Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the View from the Right

Lawrence Auster at The View From the Right has linked to my recent post "All about Ayaan" on the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I have never liked Ali. I found her to be contemptuous of Christianity. I personally believe that the antidote to Islam is not atheism, but Christianity. Christianity is the route that the former Muslim Sam Solomon has taken. Ali has gone the godless way. Even the normally "lite" Mark Steyn agrees with me, according to the quote that Lawrence Auster provides.

Jesus and Islam

Frontpage Magazine has an interesting article comparing the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus the Muslims discuss in the Koran, titled: Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jesus of Neverland.

The article has a lot of interesting information. One is the flat out contradictions between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of the Koran. The writer (William Kilkpatrick) asks pertinent questions to determine the authenticity of the sources (the Bible vs. the Koran). He discusses how the Islamic version of Jesus falls apart when put under the same scrutiny as that of Jesus of the Bible.

I think one of the most rigorous arguments for the existence of the Jesus of the Bible is all the narrations that depict his presence, his words and his actions. The Jesus of the Koran, on the other hand, has no personality or even a presence. He appears like a disembodied spirit. Here is what the author writes about him:

The Jesus of the Koran appears mainly in the role of a counter to the Jesus of the Gospels, but “appears” is really too strong a word. This Jesus doesn’t attend weddings, or go fishing with his disciples, or gather children around him. He has practically no human interactions, and what he has to say is formulaic and repetitive. He is more like a disembodied voice than a person. And, to put it bluntly, he lacks personality.

 The author claims that this Jesus in the Koran "appears mainly in the role of a counter to the Jesus of the Gospels." It is an interesting argument. Do read the whole thing to get more insights into one of the most fake religions of the world. The more I learn about Islam, the more I realize that it was created on the backs of Christianity. The Anti-Christ if ever there was one.

We certainly have our enemies chiseled just right for us.

Burqua Prejudice

Frontpage Magazine has published an article of mine: Burqua Prejudice. You can read it here, with interesting comments by readers following the article.

I must say, I like the ambiguous photo that FPM has put up of the Fabulous Four. If I were a Muslim (and even not), I wouldn't want the women in my culture to dress and look the way they do. We don't have to be Muslim to be modest.

The Future King of England and Islam

I wrote a couple of days ago about the deep spiritual manoeuvrings that are going on to Islamicize Palestine. This is of course happening in Europe (Eurabia) and the United States and Canada too. I don't think it is simply a structural strategy - putting mosques up, demanding sharia, including sharia financing in banks, building Islamic religious schools, etc. etc. I think it a psychic and spiritual take-over as well. The end result is of course a world populated with Muslims. But, it would be much easier, and much more efficient, if this occurred through conversions.

As I've said on this blog, I think all this Muslim infusion is not simply a take-over, and later a subjugation, of the host population. But an attempt to get deep into the skins of these non-Muslims, so that they will suddenly spontaneously combust into Muslims.

Here is the "Christian" future King of England, and Head of the Church of England, tying together environmentalism with Islam. Granted he is speaking in the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, so one could argue that he might be allowed to say a couple of nice things about Islam. But, this isn't the first time one has cause to question his relationship with Islam; even Daniel Pipes has speculated on it.

A normal, patriotic future King of England would find it hard to praise a foreign religion in any way (perhaps a respectful nod in a diplomatic fashion could be expected). But a full on:

The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason - and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us...

Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.

is surely indicative of a mind that is  amenable to the messages of the Koran?

This quote could be out of context since it is one of a few available at the source the Daily Mail. Perhaps he said more positive things about Christianity in the same speech. But still, the fact that the Mail only quoted this part of the speech reveals where their thoughts are. And I still argue that the comment is far too Islam-positive for a future King of England, who presumes to head her Church as well.

The most important quote, which I presume also comes directly from the Prince's speech, is what heads the article:

"Follow the Islamic say to save the world," Prince Charles urges environmentalists

The Spiritual Source of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Allah vs. God

Bat Ye'or and Sam Solomon, two prominent scholars and chroniclers of Islam, were the speakers at yesterday's event organized by the International Free Press Society- Canada, and the Free Thinking Film Society. When I went to the venue, which was at a synagogue in the northern limits of Toronto, my only concern was that I wouldn't be able to get there on time due to the heavy traffic exacerbated by road construction. I made it in ample time. But the synagogue became more significant than just a venue. Bat Ye'or started her presentation by saying that this is the first time she has given a speech in a synagogue. Sam Solomon's speech was titled, "Islam and its eternal enmity towards the Jews." So, a synagogue was infinitely appropriate for this very important conference, where both Bat Ye'or and Solomon repeatedly reminded the predominantly Jewish audience that Muslim enmity towards them is very real, and growing daily.

