Views From Kennewick

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Schools told to dump Churchill and Hitler from history lessons


Wartime hero: Winston Churchill

Secondary schools will strip back the traditional curriculum in favour of lessons on debt management, the environment and healthy eating, ministers revealed.

Even Winston Churchill no longer merits a mention after a drastic slimming-down of the syllabus to create more space for "modern" issues.

Along with Hitler, Gandhi, Stalin and Martin Luther King, the former prime minister has been dropped from a list of key figures to be mentioned in history teaching.

This means pupils may no longer hear about his stirring speeches during the Second World War, when he told Parliament that defeating Hitler would be Britain's "finest hour".

The only individuals now named in guidance accompanying the curriculum are anti-slavery campaigners Olaudah Equiano and William Wilberforce.

The omission of Churchill added to a growing row over Labour reforms to secondary education - the most radical since the national curriculum was introduced in 1988.

Critics warned traditional subject disciplines were being stripped of key content and used to promote fashionable causes and poorly-defined "life skills".

They said that while the two World Wars remain on the curriculum as broad topics the failure to specify teaching on Churchill - while naming other individuals - downgraded his importance.

The move was called "madness" by his grandson Nicholas Soames, the Tory MP.

"It is absurd. I expect he wasn't New Labour enough for them," he said.

Tory spokesman on children Michael Gove added: "Winston Churchill is the towering figure of twentieth century British history.

"His fight against fascism was Britain's finest hour. Our national story can't be told without Churchill at the centre."

Schools are also being told to tear up the timetable of eight lessons a day and introduce classes lasting a few minutes - or several hours - by mixing different subjects together.

Five-minute lessons on spelling, French or German could be "drip-fed" throughout the day.

The architect of the new curriculum, Dr Ken Boston, insisted traditional approaches had been "exhausted".

The slimline regime is being introduced amid concerns that teachers do not have enough time to ensure youngsters master the three Rs.

Article Link Here

Friday, July 13, 2007

Report: Al-Qaida bakes little boys
Iraqi official provides account of atrocity to embedded writer

Posted: July 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007

A reporter embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq reports a government official has recounted a new atrocity by al-Qaida: several instances in which terrorists baked a young boy, then invited his family to lunch with the victim as the main course.

The report is from Michael Yon, a Special Forces soldier who returned to Iraq to report on the successes there, inspired, he told radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, by a "news cycle that seems to pander toward the terrorists."

Yon was in Baqubah listening to the statements of an Iraqi official who asked that his name not be reported. Yon said the Iraqi told him al-Qaida arrived in Baqubah and united a number of criminal gangs, leaving death and destruction behind.

(Story continues below)

"Speaking through an American interpreter, Lt. David Wallach, who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al-Qaida united these gangs who then became absorbed into 'al-Qaida.' They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al-Qaida. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people," said Yon's dispatch, "Bless the Beasts and Children."

"At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al-Qaida directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al-Qaida invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old," Yon continued.

"As Lt. David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, 'What did he say?' Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al-Qaida served the boy to his family."

'Nobody lifted a finger'

In an exchange of e-mails with WND, since Yon was reporting this week from a region with no telephone signal, he confirmed his report.

He was in Buqubah for several reasons.

"One of those reasons was that AP had just reported a massacre as fact which turned out to be fallacy. Secondly, this mass murder I described in 'Bless the Beasts and Children' occurred only about 3.5 miles from where I am writing to you tonight. There were reporters here during that time, including from AP, and AP also had a stringer here. (Meaning they had two.) The 'massacre' that turned out to be a farce but was reported by AP happened just days before my report of a real massacre, but AP and others simply ignored despite having assets only minutes away," he said.

"I gave the name of the village, grid coordinates, photos and posted video, and published names of Iraqi and American officials who were very easy to reach. Nobody lifted a finger. This upset a lot of people at home, and rightfully so. I was here with hard evidence – photos, video, grid coordinates and plenty of witnesses, yet flatline from MSM," he told WND.

But he stayed in the area, asking questions.

"That's when one Iraqi official mentioned the baking," Yon said, a report he said later was confirmed for him by other Iraqi sources.

"Perhaps it's urban legend. I have no idea. But my reporting was spot on. … I quoted someone and offered zero opinion," Yon, whose work is financed directly by his readers, told WND.

He said while he did not witness this, there have been myriad other atrocities.

"I have not just heard about them, I have seen them," he told WND.

Yon said in another dispatch he witnessed the excavation of the heads of decapitated children.

"There is no imaginary line of credulity that al-Qaida might cross should it go from beheading children to baking them," he wrote.

He added: "Al-Qaida: the organization that gleefully bragged about murdering roughly 3,000 people by smashing jets full of civilians into buildings and earth. Al-Qaida in Iraq: who proudly broadcast their penchant for sawing off the heads of living breathing people, and in such a manner as to ensure lots of spurting blood and gurgles of final pain, in some cases with the added flourish of the executioner raising up the severed head and squealing excitedly."

"People at home might find it incredible, improbable, even impossible. Yet here in combat with al-Qaida, the idea is no more improbable-sounding than someone saying 'The chicken crossed the road.' Maybe the chicken crossed the road. Maybe not. The veterans I've been talking with here have no difficulty imagining the chicken crossing the road, or al-Qaida roasting kids. Sickening, yes. Improbable, no," he said.

"One clear indicator of just how bad a terrorist group is, is when battle-hardened soldiers – and writers like me who travel with them – don't find it hard to believe a story which purports that al-Qaida had baked a child and set his roasted body out as the main course at a lunch for his parents," he said.

A comment on Yon's website from "James" suggested the description "barbarians" should apply.

"The moral equivalency argument needs to be crushed. We detain someone without due process and AQI bakes a child and feeds him to his family. Yet many people in the West are saying, 'We're no better.'"

'Report wouldn't surprise me'

A group with far more knowledge about torture and atrocities than it would prefer is Washington, D.C.-based International Christian Concern.

Policy analyst Jeremy Sewall told WND the report is "pretty extreme."

But he also said with the documentation of various other tortures, "Your report wouldn't surprise me."

"I'm just thinking of a report about two Muslims who approached a Christian boy at work at a mechanic's shop. They said, 'Are you a Christian.' He said, "Yes.' And they beheaded him on the spot," Sewall said.

