Archive for June, 2008

How Muhammed Combined Judaism and Christianity and Invented Islam

This great essay was written almost five years ago and is a “must keep” summary of the insanity that has engulfed one out of five people on our planet.  Please send it on to those who still don’t understand the totalitarian political system which disguises itself as a religion: islam.
Dr. M. Kedar, Dept of Arabic Studies, Bar Ilan University, Israel
October 4, 2003 
Must Israel give up its Eternal Capital and City of David because of some ancient political myths or even Muhammad’s dreams?

Muhammad, the Prophet, hardly made any innovations when he established islam. He used the hallowed personages, historic legends and sacred sites of Judaism, Christianity and even paganism, by islamizing them, frequently with egregious historical errors. Thus, according to islam, Abraham was the first moslem and Jesus and St. John (supposed sons of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron!) were prophets and guardians of the second heaven.

Many Biblical legends, which were familiar to the pagan Arabs before the dawn of islam, underwent an islamic conversion and the Koran as well as the ahadith (the islamic oral traditions), are replete with them. The practice of islamization was performed on places as well as persons: Mecca and the holy stone – al-ka’abah – were holy sites of the pre-lslamic pagan Arabs. The Umayyads’ Mosque in Damascus and the great mosque of Istanbul were built on the sites of Christian-Byzantine churches that were converted into mosques. These are good examples of the respectful islamic treatment of sanctuaries of other faiths.

Jerusalem underwent the same process. At first, Muhammad attempted to convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community, and in order to persuade them he established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to the north, towards Jerusalem, like the Jews. But after he failed in this attempt, he fought the Jews, killed many of them and turned the kiblah southward, to Mecca. His abandonment of Jerusalem explains the fact that this city is never mentioned in the Koran – not even once.

After Palestine was occupied by the moslems, its capital was in Ramlah, 30 miles to the west of Jerusalem, since Jerusalem meant nothing to them. Islam rediscovered Jerusalem 50 years after Muhammad’s death. In 682 CE, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr rebelled against the islamic rulers in Damascus, conquered Mecca and prevented pilgrims from reaching Mecca for the Hajj. Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Caliph, needed an alternative site for the pilgrimage and settled on Jerusalem which was under his control.

In order to justify this choice, a verse from the Koran was chosen (sura 17, verse 1) which states (translation by Majid Fakhri): “Glory to Him who caused His servant to travel by night from the sacred mosque to the farthest mosque, whose precincts we have blessed, in order to show him some of our signs. He is indeed the All-Hearing and All-Seeing.”

The meaning ascribed to this verse is that “the furthest mosque” (al-masjid al-aqsa) is in Jerusalem and that Muhammad was conveyed there one night (although at that time the journey took three days by camel), on the back of al-Buraq, his magical horse with the head of a woman, wings of an eagle, the tail of a peacock, and whose hoofs reach to the horizon. He tethered the horse to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and from there ascended to the seventh heaven together with the angel Gabriel.

On his way he met the prophets of other religions who are the guardians of heaven: Adam, Jesus, St. John, Joseph, Seth, Aaron, Moses and Abraham who accompanied him on his way to the seventh heaven, to Allah, and who accepted him as their master, (see the commentary of Al-Jalalayn on this verse). Thus islam tries to gain legitimacy over other, older religions, by creating a scene in which the former prophets agree to Muhammad’s mastery, thus making him “khatam al-anbiya” (“the seal of the prophets”).

The strange thing here is that this fantastic story contradicts a number of the tenets of islam: How can a man of flesh and blood ascend to heaven? How can a mythical creature carry a mortal to a real destination? Questions such as these have caused orthodox muslim thinkers to conclude that the whole story of the nocturnal journey was simply Muhammad’s dream. Thus islam tried to “go one better” than the Bible. Moses “only” went up to Mt. Sinai, in the middle of nowhere, and drew close to heaven, whereas Muhammad went all the way up to Allah, and from Jerusalem itself.

So why shouldn’t we also believe that the al-aqsa mosque is in Jerusalem? One good reason is that the people of Mecca, who knew Muhammad well, did not believed this story. Only Abu Bakr, the first khalif, believed him and thus was called “al-siddiq” (“the believer”). The second reason is that islamic tradition itself tells us that al-aqsa mosque is near Mecca on the Arabian Peninsula. This was unequivocally stated in “Kitab al Maghazi,” a book by the muslim historian and geographer al-Waqidi (Oxford UP, 1966, vol. 3, pp. 958-9).