Sam Solomon spoke first. I dutifully took my notebook and pen at hand, to jot down his words. But, after his first sentence, it was clear that we were in front of a formidable orator, and it was better just to listen. Solomon, a former Muslim, is now a Christian. He was a Muslim scholar and sharia law expert. His introduction to the majority Jewish audience was to plead forgiveness for having condemned and maligned them in his former days while a devout Muslim. Then he plunged  right into Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel, which he says is inaccurately attributed to the creation of modern-day Israel. He explains that this deep-seated hatred goes to the origins of Islam, when the Jews rejected Muhammad's newly-created religion, and he condemned them for it. Solomon has a new book out, which bears the same title as his presentation: Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews.

The extraordinary effect of a former Muslim, who cites chapter and verse of the Koran in Arabic in order to gets his message across, is mesmerizing. Solomon has an incredible oratory voice despite his slight build; a voice which could have easily traveled across the large room without a microphone. His citations in Arabic conjure up images of a Muhammad throwing out these phrases in fits of fury (or Allah's fury, to acknowledge Muhammad's source). The harsh guttural sounds of Arabic almost need no translation into English; we know that these words are not said in love or compassion, but in hatred and destruction. Jew hatred, in Islam, is not an incidental affair resulting from border skirmishes. It is deep-seated in the psyche of Muslims who read (or listen to) Muhammad's words, words which are set in stone in the Koran. Muslims are mandated to hate Jews (and Christians).

This spiritual connection between Muslims' hatred of Jews and Christians is further elaborated by Bat Ye'or. Despite her quieter demeanor, this small lady is no less extraordinary, if nothing for her meticulous description of Islam's infiltration into European society, and now the world at large. She too has a new book coming out which is titled, Toward the Universal Caliphate: How Europe Became an Accomplice of Muslim Expansionism. She explains that her new book will delineate the global network that bodies like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are building in order to finally construct their worldwide Ummah.

One of the most significant insights I got from her presentation was her explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in spiritual terms. Informed people understand that the conflict has been manufactured by Muslims and Muslim apologists in order to find a basis for the destruction of Israel. But, Bat Ye'or says that the efforts behind the Palestinian concept is to separate Christianity from its Judaic roots to facilitate the Islamizaton of Christianity, and to render the whole region Islamic. Israel and the Jews can then be destroyed through a united Muslim front, as the Jews' natural allies, the Christians, become Islamicized. The end goal is to replace Israel with Palestine, rendering the whole region Islamic, and where Jerusalem takes its seat as the center of Islam.

For Christians, Israel and Jerusalem culminate with Christianity (through God's final design of bringing all His people under His wing through His Son Jesus Christ). Muslims have their alternate "Jesus," whom they call Isa, and to whom attribute prophetic rather than Messianic characteristics. This alternate Jesus is inscribed into the Muslim and Palestinian "narrative." Israel has occupied a land that rightfully belongs to Muslims, who have both spiritual and historical claims to this land. Thus, those "disputed" territories are neither Jewish, nor a Holy Land for Christians, but belong to Muslims and Isa. This Isa came to Jerusalem not to promote the Judeo-Christian God, but the Islamic Allah. Palestine is where Muslims fight their ultimate spiritual battle against Christians and Jews, the land which their Isa has proclaimed for them and their people.

Not many people describe the Palestinian and Jewish/Christian conflict in these spiritual terms. Even devout Muslims explain it in terms of territorial claims. But, Bat Ye'or, by peeling away at the layers has, I think, come up with a strong spiritual argument for why the Palestinian question consumes the whole world at such a visceral level. It is a matter of Isa vs. Jesus, Allah against God. Truth battling falsehood.

