Debating your future

On one side, we have Anjem Choudary who was chairman of Britain’s Society of Muslim Lawyers. Via Andrew Bolt, Choudary: terrorism is “part of Islam”.

With some of the text:

Britain and the US are the true terrorists:

Well if you look in the Oxford dictionary in fact, the word terrorism is the use of violence against a community or a section of the community for political purposes. So I would say to you that the ordinary English meaning is precisely what the Americans and the British are doing in Afghanistan, and what they did before in Iraq, to establish their own military and economic interests no matter what the cost is to the life and wealth of the people… I think there is something called state terrorism, which in fact the Americans are in fact engaging in quite regularly.

The Islamic State’s terrorism is “pro-life”:

I think that there is terrorism which is pro-life, and there is terrorism which is against life. You know, you could terrorise the enemy in order to make sure that the war ends quickly. And I think this is what the Islamic State in fact are trying to do, to scare off the Americans and their own allies in Syria and Iraq. And then there is terrorism which is against life, which is like carpet bombing, dropping nuclear weapons, the shock and awe that we saw in Iraq before.

Terrorism is “part of Islam” and killing civilians is legitimate:

Allah mentions in the Quran in fact, if you look in Chapter eight, verse 60, he said “Prepare as much as you can steeds of war to terrorise the enemy.” So terrorising the enemy is in fact part of Islam, I mean this is something that we must embrace and understand, as far as the jurisprudence of jihad is concerned. Secondly, I think that think that people need to appreciate is that in war, the Muslims are not distinguishing in general between civilians and military. Because those very civilians are those that put the people in charge, and those people in charge – Barack Obama and others – are sending their troops to Muslim countries. So they’re not making that distinction, let alone between people who are journalists, who are considered to be the right hand in fact, and the propaganda machine of the Obama administration.

James Foley and other journalists are seen as the enemy:

I don’t know the details of Mr James Foley… But what I can definitely tell you is that journalists in general from the West, the civilians from places like America, at the current time are in a position where there is no sanctity for them in Muslim countries. There is no one to give them that sanctity. We are uprising against our own regimes, and they are seen as enemies of the Usama Muslims.

Taking hostages is what Mohammed did, too, and all non-Muslims in Muslim lands are targets:

…the Prophet himself took hostages from a tribe which had an alliance with another tribe, who had actually taken the Muslims hostage…. But what I can say to you definitely is that at the current time, in Muslim countries, there is no sanctity for non-Muslims who are citizens of those regimes who are fighting against Muslims. So my advice to you, which is good advice, is to withdraw completely your own civilians, and your own journalists, and your own armies from Muslims countries.

Everyone’s against the Muslims, who are the victims and entitled to hit back at these criminals:

You know, the killing of James Foley is not going to make a difference to the heinous, very barbaric, criminal nature of the American regime and the history of atrocities against Muslims… You can see that what happened with the Taliban, and what’s happening with the Islamic State, and what’s happening to the Americans and their own allies in the area, is a direct result of their own policy over the last decade… China occupies and tortures people in the Xinjiang. The Russians do it in Chechnya. The Burmese do it to the Muslims in Burma. The Indians do it in Kashmir. We are the only ones defending ourselves, we are rising up. You know, when people rise up, of course there will be casualties.

Never mind the atrocities we see from the Islamic State:

It is never justified to kill women and children, as a general rule… Many of the images that you see are from other battlefields, from the Nusayris [Alawites] for example in Syria, from Hizbullah in Iran, who have killed women and children, and then they’re blaming the Muslims…

OB: (crosstalk) But Mr Choudary, we can also see images of people being executed, soldiers, Syrian soldiers being executed en mass and being put into mass graves. I mean, those images exist.

AC: Remember, we’re talking about people who are criminals. The soldiers of the Syrian regime committed horrendous crimes. Remember, the Nusayris [Alawites] in Syria are people who consider the Sunnis to be like animals, even the children and women are animals. They slaughter them the way they would a dog or a cat.

