Dhimmi Of The Millennium Award Winner?

Now, we don't want to jump the gun on this. It might be a little early to name a winner for Dhimmi Of The Millennium Award since there are 991 years left to go in the current millennium. But do read on - I just can't conceive of this one being beaten. It comes from Gateway Pundit via The Brussels Journal.

Most women who get repeatedly raped while being held captive might find that a tad objectionable. Not Joanie de Rijke, 43 year old left wing Dutch journalist who travelled to Afghanistan expecting to interview members of the Taliban. Taken captive by a Taliban commander, she was repeatedly raped by her Muslim captor while awaiting payment of a ransom. He even invited her to have a threesome with one of his three wives. After the ransom was paid and Ms. de Rijke was released, she defended her captor, saying she bore no animus: “I do not want to depict the Taliban as monsters. I am not angry with Ghazi Gul. After all, he let me live” and, she added, "they . . . respected me" and that they gave her "tea and biscuits.”

Dhimmi on steroids.

And, also, mentally unbalanced.

This points to a fascinating insight into the dysfunctional psychology of the left, particularly in Europe where the problem of Islamicization is severe. Dutch politician Geert Wilders explained it this way before the Dutch Parliament:

This story . . . is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. . . . Our elites prefer to deny reality rather than face it. One would expect: a woman is being raped and finds this unbearable. But this journalist is not angry because the Muslim involved also showed respect. Our elites, whether they are politicians, journalists, judges, subsidy gobblers or civil servants, are totally clueless. Plain common sense has been dumped in order to deny reality. It is not just this raped journalist who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but the entire Dutch elite. The only moral reference they have is: do not irritate the Muslims – that is the one thing they will condemn.”

Wilders really rattled the cages of the Netherlands' elite with that one. Denunciations have filled the airwaves. But Wilders is right. And to Mr. Wilders points, Thomas Landen at Brussels Journal adds:

Her reaction confirms precisely what Wilders was trying to say. In reality the Taliban are not monsters because they call themselves Taliban, but because they behave like monsters. People like de Rijke, however, no longer judge people by their behavior and their actions, but condone them for the noble motives which they imagine have driven them to commit their acts. As Wilders said, “They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth.”

This attitude led Joanie de Rijke to travel to Afghanistan in the first place, with the aim of interviewing Taliban terrorists who had killed ten French soldiers. This attitude leads her editor to question whether the Taliban who abducted and raped de Rijke are “real Taliban” because “real Taliban do not behave that way.” This attitude recently led an American woman in Bakersfield, California, to approach a man lurking in the parking lot where she had parked her car because, as she told the police, though the man looked like a thug she did not want to appear racist. The man held her at gunpoint, threatening to kill her 11 month old daughter, and robbed and raped her. This attitude has led Western Europe to open its doors to large scale immigration from Muslim countries. This attitude, and here Wilders does not take the argument far enough, is worse than the Stockholm syndrome.

Those who have been abducted and suffer from Stockholm syndrome usually have not placed themselves in danger willingly. They had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The phenomenon illustrated by the case of Joanie de Rijke is that of people who for ideological reasons deny the existence of danger and subsequently put themselves in danger. Unlike ordinary Stockholm syndrome sufferers they do not begin to shown signs of loyalty to the criminal while in captivity, but have already surrendered to the criminal before their captivity, and, indeed, have ended up in captivity as a consequence of their ideological blindness.

And so, in a way Joanie de Rijke is right. She did not develop Stockholm syndrome while in captivity. She had the syndrome even before she left for Afghanistan. It is natural that she should resent her state of mind being described as Stockholm syndrome, because she considers it to be the state of mind of a righteous and intelligent modern intellectual. It is the state of mind which she shares with almost the entire political and intellectual class of Europe today, that of the hostage to political correctness.

And Dr. Sanity adds her own thoughts on this issue, tying it in to Obama's approach to the "Muslim world" articulated in his Cairo address. According to the good doctor:

[W]ilders, whatever you may think of him, has nailed the fundamental problem with both Obama and de Rijke (and throw in Evan Thomas and most of the clueless left): they are desperate to deny reality.

