Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Debating a Moderate Muslim

Muslims who desire to appear moderate (or at least in opposition to what are perceived as radical, fundamentalist Muslims) have various ways of describing (or rationalizing) their positions. Here is one such argument from Tashbih Sayyed, a newspaper columnist and writer:

Tashbih Sayyed, a secular Muslim (or ex-Muslim, I’m not sure which), found the passage in the Koran that says, "There is no compulsion in religion," and decided that he would make that his view of Islam; meaning that he was ignoring the fact that the passage was abrogated by the Medinan suras, which call for endless war against, killing of, and terminal scalding and flaying in hell for those who reject Islam.
Here's more on the recent debate on Islam with Lawrence Auster and Tashbih Sayyed's daugher, Supna Zaidi, who is the assistant director of Daniel Pipe’s Islamist Watch and who calls herself a moderate Muslim. The debate was organized by ACT for America during the weekend.

I think this is the first time anyone who doesn't accept the term "moderate Muslim" has debated a self-ascribed moderate Muslim. But the crux of the debate (or speech) is Mr. Auster's recommendations for what to do about the dangers of Islam. Such an approach at looking at Islam - what to do about its dangers - is gaining more attention, and ACT for America has a useful set up where such issues can be discussed and disseminated to a wider public, hopefully conservatives and liberals alike.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Canadian Coptic Centre's Imposing Warning Sign

The Canadian Coptic Centre, in Mississauga, Ontario

While driving through Mississauga, a suburb of Toronto, I saw the most formidable church I have ever seen. Not even the Cathedral of St. James, in Toronto, comes close, at least in size and prominence.

The Canadian Coptic Centre is a colossal building with some eight or nine cupolas. Its church was consecrated as the Church of Virgin Mary and St. Athanasius in 1989.

A few miles down the same road is the Al-Farooq Mosque, an unassuming building for now, but with plans for a $6 million expansion.

Copts in Egypt have suffered constant persecution from their Muslim conquerors, and in fact, the antagonism and violence against them in Egypt seems to be growing. Many Copts here in Canada know of this experience first hand. What a shock it must have been for them that just down the road is a mosque, relatively small and innocuous for now, but with the promise of huge expansions.

Al-Farooq Mosque was established in 1987, as the first mosque in Mississauga. The Canadian Coptic Centre's Church of Virgin Mary and St. Athanasius was consecrated just two years after, although its property had been bought in 1982, when construction continued for another eight years.

Now, this is speculation on my part, but it looks like the mosque came later (established 1987, says its web site, whereas the Coptic church started construction in 1982 which was completed in 1989). So, surely the Copts, in retaliation to what looks like the antagonistic presence of their age-old enemies, continued to expand this cupola-rich church to ward off, and to warn against, their new Muslim neighbors?

What more can they do? If they talk too negatively, they will be harming the “freedom of religion” mandate of Canadian society. And Muslims will never let them get away with it. To me, the best they could come up was to build their imposing building, both to protect themselves (spiritually), and to warn their Canadian host country of the dangers they had to flee, literally in life and death situations. And that the same could happen to them again, and in fact to anyone in the path of the single-minded Muslims.

I hope people are listening.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Are Canadians a Cowardly Bunch?

A review of the presentations in London, Ontario, on the HRC by Levant, Shaidle, and Mansur

Photobucket
I don't think this photo was necessary
(read last section below).

I've posted here the presentation in London, Ontario, by Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur, where I normally post on information related to Islam, because the topic: "Human Rights Commission, Useful or Obsolete" relates both directly and indirectly to Islam.

Levant, as I've blogged before, was caught in the Human Rights Commission (HRC) nightmare when he published the Mohammed cartoons three years ago. Shaidle has written a book called The Tyranny of Nice, also dealing with the HRC. And Mansur presents a Muslim's perspective on the HRC.

The videos are available at Levant's website. Levant's presentation is in Part 2 of the videos, and begins at around the 23-minute mark.

Levant's impassioned speech was actually a pleasure to listen to. I agreed with his premise that Canadians are not a cowardly bunch, and he cited for example the World Wars, and the mission in Afghanistan. This is as good a time as any to bring up Canadian courage.

