Danish Solidarity

So here is the item that inspired me to start writing again. The link goes to Captain's Quarters, one of my favourite sources of information and dialogue on contemporary issues. The issue in this place is the plot to murder Kurt Westergaard, the author of the cartoon at the right. As reported by CNN, Danish papers have demonstrated solidarity with Westergaard and Jyllands-Posten over the fundamental Western Rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.

I can't think of anything more important than this issue and the need to defend our society against the constant attacks on the fabric of Western society by the minions of Islamofascism. It will not stop until the world has submitted to the harsh Salafist interpretation of Sharia law. Live and let live is not an option. I have supported this since I first read about the animal furor that occurred in response to the cartoons (see the marker at the sidebar), I use Danish products when I can, and I push the issue whenever I can. I strongly recommend that anyone who values our Western way of life do the same and that anyone who has a forum to do so links to the Captain's Quarters post linked in this title or to the Michelle Malkin post here.

This really is worth everything that we stand for. Watch in the near future for posts about the Canadian shame at the Alberta Human Rights Commission where Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard, is defending his right to Free Speech after publishing the Danish Cartoons in the WS.

Spain cathedral shuns Muslim plea

I was looking over some letters I have written in the last few months about the double standard by which the Dar al-Islam and the West are judged. While conversion to Islam is encouraged of South Korean Christian prisoners of the Tabiban as they wait to be murdered and an Egyptian former Christian is denied permission to convert back to his original faith. Christians and Jews - in fact all non-Islamic religions - are forbidden to build places of worship in Saudi Arabia. Muslim authorities routinely deny that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is a Jewish Holy site, seeming to claim that it came into existance with the onset of Islam or that the kings, prophets, and patriarchs of the bible were Muslim.


Within this environment the BBC lambasts the Roman Catholic bishop of Cordoba in southern Spain for the religious insensitivity of his rejection of an appeal from Muslims for the right to pray in the city's cathedral, a former mosque.


The BBC discussed at length the request of Spain's Islamic Board to share the Mezquita, the Cathedral in Cordoba, as "an ecumenical temple where believers from all faiths could worship". While this might seem to be a reasonable request to someone who does not consider the worship of a different religion within the confines of a Catholic Cathedral to be a desecration it should be considered within context, which the BBC story does not provide.
While the the short article noted three times, the history of the Cathedral as a former mosque, it doesn't mention even once the name of the Cathedral, officially the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin.


Nor did the story address the Islamic practice after conquest of desecrating existing religious sites and replacing them with mosques. Such notable examples are the Tejo Mahalaya, a hindu temple-palace which is now known as the Taj Mahal, the most holy site in Judaism which is the site of the Temple of Solomon but is now the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the Visigothic cathedral of St. Vincent which was razed to build the Aljama Mosque - the very site of this story.


Most interestingly, the Aljama Mosque episode began with a determination by Tariq ibn-Ziyad, who occupied Cordoba in 711, that the Cathedral would be used as a shared place of worship. This was eventually determined to no longer be acceptable, the Christian portion was expropriated and St. Stephen's was destroyed.


Within the context of history the hesitation of the Bishop of Cordoba is understandable.

Cambridge University Press Offers Its Submission

This is really frightening!


The Cambridge University Press is the oldest publishing and printing house in the world. It received its Royal Charter in 1534 by Henry VIII. Its charter authorizes it to print "all manner of books" and it has been a paragon of academic and intellectual leadership since its inception.


Until now. Now CUP takes its publishing direction from Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz a Saudi billionaire whose charity Muwafaq is designated as "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen" by the US Treasury Department and the Sheikh himself as a "specially designated global terrorist."


How did this come about? CUP published a book, "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the University of California history professor, emeritus Robert O Collins. In the book they detail who has funded the radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, North America. They show who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the last 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet. The book was received with positive critical reviews with even the Globe and Mail calling it "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world."


The problem is partly that the leader of this web is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz who was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government and Sheikh Mahfouz doesn't like his dealings with the enemies of the West being public knowledge. The rest of the problem is that English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff so when Bin Mahfouz' attorney Laurence Harris filed suit in the UK against the UK publishers they capitulated completely. They have pulped all unsold copies of the book and asked libraries to take it off their shelves. They even sent a letter to the Sheikh saying:

"Throughout the Book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.

"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."

This despite the fact that the information was not manifestly false. According to The Terror Finance Blog "'Alms for Jihad' is properly sourced, with hundreds of references. And Burr and Collins provided Cambridge University Press with all their materials on bin Mahfouz' al Qaeda and Hamas financing, contrary to the false statements by both bin Mahfouz' and Cambridge University Press attorneys."


Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld has shown, in her defense of her right to publish "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" that Americans cannot be bullied out of their First Amendment rights by foreign courts. Unfortunately, Cambridge University Press didn't have that protection.

One wonders if Justice David Eady, the judge common to both the "Funding Evil" and "Alms for Jihad" cases, required the publishers at CUP to make the Shahadah. If the British People don't start to take back their rights to publish the truth they will soon be lining up to make an obligitory Shahadah, "I testify that there is no god but Allah..." though, with protectors such as Justice Eady, it might just become implicit to being British.