The former enables and encourages the worse and most barbaric aspects of Islam by granting it moral equivalence with the West to maintain his own unrivaled grandiosity and self-delusion; the latter is willing to overlook being physically violated rather than confront her own cognitive dissonance and the delusions of her leftist ideology.

The leftist journalist raped by the Taliban is exactly the kind of person who worships the emptiness and vacuity of an Obama; and even depends on him to maintain her delusional world view, which habitually excuses the atrocities committed in the name of Islam while blaming America for all the evil in the world.

Islamoschmoozing is simply Obama's hopeychangey foreign policy strategy of appeasement. As hard as it is to believe, Obama and his denial of reality 'out-UNs' the UN and 'out-Europeans' the Europeans in taking the appeasement of Islam to new and greater heights of appeasementdom. . . .

Do read her entire post.

So is she Dhimmi of the Millennium? Or should we make it a group award to the entire Euroleft who are so upset with Geert Wilders for having the effrontery to pull back the curtains and shine some light on their incredibly dysfunctional society.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. . .

President Barack Obama, Address in Cairo, 4 June 2009

President Obama sounded some of the correct notes - in particular his call for freedom of religion, but he fell far short of the type of honesty that is needed to address this problem. And indeed, praising Islam for its history of "tolerance" is akin to praising an alcoholic for his history of sobriety. Islam is, today, the antithesis of "tolerance," and was little better historically. Oh, and a note to our "student of history," via Barcepundit quoted at Soccer Dad: "[B]y the time the Spanish Inquisition was created in 1478, Cordoba has been reconquered from Islamic hands almost 150 years earlier, in 1236." Indeed, see Daled Amos's entire post at Soccer Dad for an in-depth discussion of just how much "tolerance" there was in Andalusia.

To be perfectly clear, the historical "tolerance" of Islam was never something we would recognize today as "tolerance." It did not involve "freedom of religion" as we see that concept. It tolerated non-Muslims as second class citizens, so called "dhimmis," subject to special laws and payment of the jizya - a protection tax payable by non-Muslims. It was more tolerant than medieval Europe of the day - but then again, Christians of the day had reason to be a bit testy with Muslims. It's easier to be magnanimous when you are the victor and are occupying conquered lands. Do recall that it was largely Christian lands that Islam was conquering as part of the greatest imperealistic expansion in history. It was an expansion that began about 700 A.D. and that continued by the sword all the way through 1683 and the Seige of Vienna. It saw Islam conquer all of North Africa, all of the Middle East, Turkey, and various parts of Europe, including areas in Spain and Italy.

There are several aspects of modern Islamic intolerance that are so outrageous that Obama's failure to mention them is nearly criminal. And indeed, topping the list is one with which Obama himself needs to be personally concerned. That is the dogma that it is a sin to convert from Islam and that a person who changes their religion from Islam is an apostate subject to punishment, up to and including death. It is a dogma followed by many of the sects of Islam. Whether or not Obama ever practiced Islam, his father did, and in most Middle Eastern countries, that would make Obama a Muslim at birth. The fact that Obama later chose to practice Christianity makes of him an apostate.

But that is hardly the only outrageous example of this "tolerance" Obama seems to find so laudable. Obama failed to note that the Wahhabi, Salafi, and Deobandi sects in particular interpret the Koran to mean that they can freely murder non-Muslims or enslave them and rape them. For specific references to these doctrines being taught in a Saudi school in Virginia, read the USCIFR report here.

Besides those instances of tolerance, Obama failed to note that: in Pakistan, the charge of blasphemy against the Prophet is being used to steal vast tracts of land from Christians; in Algeria, Christians are being jailed by kangaroo courts for practicing their religion; in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom to practice any religion but Islam, even in the privacy of one's home; no churches can be built in Turkey; Christians are being systematically persecuted and driven from Palestinian controlled portions of the Holy Land; and Christains and Jews are second class citizens in virtually all Muslim dominated countries. None of that made the speech.