Shariah is coming to the West, which must submit:

I believe that one day the Sharia will be implemented in Russia and in China and America. There is no, if you like, permanent treaty between the Islamic State and any nation which is implementing non-Islamic law. There could be a temporary ceasefire with those people who are not enemies to the Muslims. But definitely, because of the aggression of the Americans, and the British and others, there will never be a treaty with these people. I think eventually they will be conquered… Now we see the re-emergence of the Khilafah [Caliphate], we can see a new world order. Finally, we have a state where the Muslims are implementing Sharia, and it is expanding once more, and inshallah all the world will be governed by the Sharia.

Meanwhile, on the other side, we have Michael Coren in The Toronto Sun with a different perspective on Face the truth about Islam and terrorism.

Only a bigot believes that all Muslims are terrorists, but only a fool believes there is no link between Islam and terrorism.

Yet as still another innocent person is beheaded and paraded before the world, there are two odious coalitions that refuse the embrace or admit the truth.

The first is in some ways easier to deal with. This dark gang includes Islamic fundamentalists, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic fanatics, haters of the west and in particular the United States and hard left extremists who believe all violence and instability aids their cause.

The second is more complex and nuanced. This alliance involves the cowardly, the absurdly naive, the usefully stupid, the relativist deniers and those who due to good will or a total lack of historical consciousness believe all religions are the same and if only everybody had high speed Internet and a full belly we could all dance together into the sunset.

There are in fact four stages involved in the denial of Islamic terror. The first is where we empty our heads. The second is where we bury of heads. The third is where we bow our heads. The fourth is where we lose our heads.

The first three are metaphorical, the last is literal.

The first stage involves ignorance. We assume Islamic violence is all our fault because of, for example, the Crusades.

This is what I call the Kevin Costner school of history.

In the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, dashing Kev tells us that his dad thought it wrong to try to convert people to another religion. Quite so, but Robin’s dad obviously knew little of the Crusades because they never tried to convert Muslims and were a direct response to 300 years of Islamic violence in the Holy Land. They were a product of Islamic brutality, not its cause.

From the Crusades we blame imperialism, even though the major empire o f the Islamic world was Turkish and Muslim; we blame Israel; we blame George Bush; we blame everyone and everything other than the genuine article.

The second stage is an attempt to ignore what is going on, to pretend if we are sufficiently indifferent it will all disappear and we can return to our Netflix and HBO and be terribly smug and clever in our own cocoons of moribund complacency.

Next is submission, where we become subservient to an Islamic ascendancy that takes the shape of anti-racism, anti-Islamophobia, liberalism and a bewildering belief that Christianity is oppressive and reactionary and perhaps Islam really does have quite a lot to offer if we give it enough time and thought.

Finally comes, well, the decapitation of the few followed by the political and moral decapitation of the many.

If you doubt me, ask Arab Christians how quickly the Islamic cringing minority becomes the angry, demanding group insisting that their rights and sensitivities triumph over all other feelings and aspirations.

This is not about individual Muslims but about an Islamism that runs directly contrary to progress, human rights, sexual and gender equality, pluralism, independent opinion and individual, scientific and ethical advancement.

The blades are hovering quite close now, closer than you might imagine.

And for one more perspective, here is Victor Davis Hanson on Are the Orcs Winning?

At last someone amongst the American elites has said it

It has been obvious from the start but until now no one who has mattered has said it. Here is the story, Tom DeLay: Obama paralyzed by Muslim sympathies. Tom Delay, please note, had been the House majority leader not all that long ago. And this is what the story says:

President Obama’s left-leaning political ideology combined with sympathies for Islam acquired from being raised by a Muslim stepfather paralyze him as he faces the threat posed by the Islamic jihadist group ISIS, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told WND in an interview.

“In defending America against radical Islamic terrorism, Barack Obama cannot be trusted,” DeLay said.

“Barack Obama was raised a Muslim, and he claims he is a Christian, and I can’t say for sure whether he’s a Christian or not, but he has shown over the last few years that he has great sympathies with Islam,” DeLay explained.

“You combine that with Obama’s political orientation that is far to the left,” he continued, “and you get a president who hates war, hates the military, and you have a formula for military inaction when it comes to combating radical Islamic terrorists like we are seeing in ISIS.”

DeLay’s indictment of Obama did not end there.