According to al-Waqidi, there were two “masjeds” (places of prayer) in al-Gi’ranah, a village between Mecca and Ta’if. One was the “the closer mosque” (al-masjid al-adana) and the other was “the further mosque” (al-masjid al-aqsa), and Muhammad would pray there when he was out of town.

This description by al-Waqidi was not “convenient” for the islamic propaganda of the 7th century.

In order to establish a basis to the awareness of the “holiness” of Jerusalem in islam, the khalifs of the Ummayid Dynasty invented many “traditions” upholding the value of Jerusalem, which would justify pilgrimage to Jerusalem to the faithful muslims. Thus the al-masjid al-aqsa was “transported” to Jerusalem. It should be noted that Saladin also adopted the myth of al-aqsa and those “traditions” in order to recruit and inflame the muslim warriors against the Crusaders in the 12th Century.

Another aim of the islamization of Jerusalem was to undermine the legitimacy of the older religions, Judaism and Christianity which consider Jerusalem to be a holy city. Thus, islam is presented as the only legitimate religion, taking the place of the other two because they had “changed and distorted” the word of God, each in its turn. (About the alleged “forgeries” of the Holy Scriptures made by Jews and Christians, see the third chapter of: M. J. Kister, “haddith U ‘an bani isra’ll wa-laharaja,” IDS 2 (1972), pp. 215-239. Kister quotes dozens of islamic sources).

Though Judaism and Christianity can exist side by side in Jerusalem, islam regards both of them as a betrayal of Allah and his teachings, and has done and will do all in its power to expel both of them from the city. It is interesting to note that this expulsion is retroactive. The islamic announcers of the palestinian radio stations keep claiming that the Jews “never” had a temple on the Temple Mount and certainly not two temples. Where, then, according to them, did Jesus preach?

The political leaders of the muslims occupying Israel’s biblical territory have done in our day exactly what the khalifs of the Umayyad dynasty did: they are recruiting their manufactured “holiness” of Jerusalem to serve political ends. They must not give control of Jerusalem over to the Jews since, according to islam, Jews are impure and the wrath of Allah is upon them (al-maghdhoub ‘alayhim, Koran, sura. 1, verse 7, see al-Jalalayn and other commentaries; note: verse numbers differ slightly in different editions of the Koran.) The Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs (s. 5, v. 60). (For the idea that Jews are related to pigs and monkeys see, for example, Musnad al-lmam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, (Beirut, 1969) vol. 3, p. 241. See also pages 348, 395, 397, 421, and vol. 6, p. 135.)

They claim that Jews distorted the holy writings which had been revealed to them (s. 2, v. 73; s. 3, v. 72) and denied God’s signs (s. 3, v. 63). Since they violated the covenant with their God (s. 4, v. 154), God cursed the Jews (s. 5, v. 16) and forever they are the inheritors of hell (s. 3, v. 112). So how can faithful muslims abandon Jerusalem to such Jews?

The palestinian media these days is full of messages of jihad calling to broaden the national-political war between Israel and the palestinians into a religious-islamic war between the Jews and the muslims. Read Their Lips: for them Christianity is as bad as Judaism, since both of them “lost their right” to rule over Jerusalem.

Only islam, “din al-haqq” (“the religion of truth”) has this right, and forever (according to Shaykh ‘Ikrima Sabri, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in a Friday’s khutbah, — Sawt Falastin – the PA official radio). Since the holiness of Jerusalem to islam always was and still is no more than a politically motivated holiness, any muslim leader is putting his political head on the block should he dare to give it up.

Must the whole world bow down to myths concocted by islam, long after Jerusalem is, and has been, the true center of Judaism and Christianity? Should Israel’s ancient capital be abandonded to islamic conquerors just because muslims recycle the Umayyads’ political problems or even because of Muhammad’s dreams about Jerusalem?


June 30, 2008 at 10:53 am 3 comments

Iranian Christian Woman Threatened and Beaten for Leaving Islam

Iran: Ex-Muslim converts to Christianity arrested, told “The next time there may also be an apostasy charge, if you don’t stop with your Jesus”

“No compulsion in religion…”

And of course, the penalty for apostasy is death, as directed by Muhammad himself. “Iran – Convert couple arrested, tortured, threatened,” from Compass Direct News, June 24:

LOS ANGELES, June 25 (Compass Direct News) – Security police officials in Tehran this month tortured a newly converted couple and threatened to put their 4-year-old daughter in an institution after arresting them for holding Bible studies and attending a house church.

A Christian source in Iran said that 28-year-old Tina Rad was charged with “activities against the holy religion of Islam” for reading the Bible with Muslims in her home in east Tehran and trying to convert them. Officials charged her husband, 31-year-old Makan Arya, with “activities against national security” after seizing the couple from their home on June 3, forcing them to leave their 4-year-old daughter ill and unattended.

