A couple of days ago I received an email from a Canadian named Sergei Bourachaga, who wanted me to help him post an article he had written. Here’s what he said:

On May 24, 2008, I submitted to the “Public Message Forum” of The Canadian Coalition For Democracies a lengthy article entitled: “The Koran and The Psychopathology of The Prophet (Part1)”. In less than 24 hours the article was removed and the link (canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/30711.shtml) created by the google search disconnected. The article was deemed “too offending” to the Muslim Community.

I asked him to send me the article so that I could look it over. Its topic lies within our mission statement, and it contains nothing that violates our posting guidelines, so I am happy to republish it here.

The Koran and The Psychopathology of The Prophet (Part I)
by Sergei Bourachaga

Acknowledgment

While writing this article I have had the enormous good fortune to interact with several academics in the field of psychology, and scholars with extensive expertise of the Arabic language during the Jahilyah period and post Islamic era. I can’t identify them by name because Islamic fanaticism has often relied on violence to silence views and opinions that do not agree with the likes or dislikes of Muslim clerics or community leaders. But still I have to credit them for sharing their knowledge without any reservation. I also relied extensively on the writings of several prominent figures who had addressed through books and essays the psychopathological aspect of the Prophet’s personality. Since their views are part of the public domain, I will list all of them just in case readers of this forum decide to go for an in-depth scrutiny of the psychopath declared by the Koran as “insanoul kamel” (Arabic equivalent for) “an excellent model of human conduct” 33:21, God’s gift to humanity according to Islam, but historical facts show that he was nothing but Satan’s curse to mankind.

One source where a wealth of information was gleaned is Dr. Abbas Sadeghian’s book titled Sword and Seizure. Dr. Sadeghian promotes, with the support of solid historical evidence, the view that Muhammad suffered “complex partial epileptic seizures” clearly reflected through the following symptoms: excessive perspiration, light trembling, olfactory, auditory, and visual hallucinations, and hyper-religiosity. Another good source on the psychological profile of The Prophet is Dr. Hafsa bint Sharif, Ph. D and her essay “Psychological Profile of Muhammad”. Author Robert Spencer produced an excellent book entitled The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of The World’s Most Intolerant Religion, covering the 23-year prophetic career of a narcissist whose ramblings were nothing but distorted views stolen from The Old Testament, The Talmud, and Christianity the religion of his first wife Khadija. According to The Biography of The Prophet by Ibn Kathir, following the first apparition of the angel Gabriel, Khadijah took Muhammad to her cousin, Waraqa ibn Nawfal, a man of knowledge and a Christian who “had studied the books of both the Jews and the Christians very closely and he had learned a great deal from many of their wisest people”. Waraqa confirmed to the couple that humanity has been expecting “The Seal/Last of The Prophets (of monotheism)” and the creature of light Muhammad saw was definitely angel Gabriel. Last but not least I recommend the book titled “Understanding Muhammad: The psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet” written by Ali Sina. A must for the proper understanding of a tyrant whose teachings were behind the massacre of 80.000.000 human beings in India alone, from the day the first Islamic armies invaded the land to present. Mr. Sina places Muhammad in the same league of totalitarian butchers such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Ze Dong.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

By now too many Canadians are familiar with the Islamic obsessive attachment to the notion that the Koran is the infallible word of God, revealed to Muhammad by Jibril (the Arabic name of angel Gabriel in the Koran), preserved unchanged by Muslim scholars in its authentic form, so perfect that the infallible book together with The Hadith is the basis of The Sharia Law, the “Just Law” that will be implemented and enforced by Muslim Jihadists the day the conquest of this planet is achieved, and the Kouffars/infidels (Jews and Christians) forced to accept the perfect Deen (Arabic for religion) Islam. Of course Islam has a verse “ for the “Perfect Deen” the way it has a verse or a Hadith for every issue that regulates human behavior, thought, bodily functions, from cleansing the self after a bowel movement to dealing with wives or female slaves when they are menstruating, to… Allah announced the “Perfection of Islam” during the “Farewell Pilgrimage” of Muhammad (last one before his death). The Lord reassured him “ This day I have perfected your deen for you and have completed My blessing on you, and have chosen Islam for you as your deen”. The Koran 5:3

How valid is the Islamic claim of the Koran’s infallibility? Is it really the “Word of God” or “after-the-fact” claims designed to satisfy the ego of a psychopathic narcissist masquerading as a “Man of God”?