Levant's pugnacious start was in response to Shailde's challenge that the HRCs got so far ahead because of complaisant Canadians. But part of the problem with the HRCs is their undercover nature. They pounce on unsuspecting business owners, teachers and Christians (let's face it, the religious people they attack are Christians), who then, under the shock of losing their jobs and businesses make a "deal" to avoid further harassment. So, I disagree, and that rather than being complacent, people are shell-shocked into silenced.

The other point Shailde made was that the HRCs are a "typical" Canadian knee-jerk reaction of one-upmanship on the Americans, who had their lunch counter protests and a full-blown Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, this may be partially true, but the era of the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. was part of a strange global radicalization towards the left, which Canadians also participated in.

Shaidle frequently references some kind of Canadian Envy towards the U.S. which she says dictates many of the policies and developments made in the country. I actually disagree with this very strongly. It is normal that Canada react to the U.S. on many levels, just being close to the border makes this inevitable. But, many of the ways the country has shaped itself is a purely Canadian exercise.

Even the apparently complacent reaction to the HRCs is reminiscent of the matter-of-fact attempt of a country trying to keep many diverse (in the real sense) elements together at its inception, including a French minority, a British presence, and even the very first Prime Minister whose Scottish background forced him to interact with a "colonial" Britain, similar to the way his own Scotsmen had compromised back in Scotland.

So, yes, there is nothing wrong in saying that Canada is a land of pragmatic compromise, with an acute awareness of diversity. These were the loopholes that the HRCs managed to wiggle themselves into, to foment their destructive setup.

But, they had to get caught at some point, because the other traditions, the courage and fairness which Levant brought up, are still an innate part of Canadians' psyche.

One final thing. Shaidle opines that part of the HRC's modus operandi is to shut up the normally outspoken and vocal lower classes through an educated, upper-class elite. I have to disagree here also, since they are obviously pretty indiscriminate. I wouldn't call Ezra Levant a vocal lower class, nor does that fit MacCleans magazine, which along with Steyn, was part of a recent HRC scuffle. Nor would I classify the myriad of teachers, pastors and business owners, who keep getting the summons ticket, as lower class.

On a related, but tangential point, Shaidle and Wendy Sullivan have both posted a photo of them having drinks with friends, including two South Asians (including Salim Mansur) and one Iranian, after the lecture. This is to show that they are not "racist". I wish they didn't have to resort to this. As always, the right is reacting to the left, putting itself in embarrassing, if not unnecessary, situations (remember the I Am Sarah Palin video Sullivan did?). It was enough to have given the lecture, and that an unprecedented 600 people showed up.

Also, not to mention Levant’s very successful book tour, and his influence on a Conservative leader who plans to take on the HRC issue.

Saturday, April 04, 2009

How Not to Fight the War against Islam

Ironic book title by Kathy Shaidle,
given the nature of her most recent post


I've always been ambivalent about our Canadian self-appointed conservative spokesmen, from Kathy Shaidle to Wendy Sullivan (she of the I Am Sarah Palin video fame), and even the boisterous Ezra Levant.

For all their outspokenness, I find them to be "conservative-lite". Or maybe it is the Mark Steyn Kool Aid that's influencing them (the link is to a photo at groupie Wendy Sullivan's blog with her and Steyn.)

I've put Shaidle to task about her appearance on public television, coming unprepared to speak on topics at hand (the last one was on atheism at TVO), and just spouting out a couple of irritated and angry words. I've also written about her interview with Robert Spencer on Islam, where she gave him a lot of slack.

Wendy Sullivan did the same on the Michael Coren Show, and I actually think Coren was more in the right (no pun intended) than in the wrong for chastising her.

This same group has also spent an inordinate amount of time sympathizing with Chinese minorities for an innocent gaffe that an adversarial leftist - Warren Kinsella - wrote on his blog.

And now here's Shaidle's latest post.

Ezra Levant is on a book tour for Shakedown, his latest on Human Rights Commission revelations, which he did a great job of describing here on the Michael Coren Show. Yesterday, he posted a photo of his Calgary book signing, which was nothing unusual, except I hope that he has the permission of these people to have their faces all over the internet - they could be potential HRC victims!