Authorities kept them in an unknown jail for four days, which left them badly bruised from beatings, with Rad “very ill” and unable to walk, said the source. Rad was released on bail of US$30,000 bail, and her husband was freed on payment of US$20,000.

“The next time there may also be an apostasy charge, if you don’t stop with your Jesus,” a female security police officer told Rad during interrogation, according to the source. Under Iran’s strict Islamic laws, Muslims who convert from Islam to another religion can be executed.

A draft law before the Iranian parliament would make the death penalty mandatory for “apostates” who leave Islam.

“They went to a court hearing just for show,” the source said, “as secret police had already taken their signatures by force with a statement that they had not changed their religion.”

The charges, however, are still open, said the source, a close friend of the couple.

The female security police official warned Rad that if she and her husband continued attending a house church and holding Bible studies, they could be imprisoned “for a very long time” and would lose their daughter, Odzhan Arya. An officer also told Rad that authorities could concoct a drug case against them, “and you will be punished as drug smugglers.” […]

An officer also told Arya that authorities could place his daughter “in a protected religious institution.”



June 30, 2008 at 10:07 am 8 comments

Wake Up America- To the Threat of Islamofascism!

Thank you JJL!

 This is a poignant, yet chilling message. It’s a
 ‘must watch’ video, that lasts about 3 minutes, and
 needs to be forwarded all across America! Don’t
 leave the first screen, it will open automatically.
 Notice at the bottom right you can reverse-pause-play
 the video. (“Reverse” moves back a few seconds. 
You can hit it repeatedly to move further back.)
After the video finishes, click on ‘Enter The Site,’
scroll down halfway to see a map of the United
States which clearly shows where islam has
set up al-Qa’ida terrorist cells in all but a few
And Please FORWARD!!
Click here: <>

June 30, 2008 at 9:26 am Leave a comment

On “Change”

“Change” is a benign word that can mean anything. Here is an example (I received in an e-mail) of one kind of change. Readers may think this is in poor taste, and indeed, change can be ugly, and mean just about anything:

“Years ago, there was an old tale in the Marine Corps about a lieutenant who inspected his Marines and told the ‘Gunny’ that they smelled bad. The lieutenant suggested that they change their underwear. The Gunny responded, ‘Aye, aye, sir, I’ll see to it immediately’.He went into the barracks and said, ‘The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear. Smith, you change with  Jones, McCarthy, you change with Kwiatkowski, Brown, you change with Schultz. Get to it’. 

The Moral: A candidate may promise change in Washington, but don’t count on things smelling any better!

June 26, 2008 at 1:31 am Leave a comment

Say NO! To Shariah Finance

Too many people believe that “shari`ah-compliant finance” is basically a harmless indulgence by some religious fanatics and that it can’t possibly do more than inconvenience a few major financial institutions that are pandering to islamic wealth.

Wrong.  WRONG!   WRONG!!!

Shari`ah Finance is a well-calculated form of jihad –– their militant struggle against the Judeo-Christian world, intended to conquer and subdue Western Civilization which islam failed miserably to accomplish militarily in 1683 and subsequently.

Here’s a relatively simple exposition of the complex situation.  Understand it.  Disseminate this information.  Save it for reference when you’re challenged by those who can’t believe anything negative about the “cult of submission.”

Our nation’s first war against islam lasted through FOUR presidents!  This one has barely started….

Fighting Jihad on Wall Street
by Christopher Holton
Summer 2008

On June 30, 2006, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi, perhaps best known for his rulings in support of Hamas suicide bombings, appeared on the television show BBC Panorama and announced that he was a proponent of “jihad with money because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and with our money.”

Jihadists have changed tactics. Rather than launching direct terrorist attacks against Wall Street infrastructure, as they did on September 11, 2001, some jihadists now seek to infiltrate the U.S. financial system in order to corrupt it from within. Wall Street, unfortunately, does not appear to understand that threat. Corporate executives are now willingly accepting petrodollars in exchange for cultural sensitivity to investments that adhere to shari’a (Islamic law).

In the opposite direction, American mutual fund dollars are flowing into terror-sponsoring states, notably Iran, via European subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Willful blindness and market exuberance are driving these investment flows. Wall Street has failed to conduct the requisite due diligence to protect investors. Moreover, multinationals have yet to provide the necessary transparency or disclosure.

Jihad’s Trojan Horse

Islamic finance is a modern day Trojan horse. Middle East promoters of shari’a finance are careful to emphasize “finance” on Wall Street, while downplaying the central role of “shari’a.” Across the board, executives, lawyers and accountants are failing to uncover and disclose the anti-West doctrine embedded in shari’a finance.