In part one of my essay I will endeavour to prove to the readers of the forum that the Koran is not even a poor imitation of what perfection is. In future essays, I will try to link verses to specific traits in the personality of the Prophet, and the pathological motives that forced him to introduce each and every verse, and exploit them to further his political agenda and satisfy his obsessions. I would like to start with the critical point that Muhammad was an illiterate, and no Muslim or an infidel has ever challenged this point. On the contrary, Muslim scholars have always pointed out with pride that it was a miracle for an illiterate to memorize such a huge volume of Souras (Koranic chapters) and thousands of verses. Muslim scholars conveniently forget that the Prophet was not born in a social, political, and cultural vacuum. He was the product of the Jahilyah period when illiteracy was the norm, and the oral tradition was the dominant means used by Arab tribes to transmit, from one generation to another, folk wisdom, cultural and religious values, linguistic rules and principles, etc…
– – – – – – – – –
Poets, warriors, and tribal leaders of the Jahilyah managed with casual ease, without Divine intervention from Allah, to memorise huge volumes of poetry known at the time as “Qasida”/poem or “Qasaed”/poems. Poets were highly respected for their talents, their exceptional ability to memorize hundreds of lengthy poems, and their mastery of the spoken word. They were highly rewarded by tribal leaders for their valuable role as custodians of tribal history, since no uniform system of writing was developed at the time for the Arabic language, complicated by the fact that isolated tribes developed different dialects in different geographical areas of the Arab world. So it is not a coincidence or a “Miracle” that Muhammad used the same structure of the “Qasaed” to promote his teachings. Too many Arab poets (Muhammad’s contemporaries) from different tribes did notice that there was nothing exceptional about the linguistic structure of Muhammad’s religious statements fashioned in the principles of the Qasaeds. To defend his plagiarism when confronted with such accusations made by Arab poets, Muhammad had to rely on the authority of Jibril the Angel to promote several verses pointing out to his gullible followers that Heaven is the source of his personal views and not the fallible mind of a narcissist parading as a Prophet —

“By the declining star, your compatriot (Muhammad) is not in error, nor is he deceived. He does not speak out of his own fancy. This is an inspired revelation. He is taught by one (Jibril) who is powerful and mighty.” The Koran 53:1-6

“This (the Koran) is a mighty scripture. Falsehood cannot reach it from before or behind. It is a revelation from a wise and glorious God. “ The Koran 41:42-43

Almost four centuries later, one of the giants of the Arabic literature and poetry, Abu al-Ala al-Maarri (973-1057), who was a dedicated rationalist, picked up again the accusations made by Muhammad’s contemporary poets, and declared the Koran and Islam as a travesty. Abul al-Ala wrote several books, the most famous of them was Fusul wal Ghayat, fashioned and structured in the exact style of the Koran to highlight the point that there was nothing “miraculous” or “divine” about the “Holy Book” of Islam, revered strictly by the sheer power of numbers, millions who blindly accepted its tenets. With an obvious contempt for Islam, Al-Marri accused it of dividing mankind into two groups: “One intelligent without a religion, and the other religious without intellect”.

Now let us go back to the claims of the Koran, and scrutinize closely some of the key pillars upon which the entire book rests. The Koran insists in dozens of verses that God is the author of “The Holy Book of Islam”. It points out that:

“He is God in heaven and God on earth; He is the wise One, the All-knowing… ” 43:85

… the source of infinite wisdom, infinite mercy, infinite… ad infinitum.