And as to Indonesia about which Obama waxes so eloquently, it, like virtually all of the Islamic world, is being radicalized by a tsunami of wahhabi/salafi Islam being exported on the back of an endless supply of Saudi petrodollars. Obama may have memories of Christians practicing openly in Indonesia, but the reality of today is of "unauthorized" houses of Christian worship being attacked by Islamic radicals.

And then of course there is the attempt by the 57 members of OIC to foist blasphemy laws on the West, cutting off all freedom speech when it comes to Islam. If there is to be freedom of religion - and if Islam is to every actually to grow into "tolerance" - such laws must be absolutely opposed by the West. Obama apparently saw no reason to raise that as yet another example of "tolerance."

Indeed, for Obama to praise Islam for its "tolerance," while failing to acknowledge any of the above is to distort reality out of all recognition. And as always, the failure to face these truths means that they will continue unabated. Indeed, with the vast expansion of Wahhabi Islam, they will actually only grow.

Summary - Obama's Cairo Address: What We Needed, What We Got
Part 1 - Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World
Part 2 - Obama's Cairo Address: A Walk Back From Democracy & Iraq
Part 3 - Obama's Cairo Address: Obama Calls For Women's Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence
Part 4 - Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large
Part 5 - Obama's Cairo Address: Israel & Palestine – A Little Good, A Lot Of Outrageousness
Part 6 - Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?
Part 7 - Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History

Read More...

Summary only...

UK's Prep Schools For Dhimmis Not Completely Successful

A part of Labour's multicultural program in response to the ever greater radicalization of UK's Muslim population is to pretend that no real problem exists beyond an insufficient spirit of tolerance and understanding of Islam amongst the British natives. Thus a few months ago, Jacqui Smith, Labour's Home Secretary, announced that the Labour government would spend millions of pounds towards this end - teaching a whitewashed version of Islam to the UK's schoolchildren. It seems, however, that at least some of the students have far more sense then their teachers, the Anglican Archbishop, the Lord High Justice, and all of Britain's chattering class put together. Two UK students, ages 11 and 12, have been given detention for refusing to kneel and pray to Allah.
_________________________________________________________

This from the Daily Times:

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights. . . .

parent Karen Williams said: "I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable.

"I haven't got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn't do any harm.

"But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Allah'.

"Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshment break because of the teacher.

"Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.

"They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

"My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson." The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: "It's absolutely disgusting, there's no other way of putting it. . . .

Read the entire article. We should all support teaching Islam in schools - but only reality. That is something far removed from the dhimmi prep being carried out by Labour these days. And it does a tremendous disservice to those Muslims who embrace the West, who have no desire to see Sharia law imposed on the West, and are attempting to bring their religion into the 21st century. While the above example of making students pray to Allah is no doubt extreme and an anamoly, it highlights the insanity of Labour and the UK's chattering classes who believe that increasing the acceptance of a whitewashed version Islam among the UK's non-Muslim population will effect in the slightest the serious problem the UK faces with radical Isalm. Indeed, it can only be counterproductive.

Read More...

Summary only...

Labour's First Recognition of Sharia Law In The UK

The Labour government has approved using the nation's tax receipts to fund welfare payments to the multiple spouses of lawfully married polygamists on the public dole. Polygamny is an element of Sharia law, and this law was enacted to benefit Muslim men.


I am not aware of the identity of every member of Labour's constituency. But about one number of that group I have no doubts. Labour has locked up the vote of the hard line Wahhabi / Salafi Deobandis who wish to impose Sharia law in Britain. The Labour government has just taken the first step towards allowing Sharia law on a national level. This is an act of insane multiculturalism. Britian is giving legal status to Islamic culture within Britain's sovereign borders even though doing so morally, ethically and legally conflicts with Britain's own culture - at least to the extent that there can be said to be any vestiges left of the same. This today from the Telegraph:

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, . . .

