Archive for the ‘Fighting it’ Category

Fighting It– Mumbai Moderate Muslims Won’t Bury…

February 21, 2009

In a response to terror, rarely if ever seen among Muslims, Mumbai muslims have refused to bury the terrorists who massacred hundreds in Mumbai a month or two ago.  If only this would spread..

excerpts:   Thomas Friedman writes in the NY Times—

The nine Pakistani Muslim terrorists who went on an utterly senseless killing rampage in Mumbai on 26/11 – India’s 9/11 – gunning down more than 170 people, including 33 Muslims, scores of Hindus, as well as Christians and Jews – are still in the morgue because the leadership of India’s Muslim community is refusing to allow them to be buried in the main Muslim cemetery of Mumbai. “People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim,” said Hanif Nalkhande, a spokesman for the Muslim Jama Masjid Trust which runs the cemetery. M.J. Akbar, the Indian-Muslim editor of Covert, an Indian investigative journal, explained: “Terrorism has no place in Islamic doctrine. The Koranic term for the killing of innocents is ‘fasad.‘ Terrorists are fasadis, not jihadis.
The in-your-face defiance of Islamist terrorists by Mumbai’s Muslims stands out against a dismal landscape of predominantly Sunni Muslim suicide murderers who have attacked civilians in mosques and markets from Iraq to Pakistan to Afghanistan, but who have been treated by mainstream Arab media, like Al Jazeera, or by extremist Islamist spiritual leaders and Web sites, as “martyrs” whose actions deserve praise. The only effective way to stop this trend is for “the village” – the Muslim community itself – to say “no more”; for the culture and faith community to delegitimize this kind of behavior, openly, loudly and consistently. India’s Muslims, the second-largest Muslim community in the world after Indonesia, do a great service to Islam by delegitimizing suicide-murderers. ..

Merry Christmas– Tolerance a 2-Way Street?

December 25, 2008

We hear a lot about larger and larger mosques being built in Europe, but nothing about churches in Arabia, controlled by Saud.  Finally an EU Parliamentarian questions this assymetry of tolerance:

excerpts:

  • EU Parliament Head: Allow Christian Churches to Be Built in Arab Countries Like Mosques Are Built in Europe
    EU Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering called on Arab governments on Tuesday to allow Christian churches to be built in their countries in the same way that mosques can be built in Europe. In Saudi Arabia, at the end of a tour of Gulf countries, Poettering said Arab governments need to be more tolerant of other religions. “It is vital that we get a better understanding of the Islamic culture,” he said. “But it’s a two-way road. We ask for tolerance for Christians…in the Arab world. It’s mutual.”
    Poettering noted that Saudi Arabia is host to millions of foreign workers, including more than one million Filipinos, most of whom are Christian. “There are hundreds of thousands of Catholics here. We have Christmas tomorrow and they cannot assemble in a church.”  (AFP)

Heroes– Danish Newspapers Respond

February 14, 2008

In response to a recent Islamofascist murder plot uncovered in Denmark, 17 newspapers (there is safety in numbers) published Muhammad cartoons.  Maybe there is someone willing to fight for freedom of expression in the West!

excerpts (from AFP):

At least 17 Danish newspapers printed a controversial cartoon of Prophet Mohammed Wednesday, vowing to defend freedom of expression a day after police foiled a murder plot against the cartoonist.

Three of the country’s biggest dailies were among those that published the cartoon, which featured the prophet’s head with a turban that looked like a bomb with a lit fuse.

The caricature was one of 12 cartoons published in September 2005 by the Jyllands-Posten daily which sparked violent protests in a number of Muslim countries in January and February 2006.

On Tuesday, Danish police said they had arrested three people, a Dane of Moroccan origin and two Tunisian nationals, suspected of plotting to kill the cartoonist of the turban cartoon, Kurt Westergaard.

The newspapers that printed the cartoon on Wednesday said they did so to take a stand against self-censorship.

“Freedom of expression gives you the right to think, to speak and to draw what you like… no matter how many terrorist plots there are,” conservative broadsheet Berlingske Tidende wrote in an editorial.

The newspaper — which had not previously printed the caricature despite the massive controversy that engulfed Denmark for months in 2006 — urged “the Danish media to stand united against fanaticism”.

Tabloid Ekstra Bladet meanwhile published all 12 of the original cartoons.

….Even the centre-left newspaper of reference, Politiken, which was most critical of Jyllands-Posten’s decision in 2005 to publish the cartoons, joined in the cries of condemnation.