As analyst Alex Alexiev of The Center for Security Policy explains, “Shari’a is a reactionary-to-the-core medieval Islamic doctrine that claims control over every aspect of every Muslim’s life. Shari’a, its promoters tell us, is a God-given Islamic law that is immutable, indivisible, and mandatory for Muslims to follow in all aspects of life… to talk about shari’a finance as something apart from shari’a law is simply dishonest.”

Four regimes have ruled according to strict shari’a law in our time: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and the Taliban of Afghanistan, which fell to allied forces in 2002. These regimes have had the world’s worst human rights records, financed Islamist terrorism, and systematically terrorized their people. Under strict shari’a law, women can be beaten for disobeying men, stoned for suspicion of adultery, or forced into child marriages. Strict Islamic societies often employ social police to patrol the population for infractions of Islamic law, and meting out harsh punishments.

Proponents of shari’a-compliant finance seek to legitimize shari’a in the West as a means to spread the influence of this radical brand of Islam. Indeed, shari’a-compliant finance is an underhanded attempt to brand shari’a as neutral or even culturally acceptable in the U.S.

Shari’a Finance in the U.S.

Islamic Finance in the United States is not just being marketed to Muslims. Rather, it is designed to appeal to all investors. Shari’a-compliant mutual funds are now marketed as “socially responsible” funds, based on their prohibition of un-Islamic investments like gambling and alcohol. Western investors are also drawn to shari’a-compliant bonds known as Sukuk because they have attractive yields, the right maturity dates, or the cash flows that buyers seek.

Investors, meanwhile, are not made aware that their dollars may enrich those who seek the systematic destruction of Western culture. It is highly doubtful that post 9-11 investors would choose to invest in these products if it were disclosed that, at its very core, shari’a calls for the submission of all to Islam. That Wall Street firms are failing to disclose this could be considered securities and consumer fraud.

A good way to discern a shari’a-compliant investment’s intentions is to make note of the scholars that sit on its advisory board. There are currently 25 shari’a scholars paid by Citibank, HSBC, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Dow Jones, Standard & Poors, Barclays, Swiss RE, and Guidance Residential, among others. In return for handsome retainers, these scholars provide shari’a guidance.

Consider the case of shari’a scholar Taqi Usmani, a board member of the Dow Jones Islamic Index (IMANX). After his extremist tendencies were revealed in National Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and other publications, the fund pulled his name from the website, where it had been featured prominently since March 2008. Recently, his name re-appeared on the site, seemingly in response to media investigations. Usmani was an officer of a radical madrassa (Islamic school) in Karachi, Pakistan that teaches a violent brand of Islam. Earlier this year, he publicly endorsed jihad by Muslims in the West, suicide bombing, and even expressed support for the Taliban.

Surprisingly, Usmani remains on the shari’a advisory boards of several other Western financial institutions, including Swiss RE, Arcapita, UBS-Warburg, and HSBC. He also remains chairman of the prestigious Accounting and Auditing Organization of Islamic Financial Institutions, the Bahrain-based equivalent of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in the United States.

The Influence of Radical Scholars

Shari’a-compliant funds typically donate 2.5 percent of their profits to charity or zakat, according to Islam’s third pillar. Zakat from a shari’a-compliant business goes to charities selected by its scholars. Given the growing number of illegal, terrorist-funding charities in the United States and around the world, American investors in Shari’a-compliant securities could give unwittingly to unlawful or radical charities that Shari’a scholars choose to support.

Indeed, according to the rulings of noted Islamist scholars, including Abul Ala Muadudi and Rashid Rida, one of the eight categories of shari’a-approved zakat includes that which supports jihad “in the cause of Allah” (fi sabil Allah).

“Purification” is another concern. Since interest income, according to Shari’a, is outlawed as “usury,” scholars create vehicles to convert these cash flows into “rent” or “profits.” But not all interest income can be re-packaged. Tainted revenue is “purified” by giving it away to charity.

Zakat and purification raise serious questions about oversight. Although there are more than $1 trillion of Shari’a-compliant assets in banks around the world, to date, no Shari’a-compliant institution has provided disclosure as to where these funds go. Should it be determined that a fund’s zakat or purification monies ended up in the coffers of an illegal terrorist charity, there could be catastrophic financial or criminal implications.

Legal Pitfalls

There are troubling aspects of shari’a-compliant finance that expose the U.S. financial system to risk. Indeed, there are also a host of disclosure, due diligence, and compliance issues that elevate the risk of civil liability and criminal exposure.