All About Ayaan

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the most famous Muslim-turned-atheist, is doing the rounds to promote her new book Nomad. Initially, she had planned to write a philosophical discourse which she had decided to title Shortcuts to Enlightenment. But she abandoned this project to continue with her roster of memoirs and autobiographies, and wrote the memoir Nomad instead. I've written before that this approach is probably more financially lucrative, and anything she says will be attributed to her opinions or her "personal story" and therefore cannot be refuted by scholars or historians. Welcome, therefore, to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali franchise, replete with adultery, and family and political betrayals - she did abandoned Holland in the midst of the country's grips with the murder of its citizen Theo Van Gogh. What happens to an ex-Muslim atheist who's out of the limelight? Well, she gets forgotten and ignored. And since Ali has never been one to stay out of the limelight, she seems always to have a dramatic comeback.

What is interesting about this new book, whose pages are filled with steamy family portraits and provocative chapters like "School and Sexuality," is its subtitle: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations. As usual with Ali, everything is about her. Wafa Sultan, another former Muslim, and much less egotistical, is the one who alluded to the phrase "clash of civilizations." But Sultan, in her wisdom and understanding, claims that there is no clash of civilization, but a clash between the backward Islam and the civilized Christian West. Here is her elaborate explanation: 

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations...It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

Ali, in her supreme self-centeredness, cannot see through this description. After all, in her eyes, the clash is not between these two opposites, as Sultan explains, but between her (Ali) and the rest of the world. In fact, she has now decided that she, in her lofty conclusions, will clash with the very element that has made the West a formidable foe to Islam; she will fight Christianity.

That was what came across in her interview (or promotional stop) at the Colbert Report. Here is the video of the interaction. At one point, Colbert, the liberal, refuses to accept Ali demonizing Islam. But, perhaps he is less of a liberal than he makes out (TV shows are notoriously left-leaning, and he has to "play the game" to keep the ratings up). What Colbert does, unprecedented in other shows and interviews I've watched, is to invite Ali to Christianity, after having made her admit that she's an atheist. Partly, I think it is his way of telling her to put her money where her mouth is, since she is telling Christians to proselytize to Muslims, and get them to convert to the "better religion" Christianity.

At this point, Ali goes all out in mocking Christianity, which she has no intention whatsoever of joining. She makes fun of the Eucharist, brushes aside the notion of hell in Christian theology, and denounces Jesus Christ, saying she prefers the Enlightenment philosophers to him. Colbert did keep pushing her (in the guise of talk-show humor) until she reached this vocal and hostile condemnation.

Another revealing moment in the show was when Colbert asked her if she is now a Westerner. Her answer was, "I'm becoming one." After close to two decades in the West, including holding important political positions in a Western democracy (the Netherlands), what is there to work out? A forthright, "Yes I am a Westerner" would have been a welcome answer.

What makes Ali undermine Christianity so confidently ? Well, on the front cover of her new book, there is an endorsement by none other than the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins himself, who wrote, "This woman is a major hero of our times." And riding on the boldness that other atheists like Christopher Hitchens display, Ali has no qualms about publicly disclosing her religious (non) affiliations.

I wonder how Ali will be received in America? I get the feeling she will just circulate around the neo-cons and right liberal elites, writing her articles and possibly throwing out a book or two for the liberal vultures who love seedy stories about Third World "victims." I suspect she will get quite wealthy in the process. America, though, is not the "progressive" Europe. Religion in America hasn't been abandoned, and Christianity still informs the lives of the majority of Americans.

Ali also has her AHA foundation to promote and upkeep. Perhaps that's why she was hesitant to proclaim her uncontested Western affiliation; her foundation's primary concern is the defense of Muslim women abused by the Islamic culture and religion.

Finally, this is neither here nor there (perhaps - although I do hold a strong attachment to physical appearances), but Ali looks like she's lost quite a bit of weight. Her sordid personal life; living in a country that is not as liberal or religious-free as Europe; and resorting to the lowest denominator to promote her thoughts (writing a memoir rather than the philosophical discourse she had originally planned), must be taking their toll.

"Pluralistic" Aga Khan Dedicates Ismaili Centre to Islamic Art

Canadian citizenship is for the giving and the taking. Conrad Black is a recent (ex) Canadian who gave away his citizenship to become a British Lord. Then he wanted it back when he faced jail time in the United States. He is still in a U.S. jail.

