Don't search for fascism among "islamofophobes" - today's fascism comes from the Saudi dictator family - in a variety of ways, incl. all the wars in Mideast, worldwide muslim terrorism (incl. an unknown but huge amount of street jihad terror), all Sunni terrorist groups etc etc!
According to BBC, Russia is to blame for everything. Do the Brits themselves really buy it? That would mean the Brits are stuoidier than most other European people where islam and the world's number one hate mongerer and spreader of islamic hate, the Saudi dictator family, is a much bigger concern if we have to believe the polls.
Kerry: Syria should show "grace" to al-Qaeda/al-Nusra and to let them flee.
When should muslim born (apostate?) "president" (unconstitutional and betrayer of US Constitution) Barry Barakeh Hussein Dunham Obama Soetoro (or whatever) be prosecuted for his contribution to Saudi war crimes, terrorism etc.? The Saudis would have been helpless in prolonging the war they themselves initiated without Obomba's keen aid.
Has there ever been any lower "president" in the US? First Saudi backed al-Qaeda bombed WTC, Pentagon etc. Then Obomba used that very terroist group for some five years aginst the Syrian people, causing the worst human catastrophe of this century.
Sharia is islam's anchor to islamofascism
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah (who is the head of sharia in Saudi Arabia): "The destruction of churches was absolutely necessary and is required by islamic law." He called for the destruction of all churches in the Arabian Peninsula after legislators in the Gulf state of Kuwait moved to pass laws banning the construction of religious sites associated with Christianity. In Saudi Arabia there are of course not a single church.
Klevius, the Grand Thinker of the free world: It's this wreck in human immorality and member of the evil Saudi dictator family, that you should think about when you so eagerly name basic Human Rights defenders "islamophobes".
Saudi, OIC and sharia, are the three words that encompasses the whole problem of fascism today. The Saudi dictator family is the mastemind of islamic suffering and basic Human Rights violations through its:
1 intolerance at home; war crimes and terror against neighboring people; street jihad all over the world
2 pushing for Human Rights violating sharia through the Saudi based and steered OIC and its worldwide sharia declaration (incl. its "islamophobia" and "blasphemy" campaign against everyone critical of it).
Keeping this in mind it's quite remarkable how silent the world has been. Is it only Klevius who dears to say that these religious Nazis have to be reassessed by our politicians, companies, universities etc.?
Raymond Ibrahim: Valentine, a British Methodist pastor and teacher who taught in Saudi Arabia, has written a useful book about the desert kingdom. Most interesting is its exploration of how the monarchy is "the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism"; it "has spent as much as $100 billion to spread Wahhabism in the West," yet "America and Britain have been, and are continuing to be, implicit supporters of Wahhabism."
G. Murphy Donovan (American Thinker): The objective of imperial Islam may be monoculture. Yet, with 1.5 billion followers, realities will always be at odds with utopian dreams. The Shia/Sunni schism, for example, has plagued the Ummah for 1300 years.
Yes, the majority are not terrorists. They are worse! Passive aggressors might be a better description for most of the silent Muslim majority.
How many Russians were Communists and how many Germans were Nazis in the beginning? The numbers never have to be large. Militancy and terror are usually a minority and minorities still prevail. A kinetic vanguard can always depend on the silence and apathy of majorities. The Islamist menace is no different today.
Indeed, the propagandists and the swords are the lesser of two evils. We know what they believe, what they fight for, and we see what they do on a daily basis. Militants make no secret of their Islamic motivation. Whatever the number of radicals, they will never be as numerous, or as guilty, as the larger Ummah which is routinely disingenuous, routinely apathetic, routinely absolved, routinely hypocritical, and routinely given a pass on accountability.
Most Americans and Europeans believe that most Muslims are innocents. How is this different than what most Muslims believe? Sadly, the great crimes of any century are more a function of apathy and appeasement, and less a product of militancy. Apathy and denial about the Islamism problem is as much a problem in the West as it is in the East.
A malignant force, once set in motion, tends to stay in motion unless confronted by an equal or superior force (hat tip to Isaac). The real strength of Islamists is the apathy of 57 Muslim nations worldwide, a sixth of the world’s population. Islamofascism is an Ummah community problem. The progressive West cannot save the Islamic East from itself.
Calling Islamists criminals, militants, radicals, fundamentalists, or even terrorists might be necessary but not sufficient. These are half-truths, euphemisms at best. Proselytizers, apologists, and jihadists must also be linked precisely, directly, and routinely to the ideology that motivates them. Without motive, crime or any barbarity would not be a problem. That culture is Islam! Culture is the primary culprit midst James Clapper’s “nefarious” characters.