To date, Wall Street has not recognized, analyzed, or taken meaningful precautions against this exposure. The disclosure materials produced by the Shari’a-compliant finance industry on Wall Street read like promotional material, not serious legal analysis of trained professionals with a fiduciary responsibility to their clients.

The long-term threats to national security notwithstanding, failure to carefully examine the inherent dangers associated with these investments could easily result in enormous liabilities. U.S. corporations that fail to discover and disclose the significant downside risks of the Shari’a-compliant finance industry could face civil liability in the realms of tort law, securities law, and antitrust. Moreover, these businesses could face criminal exposure in securities, anti-sedition, racketeering, and money-laundering statutes.

The ‘Terror 400’

Shari’a-compliant finance is not the only danger lurking on Wall Street. There are more than 400 mostly foreign companies that have extensive business ties with terrorist-sponsoring nations, such as Iran and Syria. Our state public pension systems (with a few exceptions), university endowments, mutual funds, hedge funds, and other financial institutions are heavily invested in the “Terror 400,” even though U.S. companies are forbidden from doing business with terror-funding states.

Companies typically help terrorist-sponsoring nations in one of three ways. Most often, they help to develop and exploit terrorist-sponsoring nations’ natural resources, such as oil and natural gas. Alternatively, they might transfer sophisticated technology with military applications. Finally, banks and financial services companies can facilitate financial transactions, such as debt or equity offerings of terrorist-sponsoring state-owned companies.


There are two principal reasons why corporations will not cease doing business with terrorist states. Sometimes, these companies choose to ignore the law, preferring to reap financial gains from working with rogue states. More often, however, these operations are legal, particularly if they are foreign companies not subject to U.S. sanctions laws.

Whatever the reason, American investors need not stand for this. U.S. companies caught doing business with rogue states are subject to heavy fines meted out by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

Non-U.S. companies, for their part, can be punished through divestment. State officials in Missouri, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, California, and Georgia have passed legislation or instituted policies prohibiting or restricting investment of state monies in companies active in terrorist-sponsoring nations.

Terror-Free Investing

American investors seek to take their retirement money out of the hands of companies that do business with terrorist states for two reasons. First, they want to be good world citizens, and deprive rogue states of the funds needed to finance terror. Second, and just as important, they seek sound investments that are not at risk of losing value due to the growing divestment movement. Thus, selling stocks with ties to terror becomes a matter of risk management and capital protection for fund and pension managers.

Until recently, there were not many choices for individual investors who wanted to invest terror-free. That is now changing, thanks to the formation of a terror-free international investment index. Currently, Credit Suisse, UMB, and Merrill Lynch all offer new terror-free products. The Tributary Group and Roosevelt Investments offer similar funds.

Security and Securities

From shari’a-compliant finance to companies that work with rogue regimes, it is now a challenge to find investments that don’t invite extremism into the fabric of our society, or pump funds to extremists abroad. Americans, however, are quickly learning that they don’t have to make a choice between making profits and supporting extremism.

Christopher Holton is vice president at the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, D.C. think tank, and a contributor to

June 25, 2008 at 9:37 am 2 comments

Brigitte Bardot’s Greatest Role — ‘Silence of the Sheep’

Brigitte Bardotby Denis Schulz
11 Jun, 2008

Brigitte Bardot

The penalty for telling the truth in France is $23,325. The penalty for telling the truth in Canada is yet to be determined—in England a million dollar libel suit is certainly a possible outcome while telling lies can gain the liar a Knighthood. The penalty in Iran and Saudi Arabia is left to the hangman. Apostasy—a matter of conscience, truth as one sees it—is worse than treason in Iran. In Saudi Arabia, enjoying life is treason. 

 Khalid bin Mafouz, owner of one the biggest banks is Saudi Arabia, sued Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld for some of the statements that appeared in the original edition of her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop it. Mafouz sued in England. The Brits have the most generous libel laws in the world. Few people in England dare speak the truth for fear of being dragged into court. Adolph Hitler, were he still around with the current libel laws, could successfully sue Winston Churchill.

And there is pain and suffering. A hairdresser was sued for failing to hire a Muslim woman because she was wearing a headscarf; Muslim convicts sued prison officials because they were offered ham sandwiches during Ramadan. (It was one of three choices on the menu) And wrapping the truth in an allegory doesn’t work either. Salman Rushdie tried it in The Satanic Verses and was rewarded with his very own fatwa.