He also cited the recently confirmed report from Turkey, where Muslims martyred three Christians in an attack described as "gruesome."

In that case, "various body parts were chopped off," he confirmed. "It was terrible."

Necati Aydin, Tilman Geske and Ugur Yuksel, (L to R) who were martyred by Muslims in Turkey

As WND reported, Tilman Geske, a German citizen, and two Turkish Christians were martyred – allegedly by five Muslims who met the three victims at a Christian publishing company for a Bible study, according to Voice of the Martyrs.

The report said Geske, 46, Pastor Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel were killed with hundreds of stab wounds, and "they were disemboweled and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes."

Five Big Lies Muslims Tell

By Stan Goodenough July 7, 2007

First of all, their Quran does not mention Jerusalem even once, meaning their claim to Israel?s capital as their “third holiest” city is fraudulent and aimed at stealing the city from the Jews.

Secondly they adamantly assert that the “Palestinians” comprise a nation — although they have no national history — and that Israel has to give Judea, Samaria and Gaza “back” to these “Palestinians” — although those lands have never been under Muslim rule.

Thirdly, they claim the Jews occupy Arab lands, when in fact the Arabs are the occupiers in the Middle East — they belong in Arabia and have no right to Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Lebanon. Judea, Samaria and Gaza is not Israeli-occupied territory but Arab-occupied territory.

Fourthly, they proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace, when Islam was established by the edge of the sword; when Muslims are involved in almost every war on the planet; and when Muslims introduced terrorism as we know it today to the world, and are responsible for almost all terrorist attacks in the world.

Fifthly, they repeat ad nauseum that they want to live in peace with Israel when an overwhelming mountain of both factual and circumstantial evidence proves that their unaltered aim and goal is to destroy the Jewish state.

This was the thrust of blistering remarks made by one of the few Jewish leaders still courageous enough to withstand the flood of lies about the Arab-Israeli conflict that have been swallowed and championed as facts.

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton Klein assailed these core myths upon which the whole “Middle East Peace Process” is predicated in a speech in a Canadian synagogue.

According to a report in The Canadian Jewish News Friday, he also slammed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert?s willingness to even consider the Saudi Arabian “peace” plan that sees the Jews returned to the 1967 “Auschwitz borders.”

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Women under Islam: Female genital mutilation

Globally, 130 million women and girls are said to have been 'circumcised'. As a cultural practice, FGM has probably been in existence for thousands of years.

Much has been written on the so-called "circumcising" of women, more appropriately called female genital mutilation or FGM. Globally, 130 million women and girls are said to have been "circumcised". As a cultural practice, FGM has probably been in existence for thousands of years. It has traditionally happened across Equatorial Africa, yet in the East and Horn of Africa it appears more widespread, probably as a result of Islamic influence.

In Yemen and Saudi Arabia the custom takes place, but in the Saudi kingdom it is only common in the south of the kingdom. In the United Arab Emirates FGM is not illegal, though public hospitals are forbidden from carrying out the procedure. It was primarily a custom of Somali, Omani, and Sudanese expatriates. However, there have been stories of European Muslims been sent to private clinics in UAE to have the operation. A study from the mid-1990s found that 30.8 percent of girls between the ages of 1 and 5 had undergone FGM.

In Egypt, at least 90% of women are believed to have undergone FGM. In 2005, a report by UNICEF had claimed that 97% of Egyptian women aged 15-49 had undergone the operation. Here, the issue has been a source of controversy. A CNN broadcast from 1994, in which a 10-year old girl in Egypt was shown being "operated upon" by an unskilled practitioner, caused hostile reaction. Egypt sued CNN for $500 million for damaging its reputation, but the case was thrown out by courts.

In 1995, after President Hosni Mubarak announced his intention to ban the practice, he was persuaded to drop prohibitive legislation. The move to ban FGM had been supported by the Dr Mohammed Syed Tantawi, the Mufti of Egypt, but had been fiercely opposed by the Sheikh of Al Azhar University, the largest Sunni theological college. Even a gynecologist from Cairo University, Dr Munir Fawzi, stated: "Female circumcision is entrenched in Islamic life and teaching." However, FGM was banned in general in Egypt in 1996, but was allowed in some circumstances if carried out by a doctor.

In November 2006 an international conference of scholars took place at Al Azhar in Cairo, and the general consensus was that the practice was "un-Islamic". In a final statement, the scholars announced: "The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam's teachings which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being." Finally, on June 28 2007, it was announced that the Egyptian health ministry had banned the medical profession from carrying out FGM, effectively outlawing it universally. On Sunday June 24 the Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa had said that there was no Islamic justification for FGM.

The edict by the Mufti and health ministry had come after an 11-year old girl, Budour Ahmed Shaker, had died after such an operation on June 21. Budour's mother had paid a doctor in Mina, just south of Cairo, $9 to perform the operation. The procedure had gone wrong and the girl died from an overdose of anesthetic.

There is one Hadith in the collection of Sunan Abu Dawud which claims that Mohammed approved of the practice for girls. Book 41 (Kitab Al-Adab or "General Behavior"), Hadith 5251 states:
Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah:
A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

Though Sunan Abu Dawud is not regarded as "sahih" or "authentic" in the manner of the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim, the above Hadith is often quoted by Islamic scholars as a justification for FGM. The "spiritual leader" of the Muslim Brotherhood is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He has stated: "It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: 'Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands'. The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It's noteworthy that the Prophet's saying 'do not exceed the limit' means do not totally remove the clitoris... Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world."

The World Health Organization has long campaigned for FGM to be abolished. Three "types" of FGM are described. The method approved of by Qaradawi is Type 1: "Excision (removal) of the clitoral hood with or without removal of all or part of the clitoris." Type 2 is "Excision of the clitoris, together with part or all of the labia minora (the inner vaginal lips). This is the most widely practised form." Type 3 (sometimes called infibulation) is extreme: "Excision of part or all of the external genitalia (clitoris, labia minora and labia majora), and stitching or narrowing of the vaginal opening, leaving a very small opening, about the size of a matchstick, to allow for the flow of urine and menstrual blood. Also known as pharaonic circumcision." There is a Type 4, which refers to pricking, stretching or cauterizing. Type 4 rarely happens in Muslim communities.