The alleged murder plot was “deeply shocking and worrying” and “shows that there are fanatic Islamists who are ready to make good on their threats and there are people in this country who neither respect freedom of expression nor the law,” an editorial read. (more…)

Fighting It– My “Man of the Year”

December 22, 2007

Time magazine just awarded Vladimir Putin, the increasingly authoritarian leader of Russia, as its “Man of the Year”.  Following its award of “You” last year and recalling Hitler’s similar citation in the 1930’s, the meaning of this is vague.  I would like, however, to nominate General David Petreus as the “Fight against Islamo-fascism” Man of the Year.  Since being named a four star general and receiving control over the battlefield in Iraq, Gen. Petreus has led coalition troops to a stunning success over Al-Qaeda and assorted Saudi and other Islamo-fascists.

William Kristol comments in The Weekly Standard, excerpts to follow:

Gen. David Petraeus,
Man of the Year

Time magazine got it wrong.
by William Kristol
12/31/2007, Volume 013, Issue 16

… And there it was: Time‘s Person of the Year for 2006 is “You.”

Wow! We deserved credit, Time judged, “for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game.” Thanks, Time!

… Instead, President Bush announced a new strategy and a new commander, General David Petraeus, in January 2007. And all the real achievements of this year belong to them.

We are now winning the war. To say this was not inevitable is an understatement. Even those of us who were early advocates and strong supporters of the surge, and who thought it could succeed, knew the situation had so deteriorated that success was by no means guaranteed. Two military experts told me early in 2007 that they thought the odds of success were, respectively, 1-in-3 and 1-in-4. They nonetheless supported the surge because, even at those odds, it was a gamble worth taking, so devastating would be the consequences of withdrawal and defeat. We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD thought the chances of success were better than 50-50–but that it remained a difficult proposition.

Petraeus pulled it off. (more…)

Appeasers– Tony Blair decries a “state of semi-apology”

November 4, 2007

Tony Blair was interviewed in the Jerusalem Post as he is functioning as a Mideast envoy.  He was asked about the causes of Islamofascist terror:

He answered brilliantly:  (excerpts follow)

…”This terrorism is not our fault,” he said. It needed to be fought through a combination of military action where necessary and “a galvanizing idea that is more powerful” than the extremists’ message. “And that idea is not simply about freedom and democracy, though it should be about that, but also about justice,” he said.

“The trouble with a large part of the Western world is that we’re in a state of semi-apology the whole time, and that’s an absolutely hopeless position from which to take this thing on… A large part of public opinion in the West is basically saying, ‘We have caused this. It’s our fault they’re like this.’ I just think that’s nonsense.”

He said he had personally found himself “in profound disagreement with a large part of public opinion” in Britain on this, “which is tough.” But he felt it was better to hold to his positions than to embrace what he considered misguided policies. “If you look at the posture of much of the Western world on Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, “it is, ‘If you come after us really, really hard, we’ll give up.’ I mean, how do you win a battle from that perspective?”…

 

Fighting It– Diplomacy or Other methods?

October 24, 2007

Dennis Ross’ recent book Statecraft emphasizes diplomacy as a solution for all the world’s ills and accuses the Bush Administration of failing in this regard. Book reviewer Jonathan Schanzer takes another viewpoint when it comes to Radical Islam. Is the failure of other countries to come to the fore to defeat Islamo-fascism a failure of diplomacy, of statecraft, or of the international system as currently organized?:

excerpts: …Admittedly, Ross’s points are well argued. But neither his book nor our discussion could dissuade me from the belief that America now faces a dangerous challenge that was largely absent during Ross’s models of exemplary statecraft in the 1990s. The forces of radical Islam, now growing at an alarmingly fast rate, were mostly dormant during Ross’s heyday of diplomacy. True, al-Qaida attacked America a handful of times, but the problem was not yet full-blown.

Fast forward a decade, and the problem is everywhere. The forces of radical Islam now openly attack America, its allies and its interests around the world.

Unfortunately, America cannot afford to wait for the global community to reach a consensus over how best to deal with this alarming and expanding challenge. (more…)

Naming It–Bernard Lewis comments

October 24, 2007

The world’s premier historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis, discussed the conflict with Islamo-fasicsm in an interview in the New York Sun.. He emphasized a clear understanding of the problem and a clear definition, leads to a plan of action:

excerpts:

…”It’s misleading to say we are engaged in a war against terrorism,” Mr. Lewis said. “If Churchill had told us that we were engaged in a war against submarines and war craft, we’d be in a different world today. Terrorism is a tactic, it is not the enemy.”

The enemy, he said, is Islamism, which he placed as the third in a sequence of ideological deformations that have taken place in his lifetime, the first two being Nazism and Bolshevism.

“There is only one way to deal with Islamism: to mobilize the Muslims themselves on our side,” Mr. Lewis said. “Nazism and Bolshevism were a curse to their own people before they became a threat to the world. We must strive for the same situation. … Perhaps it is our only solution. We must free them or they will destroy us.”