Freedom of speech has all but disappeared in Europe. It’s what happens when Liberals accomplish all the good that can possibly be accomplished. Instead of disbanding or dying or opening shoe repair shops they stick around to fine tune their pseudoliberal Marxist dictatorship and like all good socialists ingrained with political correctness and cultural diversity the first thing to go is freedom of speech. They don’t lop off heads—they are opposed to the death penalty; that will come later—but they do impose heavy fines and heap scorn, ridicule, and abuse on the malefactors, those recalcitrant enough to occasionally insist on telling the truth.

So Brigitte Bardot—France’s one-woman PETA—was charged with racial hatred. She was found guilty and received a fine of $23,325.

Well, for crying out loud, she’s 73-years-old—almost as old as Jed Clampett! Why don’t they let her say what she wants? Hardly anybody listens to her. There aren’t ten Muslims in all of France who can pronounce her name. She’ll be dead in a few years or in a nursing home and the Imams and the Mullahs can go on shamelessly slaughtering sheep and no one will be the wiser.
Sure—shamelessly slaughtering sheep—that’s what it is. Is there a better way to describe it? How many Parisians have been to a honest-to-goodness, old-fashioned slaughterhouse? Not many.

Imagine the master abattoir drawing his razor-sharp blade across the throat of an unsuspecting sheep, the blood spurting warm and red across the slaughterhouse floor! The flies buzzing, the master abattoir’s dog lapping up the fresh claret. It’s like watching a scene from a Sam Peckinpah movie. Then the master abattoir gets out his hose and squeegee and cleans up the mess so he doesn’t slip and fall on his head. Then he shouts, “Next!”

Brigitte was so concerned with the plight of the sheep in Islam’s amateur slaughterhouses she wrote a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy who was then France’s Minister of the Interior. She said she was “tired of (France) being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts.”

MRAP, a shadowy organization at best, took her to court. (MRAP stands for Movement Against Racism And For Friendship Between People) They claim to be a human rights group but spend most of their time trying to stamp out freedom of speech guarantees.

This is the fourth time Brigitte has been charged with inciting racial hatred. It was five years ago that Ms Bardot wrote A Cry of Silence.” The book was not kind to Islam. “I do not hold religious Muslims in high esteem,” she said. “For 20 years we have submitted to a dangerous and uncontrolled underground infiltration. Not only does it fail to give way to our laws and customs. Quite the contrary, as time goes by it tries to impose its own laws on us. All those ‘youths’ who terrorize the population, rape young girls, train pit bulls for attack…spit on the police—they are the ones who at the smallest signal from their chiefs will suddenly put us through the same kind of thing that happened in a Moscow theatre.”

Strong words…Churchill thundering against the Nazis…William H. Seward warning of the ‘irrepressible conflict.’ Who will take heed? Clemenceau? He is dead. Ferdinand Foch? He is dead. Henri-Phillipe Petain? Dead. Joffre? Dead. Gallieni? Dead. All dead! Jacques Chirac? Alas, he is still alive and there are millions in France just like him. The spirit of Jeanne d’Arc is not in them.

Ms Bardot has her detractors. Le Monde, France’s version of The New York Times, reviewed A Cry of Silence. It’s conclusion, a bombastic Keith Olbermann headline: “Brigitte Bardot: A Friend of Animals. An Enemy of Man!” Lire, a literary magazine said the book had “racist and homophobic undertones.” And so it went.

If she could she would have everybody eating string beans and cauliflower. Every one in France is tired of her racist antics—so they say. Prosecutor Anne de Fontette said she was seeking a longer sentence that usual because, “I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs. Bardot.”

What a sad state of affairs! Convicted of hating the Muslim race! Who did the judge have in mind? Was it Louis Farrakhan? Ibrahim Hooper? Osama bin Laden? Muqtada al-Sadr?  

When is a religion a race? What does this say about French jurisprudence? It appears to be up to its ankles in Sharia Law. Ms Bardot was convicted of telling an uncomfortable truth, for facing reality. She had heard the voices crying in the night and it wasn’t “Viva La France” she heard as rioters stormed through the streets of Paris torching cars and assaulting police officers—it was “Allahu akbar!” The Mussulmen were back!

The riots lasted eight days. That was in 2005. There have been more riots—in 2006 and 2007, in Paris, in the suburbs, elsewhere in France. Last year the ‘discontented’ were armed with shotguns and Molotov cocktails. Seventy-seven policemen were injured. An attempt was made to torch St. Peter’s Hospital.

The riots didn’t make much of a splash in the hinterlands—in Swaledale, Iowa, or in Gun Blast, Texas, or in Shakespeare-on-the-Craven in Stratfordshire or in The New York Times or in The Washington Post but they did happen and if it were not for Ms Bardot the world outside of France would not have had the slightest inkling of what was going on in the land Charles Martel, who saved Western Europe from decisive Islamic invasion 1,276 years ago.