Well, Shaidle has picked up on that photo and uses it as a great example of...diversity! Look at those minorities in "redneck" Calgary, and how they support freedom of speech (because the whole point for this group regarding the HRC is the stifling of freedom of speech.)

She then goes on to write a completely unrelated story about that neo-con conman Conrad Black (look at all those cons!), and a cocktail party she attended, filled with elite immigrants and non-whites (Mark Steyn is also in there somewhere.) Yes, we all know what elite immigrants are really up to in Canadian politics (bringing in more immigrants.)

Well, the funny think about Levant's photo is all I see are two non-whites, or as Shaidle writes, "a black guy and an Asian dude", which doesn't make for much rejoicing, if that's what Shaidle is doing.

Also, there is no knowing why these two showed up, maybe they just want to say whatever they please, and "don't want no" Commission telling them what to do. Who knows if they really care about Canada as a nation, which is the whole point of true conservatism, I would think.

I've tried to figure out what the real purpose of her post might be. I think she’s getting a lot of flack from her readers for her sporadic “Your religion is f***ing retarded” outbursts about Muslims, and her various attacks on Toronto blacks. I think its getting to her that people are calling her "racist." She just doesn’t want to be called racist anymore, and needs her readership to keep on supporting her.

Another thing I have to mention is that she doesn't have any real idea of what she wants for Canada. As long as there are those who will violently or obnoxiously disrupt the peace, then she'll be at the forefront. She hates Islam because it is "retarded", writes about blacks and their attraction for guns and welfare, hates Warren Kinsella because he pokes fun at "conservatives".

All this from someone who wrote Tyranny of Nice, yet wants to be nice herself (for now)!

I’ve always maintained that the biggest problem with the fight against Islam is the vitriol that comes from the conservative side. Instead of name-calling, get the facts straight. Win your arguments based on information rather than rants. And you will win. Don’t give the Muslims (or liberals, or minorities) fodder for attacking you with your ill-conceived and unnecessary attacks.

Shaidle's attention in the media is purely based on her outspokenness on issues she doesn’t like. And I don’t think this makes for a very good conservative spokesman.

I definitely miss the outspoken, intelligent and erudite Kevin Michael Grace, who I hope is faring well since he's been absent from his website for many months now. We need more people who can articulate the problems, and find solutions to them. Not those who just yell at the top of their voices when they find something they don't like. Unfortunately, this is really what Shaidle is, or has become.

I wish her the best in her uneven battle to right what she thinks is wrong. But she's better off taking time to think, study and attack on foundations, rather than just on anger.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

"Little Mosque" is Scraping Along While "Corner Gas" is Gone


Finally it's happened. With budget constraints looming, the CBC has cut that show with the ever-declining ratings, Little Mosque on the Prairie.

Wait, that's not exactly what's happening. The CBC isn't cutting the show per se, but is cutting down on new episodes, and showing more reruns.

That is exactly as I predicted about three months ago in my article How Canada's Little Mosque on the Prairie is aiming to take over our souls, when I wrote:
Ratings [for Little Mosque on the Prairie] are down from the premier of two million viewers in January 2007 to about 500,000 in the latest poll in November 2008. But such low ratings have never stopped the CBC from maintaining ideologically appropriate programs: left-leaning, often anti-American/anti-Western, with a multicultural angle.
Meanwhile, CTV's Corner Gas, another sitcom about life in small town rural Saskatchewan, which as far as I know has no Muslims or mosques in sight, is being canceled despite its popularity, with ratings of 1,184,000 for the week of March 24.

It wasn't budget problems that caused the show to shut down, but after six seasons as Canada's most popular comedy, Corner Gas' creator Brent Butt decided it was better to leave while still on top.

That is something the Little Mosque crowd will never do. Better to eke out ideologically appropriate "comedy" to get the masses slowly indoctrinated. After all, there are so many things to cover, and reruns just won't cut it!

Strange Allies in the War on Terror

Cropped image from Michelle Malkin's book cover In Defense of Interment.
[Click on image to see full cover.]

The Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre (JCCC) in Toronto started a new documentary series on March 2009 called Nikkei Flix. I had to look up Nikkei (these days, we are just expected to know obscure words from alien cultures, and if not, shame on us for not being global enough). Nikkei, according to Wikipedia are, "Emigrants of Japanese ancestry or their descendants."

