparently a few politically correct, highly ill informed, naive papers have refused to include the insert including one in North Carolina. Dan has the links to two videos to YouTube by CAIRtv in which the also obviously politically correct, highly ill-informed, naive newscasters play right into the hands of the Muslim activist group (with a highly dangerous agenda for America) and with proven ties to terrorists.

Dan has posted on the campaign and has done a review of Obsession here.

Now given that CAIR doesn’t want you to see the movie and just in case you haven’t received a free copy or somehow have failed to see it by now, please watch this 6 part youtube FoxNews film which Lionheart suggests is one of the best and most informative films you will see on the threat we in the civilized World face in relation to Islam’s Holy War against us (HT – Lionheart for posting the links to all six parts at YouTube): Fox News:The Threat of Radical Islam (Parts 1 – 6). I was fortunate enough to watch the entire Fox News special at the time of its airing and enjoyed every minute of it. And, of course, E.D. Hill as the announcer, made it all the more effective.

Part 1 – Obsession


Part 2 – Obsession


Part 3 – Obsession

Part 4 – Obsession

Part 5 – Obsession

Part 6 – Obsession

Website: Radical Islam’s War against the West

Current related:

Middle East professor says controversial Obsession movie “straightforward” (Via Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch):

Always refreshing to see a member of that bastion of Islamic apologetics — academia — actually being objective. More on this story. “Swift dispute, radical Muslims DVD flare scrutiny of Islam,” by Chris Casey for the Tribune, September 21:

James Lindsay, an associate professor of Middle Eastern history at CSU, takes an opposite view on “Obsession.” He believes it’s a straightforward look at radical Islam.

He said the producers are explicit that film is about the radical ideology within Islam, which is advanced by the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida and other groups. The film’s introduction states that most Muslims are peaceful and don’t support terror.

The militant Islamic branch — which the film says makes up about 10 percent to 15 percent of a worldwide Muslim population of 1.2 billion, the world’s second-largest religion behind Christianity — has a conquest ideology, Lindsay said.

“It’s one of subjugating the world to their ideology. There is not room for another ideology, according to the radical Muslim ideology, and it’s frightening,” he said. “But it’s part and parcel of the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and the al-Qaida types that they want to impose their will on everyone.”[…]

Lindsay, the CSU professor, said the Muslims who flew the airplanes into the Twin Towers felt they were doing God’s work.

Muslims who say “jihad” means the struggle for personal betterment aren’t giving the full picture of what’s written in the classical text, he said. Rather, the text says the Islamic practitioner is preparing himself to be a better warrior.

“The idea of the jihad as laid out by extremists is one of the doctrines within the Quran itself,” Lindsay said. “It’s a fundamental tenet of Islamic religion and it has been in Islamic history — engaging in warfare against the enemies of Islam.”

Conflicts between the West and Islam are inevitable, Lindsay said, because the demands of Islamic law are in conflict with the West’s approach to law and religion. The Quran speaks of creating a society that’s obedient to God’s law, not obedient to men’s model, he said.

Lindsay believes the way to deal with Muslim immigrants — as in the case of the JBS Swift workers — is to explain how employment rules and policies operate in the United States. “I have no desire to make any accommodations to Islamic law, and that’s my opinion.”

Other current related: 15-year-old female would-be suicide bomber tells her story

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/understanding_islam/