“We have revealed the Koran in the Arabic tongue that you may grasp its meaning. It is a transcript of Our eternal book, sublime, and full of wisdom.” 43:1-5

The All-knowing Allah of Islam selected Muhammad to spread His message/will/commands to mankind, and to avoid any misunderstandings or confusions, instructed Jibril to use the Arabic language for His revelations to simplify things to the finite mind of the Prophet. I managed to isolate at least 11 verses emphasizing the selection of the Arabic language as a privilege, as a simple measure to insure the clarity of the message, and a way of undermining the power of the Devil who managed to infiltrate the ranks of The People of the Book (Jews and Christians), and forced them to commit the ultimate evil of rejecting the Prophet and his teachings. “A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Koran in Arabic, for people who understand… ” 41:3

What was the first revelation Jibril wanted the Prophet to understand?

“Read, in the Name of your Lord who created, created man of a clot, and your Lord is the Most Gracious, who taught with the pen what he did not know.” 96:1-5

The All-knowing Allah forgot that he is dealing with an illiterate prophet. In order for Muhammad to read to his followers the will of Allah, he first has to master the use of the pen, write and then read. Unfortunately Muhammad was too busy collecting wives, waging wars, and dispensing brutal justice, and all these preoccupations forced him to disregard the very first instruction he received from God, and he died without leaving behind a single manuscript with his own handwriting, where a pen was used to confine his noble thoughts to a piece of paper. May Allah forgive him for this unintentional bad judgement call.

What did Allah say also in the first revelation? “… created man of a clot… ” Didn’t he claim also in the same “Holy Book” that he created man from a germ? “Confound man! How ungrateful he is! From what did Allah create him? From a little germ He created him and proportioned Him.” 80:19-20 Didn’t Allah insist in another verse that He created man from dust? “By one of His signs He created you from dust; you became men and multiplied throughout the earth.” The Koran 30:19

In another verse Allah created man from a sperm, and since Muhammad was never a biologist with proper training in “Reproductive Technology”, he failed to indicate whose sperm was used to create the first man. We can’t blame him; Jibril did not guide him properly, and Jibril cannot be admonished since he was conveying the words of a confused Creator who did not remember how he originally created man in his experimental lab. To justify the confusion of The Creator, his servant Muhammad conspired with Jibril to cover the entire fiasco with the following verse: “Men if you doubt the Resurrection remember that We first created you from dust, then from a sperm, then from a clot of blood, then from a half-formed lump of flesh, so that We might manifest to you Our power.” The Koran 22:5.

It seems that the raw material God needed to create man, was also the subject of the rules of “Supply and Demand” in his heavenly lab. So whenever he exhausted the inventory of one raw material he had to use a different type, four or five in total, to create and recreate the first man. Or, it could well be that Dr. Sadeghian was right, and the epileptic prophet had a seriously flawed memory, and despite the fact that his native language (Arabic) was used by Jibril, he failed to memorize properly how God created man, and contradicted himself throughout the Koran on several critical issues that go well beyond the creation of man.

Well, we have covered the confusing story of the creation of man; now let us address the issue of the earthly kingdom Allah gave him to rule. We know that the man’s kingdom was called earth:

“And it is He Who spread out the earth like a carpet, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and flowing rivers… He draws the night as a veil over the day… ” 13:3

“And the earth We have spread out like a carpet; and rested thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance”. 15:19

“He Who has made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads… ” 20:53

Either Muhammad is perplexed and seriously intimidated by the voice of Jibril, thus becoming unable to concentrate on what the angel is saying, or the Creator has become too senile to remember that His perfect design decreed to give planet earth a spherical form meaning round not flat like a carpet. The Creator missed also the critical point that planet earth rotates on its axis, and that phenomenon is enough to create day to toil and night to rest, and thus there is no need to use a giant veil to cover the earth to create night and darkness to rest.

Imagine all these verses were conveyed in Arabic, and yet so much confusion and chaos about how “The Infinite Wisdom” tried to save man’s soul from eternal damnation. But the chaotic thoughts and emotions of the Prophet do not end with the previously mentioned issues. On too many messages conveyed by Jibril, Muhammad failed to offer any explanation, and generations of Muslim theologians faced the same embarrassment for the last fourteen centuries when confronted by foreign scholars with the very obviously incoherent writings in the Koran, that reflect nothing but contempt for human logical thought and reasoning.

Let me be more specific. Read again all the verses mentioned in the entire essay up to this point. Count how many times “We have” and “Our” were used in reference to the single God. Hundreds of “We”s and “Our”s are casually used in the Koran.