The Ismaili philanthropist Aga Khan, who is the current Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, recently received an honorary Canadian citizenship. Partly, it is to honor his activities around the world, where he says he advocates for pluralism, tolerance and equality. "You sound like a Canadian" declared Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper while bestowing the citizenship.

The other reason for the honorary citizenship is to commemorate his "gift" to Canada in the form of a multi-million dollar Ismaili Centre in Toronto. There is nothing pluralistic, tolerant or equal about this center. It is simply and clearly an Ismaili Centre. Aga Khan stresses that the centre will be dedicated to Islamic art.

Imagine a situation where a Canadian philanthropist were to be given an honorary citizenship in a non-Western country. Say it is a Muslim country, since despite their insistence that they are the most moderate of the moderate Muslims, Ismailis are still Muslims (note the dedication to Islamic art for the center in Toronto). True to his Canadian nature, this Canadian philanthropist would genuinely build a pluralistic centre, praising the wonderful multicultural country he comes from. Forget about him promoting a center so culturally specific that it would be "dedicated to Christian art." The only religion this Canadian would promote is Multiculturalism. And this would suit his hosts fine, since no Muslim country would allow any kind of dedication to Christianity anyway.

Harper's liberalism bypasses all these realities to yet again let another intolerant (naturally it's exclusive) group set up shop in Canada, benefiting from the generous Multicultural Policy, and weakening whatever is left of the true, traditional Canadian culture. The Aga Khan looks like a nice guy, and at some point he must wonder at this strange cultureless country, where anything and anyone is welcome.

Swedish Cartoonist's Home is Set on Fire

Yet another Scandinavian cartoonist is under attack by Muslims. Lars Vilks’ cartoons depict Mohammad as a dog - the most reviled creature (after pigs?) in Islamic culture. First he was attacked during a speech he made at Uppsala University. Then, there was an arson attack on his home a couple of days ago.

Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society says (via Diana West's blog):

How was possible for these murderers to gain access to Vilks' house only a few days after a mob assaulted him at Uppsala University? What are the Swedish police and political class up to? As far as I know not a single Swedish politician has had a word to say about the attack in Uppsala. Is the truth that Swedish power-holders prefer to see Vilks killed in order to send a message to other critics of the Swedish multicultural idyll?

Now is the time to demonstrate practical solidarity. We can all do that by purchasing the drawing [below] his would-be murderers are so angry about.

As Mr. Hedegaard articulates, it is atrocious that no Swedish politician mentioned this incident. Yet, he and other counter-jihad writers*, including James Cohen at the International Free Press Society, suggest a public drawing spree of cartoons in defiance of Muslims' blasphemy beliefs. Then selling these cartoons, or wearing them (on t-shirts) in public.

No one suggests that more important than performing short-lived rebellious acts (against Muslims?!), is the strategy to remove Muslims from Western society, so we don't have to periodically live through these kinds of incidents.

I understand what I am suggesting is beyond the "practical solidarity" about which Mr. Hedegaard writes, but surely bringing it up is a step in the right direction? Simply attacking Muslims on our turf, is a never-ending exercise. Muslims will never tire of this tactic, which is in fact part of their long-term strategy to wear us out, so that we slowly accommodate their demands, and make our countries more hospitable for them.

* The diligent counter-jihad blog Gates of Vienna proposes a similar solution. I suspect the take on the incident is similar throughout the blogosphere.Yes, it is [1,2, etc.].

What Exactly do "Moderate Muslims" Believe?

Here is a quote from "The Battle for Islam" by Andrew McCarthy at The Corner. It is also discussed at the View from the Right.

The most frustrating thing about "moderate Islam" is that no one seems to be able to say what it entails. The so called "radicals" tell us exactly what they believe and (accurately) cite chapter and verse in the scriptures. The moderates never persuasively refute the radicals — they just say the radicals are too "extreme." This doesn't come close to making the case that the radicals have Islam wrong. If your goal is to persuade other Muslims — and everyone seems to agree that only Islam can settle its internal divisions — that's the case that has to be made.

Will the Real Jihadist Please Stand Up?