The first film to kick off this series is Caught In Between, which the film's schedule proudly announced was, "Part of the programming for International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which is March 21." Better late than never.

The documentary film's official web page describes Caught in Between as a film that:
[T]races how in the wake of 9/11, two communities that had rarely crossed paths have come together in solidarity to speak out against the U.S. government’s attacks on civil rights and civil liberties. Speaking at San Francisco’s Japan Town Peace Plaza, Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, Japanese Americans, and others ... make passionate pleas to uphold our constitution and protect innocent people who are targeted as the "enemy."
The film's site further discusses Japanese American internments during World War II, and associates them with the current "War on Terrorism":
As the Arab, Muslim, South Asian communities face post-911 repression, this documentary captures Muslim and Japanese American communities revisiting the dark days of the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II. Interviews with former internees, their children, religious leaders, citizens and immigrants from Japanese and Muslim American communities are woven together to make crucial connections between then and the current “War on Terrorism.”
Michelle Malkin's book In Defense of Interment made similar associations. But, Malkin was supporting those internments, whereas Caught In Between refers to that episode in American history as "the U.S. government’s attacks on civil rights and civil liberties."

So far, there have been no official plans (or talks) that Muslims be interred, unless one takes Malkin's attempt to suggest otherwise in her book. Malkin's book was highly criticized, and I don't think she ever brought up, or developed, that idea further.

At a crucial time in America's history, when all her citizens should be banding together to eliminate her enemies and protect her from internal threats, we have yet another ethnic group with a chip on its shoulder and full of grievances, which is actually hampering national security and siding with what is clearly the enemy. 9/11 was not an isolated event, as proceeding events have shown us, but one in a series of tactics to have Islam reign supreme.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Carving Multicultural Niches


Image of the subway Allahu Akbar "yeller"
that Right Girl posted at her blog


Conservative blogger Right Girl recently had a frightening experience in the subway. She writes:
I am totally shaken. On the subway on my way over to feed Kathy’s cat while they’re away at a funeral, it finally happened. Some deranged 6th Century Mohammedan lost it and began screaming ALLAHU ACKBAR, calling everyone racists, and talking about Bin Laden and rising up.
Read the full entry over at her blog, including how no-one did anything about it, security wasn't called, and the "deranged 6th Century Mohammedan" was left pounding on the subway doors.

Equally important is her comments section.

Yousaf on March 24 @ 10:12pm introduces himself as: "a former Muslim (now converted Christian)" and then goes on to berate Right Girl for "spinning more than a little yarn here; perhaps a little bit of propaganda mixed with a little hate."

I do agree that our conservative bloggers tend to up the ante when it comes to Muslims, and in this case Yousaf doesn't like Right Girl's:
[C]omments like "Some deranged 6th Century Mohammedan…." and "Mohammed continued to rage about Allah…" you really take away from your own credibility.
But, he doesn't stop there. He goes on to say:
But based on what you wrote alone though, all he really did was make some noise. I question how different that is from the occasional whino who graces his/her presence as they preach about how society wronged them and how the world is coming to an end.
Yes, a man who repeatedly shouts "ALLAHU ACKBAR" can be compared with "the occasional whino".

Yousaf continues:
Based on what you wrote, to accuse the person in this photo of being a terrorist is downright preposterous.
Well, Right Girl never said this man was a terrorist. She was explicit in her "accusation". She writes:
I would like to know if this is part of the city of Toronto’s protocol to deal with a terrorist threat on the underground. This guy was a lunatic who was unarmed - what if the next one is packing? Will the same level of incoherence apply to TTC staff?
Men who yell "Allahu Akbar" are known to blow off bombs attached to their chests, all in the name of Mohammed. In fact, Right Girl was quite generous to dismiss this guy as a lunatic. Anyone, deranged or not, who yells in this manner, should be treated like a potential suicide bomber/terrorist, based on innumerable pieces of evidence.