It is a blasphemy in Islam to refer to Allah as a collective entity made up of several partners (Al shourk). Was the Prophet assuming that the angels were co-creators and he referred to the entire heavenly endeavour to save the soul of man, as the act of “We” the Gods and Angels? Was the shrewd Prophet trying to recruit pagans who believed in multiple Gods, and the “We”s and “Our”s were clever ways to attract the listening ears of the pagans? Or was our epileptic prophet experiencing auditory hallucinations that precipitated in his mind the impression of dealing with multiple celestial personalities?

Also, too many Souras in the Koran start with a set of isolated letters from the Arabic alphabet (Alef, Lam, Ra, Kaf, Ayn… ). They have no meaning or relationship to the title of the Soura, and often the title itself has no direct or full relevance to issues addressed in the verses of each Soura. The following is the classical explanation placed forward for Western consumption: “If we (Muslim theologians) find an authentic narration leading to the Prophet that explains these isolated letters, we will embrace the Prophet’s statement. Otherwise, we will stop where we were made to stop and will proclaim: “We believe in it (the Koran); all of it is from our Lord” 3:7

Well, what happened to Allah’s effort and the Koran’s insistence that the Arabic language was selected to make The Lord’s will very clear? These letters do not clarify anything, and do condemn Allah’s efforts for clarity to dismal failure. They exist in the beginning of too many Souras. Is Allah so imperfect that he failed to convey his thoughts in a simple direct manner, and needed mystery to attract the attention of Muslims, or perhaps make the narcissistic Prophet the centre of every Muslim’s attention? Or again could it be that the epileptic prophet attempted to start a sentence and failed to finish the first word because the electrical impulses were disrupted in his brain and by the time normalcy and proper chemical balance was restored for the neurons to communicate and thoughts to form, the poor prophet failed to recollect what he wanted to say?.

But despite memory failures let us give the Prophet the credit he deserves for creating “The Personality Cult” for his followers. After all, his charisma managed to convince his intellectually bankrupt inner circle, who committed to memory every word and statement he made, even the most trivial and senseless detail coming from God’s servant, and the meaningless letters were kept in the Koran, not because they are pearls of wisdom from the mouth of God, but because the power of ruthless authority insisted to have them preserved.

Let us not forget also that his many wives were sexually very demanding, and this was the frequent cause of the mental exhaustion the poor Prophet experienced. “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round… they were eleven in number… Had the Prophet the strength for it? We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men” Hadith-Al Bukhari Vol.1 Book 5 Number 269

I can write hundreds of pages about the systematic inconsistencies, contradiction of views and thoughts permeating the pages of the hate literature called “The Koran”. But such a goal will be boring and banal for readers. It will be more interesting to explain to Canadians how a psychopath shaped a “Holy Book” in his psychological image, and the venoms of hatred it carries to demonize and dehumanize Jews and Christians are nothing but a reflection of the psychopathic thoughts and warped political agenda he pushed for a self-serving glory.

Part II will be covering those details.

Not everyone in the Netherlands is fully dhimmified. Some members of the Dutch Parliament have shown that they’re willing to stand up for free expression and against censorship and intimidation.

According to NIS News Bulletin:

VVD, Wilders Set up Museum for ‘Forbidden Art’

The conservatives (VVD) and Party for Freedom (PVV) are jointly initiating an exhibition space in the Lower House building where art can be exhibited that is ‘forbidden’ by politicians for fear of offending Muslims.

The VVD is making a space in the Lower House building available for the work. This is a room the party itself normally uses for small meetings and receptions. The PVV is supporting the ‘free-thinkers space’.

VVD leader Mark Rutte said he has had contact with cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. The artist would be prepared to exhibit the eight cartoons in the room that are according to the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) criminal productions.

The OM had Nekschot arrested by 10 police in his home in Amsterdam two weeks ago on charges of discriminating against Muslims and people of darker skin-colour. This was based on a complaint by a radical Muslim that was made three years ago — in 2005.