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.

The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.

The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.

Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

. . . "Entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience," an immigration rulebook advises. "This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household."

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system." . . .

Read the entire article. I wrote last week that Britain was "toast" for their approach to the challenges of Wahhabi / Salafi / Deobandi Islam. I hereby revise that rating upwards to cooked.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News - 22 January 2008

Are Brits at the Their Best suggesting that Brits take a cue from their storied ancestors about how to take back their country? Hmmmm, given the nature of the "outdoor activities" they review, one could make that assumption. But who am I to cast stones. I’ve been suggesting a Boston Tea Party at the Thames for some time now.

When you see British people being criminally prosecuted for selling goods in pounds and ounces rather than by metric weights, you can get some small feel for how heavy handed life in the EU portends to be.

Would Turkey lifting its ban on headscarves be a victory for freedom of choice or a Muslim trojan horse? (H/T Turcopundit)

In response to incessant attacks on its people by elements of the democratically elected government of the Palestinians, Israel took the quite reasonable response of cutting off its energy supplies to the Gaza Strip in an effort to have the people of Gaza begin to take control of their murderous government. That lasted two days because of concerns of a humanitarian crisis - in Gaza of course. Apparently, Israelis targeted for anonymous murder by Hamas rockets does not count as such a crisis. The outcome was foreseen by some. When will Israel figure out that it stands no chance if it conducts its foreign policy and national security in terms of the whims of foreign opinion. If this type of decision making continues, we suspect we will see the end of Israel in our lifetime. Having said that, the ability to laugh at insanity and keep one’s sense of humor suggests that I might be wrong.

Indeed, Saudi Prince Turki has offered dhimmi status to Israel if only Israel will embrace the ill named Arab League "peace plan." I think any appropriate response must of necessity include some euphanism for sex and mention of a camel.

Tomorrow War has an exceptional round-up of relevant links covering a wide range of topics, from attacks on U.S. supply lines in Pakistan to California sending a trade delegation to Cuba. (I think the latter might run afoul of a law or two).

Cryptome has posted an extensive interview with our nation’s Spy Chief, Mike McConnel. The interview covers the panapoly of issues facing our intelligence community today – the majority of which are internal. This is a must – read. (H/T Soob)

Free speech, the Blue Group, and France’s hate speech laws are discussed here.

Dinah does Pakistan, . . . or at least an exceptional round up of Pakistani news.

In honor of Neville Chamberlin and the current UK Labour government, TNOY has the top nine UK Islamic occupational specialties.

Fred’s fried. I predicted this after his loss in South Carolina. Rick Moran is in morning, as our many of us who saw in Fred a true Regan conservative. He was the right man, but the wheels started to come off of his campaign in July. I suspect that, given the current economic climate, Romney will reap the most from Thompson’s exit through Super Tuesday.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News From Around the Web

In multicultural Britain, the Labour Party now wants to rewrite the British anthem, ‘God Save the Queen,’ to make it “more inclusive” and a little less unfriendly to its northern cousins. Specifically, the verse that calls for the “rebellious Scots” to be crushed seems to be problematic.

A fascinating post at Right Truth on the White Man’s Burden in the 21st Century

This is worrisome. Hillary Clinton seems to think Adam Smith no longer has application to our economy.

CAIR and the canard of rampant Islamaphobia at Q&O

CAIR has picked the dhimmi candidate for President. No surprises. Its John Edwards

The ACLU has a real problem with Marines praying on duty. The Marines have some suggestions for the ACLU

Remember the days when a person could figure out how to build a nuclear weapon from open sources in a library . . . . . Cheatseeking Missles has the modern Michael Crichtonesque equivalent.

From the No Good Seed Goes Unpunished category . . .

Christian Arabs are being cleansed from Palestinian controlled areas

Carl in Jerusalem tells us that Israel looking askance at the NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Iraq the Model discusses how to eat an elephant in Iraq

Read More...

Summary only...