But, this account is about Yousaf, the Muslim who is a converted Christian. I find it strange that he goes on for four or five posts berating Right Girl's commenters. They are going on stereotype, sure. But it is stereotype founded on facts. People who yell "Allahu Akbar" in public places have a tendency to also detonate bombs. People who shout out "Jesus loves you" never have.

Writes Yousaf:
If someone screams out “Allah Akbar”, to me it’s no different if somebody screams out “Jesus loves you”.
Yousaf, the Christian convert from Islam, equates the Allah yeller with the Jesus lover. There is the final crunch.

Yousaf comments further on stereotypes:
Brown people are terrorists, the blacks are criminals, the hispanics are border jumpers...
Yousaf is most probably brown-skinned himself and feels that he will always be the target of this stereotype. Rather than deal with this minor problem in his life, he would rather that Canadians treat "Jesus loves you" with equal weight as "Allahu Akbar" despite our ample knowledge and proof that the latter could have us killed.

So, ultimately, like I said here with my discussion with Jeff (England) on "diluted" Muslims, even this "converted" (probably "diluted" in Jeff's terms) Muslim will be more loyal to his former Muslim brown-skinned group, and that his purpose "will not be to participate in the Western culture, and to save it at a crucial moment, but to carve [his] own multicultural niche".

His anger and fear at being unfairly stereotyped will be greater than his grasp of reality, part of which is to deal with the discomforts of looking like the group which terrorists come from. In order to squash this "racism", he is willing to say that "Allahu Akbar" is as benign as "Jesus loves you". That Islam and Christianity are the same. This, from someone who calls himself a Christian convert, and from Islam, no less.

Little Mosque in the Basement

No more basement mosque at Regent Park

The Globe and Mail has a timely article on a makeshift mosque in a Toronto neighborhood. The article talks about a basement mosque in a building in Regent Park, a social housing conglomerate. Regent Park is now being revitalized, with old buildings being torn down, and new ones (mostly high rises) coming up. This mosque will have to go with the building.

The mosque members are at a loss. Their basement place of worship was free of charge. They didn't have to pay any rent. With the new buildings coming up, they will have to either pay rent for any new space, or outright buy the property to house their mosque.

But, they are already coming up with excuses. "People living in this [area] are low-income and can't afford to buy space," says [mosque] member Shahan Ahia.

So how did these Muslims manage to have the space rent-free in the first place?

Here is part of the answer. According to The Globe and Mail article;
Members of the Khadem centre [KPA: Notice that the space is called both a mosque and a centre] remain skeptical that they will get help from TCHC [Toronto Community Housing Corp.]. For them, the five-year-old centre is not simply a place to pray. On weekends, more than 60 children come to the centre to learn English, Arabic, math and computer skills or to be mentored by university-aged Muslims about being a good Muslim and getting a good education.
This "centre", which functions as an all-purpose Islamic centre, most likely gets its funding from various levels of the government. It likely gets it rent money as well as funding for the several activities described above. To get its government funding, its sales pitch is probably:

- It teaches ESL [English as a Second Language] (good for assimilation)
- It teaches special skills like computers (good for assimilation via getting youth career and job ready)
- It maintains a heritage language component by teaching Arabic to children (good for multiculturalism)
- It keeps the young well-monitored by having adults supervise ethnic-centered activities (good for multiculturalism)

All these are 100% guarantees that it will get government funding. That is how many other cultural centers acquire their monies. Scroll down at Canadian Immigration Reform Blog's list of agencies which receive money from the government. For example in 2008, the Muslim Community Services received $4,115,064.00, and the Afghan Women’s Counselling and Integration Community Support got $512,006.00 (Canadian dollars).

With the right project and the right proposal (easy to do with many helping hands out there), there is no reason for the Khadm Mosque/Centre to worry about closing down.

But, of course the problem is bigger than receiving government money. The problem is that this center has already declared, openly in this Globe and Mail article, that it is a Islam-centric center. So, the government is funding young Muslims to get a Muslim education, through language and religious training.

I wonder how many more "basement" mosques there are, how many of them are fully funded by government monies? And how many such stories it will take before Canadians realize who and what they are funding?