– – – – – – – – –

Rutte says the present cabinet, a combination of Christians and socialists, is killing freedom of speech in the Netherlands. The government allowed a painting to be removed from a town hall because two women showed their breasts in it, tried to ban Wilders’ anti-Islam film Fitna and is now encouraging the Amsterdam police to learn the Koran, according to Rutte.

Work of photographer Sooreh Hera is also welcome in the VVD’s room in the Lower House. She is not however taking up the invitation. “I consider it a good stunt by the VVD but I do not want to link myself with a political party that way,” said the artist in De Pers newspaper.

Hera made photos of two homosexual men wearing masks of the Prophet Mohammed and a nephew. Three museums applauded the work and wanted to exhibit it, but changed their minds, allegedly under threats by radical Muslims.

Meanwhile, Home Affairs Minister Guusje ter Horst has shrugged her shoulders on Lower House criticism of the ‘Koran subsidy’ for Amsterdam police officers. They are given a 50 percent discount if they buy writer Kader Abdollah’s translation of the holy book of Islam. The money comes from Ter Horst’s budget, she confirmed in the House.

The Socialist Party (SP) and small Christian parties ChristenUnie and SGP fear that the neutrality of the police is at risk. Ter Horst’s Labour (PvdA) also said via MP Jeroen Dijsselbloem that the Koran project is giving the wrong signal.

But the minister considered that nonsense. Nor is there any question of the principle of separation of church and state being violated, she said. Ter Horst described Abdollah’s book as “professional literature” for the police.

The VVD and PVV decided on the section for free thinkers after they asked their fellow MPs in vain to include such a room in the House of Democracy that the cabinet wants to set up. The two opposition parties received hardly any support for their joint motion.

Hat tip: TB.

With the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty coming up in just a couple of weeks, the Powers That Be in the European Union are doing their utmost to silence and disable any opposition to their grand project of total European dictatorship integration.

The latest move involves a procedural change in the European Parliament. According to The Telegraph:

Plans to eliminate Eurosceptics as an organised opposition within the European Parliament are expected to be agreed by a majority of MEPs this summer.

The European Union assembly’s political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings.

Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP’s pan-European Eurosceptic “Independence and Democracy” grouping.

Under the rule change, the largest and most pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament’s political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.

In other words, only the big guys will be allowed a seat at the table. The little guys can forget it, and since the Euro-skeptics are — surprise! — a smaller group, they’ll be disallowed.

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, claimed that the move goes hand in hand with the denial of popular votes on the new EU Treaty.

“Welcome to your future. This shows an EU mindset that is arrogant, anti-democratic and frankly scary,” he said.

“These people are so scared of public opinion they are willing to set in stone the right to ignore it. Freedom requires the governing elite to be held to account. They must be getting very worried if they are enacting such dictatorial powers for themselves.”

“Worried” may not be quite the right word. A combination of “prudent” and “unscrupulous” seems more appropriate to me. The nomenklatura of the EU know that any frank discussion of the Lisbon Treaty will be its undoing, so they are determined at all costs to eliminate any frank discussion.
– – – – – – – – –

Current rules allow 20 MEPs from a fifth of the EU’s member states to form groupings, giving them a say in the Parliament’s administration and power structure.

Under the changes, the threshold would become 30 MEPs from one quarter of the EU’s member states.

The Liberal Democrats, Greens, the far Left, Eurosceptics and other groupings have vowed to oppose the plans during a vote scheduled for July 9. Andrew Duff, leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrat Euro-MPs and a committed EU Federalist, has opposed the silencing of UKIP on the basis of democratic principle.

“Whatever one’s views about their politics it cannot be argued that these small groups do not represent a strand of European public opinion,” he said.

“If the European Parliament is to be the legitimate forum for post-national democracy, all sorts of minority opinions have to be given effective, if proportionate representation.”

The European Parliament, by its very nature, will never be a legitimate democratic forum. It is structurally impossible. The only way the EU can possibly maintain itself is by suspending democratic processes, because the opinion of the European “regions” will always be against it.

The President of the European Commission has resorted to outright threats against the Irish if they have the temerity to say “No” to Lisbon. His strategy is likely to backfire, however, since — if my wife is any indication — the Irish are contrarians by nature.