Thank you, Ms Bardot, you have more guts than Le Monde and Jacques Chirac combined, as much as Charles De Gaulle, and at age 73 are better to look at than De Gaulle was at 25. This is your greatest role and the free world—what is left of it—is praying for you. The radical left can stew in their juices—if this war is lost they will have a choice between conversion and eternal doom. They are not much different than the sheep Ms Bardot is seeking to protect, merely less worthy of her affections.

Altogether now, “Viva La France!” and “Viva Ms Bardot.”

June 17, 2008 at 3:40 am 3 comments

Breaking the Silence (about Radical Islam)

The Call

Wafa Sultan and her husband, David, were jolted awake by the sound of a ringing telephone. It was just before dawn on a summer morning in 2005, and Wafa couldn’t help feeling nervous as she hurried to take the call. Two of their three children had moved to a nearby suburb of Los Angeles to attend college. Were they okay?

A voice on the line identified himself as working for Al Jazeera television, the Arabic-language network based in Qatar which, in ten years, had become the most influential news channel in the Middle East. The producer explained that based on some pieces she had written on Islam and terrorism for his obscure Arabic-language website, a friend of Wafa’s had suggested her as a guest on one of the network’s programs.
Wafa was stunned. She was not a professional writer, much less a scholar on the Middle East. Though she had grown up in Syria, she had called California home for 16 years, and her days were now completely devoted to her family.

Then again, she did have strong opinions about Islamic extremism, and she was utterly unafraid to express them. So if Al Jazeera wanted to talk to a wife and mother in Los Angeles about this important subject, sure, why not? Wafa accepted. What no one could have guessed was that she was about to become a controversial new voice in the Islamic world — and for many moderate Muslims, a model of courage.

Wafa Sultan grew up in Baniyas, Syria, a town on the Mediterranean where her father was a local grain trader. Surrounded by protective brothers, she studied hard and rarely stepped outside the bounds of Muslim propriety. But in 1979, as a medical student at Syria’s University of Aleppo, she witnessed a crime that changed her forever.

One day, Wafa sat in a lecture hall with 200 other students, listening to her professor of ophthalmology, Yusef Al Yusef. Suddenly she heard the crack of gunfire and then saw her teacher crumple to the floor. A group of men stood next to the body, guns extended, shouting, “God is great! God is great!” in Arabic. The killers, Muslim extremists, quickly ran out, leaving the students staring at their dead instructor.

Deeply troubled by this fundamentalist violence, Wafa was further shaken when she became a doctor in a large hospital. Newly married to an engineering professor, she came home from work with disturbing stories of treating victims of domestic abuse. Women would walk in with black eyes, bruised backs, broken bones. Wafa could mend their wounds and listen to their complaints, but she couldn’t discuss openly what she saw as the root cause: a culture that demands total deference to men, amplified by extremist beliefs.

Wafa and her husband, David, began to whisper about leaving Syria in order to escape the growing poverty and religious radicalization around them.

“Talking about finding a new home was our daily bread,” says Wafa. It took a decade, but in 1988 David finally got an American visa, flew to California and sent for his family several months later.

Not Holding Back

Wafa had never been out of Syria before, spoke little English and had two small children in tow: a four-year-old daughter and a nine-year-old son. Moreover, she lacked the credentials to practice medicine in the United States, and within a month found herself pregnant with her third child.

To make it through their first few years in Los Angeles, she and her husband worked a variety of service jobs, including trading shifts as cashiers at a Texaco station. Still, being out of Syria made them “so happy,” Wafa says.

She took part in the social life of the local Muslim community, yet insisted that her children “live the American life.” They were taught English from the start, and while they can understand Arabic, the younger two don’t speak it to this day. But the culture Wafa left behind was never far from her mind. She started writing opinion pieces on women, Islam and radicalism for the local Arabic press. Wafa was careful not to be openly critical of religion, instead questioning an interpretation of Islam that seemed to breed terrorists and wife-beaters.

Even so, some thought Wafa had gone too far. After one editorial came out, she received a phone call from a man who warned that “even in America, there are limits.” The person on the line claimed to be from a prominent Islamic organization. Intimidation of this sort made Wafa nervous and her editors more timid.

Then came September 11. Watching the World Trade Center towers fall on her television screen, Wafa felt enraged and emboldened. “I don’t care anymore. I will write what I want,” she told David. Too few people were speaking the truth about radical Islam and she, for one, would stop holding back.

And so Wafa Sultan found herself at the Los Angeles studio last year, being fitted with a microphone and placed before a camera. The host, in Qatar, presented the topic of Islam and terrorism to the audience and then surprised Sultan by introducing another guest, Ahmad bin Mohammed, an Algerian professor of Islamic law.