In Somalia, the types of FGM most commonly employed are Type 1 and Type 3. The latter method is extremely dangerous. The woman is bound for a period of up to 40 days for scar tissue to form, increasing the risk of infection. It also increases the risks when a woman becomes pregnant. The US State Department quotes a 1999 study which found that in Somaliland (north west Somalia), 91% of women had undergone Type 3, and 9% had undergone Type 1 FGM. In many parts of the nation, people believed the custom to be a religious obligation.

In Yemen, a 1999 study found that in the coastal region, 69% of women had undergone some form of FGM. Overall, the figure for FGM was around 23% of women aged 15-49. In outlying areas, the prevalence of FGM rises to 40%. Surprisingly, FGM was more common amongst educated women than the illiterate, though most girls were subjected to FGM during infancy. Only 9% of those who had been operated upon had the procedure performed by a doctor. The US State Department maintains that in Yemen most FGM is of the Type 2 variety, with Type 3 happening mainly amongst East African immigrant communities. The State Department quotes studies which claim that the Shafi'i sect demands FGM, and the Sunnis regard it as optional. One third of respondents to a 1997 survey claimed the custom was compulsory on cultural or religious grounds.

FGM occurs in south Jordan and Iraq. In the rural area of Germian, in Kurdish Iraq, a study found that more than 60% of women had undergone FGM. There is circumstantial evidence that FGM occurs in Syria, and suspicions that it also happens in Iran. It does not occur in Afghanistan, nor is it a practice in North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Libya). The Bohra Muslims who live in Pakistan and parts of Gujarat in India do practice FGM. The Bohra are mostly Hindu in origin, who became converts to an Islamaili subsect of Shia Islam. A Bohra woman wrote: "I was circumcised when very young. I do not remember at what age. But I do recall the incident. My mother took me to the house of a woman in our Bohra mohalla. Except for the lady, no one was at home. I was told to lie down on my back on the floor and spread my legs. It hurt me bad and brought tears to my eyes. The whole thing was over in a matter of minutes."

There have been moves by many countries to outlaw FGM and to educate people of its dangers. However, in the West, where immigrants and refugees have settled, some have imported with them the problem of FGM. Many Western countries have introduced legislation to combat the practice. In France, where most victims of FGm come from Africa, a fine of 150,000 Euros ($203,911) and a 10 year jail term can be imposed for FGM against an adult, with a 20 year jail term for FGM against a minor under 15.

In Australia, six out of eight states have outlawed FGM. In the United States, FGM was banned under Federal Law in 1996 and between 1994 and 2006 it was also outlawed under State Law in 17 states. Britain outlawed FGM in 1985. Sweden outlawed FGM in 1982, but it soon became obvious that some migrants were taking their girl children abroad to have the procedure. As a result, a new law was imposed in 1998 to ban trafficking of girls outside of Sweden to undergo FGM.

In June 2006, 41-year old Ali Elmi Hayow became the first person to be convicted under Sweden's FGM laws. Hayow had arrived in Sweden in the 1980s and had gained citizenship. In 2002, when his daughter was 12 years old, he took two of his children to Somalia, where the daughter underwent the surgery. He claimed that "other people" had done the operation and denied the charges against him. He had taken the two children to Somalia with, he claimed, their mother's permission. The court was told that he had held his daughter down while she was mutilated.

The District Court at Gothenburg found him guilty of illegally taking the two children abroad, and guilty of arranging for his daughter to be mutilated. Both judgements were passed unanimously. Hayow was further told to pay his daughter 300,000 kronor ($41,000) in compensation, though she had demanded 650,000 kronor ($88,818). The judge said that the daughter had been a "credible" witness.

The issue of FGM has become political in Sweden and Norway. Nyamko Sabuni became Sweden's first black minister in October 2006. She was the country's integration minister. Ms Sabuni had previously argued against girls under 15 wearing the Muslim headscarf, she opposed honor killings, and suggested that all girls should undergo compulsory checks to ensure they had not been subjected to FGM. Muslim commentator Kurdo Baksi said: "I am very disappointed that a person whom I consider to be an Islamophobe has been appointed integration minister. It is a very poor start to a centre-right government's integration policy."

Norway outlawed FGM in 1995. In 2000, Kadra, a brave woman of Somali origins used a hidden camera to expose the way in which imams in Norway were encouraging FGM. This action caused her to be resented by the some members of the Somali community. In April she was beaten senseless by seven or eight Somali men. She said: "I was terrified. While I lay on the pavement they kicked me and screamed that I had trampled on the Koran. Several shouted Allahu akbar (God is great) and also recited from the Koran." Kadra received broken ribs in the attack.

Last week Oslo's largest hospital announced that over the past three years they had assisted 260 women who had suffered physical after-effects of FGM. Sarah Kahsay, a midwife said that young women had been suffering from urinary dysfunction and infections after their vaginal openings were sewn shut in "infibulation" (Type 3 FGM). Mostly the victims came from several Muslim African countries and Northern Iraq, where Kurdish girls as young as 11 or 12 had undergone FGM. Kahsay noted that 90% of referrals were of Somali origin, but her clients had also included young women from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Gambia and Senegal.

One famous Somali-born woman is Ayaan Hirsi Ali who fled to Europe where she became an MP in the Dutch parliament. She had been held down by her legs to undergo Type 2 FGM when she was aged five. She wrote: "I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat." Though Hirsi Ali acknowledges that FGM is not exclusively Muslim, does not happen in all Muslim countries and pre-dates Islam, she writes in her book Infidel that FGM is often "justified in the name of Islam".

Indonesia does not have a culture of FGM, but many of its Islamist leaders have Yemeni and Middle Eastern origins, such as the leading figures in the Front Pembela Islam and the officially disbanded group Lashkar Jihad. This group was founded by Umar Jafar Thalib in 1999. Thalib, who fought alongside bin Laden in Afghanistan, led this group to commit some of the worst atrocities in the religious sectarian conflict known as the Moluccan War. Between 1998 and 2003 this conflict claimed the lives of 9,000 people in the Indonesian islands, most of the victims being Christian.