According to the Irish Independent:

Ireland and Europe will “pay a price” if there is a ‘No’ vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso warned voters last night.

Putting the gun to Irish heads ahead of the referendum in just over a fortnight, Mr Barroso said rejection of the EU Reform Treaty would be bad for the whole of Europe, including Ireland.

His comments could be used by the ‘No’ campaign to show that Europe is trying to coerce Ireland into voting ‘Yes’.

They will cause a further headache for the ‘Yes’ campaign, which is already watching its lead narrowing while also trying to fight public confusion on the treaty’s details.

Mr. Barroso is emblematic of the cabal of Lisbon-supporters, which includes a who’s-who of senior statesmen, former prime ministers, eminences grises, and various apparatchiks who feed out of the gold-lined trough in Brussels.

On the other hand, the strange bedfellows that make up the opposition are a motley crew. Among the people urging the Irish to vote “No” are hard-core socialists, a prominent Anglican clergyman, and Irish farmers who object to the WTO negotiations being conducted on their behalf by the European Union. And we mustn’t forget the information warriors of the Counterjihad, as represented by the readers of this blog and others like it.

Fjordman has this to say in today’s Brussels Journal:

This is part of a long-term plan to merge Europe with the Islamic world. As I’ve said many times before, the creation of Eurabia constitutes nothing less than the greatest betrayal in the history of European civilization, possibly the greatest betrayal in the history of any civilization. An entire continent, the cradle of the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen, is to be culturally dismantled and turned into an obedient dumping ground for demographic warfare by its Islamic enemies. Those among the indigenous peoples who object to this will be harassed, and opposition to these policies will be banned by law. This is done by the very same individuals who are supposed to be these nations’ entrusted leaders.

The time has now come for the natives of Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries to treat the European Union for what it is: An aggressively hostile organization fundamentally opposed to anything we hold dear.

Opponents are pinning their hopes on the Irish referendum, and the bookies in Dublin have recalculated the odds in favor of a “No” vote.

So the signs are not auspicious for the EU. According to The Telegraph:

Superstitious EU officials are also keenly aware that the referendum result will be announced on an inauspicious date, Friday the 13th of June.

My advice to the mandarins of the EU is this: watch out for black cats, and don’t walk under any ladders between now and June 13th.

Hat tip: Gaia.

The following is a guest-essay by Henrik Ræder Clausen of Europe News.

Generosity is good, Zakat is bad
by Henrik Ræder Clausen

Zakat, one of the “Five Pillars of Islam”, is a religious tax introduced for the benefit of the poor and needy, as well as for the advancement of Islam itself, and is often quoted as one of the best elements of Islam. This essay sets out to examine the gap between the stated intention and reality, and why the fundamental structure of Zakat works against the stated intention of reducing ‘inequality’.

Historically, Zakat being one of the five ‘pillars’ of Islam, is the holy tax introduced by Muhammad. A bit of background information seems in order.

It is not without precedent, though, as Muhammad’s fifth generation ancestor Qusayy had formalized the religious rituals at the Kaa’ba, including a tax (rifada) on wealthy pilgrims that would enable the poorer pilgrims to afford the costs of the pilgrimage. Depending on one’s view of pre-Islamic paganism, one could consider this tax ‘holy’, or just a tool of the Meccan traders to increase the income from the wealthier pilgrims. As Islam has now replaced paganism, this is mainly of academic interest. It is worth noting, though, that the scope of this tax was tied to the Kaa’ba and the Hajj/Umra pilgrimages.

Zakat isn’t, and that’s important. Zakat is payable to Islamic rulers anywhere, who will then dispose of the resources. Hajj and Umra remain important in Islam as they were in paganism, of course.

The purpose of Zakat

The intended purposes of Zakat are, as listed by SunniPath:

1) “The foremost and primary purpose is to distribute the wealth of the community among the poor…”

The emphasis on the community is an Islamic classic, and it makes sense. For if individuals with talent for trade and business were to have too much economic power, they, not the Islamic leaders, would direct the community. Unfortunately (as will be elaborated below), this is not good for productivity in society. The Soviet Union also emphasized the community over the individual, leading to extensive irresponsibility and neglect. And, as the Soviet Union used to be, Islamic countries have not become affluent by this approach.
– – – – – – – – –
2) “Removing the love of wealth from one’s heart, a spiritual disease that could be detrimental to one’s Imam. Thus, it is a form of Tazkiya (self-purification).”