Sunday, March 22, 2009

"Diluted" Muslims


An email interaction with a correspondent who signs off as Jeff (England) introduced me to the term "diluted" Muslim. Jeff further explains this phrase thus:
I have called for encouragement of the creation of 'diluted' Muslims. A small minority young 2nd generation UK Muslims are already what I might call 'diluted'. I know a few. The likes of Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji are examples of 'diluted' Muslims...Some are atheists, others barely are religious, some even practice other religions. By a diluted Muslim I mean a Muslim who was a practicing Muslim but no longer does in any significant way. I know a few personally so I can state for a fact they exist.
Jeff then equates "diluted" Muslims with "diluted" Christians and Jews. I think he's trying to call them cultural Muslims, since I believe we do have cultural Christians, those who don't necessarily practice the religion, but are content to live in and follow the mandates of a Christian society.

Still, I put Jeff to task by saying:
KPA: There is no telling that these so-called atheist Muslims/diluted Muslims (or cultural Muslims) will not at some point pick up the Koran at a moment of cultural alienation.

Jeff: ABSURD!
Well, if Jeff is going to lump the Irshad Manjis onto his list, as well as the plethora of "Westernized" Muslims who, according to Jeff are "Muslims who [were] practicing Muslims but no longer [do] in any significant way" [my emphasis] I think we have to think about his coining yet another term that ill-defines Muslims (moderate, radical, Islamofascists being the few that have stuck so far), which will not get us any closer to dismantling this huge problem.

Jeff's premise really is that we cannot get rid of the Muslim or Islam problem, and we should find allies amidst these diluted groups.

Here is another point I made to Jeff regarding the "diluted" ones:
KPA: Their agendas, like I pointed out above, will not be to participate in the Western culture, and to save it at a crucial moment, but to carve their own multicultural niche in the society they're living in.

Jeff: If anything, these ex-Muslims (a minority I acknowledge) are bigger supporters of the West than you or me. Ali Sina and Hirsi Ali, Wofa Sultan and others are risking their lives daily and have expressed their love for western culture time and time again. As has Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian immigrant to the West who also opposes Islam. C'mon man, give these people some credit and respect even if you oppose Islam and Muslims coming to the West.
Besides erroneously calling the Arab Christian Brigitte Gabriel an ex-Muslim, and now confusing "ex" with "diluted", Jeff says:
Saving 'White Christian Civilization' is no longer a realistic option. America, the UK and the West are going to be multi-racial and multi-religious forever.
I put this scenario to Jeff, about his compromising position:
KPA: By the way, your set-in-stone assertion that we are now a full blown multicultural society with no going back can be disputed. Many Indians and Chinese, disappointed with life in Canada and the US, are going back. People travel back and forth much more now, and are beginning to see what they're missing living in alienated cultures. Many other factors, including native (not native Indian) Americans and Canadians beginning to see the light, especially in these difficult economic times, are turning things back - look at the H-1B visa debacle in the States.

If you give up, you cannot take advantage of moments like these. I think we are in the right, and "they" are in the wrong. That is surely a strong enough impetus to go on!

Jeff: Stop the 'giving up' bullshit label, it won't wash with me. Ditto the 'defeatist' label. I am a realist and am trying to deal with a complex 'battlefield' situation while too many of you 'traditionalist conservatives' want to live in fantasy land blogging away with your fantasy suggestions about what needs to be done....
Why is it that in the blogosphere, people you have never met, and never even corresponded with, take the liberty to use epithets at whim and will?

By the way, Jeff initiated the email, and I didn't buy his "diluted" Muslims, and I still call his attitude defeatist (dhimmi!) for giving up before even trying.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Knopf Canada

Hirsi Ali speaking at a private club in
Montreal on February 25, 2009.

Knopf Canada recently announced that it has signed a new book with Ayaan Hirsi Ali due out in Spring 2010, although it doesn't have a title yet. Its executive publisher says that the book:
will be a blend of personal narrative and reportage, weaving together Ayaan Hirsi Ali's ongoing story, including her reconciliation with her father who disowned her, addressing the situation of girls and women in the world today, and speaking openly about her own efforts to reconcile Islamic and Western values. She explores why Muslim women agree to submit to a world ruled by men, and Islam's obsession with virginity, excision, and the honor code, as well as her own relationship with sex and 'dishonor'.
Hirsi Ali has previously published two books, Infidel and The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. The first is an autobiography, and the second, as the title describes it, is a critique of Islam's treatment of women.