In 2001, Lashkar Jihad used FGM as a tool in its forced conversion of 3,928 Christians living on six islands in the Moluccas (the Spice Islands). The converts, male and female, were forcibly circumcised without anesthetic. Researchers from Ambon island stated that those who carried out the circumcisions were Muslim clerics. Young girls, pregnant women, and even elderly women up to the age of 70 were forced to endure the procedure. A Christian priest said: "But we have never before seen anything like forced circumcisions in these islands. This is especially terrible for the women. How can they do that? Even Muslim women are not circumcised like this... it is forbidden in Islam."

Violence In The Name Of Allah

Afghanistan may not be one of the countries where FGM is "justified in the name of Islam" but the treatment of young girls is harsh. I have discussed forced marriage and child marriage, as well as honor killings in Afghanistan. One aspect of Islamist ideology in the country is the opposition to the education of young girls. The Taliban, friends of Al Qaeda and supposedly the "fundamental" proponents of Islam have consistently tried to prevent women from being educated.

The word "Taliban" meant "students". They tried to revive the form of Islam practiced in the 7th century. Most Taliban leaders had been educated at Deobandi madrassas, such as the Haqqania seminary in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province. Deobandi teachings accord women second-class status. Deobandis believe that "Women must not mix with men in public. Deoband tradition teaches that men are more intelligent than women and that there is no point in educating girls beyond the age of eight."

The Taliban came to power on September 27, 1996, when they castrated and tortured President Mohammed Najibullah, and hung him from a lamp-post alongside his brother. During their rule, the Department for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice enforced the Taliban decree that women should stay at home and not be in employment. They beat women with sticks, wire cables and hose pipes. Women were forced to wear the burka, which even covers the eyes with a grille of crochet work.

A US State Department report claimed: "In 1977, women comprised over 15% of Afghanistan's highest legislative body. It is estimated that by the early 1990s, 70% of schoolteachers, 50% of government workers and university students, and 40% of doctors in Kabul were women. Afghan women had been active in humanitarian relief organizations until the Taliban imposed severe restrictions on their ability to work."

Forced to live indoors, unable to make an income, with many widowed, the regime of poverty and privation led to women becoming malnourished. As one 35-year old widow said in the State Department report: "The life of Afghan women is so bad. We are locked at home and cannot see the sun."

Confined indoors away from sunlight and starved, many developed osteomalacia, a symptom of rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight and Vitamin D. The condition involves softening of the bone, making it liable to green-stick fractures. Dr Sima Samar was given the John Humphrey Freedom Award for her work for the human rights of women in Afghanistan. She ran schools and health clinics, and was subjected to death threats from the Taliban. She said at her medical clinic in Kabul in 2001: "Almost every woman I see has osteomalacia. Their bones are softening due to a lack of Vitamin D. They survive on a diet of tea and naan (bread) because they can't afford eggs and milk and, to complicate matters, their burqas and veils deprive them of sunshine. On top of that, depression is endemic here because the future is so dark."

When the US invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 the cruel regime of the Islamofascists in the Taliban came to an end, but their influence has not gone away. They continue to fight coalition forces and the Afghan government, but they also continue to deprive women of education. Those who defy their edicts against educating girls are despatched in revolting fashion.

In November last year, 46-year old Mohammed Halim from Ghazni paid the price for educating girls. He was snatched at night by Taliban members. He was partially disembowelled and then his limbs were tied to motorbikes. As the bikes sped apart, his body was ripped. The remains were publicly displayed as a warning to any who dared to teach girls. Halim was the fourth teacher in succession to be killed in the region. Fatima Mustaq is a woman director of education in Ghazni, and she and her family of eight children were subjected to death threats for educating girls.

On July 23, 2006, Michael Frastacky, a Canadian carpenter from Vancouver, was shot dead in Afghanistan. His crime had been to help build a school in the Nahrin Valley, a remote part of the Hindu Kush, where half the students were girls.

On March 8 2006, on International Women's Day, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said: "From fear of terrorism, from threats of the enemies of Afghanistan, today as we speak, some 100,000 Afghan children who went to school last year, and the year before last, do not go to school."

A 2006 report by Human Rights Watch stated that last year, attacks upon teachers, students and schools increased dramatically, particularly in the southern regions. In January, there were 24 such attacks, in February there were 14, 8 attacks in March, 28 in April, 22 in May and 12 in June. From January to June 2006, the highest number of such attacks took place in Kandahar (36 incidents), followed by Helmand (27), and then Ghazni and Khost with 16 cases each.

A report from Oxfam from November last year paints a gloomy picture for the future of education, particularly for girls, in Afghanistan. More than half of Afghan children of school age - 7 million - do not attend schools. This is in denial of Article 43 (1) of the national Constitution, adopted on July 11, 2006, which states: "Education is the right of all citizens of Afghanistan, which shall be provided up to secondary level, free of charge by the state."

Only one in five girls are able to make their way to primary schools, but only one in 20 girls receive a secondary education. Human Rights Watch and Oxfam agree that the presence of accessible schools is a problem, and where there is access to education, it is often provided by poorly trained teachers working in run-down buildings, often with only one or two rooms. These schools can be in need of repair, and most have no clean drinking water or toilet facilities. Textbooks are few and far between.

Oxfam claimed that 53,000 trained primary school teachers are needed immediately, with a further 64,000 in the next five years. There is a need for more women teachers, as only one in three are female. eachers in Daikundi province in central Afghanistan only receive $38 per month. Sometimes these teachers have to offer bribes, just to receive their wages.

There are 20,000 "ghost" teachers who are paid salaries but do not attend schools. The international community, states Oxfam, must donate $563 million to rebuild 7,800 schools across the country. An additional $210 million is needed to print and distribute textbooks over the next five years. Currently, $125.6 million has been given to Afghan's education sector. The largest donors of these funds are USAID and the World Bank. Coalition military forces in Afghanistan also contribute towards education.

When the Taliban were in power, their behavior towards women was contemptuous. A woman doctor was stopped while traveling without a male escort (mahram) in a taxi. She said: "The Religious Police chased my taxi, and when I got out in front of the hospital, they stopped me and asked why I was traveling alone. I said I was a doctor and had to go to work, but they said women of Kabul are just prostitutes and addicted to traveling in cars alone. I had to call my boss to identify me as an employee of the hospital, but my boss said he could not confirm who it was because I was wearing a chadari. The Taliban asked me to put up my veil, and once my boss identified me, they hit me with their wire on my head and injured my eye. It took fifteen to twenty days to heal."

