The hearings on 'radical islam' started today and we saw the islamist troll, Keith Ellison, weeping before the cameras. How he must have tugged on all those liberal heart strings that fell for his mussie pity party. I call that the 'crybaby muslim syndrome'. If muslims are so concerned then let the true moderates of islam comes out in droves to show that they refuse and want to show America they are not in bed with the teaching of islam, radical or not. Let them work with our law enforcement agencies to help expose the threats hiding in their mosques, being trained there to commit jihad upon us. My prediction? They will not do any of the above, in fact fewer will work with us in fighting islam. Mark my words; it is islam, all of it from the 7th century to today that is guilty.
There are two excellent articles below. One from Amil Imani and the other from Srdja Trifkovic.
Both are outstanding and comprehensive in their coverage on what they are reporting on.
*******************************************************************************
Dear Rep. King: Forget 'Radical' -- Islam is the Culprit
By Amil Imani
Republican Congressman Peter King has strengthened his security in the wake of 'hostile phone calls' and threats from overseas, as he is getting ready to chair a hearing on Islamic radicalization in the United States on Thursday.
The congressman’s hearing on this important issue, though much overdue, is perhaps the first step towards recognizing that Islam is the culprit, not radical Islam. Islam by its mere existence is radical. It is as redundant as double negatives back-to-back. “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it,” said Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Decades ago Marshall McLuhan observed, “The medium is the message.” As the print and electronic media penetrate more and more every aspect of life, their influence increases greatly in shaping the views and behavior of the public. The power of the media is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it can serve to expose injustices, wrongdoings, and flaws. On the other, it is able to propagate misinformation and outright disinformation.
Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The overlords of the media can deceive the public more easily when political correctness is used as subterfuge for promotion of certain ideas.
Meanwhile, the courageous Congressman Peter King said: 'I'm not going to give in to political correctness'
A case in point is the media’s portrayal of Islam, articulated by politicians and pundits—the talking heads on television and radio, as well as the analysts who write for newspapers and magazines. Time and again we hear and read that Islam is a religion of peace, in spite of the fact that Islam has been a religion of violence from its inception to the present. This mantra, “Islam is a religion of peace,” is repeated so often that it has become an indisputable statement of fact in the minds of many.
Even a cursory examination of Islam’s history and Islamic texts conclusively proves the exact opposite. Islam was, and continues to be, a movement of unbridled violence.
Former President George W. Bush along with President Obama on several occasions have repeated the mantra and attributed the horrific violence committed under the banner of Islam to a small band of extremists. Both Presidents’ assertion is either based on ignorance of the facts about Islam or their attempt at political correctness. Perhaps President Bush’s reticence to speak on the true nature of Islam was due to his desire to avoid inflaming the already charged feelings of many about Islam, and President Obama’s appeasing the Muslim world is another story. In any event, truth is sacrificed and the public continues to cling to the false notion that Islam is a peaceful religion. People who dare to disclose the true nature of Islam run the risk of being castigated as bigots and hatemongers.
Surrounded by a noticeably heavier security presence, Congressman King told CBS 2: 'I’m getting a lot of hostile phone calls now, but the main threats I’m getting are from overseas.' What more one can expect from “the religion peace?”
The pundits, the analysts and the politicians are doing a great disservice to the public, each segment for its own expedient reasons, by parroting the mantra regarding the peaceful nature of Islam. As a matter of fact, the so-called small band of Islamic extremists is the true face of Islam. Admittedly, from time to time and place to place, Muslims have shown a degree of tolerance for the non-Muslims. This tolerance dates back to the very early years of Muhammad himself. Early on, Muhammad was meek and proclaimed, “For you, your religion, and for me, my religion.” This assertion lasted but a few years until Muhammad’s movement gathered strength and Islam became the only alternative to death or heavy taxation. The imposition of ‘jizya’ was a clever ploy for filling the Islamic coffer to support its armies and to finance its further conquests.
The liberal media and pundits engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits them. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of this group. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the liberal media and politicians who sanitize Islam and misguide the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion and that this main body is non-political and moderate.
Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.
We must recognize that Islam is political to the core. In Islam, the mosque and State are one and the same—the mosque is the State. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well deserve being maltreated compared to believers.
While I salute Congressman Peter King for having the courage to discuss the issue of Islamic radicalization in the U.S, I warn my fellow Americans: Remain a spectator at your own peril! It is imperative that you take a stand and do your part in pointing out that Islam is the culprit and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized way of life and our republic.
Original article is here from American Thinker
-----------------------------------
The King Hearings: Necessary in Principle, Unlikely To Provide Answers in Practice
by Srdja Trifkovic
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, started his congressional hearing on Islamic radicalization Thursday amidst accusations of “Islamophobia” from the Sharia activists and expressions of distaste from most Democrats. In his opening statement King cited recent terror plots against the United States to justify his decision and suggested the hearings could help fulfill the committee’s duty to “protect America from a terrorist attack” by examining the cause of those plots.