"Conservative" independent filmmaker Jason Apsoto has recently released a film on Islam called Kalifornistan. The website promoting Kalifornistan has this to say about the film:

KALIFORNISTAN follows the deranged leader of a terror cell called 'Glorious Jihad of Kalifornistan' as he plots to destroy Los Angeles with his 'mighty plutonium superbomb' - while being distracted by an exotic dancer.

KALIFORNISTAN takes viewers on a twisted journey of the post-9/11 world from Gitmo to Iran, from the dark corners of LA harbor into the mind of a terrorist too deranged even for Al Qaeda.

There are enthusiastic reviews for this film at its website, but I will be more critical. Apsoto has made his jihadist a lone, lunatic sex maniac, whose mission to destroy Los Angeles is due more to his deranged personality than his religious convictions.

Many writers give all kinds of reasons for jihadists' uncontrollable quest to bomb apostates: They are sexually frustrated maniacs; they are poor, oppressed Arabs; they are psychologically impaired; they have unresolved issues with their distant fathers; they are too close to their clingy mothers. And so on.

Apsoto seems to have fallen for the "they are deranged sex maniacs" variety, and that is where I cannot take his film seriously. I understand that artistic license is due, but even artists have to research their material and know something about their subject, rather than make up whatever they feel would suit the tone of their film.

One critic writes, "the film clicks as strong, effective satire." The jihadist's prescription is to follow the clear commands from the Koran, which is to turn the
whole world into Islam, whether by force or by stealth. Apsoto, rather than find a unique and artistic way (if possible) to write a fictitious account of a real Koran-following jihadist, prefers to make his jihadist a socio/psychopath so that his film becomes a "satire."

Hirsi Ali's Polite Disdain for Christianity

Ayaan Hirsi Ali pops up periodically to comment on the prevailing Muslim incident. This time she is reacting to the South Park censorship. As far as I can tell, she has been interviewed by Fox News and has had an article published by the Wall Street Journal on this topic. And here is a link to her interview with Anderson Cooper from CNN. That is more attention than the astute Diana West, whose analysis of the incident is far more valuable than Ali’s.

Near the very end of the interview on CNN, Hirsi Ali says:

We have to take them [Muslims] on. And that means, I think, scrutinizing Islam, criticizing it in the same way that we criticizing Christianity, Judaism and other ideologies, and other religions.

Equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense.

It never occurs to Ali firstly, that Islam has no business being alongside Judaism and Christianity to merit "equal opportunity scrutiny, equal opportunity offense."

Second, it is interesting that she puts "offense" as part of her egalitarian treatment of religions, and that she puts "ideologies" and "religions" in the same sentence.

Ali has come forward as an atheist, and has declared her dislike for Christianity (to put it mildly). In the slips that she performed, it is clear that she politely disdains religion, and that offending Christianity might be just as commendable as offending Islam.

This is the kind person that the American Enterprise Institute has hired to protect American (and Western) interests.

Lawyers enabling Terrorists, Geert Wilders's Trial, and Other Articles by David Harris

Infant Princess Margriet of 
Holland who was born in
Ottawa where the Dutch 
Royal Family fled to during WWII

David B. Harris, who could have been the first high profile Canadian to experienced Muslims' attempt at censorship, also writes on Muslims, terrorism and national security. His recent article "What’s scarier than terrorists? Lawyers" appears in the Ottawa Citizen on February 19, 2010.

He was also part of the symposium: The Trial of Geert Wilders, published on the International Free Press Society website. His commentary is titled: "Pursuit of a Parliamentarian." Here is a French version of the speech, which includes a photograph of Dutch Queen Juliana, who fled to Canada with her family when the Nazis occupied the Netherlands. The photo shows her holding her infant daughter Princess Margriet who was born on Canadian soil in 1943. In order for Princess Margriet to claim her Dutch royalty, the Ottawa hospital suite where she was born was deemed “extraterritorial.” (Here is photo of the Dutch Royal Couple in Ottawa and their three daughters, including new-born Princess Margriet).

Mr. Harris writes at IFPS:

Connections of law and spirit were further cemented when the First Canadian Army liberated much of occupied Holland. Remembering all of this, the Dutch Royal Family upon liberation sent Ottawa thousands of tulip bulbs, a gift that continues yearly, to this day.

This shared history of struggle for liberty and democracy must leave Canadians wondering whether disturbing legal developments in the Netherlands signal a loss of The Hague’s commitment to the freedoms for which Canadians and Dutch sacrificed. In the land of the tulip, “the first freedom” – freedom of speech – may be in the balance.