Sultan had no idea that someone else would be on the show to challenge her views. Raised in the Muslim culture, she certainly never expected to be placed in direct opposition to a man.

Given the floor first, Sultan became impassioned as she spoke. “Religion in our countries is the sole source of education,” she argued. “It is the sole source from which terrorists drink.”

Ahmad bin Mohammed changed the subject to President Bush. “Our guest asked how a youth blows himself up. Wasn’t it better for her to ask how a President kills innocent people in Iraq?”

Sultan woke up to the reality of her first appearance on live television: This wasn’t just a conversation, but an all-out debate. She drew in a breath and opened her mouth, and the words burst forth like water through a sprung levy. She ran through a catalog of atrocities committed by radical Muslims against innocent victims: “Can you explain the killing of 100,000 children, women and men in Algeria? [Or] the death of 15,000 civilians in Syria? How can you explain the awful crime in the artillery school in Aleppo [where radicals murdered Alawite cadets]? Was this a revenge against America or Israel, or was it to satisfy the savage and barbarian instincts aroused by teachings that call for refusing the other, killing him?”

The two sparred intensely for nearly 50 minutes, sometimes shouting over each other. “He must let me finish!” she implored at one point.

The program, Sultan later found out, was watched by millions in the Middle East. When the taping ended, she left immediately with her husband for the drive back home. “You were great!” he said, beaming. Neither had any idea how drastically their lives would now change.

Death threats did not stop Wafa Sultan from speaking out against radical Islam’s abuse of women. Talking about finding a new home was our daily bread.

“A Torch of Light”

Sultan’s cell phone was ringing from the time she and David left the station. Soon, death threats were clogging her answering machine. Her name began appearing in Arab newspapers and, ominously, on radical websites. “I was leading a quiet, peaceful life,” she recalls, “and suddenly it was totally different.”

It was Wafa Sultan’s second appearance on Al Jazeera, last February, that brought her worldwide notoriety. This time, she debated Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli, an Egyptian cleric, and once again gave no quarter. “The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations,” she declared. “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 that belongs to the 21st century.” To Al-Khouli, she added, “You can believe in stones, brother, as long as you don’t throw them at me.”

At one point, Al-Khouli proclaimed that Sultan was blaspheming against Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. After the interview aired, Syrian clerics denounced Sultan as an infidel. The death threats mounted.

To many others around the world, though, she boldly spoke the truth. A video clip of the interview, posted by an American think tank, zipped around cyberspace, reportedly receiving six million hits in the space of about four months. E-mails came pouring in to Sultan, many expressing profound gratitude. “Please, Dr. Sultan, don’t fear anyone,” read one from an Egyptian Christian. “You are a torch of light and a ray of hope.” A Lebanese woman living in Canada wrote, “I have been fighting this fight since I was old enough to understand what was worth fighting for. You make me so proud to be a Middle Eastern woman.”

The New York Times called Wafa Sultan an “international sensation.” Before long, she was giving talks on Muslim extremism at universities, and participating in conferences on Islam in Washington, D.C., and throughout Europe. This past May, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Earlier this summer, Wafa said she was “in hiding” with her family due to threats she still receives daily. Most are via the Internet. “I will be your killer,” reads one e-mail. Another message, left on her answering machine, said, “Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see.” Fiercely protective of her children, Wafa tries to shield her youngest daughter from the menacing messages, though the girl is aware of them.

Wafa has also paid a price within the Muslim community in Los Angeles. Before she became a known activist, she had a busy social life with other Middle Eastern women. Today, few of her old friends remain. “They begged me to stop,” she explains of the women in her circle. Some feared for her life; others reviled her message. Wafa summarizes their reaction this way: “You can’t make any change, so why are you risking your life?”

Her answer is that she is uniquely positioned to reform the culture she came from. She is educated, a gifted writer, a captivating speaker and — unusual for a Muslim reformer — a woman. Most crucially, she has the courage to say things that others are thinking but won’t express.

To be sure, Wafa doesn’t please all of Islam’s would-be reformers. Some feel her brash style is counterproductive. Others challenge her interpretation of Islam. But Wafa makes it clear she isn’t about to stop agitating. She is now focused on a book she’s writing, titled The Escaped Prisoner: When Allah Is a Monster. Asked if she will soften her stance to appeal to a broader audience, she replies, “Not under any circumstances.” After half a lifetime trapped in silence, she has found her voice.

From Reader’s Digest – December 2006

June 14, 2008 at 12:04 am 1 comment

Older Posts