The Taliban may be seen as extremists, but there are plenty of "devout" Muslims who are still funding their activities. The Taliban experiment, which allowed Osama bin Laden a refuge where his cronies could plot atrocities such as 9/11 and work on chemical weapons and bombs in the Derunta training camp, was designed to be a return to original "Islamic values". Islamists and "devout" Muslims criticize the decadence of the West, but rarely if ever do these same people consider the social abomination that made up the Taliban regime.

All of the worst, most primitive aspects of Islam were exemplified by the Taliban - who were true "fundamentalists". They took to heart the notion that a woman's testimony was worth only half that of a man, and with their Deobandi ideology they even believed women were half as intelligent. They denied women education, health and human rights, and did nothing to prevent the Afghan culture of honor killings and violence against women. They believed in Sura 4:34 which gives a man the right to beat his wife to keep her under control.

Currently we have politicians in both the United States and Britain who are trying to "negotiate" with the Muslim Brotherhood. The true face of the Brotherhood can be found in the Gaza Strip, in the violence of Hamas against their opponents. Although the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood may dress in suits and ties, they are still ideologically primitive and rooted in the sexist tyranny of the 7th century. Their spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi supports Type 1 female genital mutilation, and preaches that it is acceptable to kill Israeli civilians. For Hamas, women are expected to go around veiled, and like women under the Taliban they are denied sunlight. Not surprisingly, cases of rickets amongst Palestinian children have increased with the rise of Hamas' Islamist factions. The WHO reported last year that more than 4% of all children on the Gaza Strip aged between 6 and 36 months were suffering from clinical rickets.

There are no women with positions of authority either in Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. Until there are, there is no point in discussing issues with these groups. Women in the West have equal rights to men, and that means having access to power. Islamists would deny women that power, and until they can acknowledge women as equals, they live in another ideological universe to our own.

Muslim women are probably more oppressed today by Islamist conventions than they were 20 years ago. Two decades ago women did not have to wear veils to prove their religiosity. Now, women who do not cover their hair, or even their faces, are bullied by their peers into compliance. For women to have genuine equal rights under Islam, the tenets and texts of that faith would have to be interpreted allegorically and not literally. Islamists do not understand allegory. They are slaves to dogma and expect everyone else, their womenfolk included, to eventually become their slaves.

This article was also published at

Adrian Morgan is a British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Fitzgerald: We don't need to be friendly with Muslim countries

“The US really needs to be friendly to Muslim countries,” he [Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar] told retired Malaysian diplomats. “This is not a good development as they have just appointed a special envoy to OIC.” Malaysia heads the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference.-- from this news article

Why do we "need to be friendly to Muslim countries"? Muslim countries need to explain themselves, and the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. For these are now widely available to Infidels for intelligent inspection and study without the apologists -- whether Muslim (those safis, those nasrs, those khalidis) or non-Muslim (those armstrongs, those espositos, those ernsts). We have available the writings of the great Western authorities on Islam, who studied and wrote in the period 1870-1970, before the Arab money came on the scene to buy up pre-existing, or to even start up, academic "Centers" for the study of Islam or matters related to Islam, before Muslims and non-Muslim apologists for Islam began their steady creep into and rise within the academic ranks until now they hold all but a few places firmly in their grasp -- long before the publishers got scared, long before academic standards collapsed, long before all kinds of things.

We can read Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje and Jeffery and Lammens and Zwemer -- there is no preventing it. And we can see that what they write makes so much sense, and has such obvious explanatory value as compared to the vaporings of John Esposito, or Gilles Kepel, or Noah ("After Jihad") Feldman. They make more sense than any of the other entrepreneurs who have made their fortune (Esposito) directly or indirectly through Arab support. They make more sense than the thrusting young academics (Noah Feldman) who have presented themselves as Constitution-writing "experts" and have been given jobs and even tenure by others who haven't looked into Islam themselves and may be mightily impressed by letters of reference from Roy Mottahedeh and John Esposito and, of course, someone in the American government thanking someone for his "important work in drafting the Iraqi constitution." No, we don't have to go for them for our information or understanding.

And that is why we owe the Muslim countries nothing. We understand, now, what explains in a place like Malaysia, for example, the disguised Jizyah of the Bumiputra system, or the malevolence of the O.I.C. speech which Mahathir Mohamad delivered, to great applause, a few years ago. We know now more about Malaysia and other Muslim countries. "But they're not monolithic" -- no, they're not, in dress and food and a few things like that, but the ideology makes them all into Arab wannabes, and the ideology stamps out, and would stamp out everywhere if it could, anything but Islam.

Neither the U.S. nor any other Infidel country "needs to be friendly" to Muslim countries. Quite the reverse. They had better start understanding that in our understanding, there is no going back, and it is they who have a great deal of explaining to do -- if they can do it.

And yet in another perfect illustration of the misunderstanding of Islam, or rather of Muslims, that prevails among those who lead us, Bush is going to send an ambassador to the “Organization of the Islamic Conference.” In his shallow calculation, and that of Rice, sending an envoy to the O.I.C., which has 57 "Muslim countries" as members, will be an intelligent way to "engage" the world's Muslims. It will help to win those hearts and those minds that seem always to need winning, no matter how many Muslims are rescued, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, or given huge sums of money, as with ungrateful Egypt, meretricious Pakistan, and the ungrateful, meretricious, corrupt, and completely transparent "Palestinians," or both rescued from a tyrant and been given all kinds of aid, with the whole enterprise costing more than all the wars, save World War II, the United States has ever fought -- as in Iraq.

This sending of an envoy will be taken as a sign of appeasement and desperation. Either Bush and Rice have it right, or Winston Churchill, and John Quincy Adams, and Tocqueville, and every serious Western scholar of Islam up to the past forty years had it right. What do you think?

July 10, 2007

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Britian's war against . . . well, you know

Terrorists targeting the West populate a virulent strain of Islam. Skirting that unfortunate truth — as the new prime minister seems apt to do — will only prolong the battle and embolden the enemy.

By Melanie Phillips

Britain is now fighting a war it dares not name. The recent failed car bomb attacks on a London nightclub and Glasgow airport demonstrated once again that Britain is a principal target for al-Qaeda. But even now, the British response is dangerously confused.