We have come at another impasse in the West. Just like problems during the two World Wars required our joint efforts, we have a similar calling in our modern pursuit against jihad.

"Moderate" Muslims Slowly Weaving Islam into Canadian Society

Naema Ahmed, who was recently expelledfrom a 
French language class in Montreal for wearing a niqab.

An Egyptian woman, Naema Ahmed, was recently expelled from a French language class in Montreal because she refused to take off her niqab during class.

The Quebec immigration minister, Yoland James said:

There is no ambiguity about this question. If you want to [attend] our classes, if you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values: we want to see your face.

Quebec has been far stricter than other provinces when it comes to immigration. In fact, immigrants coming into Quebec are required to sign their commitment to the province's values.

Naema Ahmed was expelled from the French language class partly to uphold Quebec's decision that people receiving public services should present themselves with their faces uncovered. Teachers have also complained that the woman's coverings makes it hard for them to see if she is pronouncing correctly, and that it distracts the other students in the class.

"Moderate" Muslims are agreeing with this decision, but with their own twist. The weekly show "Behind the Story" hosted a panel tonight which included a soft-spoken, articulate, and for all practical purposes a "moderate" Muslim woman, Khadija Mustapha-Ali. According to Mustapha-Ali's Zoom Info profile, as well as working as an independent media producer, she is a "field producer" for CTS TV, the channel which programs "Behind the Story." There is nowhere in her Zoom Info profile which indicates Mustapha-Ali's faith. In fact, her productions company seems to do a variety of programs from home shows to restaurant guides.

Her name, though, does crop up in various Muslim-related activities, such as one called "MuslimFest: Celebrating the Best in Muslim Arts and Entertainment" where the Ali is part of a panel "Meet & Mingle with Muslim Journalists & Producers." She is also mentioned in a (small, 6-page, worth reading) pdf file of a brochure describing a program organized by Centre for Faith and the Media, and funded by the Canadian government, titled "The Muslim Project," whose intention is "to improve reporting on Muslim stories and communities within Canadian media." Mustapha-Ali is listed as the project coordinator.

I have gone to some lengths to show, as far as the internet sources allow, who and what Mustapha-Ali is. She appears to be one of those "moderate" Muslims, who lives a successful "Canadian" life fulfilling family, community  and job commitments. And she certainly behaves "moderately" – unless one can catch her out.

In tonight's "Behind the Story" panel, while discussing Naema Ahmed's expulsion from the French classes, everyone on the panel agreed that it is difficult to teach (and interact with) someone whose face is covered up, and the Quebec officials were right to do what they did.

Mustapha-Ali spoke quietly and unobtrusively. She agreed that "in that particular situation" the teachers and officials were right. But, what about private classes, could Naema Ahmed be accommodated in a private class?

This of course would have to be a government-funded "private class for one," and Mustapha-Ali quickly realized the unfeasibility of this suggestion.

She amended this to: if there are several women with their faces covered, then could a different class just for them be organized to accommodate their needs (of covering their faces)?

I found this extraordinary for several reasons:

- Mustapha-Ali has no intentions of changing the niqab-wearing traditions of Muslim women.

- She is so confident that there will be an increasing number of niqab-wearing women in Canada who will wish to attend classes (and receive public service) with their niqabs on, that alternate classes can (should?) be arranged for them.

- And this goes on to the bigger picture that even the "moderate" Muslims like Mustapha-Ali, who appear to be wholly integrated into Canadian society, are simply waiting for loopholes - and numbers - in order to insert their own society, norms, culture and religion at the appropriate time, and as seamlessly and inconspicuously as Mustapha-Ali is doing.

Finally, this itself is pretty extraordinary: No one at "Behind the Story" picked up on Mustapha-Ali's frank, albeit carefully worded, revelation. And if they had, they would have probably agreed with Mustapha-Ali that yes, indeed, if there are enough niqab wearing women, then let's open another class just for them.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Latest Update

Hirsi Ali and Niall Ferguson,
the latest "power couple"

I haven't had time to comment on the latest Ayaan Hirsi Ali incident, although I don't really think it is that newsworthy, and was, in my view, pretty much predictable - at least in the attention-seeking aspect of it. Hirsi Ali has always seemed to find the limelight her favorite spot.