On the first day a heart-warming echo of Marx (Groucho, not Karl) came in the convoluted syllogism of Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., ranking Democrat on the Committee, who warned King that extremists could exploit the hearing for “propaganda” to inspire a “new generation of suicide bombers.” Since even discussing Muslim extremism breeds more Muslim extremism, the subject of Muslim extremism should be left undiscussed so as to make us safer from Muslim extremism.
A touch of farce was provided by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.—a practicing Muslim—who accused King of „stereotyping and scapegoating“ and then burst into tears as he described the work of a Muslim-American paramedic who lost his life on 9-11. Mr. Ellison evidently does not expect to go broke underestimating the taste of the American public. He is right.
In a normal country the King hearings would have taken place years ago, and they would have focused on the key issues of the Islamic Weltanschauung and its practical manifestations over the past 14 centuries. It is to be feared that the hearings will do no such thing.
“Recent terror plots” notwithstanding, for the time being America is still in far better shape than Europe. It would be dangerous to assume that this is so because Muslims have better assimilated into American culture. It would be an even greater folly to hope that America’s economic, political and cultural institutions will act as a powerful source of self-identification that breeds personal loyalty and commitment to the host-society that is so evidently absent among the Muslims in Europe. In fact there is ample evidence that Muslims in America share the attitudes and aspirations of their European coreligionists.
Some opponents of King’s hearings claim that Muslims are much better integrated in the United States than they are in Europe. This supposedly proves that America is doing a good job of assimilating them, and therefore “stigmatization” supposedly resulting from the hearings will bring more harm than good. This is not true. That things are not as bad in America as they are in France, Britain or Benelux is due to three factors.
First of all, Muslims do not account for much more than one percent of the population of the United States, in contrast to Western Europe where their share of the population is up to ten times greater. They like to pretend otherwise, of course, and groups such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American Muslim Council (AMC) et al routinely assert that there are between 5 and 9 million Muslims in the United States. It is remarkable that these sources do not provide any empirically verifiable basis for their figures. Impartial studies currently place their number at between 2 and 4 million.
The second difference is in the fact that Muslim enclaves in Europe are ethnically more homogenous. Most Muslims in France, Spain and Belgium came from Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco. In Germany and Austria they are mostly Turks. In Britain they are overwhelmingly from the Indian Subcontinent. Their group cohesiveness based on Islam is additionally reinforced by the bonds of ethnic, cultural and linguistic kinship. In the United States, by contrast, neither Arabs nor Subcontinentals enjoy similar dominance within the Muslim community, which is therefore not equally monolithic and thus not equally aggressive.
Last but not least, there are proportionately fewer U.S. citizens among Muslims in America. In France and Britain, most Muslims are citizens of those countries and feel free to act assertively (or even criminally) without any fear of deportation. The attitudes of Muslims coming to the United States also tend to change once their status in America is secure. When applying for admission or asylum, however, and while awaiting green cards, they are careful. As permanent residents they continue to refrain from statements and acts that may make them excludable under current laws. But as soon as they gain citizenship, many of them soon rediscover the virtues of sharia—and some start longing to do their bit in the path of Allah.
The trouble with King is that he, too, believes that your average Muslim is as Americanisable as any Tom, Dick, or Harry, and that the problem exists only in a small, unrepresentative fringe. It is patronizing, racist even, to expect that Muslim immigrants coming to the United States will suddenly become tabulae rasae and discard various political and cultural convictions shared by their compatriots back home. As it happens, the image of America in the Muslim world is far more negative than that of any European country: four-fifths of our Turkish and Pakistani “allies” and newly-democratized Egyptians loath America. Only slightly lower percentages of Muslims all over the world believe that suicide bombings can be justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.
Rep. King’s panel should be told—but it will not be told—that this baggage comes to America with the Muslim immigrants and that it is transmitted to their American-born children. In a survey of newly naturalized citizens, 90 percent of Muslim immigrants admitted that if there were a conflict between the United States and their country of origin, they would be inclined to support their country of origin. In Detroit over 80 percent of Muslims “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” that Shari’a should be the law of the land.
It is an even bet that after the hearings we’ll see many more variations on a familiar theme which runs as this: some members of a Muslim community somewhere in the United States are arrested and accused of terrorist links or plans. Local Muslims respond with a mix of indignation and denial, with the assurances of the suspects’ impeccable character, and accusations of anti-Muslim bias. Non-Muslim civic leaders then respond by reassuring the Muslim community that it is loved and appreciated and by calling on their fellow-citizens to be warm and supportive to their Muslim neighbors. The media report heart-rendering stories of the Muslim sense of sadness, rejection and alienation. The “experts” say that the magnitude of the threat is exaggerated. And Muslim activists and “community leaders” scream “Islamophobia,” of course.