Mr. Lewis said his optimism in facing Islamism derives from his expectation of foolishness and error on the part of our adversaries, noting historical examples such as Hitler’s exile of his best scientists…

Understanding and Defeating the Islamofascist Ideology

September 1, 2007

Frederick Kagan has  a superb analysis of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in the weekly standard which covers the history of the movement, the ideology, and how to defeat it.  I strongly recommend this piece.

Brief excerpt:

…Qutb blended a radical interpretation of Muslim theology with the Marxism-Leninism and anticolonial fervor of the Egypt of his day to produce an Islamic revolutionary movement. He argued that the secularism and licentious (by his extreme standards) behavior of most Muslims was destroying the true faith and returning the Islamic world to the state of jahiliyyah, or ignorance of the word of God, which prevailed before Muhammad. The growing secularism of Muslim states particularly bothered him. According to his interpretation, God alone has the power to make laws and to judge. When men make laws and judge each other according to secular criteria, they are usurping God’s prerogatives. All who obey such leaders, according to Qutb, are treating their leaders as gods and therefore are guilty of the worst sin–polytheism. Thus they are–and this is the key point–not true Muslims, but unbelievers, regardless of whether they otherwise obey Muslim law and practice.

This is the defining characteristic of al Qaeda’s ideology, which is properly called “takfirism” (even though al Qaeda fighters do not use the term). The word “takfir” designates the process of declaring a person to be an unbeliever because of the way he practices his faith. Takfir violates the religious understanding of most of the world’s Muslims, for the Koran prescribes only five requirements for a Muslim (acknowledgment of the oneness of God, prayer, charitable giving, the fast, and the pilgrimage to Mecca) and specifies that anyone who observes them is a Muslim. The takfiris insist that anyone who obeys a human government is a polytheist and therefore violates the first premise of Islam, the shahada (the assertion that “There is no god but God”), even though Muslims have lived in states with temporal rulers for most of their history. The chief reason al Qaeda has limited support in the Muslim world is that the global Muslim community overwhelmingly rejects the premise that anyone obeying a temporal ruler is ipso facto an unbeliever…

Fighting It– Rudy’s Strategy

August 15, 2007

How do we fight this war against islamofascism?   Presidential Candidate Rudy Guiliani writes:

excerpts:

Toward a Realistic Peace

By Rudy Giuliani
We are all members of the 9/11 generation.

The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001, even though Islamist terrorists had begun their assault on world order decades before. Confronted with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.

America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We have responded forcefully to the Terrorists’ War on Us, abandoning a decade-long — and counterproductive — strategy of defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense. And we have set in motion changes to the international system that promise a safer and better world for generations to come.

 

But this war will be long, and we are still in its early stages. Much like at the beginning of the Cold War, we are at the dawn of a new era in global affairs, when old ideas have to be rethought and new ideas have to be devised to meet new challenges.

The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges. First and foremost will be to set a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order. The second will be to strengthen the international system that the terrorists seek to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe. (more…)

Fighting It– Ban the Burka?

August 2, 2007

Daniel Pipes proposes that Western Society ban the burka and other face covering suits currently worn by some Muslim women. These garments derive primarily from tribal customs, not Islam, and are a security risk for others. He points out that Muslims should have the same rights and obligations and others, but not special privileges.

Excerpts:  Ban the Burqa and the Niqab Too

by Daniel Pipes
August 1, 2007

Once-exotic forms of Muslim women’s head and body garments have now become both familiar in the West and the source of fractious political and legal disputes.

The hijab (a hair-covering) is ever-more popular in Detroit but has been banned from French public schools, discouraged by the International Football Association Board, and excluded from a court in the U.S. state of Georgia.

The jilbab (a garment that leaves only the face and hands exposed) was, in a case partly argued by Tony Blair’s wife, first allowed, then forbidden in an English school.

 

Sultaana Freeman wanted her Florida drivers license to show her in a niqab, but an Orlando court said no.

   

The niqab (a total covering except for the eyes) became a hot topic when Jack Straw, a British Labour politician, wrote that he “felt uncomfortable” talking to women wearing it. If Quebec election authorities disallow the niqab from voting booths and a judge disallowed it from a Florida driver’s license, it is permitted in British courts and a Dutch candidate for municipal office wore one. A British hospital even invented a niqab patients’ gown.

The burqa (a total head and body covering) has been barred from classrooms in the UK, is illegal in public places in five Belgian towns, and the Dutch legislature has attempted to ban it altogether. Italy‘s “Charter of Values, Citizenship and Immigration” calls face coverings not acceptable. A courtroom in the United States has expelled a burqa’ed woman.

In brief, no general rules govern Islamic headwear in the West.

Some observers would ban hijabs from public places, but what legal grounds exist for doing so? Following my rule of thumb that Muslims enjoy the same rights and obligations as other citizens, but not special rights or obligations, a woman’s freedom of expression grants her the option to wear a hijab. (more…)