Now, it might seem weird that any religion would request to remove any kind of love from one’s heart, but this indeed is the case here. It’s a bit contradictory, for what is actually the problem of loving wealth? It is clearly assumed that there is some problem, but the nature of the problem is unclear. Is it wrong to have a nice house, good clothes, healthy food and money to spare with friends and family?

But we do get a clue with the reference to Iman (faith). People who have their material needs fulfilled, and are confident that this will be the case later as well, are less likely to bother with religion. Material wealth does diminish religiousness, as we can see in the West, and that in turn diminishes the power base of religious leaders.

3) “Giving in the path of Allah.”

This is obviously meant to be holy. Giving for the advancement of Islamic faith is considered a good thing in itself, no questions asked, and is a prime purpose of Zakat. Without resources, spreading Islam is very difficult. Muhammad himself spent lavishly on booty and slave trade to finance his wars, and there is no reason for Islamic fundamentalists to deviate from this behavior.

4) “Prevention of monopolies in society.”

The last of these seems a bit off. Monopolies, as in dominant corporations, can exploit their position unreasonably. Also, they tend to become non-religious holders of power, which is obviously bad for the religious leaders’ claim to power. This is just speculative, of course. The point is not elaborated.

Further, it is explained that:

These are just some of the basic reasons behind the obligation of Zakat, but one must remember that Zakat is also a form of worship (ibadah) of Allah Almighty, and an obligation set by Him. As such, one must accept this obligation and the rulings connected to it, even if one is not able to understand the wisdom behind it, for the meaning of ‘worship’ is to submit to the will and command of Allah Most High.

Interestingly, neither the remaining ‘basic’ reasons or any advanced reasons are explained. Instead, we are given a clear directive to pay the Zakat even if the above explanations are found lacking.

Therefore, it is necessary that we accept the various acts of worship (ibadah) as they are and not insist on understanding the wisdom behind it, for Ibadah is something that is carried out in a submissive form without questioning its rationality.

Clear enough. Zakat is a religious duty, not something to be challenged, and giving away a part of ones property constitutes worship. This is submission; rationality on these matters is explicitly discouraged.

As mentioned. Zakat was introduced by Muhammad during his rule in Medina. Along with the early Muslims, he had only a limited selection of incomes. Islamic sources make no mention of Muhammad participating in the rich farming and trading life of Medina, nor did he take up his earlier work as a caravan guide. Additionally, he had heavy expenses purchasing weapons and horses, financing his allies, as well as supporting his many wives and concubines. We find in the Islamic sources that he had mainly three sources of financing:

• Loans from the wealthy Jewish community. Interestingly, Abu Bakr (the future 1st caliph) promised prospective lenders a doubling of their investment, but no mention is ever made of Muhammad paying back his loans. One would expect the Islamic scripture to show concrete examples of honesty by the founder of Islam, and the absence of this detail is puzzling. One can assume that this source of funding dried up quite fast.
• Raiding caravans and (mainly Jewish) settlements. This practice started soon after Muhammad moved to Medina, where he would send the Muslims to raid caravans, and later participate himself. It was assumed that if the Muslims successfully plundered a caravan, it was a gift from Allah. The owners of the caravans, however, had a different opinion of this, as did the native citizens of Medina, and the tribe of Quraysh in Mecca. Muhammad and the Muslims initially hesitated taking the booty, as doing so was not only considered immoral, but also could seriously damage their reputation with the Jewish and Arab tribes of Medina and elsewhere. This dilemma was resolved through the revelation of Sura 8, “The Spoils of War”, where booty was legalized, provided Muhammad was awarded a fifth of the spoils, a share named ‘Khums’. The 20% share for holy persons serves as inspiration for certain Zakat rates today, particular those levied on natural resources and wealth increase.
• Zakat, the holy tax imposed on all Muslims. Enforcing this tax was, then as today, a problem. No tax is truly mandatory without an effective enforcement, and — as can be seen in the latest Suras of the Quran and the many commands to pay the Zakat — appears to have been a perpetual problem within the original Islamic community. In some cases, the income was so low that it drove the Muslims to plunder additional settlements. This had several benefits. First and foremost, it brought immediate financial relief to the Muslims.