(Photo -- On alert: Police patrol Waterloo railway station in London last week in the wake of failed car bomb attacks. Britain has arrested eight people. / By Peter Macdiarmid, Getty Images)

After eight people in the medical profession were arrested over these attacks, there was widespread shock that those who cure should also want to kill. This naive and ahistorical reaction demonstrated yet again the extraordinary state of denial about the Islamist jihad. After all, Osama bin Laden's sidekick, Ayman al-Zawahri, is a doctor. So are other Islamist terrorists, including Mahmoud Zahar, the Hamas strongman in Gaza.

But because the deeply empirical British do not understand how religious fanaticism twists the human mind, they tell themselves that Islamic terrorism must be driven by rational grievances such as deprivation, "Islamophobia" or British foreign policy.

Many continue to believe that Britain is a target because of its involvement in Iraq. While the war is undoubtedly used to whip up hysteria in the Muslim world, the irrationality of believing that it is the cause of Islamic terror is clearly demonstrated by the fact that British Muslims who have been jailed for terrorist offenses were recruited even before 9/11. Al-Qaeda is also heavily engaged in places such as Indonesia or Africa, which have no connection to Iraq or the Middle East.

A global target

In Britain, all these grievance excuses are wearing very thin, thanks to the recent emergence of former jihadists who have renounced their extremism.

Ed Husain, in his book The Islamist, and another former radical, Hassan Butt, have made the case that the doctrines to which they once subscribed are rooted in nothing other than a fanatical desire to Islamize the world.

But while these courageous people are telling Britain that, far from being motivated by despair, Islamist terrorists kill as an act of religious exultation, the new prime minister, Gordon Brown, has banned his ministers from using the word "Muslim" — and presumably "Islamic" or "Islamist" — in connection with the terrorist crisis. He has also put an end to the phrase "war on terror."

Accordingly, in her statement to Parliament about the attacks, the new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, referred to them as "criminal" acts rather than Islamic terrorism and talked about "communities" that are involved rather than Muslims.

For those in the coalition of the willing who have been nervous about how Brown's leadership will differ from that of Tony Blair, such a signal is deeply alarming. How can Brown talk about winning a battle of ideas — when he is not even prepared to name the central idea that is driving the terrorism?

This is a disastrous misjudgment, and not merely because a society cannot possibly defend itself against a threat it is not even willing to identify. More seriously still, it means the British government is pandering to the refusal by most British Muslims to acknowledge that Islamist terrorism is rooted in their religion and that this is a problem with which they must themselves deal.

Because it is not enough for them to condemn terrorism. They must also repudiate, publicly and authoritatively, those parts of their religion that mandate hatred of the unbeliever and holy war. The Brown government's censorship of language lets them off that crucial hook and, by signaling its own moral and intellectual weakness, emboldens the radicals.

Softening in the USA

Brown's failure of nerve is being reflected in the USA, too.

Despite President Bush's aggressive rhetoric about the "war on terror," he has in fact fluctuated wildly over identifying religious fanaticism as the central driver of the problem. After 9/11, he said "Islam is peace." And although for a period he started referring to "Islamic extremism" and even "Islamo-fascism," he recently sounded a full retreat when he appointed an American special envoy to the deeply Islamist and anti-western Organization of the Islamic Conference. With such an instinct on both sides of the Atlantic to appease Islamist fanaticism, the "war on terror" becomes an empty sound bite as the West advertises its weakness to the enemy.

Undoubtedly, the latest attacks upon Britain were designed to test the will of the new British prime minister. His censorship of the language, however, was far from the only indication of a disturbing weakening of that will. For he has brought into his government a string of people who were opposed to the Iraq war, thus signaling a distancing from the United States — and opening up an exceptionally dangerous crack in what should be a staunchly united alliance in time of war.

Such new ministers include Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who blamed Israel in last year's Lebanon war; the new higher education minister, John Denham, who resigned from the Blair administration over Iraq; and most startling of all, the new second in command at the Foreign Office, Sir Mark Malloch Brown, a former United Nations official who has downplayed the U.N. "oil for food" scandal and condemned the United States over the Iraq war.

Britain has never been in a more dangerous position — not just because of terrorism but because, faced with an enemy whose platform is the decadence and weakness of the West, it is going out of its way to prove the terrorists right.

Melanie Phillips is a columnist for the Daily Mail in London and author of Londonistan


Blogger Note:

As Tony Blair left office and handed the reins over to Gordon Brown, I'd hoped Brown
would stand up like a Scot and a man, call a spade a spade. But no. I guess there's only room for one non-pc leader in this world. What I wouldn't give to have hundreds of John Howards (Australia's PM.) What I wouldn't give to place him in the Presidency of the United States. What I wouldn't give to clone the man.

While his popularity is waning in the Down Under, Howard stands for something. He stands for honesty, not political correctness. He stands for truth, not islamic lies. He stands for human rights, not sharia law. He stands for decency, not murder of civilians.

He may not be your hero, but he is mine.

Monday, July 09, 2007

English Language EXCLUSIVE: Hezbollah Now Controls Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Israel

Printer Friendly

By Debbie Schlussel

Israeli columnist and reporter Chagai Hoberman of Israeli Hebrew-language newspaper HaZofe (pronounced HAH-TSOH-FEH) reports that Hezbollah--NOT Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah--now controls the terrorist group Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

In his column, "Duach" [Report], Hoberman reports that Israeli Security Services say that Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorists they have picked up in "West Bank" cities, like Shecham, over the past several years, have received weapons, money, and training from Hezbollah. In addition, they say Hezbollah--not Abbas' Fatah--controls them (yet they are, likely, still allied with Fatah . . . for now). It's a very disturbing development because Hezbollah now has a significant cancer, er . . . presence inside Israel.

HaZofe: Hezbollah Now Controls Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Inside Israel

This is yet another reason why you, the American taxpayer, should oppose Bush Administration efforts to send more money and weapons to Abbas and Fatah. Eventually the money--and the weapons--will end up in Hezbollah's hands. Propping Abbas up, props up Hezbollah (even though Al-Aqsa Martyrs are not under Fatah's control, they are, likely allied with it, right now).