Ali is involved in a torrid affair with historian Niall Ferguson, who ditched his wife of sixteen years to link up with her. There is an article over at the British on-line magazine The Daily Mail, which humorously titles the piece: "The historian, his wife and a mistress living under a fatwa." Ali is standing next to Ferguson, held rather clumsily and defiantly by the adulterous husband. She is wearing a gaudy electric blue satin dress, looking both vapid and glitzy at the same time. The article calls them "a formidable couple," but I wonder how much Ali will ever get done now that she's officially entered the shimmering world of celebrities that the other Muslim who had a fatwa on his head - Salman Rushdie - belongs to. Rushdie keeps appearing at fashionable events, with a different woman at his arm every year or so. If I were Ali, I would be a little careful, since Ferguson apparently has had eight affairs in the past five years. But, that is irrelevant. Ali can also keep changing her own partners as many times as she wishes.

I believe Ali still works for the American Enterprise Institute in the United States. Her last published article at the AEI was in June 2009, which reprimanded Obama for not telling the "truth to Islam." But Ali has a bigger project than mere research fellow at the AEI, which I am sure is not a long-term (or indefinite) position. She has initiated a foundation called the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation whose aim is to: "defend and protect the rights of women in the West against fundamentalist Islam." The foundations has cleverly limited its mission to "women in the West." But I have never trusted Ali's statements as they stand, since I believe that she is an internationalist at heart, and cannot ignore for long all those abused Muslim women who are not living in the West. I suspect her next project will involve the migration to America, and the West in general, of Muslim women persecuted by Islam in non-Western countries, so they can live the free and safe lives that her AHA foundation would work hard to provide for them.

In any case, I wrote about her increasing detachment as a voice against Islam's presence in the West when she failed to materialize an ambitious book she had planned to write, Short Cuts to Enlightenment, which was supposed to have featured Mohammed being interrogated by Enlightenment-era philosophers. Her sequel to the film Submission also never came to fruition. Instead, she opted for another autobiography-style book, which is easy to write and probably more financially lucrative.

Her AHA foundation is true to her beliefs, at least. She is clearly a feminist at heart, and I've previously concluded that she's not a reliable spokesman for the West. Instead, she has decided to focus her attention on women just like her, Muslim or ex-Muslim women who are being "persecuted" by Islam. And like all social work-type activities, especially when dealing with "oppressed" or "victimized" minorities, I am sure this is a good career move and will provide her with financial stability, and respect by the liberals who love to sponsor such projects. And having her latest debaucheries written up in celebrity gossip magazines will not hurt.

A Matter of Existence

I have added Lawrence Auster's new contribution to the Islam question, which deals with telling the truth about Islam in order for our societies to continue to exist, on the side panel under "Recent Events."

Wilders's Trial and Its Meaning for Us: Part II

Lawrence Auster writes, on the real question of the Wilders trial:

It is not, Did Wilders incite to hatred and discrimination against Muslims? And it is not, Is the government infringing on Wilders's right of free speech? It is, Shall the Netherlands exist?

You can read the whole article here.

It's Not Enough to Repeatedly Say "Stop Muslim Immigration"

Kathy Shaidle is repeatedly posting on her popular blog Five Feet of Fury "Ban Muslim immigration to Canada," or "Stop Muslim immigration to Canada today."

I sent her an email yesterday with this suggestion:

Hi Kathy,

First a belated Merry Christmas and (a timely) Happy New Year!

I am glad that you are consistently mentioning a radical approach to the Muslim issue - stopping Muslim immigration into Canada.

Most people these days will not come up directly with that approach. But your popular blog will surely give people something to think about.

If I can make a suggestion. I think most readers would like some kind of strategic approach to the problem. They might get frustrated at simply saying: stop Muslim immigration. How, when, why etc. might be their questions. It is a blanket statement like: Muslims are destroying our civilization.

I have linked on my blog to a comprehensive strategy which conservative writer Lawrence Auster has established. It not only looks at immigration, but also:

- what to do with Muslims already here. Part of many people's rationale is that Muslims are already here, they are "assimilating" and we cannot do anything about them.