So let’s be clear when we speak of the enemy. With the Muslim wars, there are probably three relevant semantic distinctions to be made. Islam is the big tent phenomenon, for the most part an apathetic, apologetic, passive, or mostly bovine majority. Islamists are the proselytizing militants or financiers, missionaries, domestic or immigrant activists who believe they act in the name of a “great” religion. Islamofascists are the kinetic Muslims, those who oppress or kill in the name of Mohamed, the Koran, or imperial Islam. The terms are related, but not necessarily interchangeable.*
The necessity to distinguish militants from moderates is not trivial. The so-called moderate is the more difficult problem, numerically and ideologically. Islamism is in the end a philosophical, political, religious, now kinetic, quest to reverse the vector of Emanuel Kant’s optimism. There is more than a little evidence to support the irredentist world view. The passage of time is not progress. The vector of history moves forward -- or backwards. Contemporary Islamism is a very large sanguinary bet on door number two, the recidivist option.
And yes, Islamists claim that their aggression is actually defense, a victim’s posture. Let’s allow that historical delusion. Muslim scholars and clerics have been looking to the past in search of the future for centuries. Recidivism, yea political immaturity, is the fatal flaw of all utopians, especially fascists. There is no question that imperial Islam will fail -- implode or be defeated. The question is how much masochism, denial, and damage the Ummah and the civilized world will endure before that day arrives. Unfortunately, the predicate of all fascism, religious or secular, is coercion. ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are the logical products of Islamism unchallenged.
While reading the following written by a Pakistani muslim (assumably) do consider that he still wants to both eat the cake while still keeping it intact. In other words, he like so many others hesitate at a crucial point where only a clear dismissal of classic islam can produce positive result. By stopping halfways you just keep feeding the Saudi mufti and other islamofascists. And if you streach the "moderation" of islam to a civilized Human Rights level, then there is no longer an islam in any meaningful sense. This is why Saudi based and steered OIC has carved out islam's own "human rights" (i.e. sharia) bunker within UN etc.
Ammar Anwer (Daily Times - a new voice for a new Pakistan): Islam is a religion and Muslims are the people who follow Islam. Islamism is the ideology that promotes the idea of imposing a particular interpretation of Islam over a community. In short, Islamism is the political and totalitarian interpretation of Islam. Explaining the political and totalitarian tendencies of Islam, Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (largest Islamist organisation in the world) said, "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire world.” Unlike normal Muslims, an Islamist believes that he has political and social responsibilities assigned to him by Islam. Not all Muslims are Islamists but every Islamist is a Muslim.
Many Muslims as well as the far-left are in denial when it comes to realising the facts with regard to radical Islam. Anyone who says that radicalism has a strong basis in Islam is immediately labeled as an Islamophobe. Yet, it is an obvious fact that radical Islam has a lot to do with Islam. Scripture is the main driving force and inspiration behind Islamism. When the likes of ISIS behead innocent people and attack Paris or Brussels, they do so because they believe that it is their religious obligation. When Islamist terrorists, anywhere in the world, mistreat and enslave women, and persecute homosexuals it is because they interpret Islam such that it legalises slavery and homophobia. It is their view of Islam, which to them appears to be the only correct one.
This being said, there is another giant factor that we must not ignore and that is the faulty Western policies towards the Middle-East. It is quite evident, like I said, that radical Islam has deep roots in theology. Muslims had problems even before the West ever interfered in Muslim countries. Long before Western intervention, they were already chopping each other’s heads off. There is a long history of battle and violence between the Umayyads and Abbasids. Islamists derive their inspiration from Islamic scripture. When they murder other Muslims it is not because of the West but because of the ideology that teaches them to label others as kafir (infidels) and kill those who differ from them. This is a theological issue and I have been saying so for the past three years.
However, I do believe that without Western support and without its faulty policies, things would have not been this complicated.
Had the West not supported Saudi Arabia over the years and had it exerted the same pressure as it did on communist states, Saudi Arabia might actually have collapsed. The West perpetually paints itself as the epitome of human rights, which is—to be sure—correct to an extent, but the policies that it has formulated over the years are the very opposite. Today the most violent state on earth, which is doing the very same thing as ISIS, occupies a monumental position in the Human Rights Council. How is this even possible? Why would the West give a free hand to Saudi Arabia, a state that continues to be an inspiration for radical Islam and sectarian violence in Muslim countries? Why is it that when ISIS persecutes homosexuals and subjugates women and other religious minorities, we scream human rights abuses but we stay calm when Saudi Arabia commits similar travesties?
No comments:
Post a Comment