Of course, if the plot is carried to fruition the politicians wonder and will continue to wonder what made him (them) do it. Was Major Nidal Hasan just stressed out or victimized by discrimination? Were all those “Kosovar” Albanians plotting attacks on Ft. Dix or murdering U.S. servicemen in Frankfurt really crying for help, having been traumatized by Serb brutality? To profess ignorance of “why it happened” after “it” happens, and to pretend that the answer is not contained in the culprit’s name and self-professed beliefs, is a strange form of fanaticism, as deadly in its consequences as any sleeper cell in New Jersey.
King should be told, but won’t, that in any group of 1,000 Muslim immigrants whose lives are centered on a mosque two things can be predicted with near-certainty. The first is that a sizable percentage—around a quarter—will sympathize with the motives of Al-Qaeda and its ilk, if not with their methods. The second is that some smaller percentage of that group—not more than one-in-ten, no fewer than one-in-twenty—especially among the Western-born young, will support those methods as well, and be potentially willing to apply them in practice.
The sense of hostile detachment from any recognizably American identity and values that breeds terrorist intent is not confined to any single group of Muslims. In Britain the people who raged against Rushdie included bankers and property developers as well as halal butchers and factory workers. In America, too, it transcends class and affects students, doctors, criminals, soldiers and arty bohemians equally. The problem is not limited to those Muslims who come to the United States as adults either.
The same sentiment of hostile detachment can be found among many American-born converts to Islam, both white and black. The tone was set in 1996 by Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, an NBA player, who refused to obey the League’s demand that players stand in a “dignified posture” when the national anthem is played. Beginning with the 1995-96 season, the 27-year-old former Baptist from Mississippi who had converted to Islam five years earlier had remained seated during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner. He declared that as a Muslim he could not pay homage to the American flag—which he called a “symbol of oppression, of tyranny.” He argued further that the flag directly contradicted his Islamic faith.
Mr. King’s hearings will answer nothing and resolve nothing, because they operate within an ideological paradigm within which it is inadmissible that a serious Muslim believer who comes to the United States cannot be “absolutely and entirely” loyal to the United States by definition. The basis of the social and legal order and source of all obligation in Islam is the Kuran, the final revelation of Allah’s will that is to be obeyed by all creation. His divine sovereignty is irreconcilable with popular sovereignty, the keystone of democracy. Politics is not “part of Islam,” as this would imply that, in origin, it is a distinctly separate sphere of existence that is then eventually amalgamated with Islam. Politics is the intrinsic core of the Islamic imperative of Allah’s sovereignty.
The result of that imperative is that among some three million Muslims in the United States of America there are sufficient numbers of terrorist sympathizers and active human assets to justify expenditure of over $300 billion annually in direct and indirect homeland security costs, excluding military operations abroad. That money would not need to be spent if America had been prudent enough to devise a sane immigration policy back in the days of Lyndon Johnson. The tangible cost of the presence of a Muslim man, woman and child to the American taxpayer is at least $100,000 each year. The cost of the general unpleasantness associated with the terrorist threat and its impact on the quality of our lives is, of course, incalculable.
I confidently expect that on the key issue of the message and record of Islam the hearings will have nothing to say. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if they touch the fundamentals of immigration policy, which is essential to understanding the problem of terrorism. The terms of the debate, as currently structured, reject the notion that religious faith can be a prime motivating factor in human affairs. Having reduced religion, literature and art to “narratives” and “metaphors” which merely reflect prejudices based on the distribution of power, the elite class treats the jihadist mindset as a curable idiosyncrasy.
Far from discriminating or stigmatizing anyone, my prediction is that Rep. King will conclude that the potential terrorists here in America are decent but misguided or else mistreated people who will change their ways if we are more determined to reach out to them. He will not say so, but other will conclude, that we need more prayer-rooms at colleges and workplaces, more pork-free menus in schools and jails, more welfare, public housing, and taxpayer subsidies for Islamic social and cultural societies. The belief that the problem can be legislated away or neutralized with public money goes hand-in-hand the elite class’s evident fear of an anti-Muslim backlash among the majority host-population.
Ignorant of Islam’s tenets and history, as the threat grows more onerous by the day, the elite class insists ever more stridently that counter-terrorist policies must not be pursued at the expense of liberal values since any alternative would “play into the hands of terrorists.” Which brings us back to Rep. Bennie Thompson and his warning that extremists could exploit the hearing for “propaganda” to inspire a “new generation of suicide bombers.” Dixit.
Hat tip: Gates Of Vienna
0 Comments - Share Yours!:
Post a Comment