- how to approach jihadi and sharia infiltration

- And even what to do with our "diversity" institutions such as multiculturalism

But, rather than re-write it, it is better that you read the whole thing yourself.

You can find more information on Auster's writings about "What to do about Islam" here.

Plus, one other suggestion, Geert Wilders already has clear policies he has set up for the Netherlands, for which he is getting incredible popular support. Perhaps you could also use examples from his strategies on how to deal with Muslims in the West.

People are eager to know what to do. Most writers and politicians are not giving them the information and background that they want.

Let me know if I can be of help.

Kidist.

Who are the Real Muslim Anti-Semites?

I really don't mean to focus on Ezra Levan't various attempts at deciphering the Muslim community which put his life on hold for three years when he published the Mohammed cartoons. But I don't think he understands the community. His articles mostly decry individual Muslims who attacked him. But, he has never put them together in the collective whole of Islam. It is not individual Muslims, radical Muslims, moderate Muslims, peaceful Muslims etc. ad nauseam, that are the problem, it is Islam as a religion which mandates the behaviors of all these groups and individuals.

Levant writes about Syed Soharwardy, a rabid anti-Semitic Muslim - who brought him to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Mohammed cartoons - almost as though he is the exception to the rule. But, according to the Koran, all Jews are enemies of Islam. However odiously Soharwardy may rant against Jews, and however hate-filled is his website, he is not doing anything radically different from what the Koran mandates.

If Levant is eager to educate his Calgary Jewish Community Council about the anti-Semitism of this one man, he should be more explicit and tell them that the whole Islamic community is required to believe the worst regarding the Jews, if these Muslims are true followers of Mohammed and the Koran’s writings.

Time to Find Solutions to the Islam Problem

In a recent entry at the View from the Right, Lawrence Auster writes about a New York City presentation by outspoken Islam critic Wafa Sultan. He asked her "what Western countries should do to stop and reverse the Islamization of the West," and her answer was to treat them the same way America treated Germany and Japan.

You can read the discussion that ensued from that entry, including my comment which states that if vocal and prominent counter-jihad individuals and groups are pressed to include their views and suggestions on solutions to these problems, they might direct their energies towards these more fruitful endeavors, rather than endlessly regurgitate the horrors that Islam is doing to Western societies. Without working out the solutions, there is no point to the continuous stream of writings we have on Islam.

Comments from Counter-Jihad Groups on Minaret Ban Shows Thinking Processes

It is interesting to go around the American and Canadian blogosphere to see what the outspoken counter-jihad groups are saying about this latest development on the Islamic front.

My reaction, especially after reading the "European" news via Spiegel Online on the Swiss ban on minaret construction, was to think how the Canadian populace could be galvanized into making such a decision. I conclude that it shouldn't be that hard. Ordinary people are the ones who are confronted daily and viscerally with these changes. They are more than likely to vote "no" against such encroachments.

Here are some reactions from very vocal and active counter-jihad blogs.

Gates of Vienna writes: "So what happens next? What can the 'world community' do to teach Switzerland a lesson?" The focus for Gates of Vienna is not on learning from this bold and refreshing vote, but on how negative forces will conspire to punish the Swiss.

Atlas Shrugs' Pamela Geller says: "I wonder how the religion of peaceniks will react...in their usual tolerant and pacifist manner?" No extrapolation of the behavior of the Swiss onto that of Americans', as in: "Can Americans behave like the Swiss?"

Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer predicts (quoting a Times Online article): "Vengeance, boycotts, retaliation ... this clash with Islam could cost dearly." Don't resist Islamic supremacism! It might make the Islamic supremacists angry!

Why this focus on the negative sensationalism? Why not learn from this small country which took a stand for itself against many odds?

I think many of the counter-jihad groups have become so consumed by the negative stories of Islam they write about, that when something refreshingly positive such as the Swiss decision occurs, they cannot pull themselves out of their habitual pessimistic view which underlies much of their writing. This is not a good frame of mind for developing solutions to these problems.

I once thought, and I have to return to that view again, that their lives are so intertwined with Islam and its negativity, that if the definitive solution to Islam were produced, they would have nothing left to do, nothing left to write about. Sub-consciously (am I being too generous here, and is their behaviour actually much more deliberate?), they are sabotaging the counter-jihad movement for the sake of their continued activity.