“You add to mix that Barack Obama is incompetent, way over his head as president, and the whole combination produces a worldview that makes Obama detached and reluctant to take the type of the military action against ISIS that would be effective,” he said

DeLay concluded Obama “does not want to face the reality of the danger and threat represented to the United States by ISIS, and he does not want to admit the connections between al-Qaida and ISIS, because he refuses to understand that we are in a war against radical Islamic terrorism.”

If Delay is right, it would be like having a Nazi sympathiser in the White House in the middle of World War II or a communist as president during the Cold War. And what is remarkable, although reported at Drudge, it’s not a big story and I haven’t seen it anywhere else. But it would make Obama’s reticence in so much of what he does perfectly clear and consistent.

Bringing ruin to the USA

You do have to wonder when there is going to be reaction against Y=C+I+G amongst economists. How do they explain this?

Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

The two theories of the Obama presidency remain intact: either he is an incompetent fool, or he has deliberately set out to ruin the United States. But whichever it is, he is certainly bringing ruin through every major decision he has made.

There but for the Grace of God

I have just reached home and happy I am to be here but I must say seldom has any trip of mine been so complete. All my interests – economic, political and historical – came together so seamlessly that I only wish life was always like this.

Economically, the meeting on J.-B. Say and the Entrepreneur was an outstanding success. This being the first such meeting, it is of major significance that there is a casting about for some kind of successor paradigm to the fault-ridden neo-classical synthesis so accurately represented by Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz. As just a minor point, what became evident is that economists are useless at predicting the future so have substituted GDP estimates for actually knowing anything at all about the economy. If I tell you that Australia over the past twenty years grew by 50% and China by 150%, you would not have any idea about what either was really like, the kinds of economy each is or what is actually going on. Economists have substituted statistics for actual knowledge. It is all pretty useless, but if your aim is to pull wool over people’s eyes about what is taking place, GDP is a great number since it is almost meaningless as a statement about anything of significance.

Politically, it has been amazing to be here for the transition to a more market-oriented socialist Prime Minister. Every country is a hopeless case since the freeloaders have now overrun the productive. But if you are trying to manage the place, even the most dense political leader trying to re-engineer a recovery cannot help noticing that only those who make a net contribution to output actually create more value than they use up. A tremendous amount of capital to run through in our Western economies, but we are managing to do it. Fascinating to see it all in action in a place you would not normally expect it.

Historically, there are two sides to it. In relation to why I am here, I am part of a group that is trying to save Jean-Baptiste Say’s factory in Auchy-les-Hesdins for posterity. There are not many – any – places in the world that are actually historical sites in which economic issues are at the forefront. Auchy is astonishing in that it combines an ancient cotton mill – where the waterfall that ran the mill can still be seen – with the writings of one of the greatest economists of all time. If you are in France in the north-west around Calais or Normandy, and you have any interest in these things at all, you must come visit. The website I am told is coming but you should see it for yourself. The best way to describe the positioning of Auchy is to note that it is half way between Azincourt and Crecy. See all three, but if you have an interest in economics and its history, this place will astonish you. There is nothing like it on the planet and, as with everything related to Say, is only now in the process of being rediscovered.

Lastly there has been my following the trail of historical battles, with the last few days on the WWI battle fronts. Went to Villers-Brettoneaux yesterday which is the Australian Vimy Ridge. Very moving places both of them. Two things I found particularly noteworthy. The first was the direction finder in the tower pointing out various places of significance on the Somme battle grounds. But amongst the 20 miles to this and 30 miles to that was the arrow that pointed to 14,235 miles to Canberra. It was a long way from home for those young Australians who lie buried in the fields of France.

The other was a grave to some young lad who died on this battlefield in 1918. His name was S. Keates. It was quite a strange moment. It is truly the case that there but for the grace of God go we all.

Israel’s challenge is to stay alive in a sea of barbarians

A problem we will all soon be sharing. In the meantime, this is about Israel and how it has united in the face of its enemies.