Additionally, Hezbollah's presence inside Israel is significant. How are the Al Aqsa Martyrs getting to and from South Lebanon (Israel's Northern border? via Jordan and Syria?)? And why is it so easy for them to smuggly money and weaponry into the country from there?

Finally, Hoberman reports that Abbas' Palestinian Authority Police and Security chief, Mohammed Dahlan (who has helped and enabled terrorists carry out their operations against Israel in the past) is blaiming America and Israel for his loss of Gaza. He claims that America did not teach him to focus on fighting HAMAS, and, instead, he focused on fighting and killing Jews in Israel. MOST important is the real reason he failed to fight and defeat HAMAS: Dahlan says that he is mad at HAMAS because he protected many top key HAMAS terrorist leaders from the Israelis. This is Israel's new "peace partner," to whom they will give and give 'til it hurts at the upcoming Arab states conference. Idiocy.

Also of note, 60,000 of Dahlan's Fatah men--and tons of American money and high-tech weapons--failed to defeat 15,000 motivated, far less-equipped HAMAS fighters. Why do America and Israel believe the result will be different in the "West Bank"?

Posted by Debbie at July 9, 2007 03:07 PM

June 10, 2007
Islam And World Conquest

Mike Austin

I have written a series of essays over the years about Islam-its politics, history, culture and society. They always generate responses, especially from those who cannot believe there is anything at all unusual about that faith-it is a "religion of peace," as our own George Bush proclaimed.

Some Westerners have so swallowed the Islamic line that, for all intents and purposes they have become a dhimmi, a non-Moslem living either in the West or in Islamic lands who defends Islamic causes above all others. Dhimmi is thus a synonym for quisling.

Whether one whose mindset has led him to dhimmitude or one whose hatred of his own culture has led him to champion Islam, there is in both cases an ignorance of Islamic history, a history that anyone can easily discover by the simple act of opening a book.

Once that has been achieved one sees that Islam acts today exactly as Islam acted yesterday, exactly as it did from the time of Mohammed (570-632). Assassinations, beheadings, genocide, suicide murders, imperialistic wars, civil wars, disturbing sexual beliefs and practices, off and on Jew hatred-all have been present since the beginning.

What follows are three historical events that read as if they were written yesterday. Of course, they could have been.
World Headlines One

Moslems based in Libya seize US ships and hold their crews for ransom. The US president sends the navy to blockade the Libyan coast and to bombard Libyan military installations. US Marines then attack and take the Moslem capital.

Sound familiar? When did this occur?

In 1800 Moslem pirates based on Africa's Barbary Coast seized American ships, enslaved American sailors and demanded ransom. They declared war upon the US because that fledgling nation refused to send more money for tribute. President Jefferson sent the military and the problem was solved. Thus the Marine Corps anthem, ".to the shores of Tripoli."
World Headlines Two

Islamic assassins murder in secret and in public an entire range of both Western and Moslem leaders. Terrorist attacks on Western outposts are a continuous threat. Suicide attacks are common. Potential recruits are promised a life filled with virgins and wine after they die. Bases of these fanatical killers were in Iran and Syria.

Sound familiar? When did these events occur?

The highly secretive group of Assassins (perhaps from the word hashish, as the Moslem killers allegedly used the drug) was formed in Iran in the 1090s AD. These early Islamic fanatics sowed murder and terror throughout the Middle East. The sect was exterminated by the Mongols c. 1250 AD.
World Headlines Three

Fed up with Islamic attacks on Western cities, a coalition of Western nations forms to defeat the Moslems. Surprisingly the Moslems suffer a catastrophic, rapid and unexpected defeat, leaving the entire world amazed at the Western victory.

Sound familiar? When did these events occur?

In 1571, a group of Western nations organized and commanded by Spain engaged the Turkish navy at Lepanto. The Moslem Turks were defeated and 30,000 Christian slaves were liberated. Cervantes fought in this battle.

You see my point. All of the above seem to have come from any newspaper of today. Now recall all of the reasons given by the those after 9/11 who were against the war on terror. "We were attacked because of American support of Israel!" shrieked some. Others like Ron Paul and his supporters sniff that the US deserved the attack because of all of her meddling in the Middle East. Some claimed that Islam was only responding to Western imperialism and that Islamic grievances were thus justified.

Some history, please. All of the above events occurred before the US had any interests in the Middle East, all were before the 1947 formation of the state of Israel, and all of the above Western military responses were defensive in nature and were the result of unprovoked Moslem attacks.

From its foundation Islam began to attack the West long before the West had ever heard of anyone named Mohammed. Starting with the Byzantine Empire (c. 630 AD), Moslem armies began to raid and plunder Byzantine territory-all of which was Christian. Byzantium had just fought and won a 30 year war against Persia (another in the long struggle between Iran and Christianity) and was exhausted. Soon all of the territory of what we now call the Middle East and northern Africa was in Moslem hands.

It was without a doubt the most rapid and permanent military conquest in history, an astounding achievement that equals anything done by the Roman legions. This area includes the modern nations of Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco-all once Christian and except for tiny Israel all now Moslem.

Islam did not stop, but invaded Christian Spain in 711 and penetrated into northern France. It was only the supreme military effort of Charles Martel ("the Hammer") and his Carolingian army of Christian soldiers at the battle of Tours in 732 that kept the Moslems out of Europe north of the Pyrenees. Christian Europe had had a very close call. Had Martel been defeated all of Europe might have become Islamic. The Moslems then fought the remaining Christians in Spain for over 700 years. Islam was finally defeated in Spain only in 1492.

Historical note: We wonder how Spain could conquer the great Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations so quickly, easily and with such a paucity of soldiers and materiel. But tell me, what shape would your military be in if it had had to fight a ferocious and competent enemy for 700 years? Practice does indeed make perfect.

Now for some perspective: From 626 AD until the Crusades more than 500 years later Islam was mostly victorious everywhere, whether in Iberia, Africa or Asia. Her armies were seemingly invincible and her god unconquerable. But then came a check, the 1st Crusade (1096), really the West's first attempt at counter-attack. Many are those who mention the Crusades, and they usually do so to slander either the West or Catholicism.

But the Crusades-in Spain, north Africa and the Levant-were nothing but an attempt by Christians to reclaim what had been Christian land. They also were what we would now call preemptive wars. Islam had made no secret of its desire to exterminate the West-as the Turkish sultan said, to "stable horses in the Vatican." He came close to doing this very thing. (And recall that al-Qaeda once tried to bomb the Vatican. Once these guys get an idea in their heads it stays there.)