Her third book seems like a combination of the two - a critique of Islam, its place in the West, and how Muslim women in the West can be protected from, as she describes it, militant Islam.

There was news for a while that she was in the middle of writing a more philosophical book, Short Cuts to Enlightenment, where Mohamed is interrogated by several Enlightenment-era thinkers. But there is no information about the progress of the book. I encountered a similar dead-end when researching her proposed sequel to Submissions. It seems that autobiographical, feminist books are more her line, and perhaps it is an expedient way for her to acquire the funds she obviously still needs for her upkeep and tight security.

It is not clear where she is living now, but it looks like she's temporarily back in the Netherlands while still working for the American Enterprise Institute.

She has spear-headed a foundation whose aim is to "to help protect and defend the rights of women in the West against militant Islam" called the AHA Foundation.

A security trust was initiated by Sam Harris (and supported by the other infamous atheist Richard Dawkins) to help her meet her large costs for maintaining her safety.

I had predicted a while ago that her leftist, feminist stance, coupled with her atheism, would diminish her importance in the public debate against Islam. In fact, unless one makes an effort to find her, she is keeping a very low profile and seems to have left the world of politics. Perhaps her role now will be a restricted one as a representative of Muslim women in the West who are suffering under Islam.

Her ambitious goals to reform Islam, or to reconcile Islam with Western values and philosophies, have been curtailed, if not abandoned.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Arabic Text on Newsweek

Arabic text on Newsweek, with fine print in English.
Also, notice the Islamic green as a background


Creeping Sharia has a post on how mainstream print magazines such as TIME and Newsweek, as well as newspapers such as the New York Times introduced Islam-friendly stories almost at the same time this month. He calls these simultaneous publications an orchestration, but I would say they were more of a coincidence. Still, the more Muslim-friendly publications there are, the more these coincidences will occur, perhaps turning innocent simultaneity into the planned orchestration CS talks about.

What was unique about CS's post was how these publications also used images to support their stories. One of my points in this blog is that images are subtly being changed or added to create a Muslim-friendly world. People don't have time (or often the desire) to read long articles about Jihad, Islam, the Koran or Mohamed. They are far more likely to respond quickly and viscerally to images. That is after all one of the ways propaganda (and advertisements) work.

As I've shown throughout this blog, Muslims are becoming quite adept at changing the imagery in our landscape - from TV shows to magazines, and even in clever ways to accepting Arabic script (as in the Arabic script for halal which we can - or will - slowly recognize without reading Arabic.)

Now Newsweek has on its front page the Islamic green as the background to Arabic text (with a finer print, supposedly its translation in English.) Like the halal script, we are cleverly being introduced to Arabic, and eventually, we will surely begin to visually recognize (without actually reading them) prominent words like Jihad, Allah, Islam and Mohamed.

I wonder when "green" will no longer mean Irish, but Islam instead?

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

How to Run for Office

Ryerson University's The Eye advertisement for Student Union officers

[Pay attention to the group highlighted in green]

Muslims rally together to have an airtight, all-Muslim executive team to run for the 2009 Ryerson University Student Union.

Now, this is clearly a perfect model for the real world of politics. Surely, with a little more time, such boldness will not be noticed, or be considered out of the norm. After all, we will have had ample practice at our universities and high schools.

This is how it's done. When running for office, make sure that your team is composed 100%, and 100% unequivocally, of people like you. Then call it "change" or some such thing to convince your voting block that you're serious about changing things - i.e. making things look more like them. Then, just keep on going. Of course, make sure that you're elected. This may cost you a bit of leg work and rallying of forces, but you might well do it.

This is Ryerson University's Student Union elections for 2009. I go to the library (less regularly now because it gets too crowded and noisy) and at times pick up the school papers to skim through what's going on. In this same issue, there is news that the university could snag $70 million of federal and provincial funds towards "sprucing up the campus". This validates my posts on the university's plans for expansion, which I say are dictated by immigration numbers.

Now, the student union is preparing for elections. The Muslim contingency is well-organized, keeping itself airtight to prevent anyone else from getting in.