South Korea "Submits"

I heard the term "root cause" on the radio today with regards to the Taliban abduction and murder of South Korean Christian aid workers and I had to look into what the "root cause" for the situation was. I found the source of the story through Michelle Malkin's August 2, 2007 post.

Sure enough, as reported in the English version of The Chosun Ilbo, it was the US's fault again:

At a meeting of the Uri Party on Wednesday, Rep. Park Chan-suk said, "The root cause of the hostage crisis lies in our dispatch of troops to Afghanistan. While the Koreans are suffering, the U.S. stands firm on the principles. It's irresponsible and it's a betrayal of one of its allies." Uri Chairman Chung Se-kyun said, "The U.S. should not remain a mere bystander."

Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea a quotable pacifist group has labeled "the Bush administration the "main party" responsible for the abduction of 23 Koreans by the Taliban." I think that their reasoning for this was the irresistable pressure that President Bush applied to Bae Hyung-kyu and his group to risk their lives and to go into Afghanistan without telling them:

• that the Taliban don't want the conditions of normal Afghans between Kandahar and Kabul to improve,
• that the road between Kandahar and Kabul is so dangerous that it makes the DMZ between North and South Korea look like the Epcot Centre, and
• that anyone travelling in an Islamist controlled region under the banner of Christianity is considered to be a proselytizer and is subject to death.

Wait a minute...the Bush Administration didn't send these people there any more than than they sent the Christian Peacekeeper Teams there. They are just expected to pull their asses out of the fire when everything goes pearshaped on them. I'm not just ranting about this! The same group said, "On Wednesday, the group in a press conference threatened a "massive" candlelight rally unless the U.S. starts negotiations with the Taliban immediately."Fortunately, the families of the captured Aid Workers have not bought into the rhetoric:

Lee Jeong-hoon, a representative of the families, said on Thursday, "Since an anti-American demonstration could have a negative influence on the negotiations for the release of the hostages, we have made efforts to avoid being involved in any such demonstrations." "An anti-American movement could be what the Taliban want," Lee said. "We rejected suggestions by some anti-American groups to hold a candlelight vigil and march to the U.S. Embassy in Korea."

Yes!! That is exactly what the protests for disengagement from Afghanistan are doing. Dealing with them as real people legitimizes them and makes them stronger. It emboldens them to go into schools and kill little girls for being out of their homes and it ensures that this "hostage crisis" will happen again. Meanwhile the Korean government has engaged in a remarkable round of moral equivalence:

Korean hostage negotiators have agreed to direct talks with Taliban kidnappers in Afghanistan, a purported spokesman for the Islamists militants told DPA Thursday. The news agency quoted Qari Yousuf Ahmadi as saying Korean Ambassador to Afghanistan Kang Sung-ju spoke directly by phone with his Taliban counterpart.

His Taliban counterpart??!! Is Kang Sung-ju a murderous terrorist? That is the only counterpart that the Taliban have in the real world. How can they even say that? This is what Lee Jeong-hoon was talking about. Every inch that these people are given emboldens them to take the next. Their stated goal is to bring their version of Sharia law to the world and they use every concession received as a launching pad to the next while treating every concession given as a temporary tactical retreat. It is an eternal struggle for them to force the Submission of everyone to the authority of Islam.

Every time an atrocity is not met with overwhelming force it rewards them with another inch. Al Quaeda has already taken over foreign policy for Spain when they were elected to that office as a result of the 2004 Madrid train bombings. They now seem poised to take over that position in South Korea. How is it that countries can rail on about the evil USA dictating foreign policy to them and then jump onto the Islamist bandwagon as soon as they say "Boo"? Once they cede their foreign policy to Islamofacsists it is a short hop to total "Submission". For Spain this will simply be a re-reconqista but for South Korea it will be something new.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I have a new hero. I have heard for some time and read about a woman, who was born in Somalia and fled to the Netherlands, became an educated writer, outspoken critic of Sharia states and Islamist behaviour in the west. She has lived under threats of death from Islamist authorities and extremists since her picture "Submission" came out in 2005. As a result of this ten minute video her partner in the production, Theo van Gogh, was brutally murdered and a death threat pinned to his chest with the knife used to butcher him.

This is a woman who has been through extreme hardship since childhood and suffered severely under the laws and traditions of Islam. For the audacity of proclaiming herself a free woman and criticizing such Islamic practices as she has survived she is branded an apostate who must be killed.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali became known to me in more than a passing sense during an interview with Avi Lewis on his programme "On the Map". Avi Lewis has not lived a life of hardship. He is a spoiled and pampered, and apparently relatively uneducated, child of Leftist globetrotter Stephen Lewis and journalist Michele Landsberg. I say that he is relatively uneducated because the most detailed bio I could find stops the narrative of his education by saying that he attended Upper Canada College. In other words, he went to High School.