The Crusades petered out after 1250 or so, but by then Eastern Islam was engaged in a terrible and losing series of wars against the Mongols. The West had a breather-but not for long. The Mongol tide came and went, staying only in Russia. By the middle of the 13th century Islam, furnished with new blood from the ferocious and expansionist Ottoman Turks, once again began to assault the West. After the Fall of Constantinople (1453) which destroyed the Christian empire of Byzantium the Moslems controlled all of Anatolia (modern Turkey) and pushed into Eastern Europe, taking what is now Greece, Macedon, Albania and threatening Poland and Austria-and all were Christian lands.

And twice the Turks were at the gates of Vienna. At the second siege (1683), by the way, the Moslems were aided by the French (you are not really surprised at this, are you?) and the West was saved by the Poles-who would continue to give the world examples of true heroism.

Thus the history of Islam-whatever the truth of its theological doctrines-was simply one of making unprovoked and imperialist war upon Christian lands, wars the Christians did not ask for and did not want. Why should we be surprised that these wars continue today? Islam is doing what it has always done. The West is responding as it always has. We have seen it all before. Truly, "there is nothing new under the sun."

The wars of Islam and the West are part of the ongoing struggle between East and West. It began at Marathon (490 BC) and continues today: Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, Arbela, the Punic Wars, the Mithradatic Wars, the wars of Rome and Parthia, the siege of Constantinople, Manzikert, the Crusades, Lepanto, the sieges of Vienna, Gallipoli.all are but episodes in this 2500 year-long war. Since 640 AD, this long war of East against West has been waged by Islam. It will end when one side is utterly and permanently defeated and not before.

Believe it, this is war. Close your eyes to it, deny it, blame and hate your own civilization and excuse the other-none of this will change a thing. Our enemies certainly are not deceived at all. They know this as war. All of their actions, their sermons, their writings and their political and military maneuverings are those of a civilization at war.

As I have written before, when civilizations go to war it is to the death. Rome and Carthage, Macedon and Persia, the Union and the Confederacy, the Allies and the Nazis, the US and militaristic Japan, the US and the USSR: one ceases to exist. So either the West or radical Islam. Take your choice. Should I ask you what the world would look like if radical Islam is victorious?

And let us not have any of that silly and lachrymose sentiment that claims Islam brings much good to its people. There is nothing particularly Islamic about this. Any religion offers it. Zoroastrianism offers it.

But "Live and Let live!" you say. Impossible, for radical Islam will not allow this. Wherever Islam has gone she has brought war. For her there are only two worlds, that of Islam (Dar es Salaam) and that of war (Dar el-Harb). Peace will come only when the entire world is Islam. In almost all of the wars being fought as I write these words one or both sides involve a Moslem group or nation.

From the first, Islam preyed upon the Arabs, then the Jews, then upon fellow Moslems-thus the Sunni - Shiite split. Then upon Christians, then Persians, then Hindus-and, my God, how Islam made war upon the Hindus! We read of cities of skulls, of walls of corpses, of towers constructed of human heads, in the Moslem invasions of Hindu lands. Any confusion now why India and Pakistan are for all intents and purposes at war still?

And what of the Taliban´s destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? Radical Islam even makes war upon stones. And should I mention Islam's war against the Jews? But Islam is also at war with itself-in Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, the Palestinian-occupied territories, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia we can see the awful slaughter of Moslem killing Moslem. In the fading light of its long-gone glory, Islam is really at war with the entire world, with modernity itself. Recall that bin-Laden has many times expressed his desire to return the Islamic world to what it was 1000 years ago.

And what must certainly be humiliating to bear is the knowledge that Moslem political society has no mechanism to prevent this killing. The result is that the US, a Christian nation, has become the savior of Moslems in Kuwait, in Somalia, in Afghanistan, in Indonesia, in Kosovo, in Iraq. Without the US Moslem history would be even more incarnadined.

And the response from the Moslem world when the US saves untold millions of Moslems from murder and famine and poverty and tyranny? She is bombed; her embassies are destroyed; her people are murdered; her buildings are demolished; her airplanes are bombed out of the sky; she is called 'the Great Satan;' and at every instance of this terrorism Islamic rabble dance in the street. Even to help Moslems is to invite their hatred.

This is one of history's tragedies, for Islamic civilization from 900 AD until 1100 was a shining glory, in some aspects even surpassing that of Western Europe. The Moslem cities were gleaming metropolises of learning, science and the arts. Their governments were by and large humane and tolerant, and at times provided a haven for Jews in a hostile world. Their mosques were (and are) wonders of the world, their poetry and art hallmarks of refinement.

All of that is gone now, save for what is left of their monuments, literature and architecture. The poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, theological obscurantism, misogyny, violence, tyranny, envy and mind-boggling Jew-hatred one sees in the Islamic world today are a far cry from what once was a marvelously brilliant culture.

Here is an example of Islam then-the Blue Mosque of Istanbul. [Ed Note: go to URL to see pictures.]

Here is an example of Islam now. [Ed Note: go to URL to see pictures.]

After 1400 years of history Islam can do little more than create the most degraded people upon this earth, a people who murder each other over cartoons.

Please keep all of this in mind when those anti-war types, the dhimmis, the media and the apologists for Islam begin their predictable and silly America and Western civilization-hating diatribe. There are many well-educated fools among them-Noam Chomsky, Gabriel Garci'a Ma'rquez, Ron Paul, Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn and the entire leadership of the Democrat Party all come to mind.

I wonder what the average Moslem thinks when he strolls into a relic from his own past-the Blue Mosque for example. There is hardly anything built by human hands as stunningly beautiful as that. Yet modern Islam can no more design and build its equal than it can design and build a sewer or light bulb or running shoe.

The Blue Mosque was built by Moslems 400 years ago. What has happened since? Why is Islam so mentally and spiritually and materially impoverished? And why is it so bloody? And why do so few Moslems speak out against its bloodshed and terror and violence?

[Ed Note: go to URL to see pictures.]

Copyright©2007 Scipio

(Note: This essay is a summation of several essays I have written over the years. They have been edited and updated.)