Who in their right mind believes that Israel started this war, that Hamas wasn’t just waiting for an excuse to fire so it could arrest its rapid decline into irrelevance? Who is still sufficiently naïve to believe that had Israel made a deal with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas would not have fired? Who imagines that a Palestinian state will stop Hezbollah from doing the same thing, when it gets the command from Tehran? Who is so divorced from reality as to suggest that a Palestinian state will do anything to stop the steady march of the Islamic State across the region? It is no accident that Israelis were so riveted by the photos of Hamas executing people on the streets of Gaza last Friday, for they were a reminder of what we’re fighting, a reminder of what they would have tried to do to us if we didn’t find all the tunnels, a reminder of the barbarism that surrounds us everywhere we look – in Gaza, in Syria, with IS. We are far from perfect, but make no mistake: Israel’s challenge is to stay alive in a sea of barbarians.

Russia invades Ukraine

Mr Useless still president:

Declaring that Russian troops had crossed into Ukraine, President Petro O. Poroshenko on Thursday canceled a planned visit to Turkey and convened a meeting of the national security council to focus on the “marked aggravation of the situation” in the southeast of his country.

The meeting of the national security council will focus on shaping a response, and Ukraine will also request a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Poroshenko made his comments as the leader of the main separatist group in southeastern Ukraine said that up to 4,000 Russians, including active-duty soldiers on leave, had been fighting against Ukrainian government forces and NATO released images that show Russian artillery units and about 1,000 soldiers operating in Ukraine.

Weird to be here dealing with the liberation of France in 1944 and the start of World War I in 1914 and now to see this.

Obama has been by his own lights the most successful president in American history

If you start from the premise that Obama had the best interests of the United States at heart but that he wasn’t up to the job, then you can reach one conclusion.

If, however, you think his personal mission was to ruin as much of the US and the Western world as he could, both domestically and in international affairs, then he has succeeded beyond his wildest wishes and expectations.

I cannot understand why there has not been at least a mild discussion in the media even on the right side of the fence about such a possibility. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Well whoever it is, they are not amongst those commenting on the news.

“No faith teaches people to massacre innocents”

Between rounds of golf, these were President Obama’s remarks on the execution of journalist James Foley by Islamic State:

Today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group ISIL. Jim was a journalist, a son, a brother and a friend. He reported from difficult and dangerous places, bearing witness to the lives of people a world away.

He was taken hostage nearly two years ago in Syria, and he was courageously reporting at the time on the conflict there. Jim was taken from us in an act of violence that shocked the conscience of the entire world. He was 40 years old, one of five siblings, the son of a mom and dad who worked tirelessly for his release. Earlier today, I spoke to the Foleys and told them that we are all heartbroken at their loss and join them in honoring Jim and all that he did.

Now, Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.

They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

Any thoughts while you’re at it about Hamas? Words are his specialty. Actions not so much.

FROM THE COMMENTS: This was an interesting observation from the Catallaxy comments thread whose accuracy would be useful to know:

“no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.”

From Robert Spencer

It also says that Muslims must fight against the “People of the Book” – Jews, Christians, and others who are considered to have received previous revelations from Allah – until they “pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). That option of submission and subjugation, however, is not open to groups that have no written revelation that could qualify them for “People of the Book” status. Hence for the Yazidis, to convert or die are the only Qur’anic options open for them.

The great scholar and expert on Islam ( family in Kenya and schooling in Indonesia, for example, must have provided some exposure ) is being disingenuous.

Under Islam, the Yazidis aren’t even as low in the hierarchy as Christians and Jews. They are seen as idolators and devil worshipers and hence ‘not innocent’. This is another speech brought to you by the representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood apparently embedded through the US government.

So the bit left out of this speech is – ‘but it is righteous to slaughter kuffir’.

The bloodiest story in history

I remember coming across Will Durant’s quote as noted below in utter astonishment. Durant is amongst the finest writers of history I have ever read. I never did get through the eleven volumes but I did come across his description of the Moghul invasion of India as the bloodiest in history, with a depiction of raw barbarity that was hard to fathom. Reading about the events in Iraq and Syria fills me with dread since nothing seems to have changed in a thousand years. This is taken from a comment on a Daniel Pipes article in 2006:

The ruthlessness of muslim invaders continued for a thousand years.

Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:

“The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”

Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in “Negation in India”

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)..

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests, Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to destroy the Pagans. Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact, for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue).

How’s it different now?