Lewis' treatment of this heroic woman was childish and embarassing to anyone whose taxes are wasted on a government broadcaster that would field this trash. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's responses, on the other hand, were even and dignified. This enraged Lewis to the point he started speaking in tongues. By calm responses to Lewis' attacks she exposed him as the idiot he is and destroyed the cliché Leftist fare that he spewed. The Left's showpiece came to a gunfight armed with a knife.

Click "Play" below and enjoy the show.

Separation of Church and State as a State Religion

Sheema Khan, in her column in the Globe and Mail 12 November 2005, laments the de-institutionalization of faith-based arbitration as a condescension from liberal do-gooders refusing to permit Muslims to choose to use this or a civil family court.[1] She phrases her argument as a freedom of religion issue in the same manner as the French ban on the display of religions symbols in state schools in the name of separation of church and state.

The term "Separation of Church and State" has been widely mis-defined in this sense. The French have decided that the principle demands that Muslim girls should not be able to wear the hijab in school (thus limiting the access to state schools for Muslim girls whose faith demands its use). It should be noted that the same law prohibits the visible wearing of the Cross for Christians and of the yarmulke for Jewish men. They have pushed an important enlightenment idea into enforcement of a state atheist "religion".

The dissolution of faith-based arbitration as a tool of the courts was not a similar action. There is no ban on the use of clerical arbitration in any civil dispute. They simply do not, and should not, have the force of law. A person's faith is a matter of his or her own heart. When it acquires the ability of coercion that belongs to the state for the maintenance of order then it becomes a matter of someone else's heart. There is no freedom of religion in that. That is a move away from the secular nature of Western Governance and toward the theocratic nature of a Sharia based society, the goal of the Wahhabi schools of Saudi Arabia who are already the majority funding sources in Islamic Schools in the West.[2]

[1]Sheema Khan's Column in The Globe and Mail 12 November 2005
[2]The Wahhabi Invasion of America

The Source of Islamofascist Hate

Reported in Captain's Quarters, Kevin Brock, the Deputy Director of the new National Counterterrorism Center, told the AP that he doesn't believe the invasion and war in Iraq can be blamed for the threat reports that come into his center each day.

The idea that Al Qaeda and the rest of the Islamofascists hate the US because of the invasion of Iraq or the invasion, for that matter, of Afghanistan is ludicrous. They hated us enough to hit the World Trade Centre twice (the second time successfully) and American targets around the world long before Afghanistan or Iraq happened. It is silly that Brock still even has to say this.

As General Rick Hillier the Canadian Chief of the Defense Staff, has said, "These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties." They would reduce our society to rubble simply because they can't control it.

That is why they set up in Afghanistan. At the beginning of the war against the Taliban Afghanistan had a political structure virtually identical to eleventh century Europe - a high level of anarchy where the biggest bully called the shots. If they could erode the confidence of the West in their governments and reduce our society to that level of anarchy they would happily stroll in and impose their barbaric Wahabi form of law. God help us if we should lose this struggle.

Taliban Afghanistan was rough but it would pale in comparison to what we would face here once humbled by the likes of bin Laden and Zarqawi.

Islamic Responsibility

Islam as a peaceful religion? Certainly there is a lot of peace taught in the Quaran and I believe that most Muslims are peace loving people who just want to live in peace and harmony with the non-Muslim world. It is also true, however, that the Prophet slaughtered an entire tribe of Jews near Medina before he Conquered Mecca - without a fight because of his demonstration of ruthlessness. It is also true that most of the terrorists currently active in the world proclaim a bastardization of Islam.

A lot of regular Muslims have called for the death of Danish cartoonists in some sort of Islamic Justice because they have "blasphemed" Islam. These are the same people who would blaspheme Christianity's central tenet of the Trinity without trying for a moment to understand it. This is the same people who descrated the most sacred place in Judaism - the Temple Mount - by building a mosque over it. Read what the Bible and see what God (Yahweh) thinks of other religions building altars on his sacred sites. This is the same people who similarly descrated Hindu temples in India by building mosques over their levelled foundations. Muslims have nothing to say about others "blaspheming" their faith.

With respect to World War II, have you ever heard of Haj Amin al-Husseini? He was the Grand Muffi of Jerusalem. He spent much of the war in Berlin as an honoured guest of the Third Reich where he had a significant part in the development of the "Final Solution" - all for the right of Palestinian Muslims to take care of the "Jewish Problem" in Palestine themselves. He developed Palestinian Nazi units for the Balkans and the Yugoslavs wanted him prosecuted for war crimes after the war but, because of his immense popularity in the Middle East they were denied. Middle Eastern Muslims were significant collaborators and partners in the Holocost and, as such, bear as much responsibility for their history as anyone in Europe.

The Holocost was not a European event separate and apart from a peaceful world of the Prophet. It is time that Islamic apologists own up to that and quit spouting lies that place themselves on a pedestal they don't deserve. Only after that - not the abandonment of Israel by the West - will there be a peaceful co-existance. I am not, however, holding my breath waiting for this mass weaning of from the addiction to self-righteousness.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/616