Also, as Muhammad made it clear that only non-Muslims would be plundered, it encouraged more people to convert to Islam in order to protect their lives and property, which would increase the taxable community as well. This introduced a dilemma, however, for these freshly converted Muslims were not eager to fight, and soon earned the title of ‘hypocrites’ for their preference of family and well-tilled lands over sacrificing life and property for Allah’s cause.

Zakat, being mentioned more frequently in the Quran than any other of the five pillars, developed into an intricate system according to the later Islamic tradition, and the various Islamic schools have different interpretations of the details, including the tax rates on various items, the range of items to be taxed, and not least how to handle Zakat on items not invented at the time of Muhammad. Muhammad did not predict future discoveries and inventions, and thus did not prescribe Zakat on items such as TVs, VCRs, etc, which leaves a significant openness of interpretation to Islamic scholars of later days.

Foundation of Zakat

“The basic and essential objective of Zakat is purification of the soul. It cures the lust for wealth.” (Islamic Voice)

“And away from it (Hell) shall be kept the most pious one, who gives away his wealth in order to purify himself” XCIL: 17-18

This is clear enough. Those who pay Zakat avoid Hell, and by implication those who refuse will presumably be cast into the fire.

The Quranic instruction to Muhammad and his followers to take Zakat runs like this:

“Take alms of their wealth, wherewith you may cleanse and purify them.” (9:103)

“The root of all evil is the love of worldly things.” (Mishkat)

Summing up, Islamic Voice concludes: “These verses make the real importance of Zakat quite clear: it aims to emancipate the heart from temporal preoccupations and purifies the soul.”

It remains a mystery, however, that this principle seems to apply to ordinary Muslims only. if wealth is truly such a dangerous things, one would expect Islamic leaders to go in front renouncing it, to set a good example for the Muslims at large. Instead, Islamic leaders, by the example of Muhammad, urges the Ummah to transfer the surplus wealth to these leaders. One can only hope that they are immune from selfish motivations and acts of evil.

An interesting aside is the question of Zakat being voluntary or mandatory. It is stated to be a religious obligation on all Muslims, but that contradicts an important stated principle of Zakat:

“It must, however, be remembered that the aim of Zakat is achieved only when its payment is motivated by sincere desire and practical effort.” (Islamic Voice)

If one follows this principle, payment with insincere motivation, such as a mandatory tax, is void of meaning. Islamic scholars may handle this paradox with surprising arguments, such as:

The purification of the soul to be achieved by paying Zakat is not detailed much, it remains an assumption that wealth and worldly goods are ‘evil’. Usually one pays money in exchange for goods or services, or gives money out of generosity. In the case of Zakat, as has periodically been the case in the Catholic church, the mere giving to ‘holy’ purposes is assumed to be beneficial, period. It remains a fundamental feature of Islam not to be disputed.

Actually, Zakat does not need to have a central, enforcing institution. Being a religious duty, Zakat is, in several countries, voluntary. The giver of Zakat must adhere to the holy principles of who will benefit, but retains a significant say in who gets to receive it. Employers may for instance use Zakat to reward needy employees for good efforts, or prefer giving to family and relatives, even though others may be worse off than the relatives.

Beneficiaries of Zakat

The eligible receivers of Zakat are explained in Sura 9:60: “The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and for those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah and for the wayfarer.”

This is a curious mix. Let us look at them bit by bit:

• “The poor and the needy” is the most quoted reason to pay Zakat, and this redistribution is intended to reduce poverty and inequality. Now, Islamic societies tend to suffer from widespread poverty and in many cases extreme inequality too, so the need is certainly there.
• “Those who collect them” is obviously a dangerous point. Yes, it motivates more effective gathering, but also opens a door for corruption and inefficiency. Cases have been reported where the share to those who collect Zakat exceeds the share going to the ‘poor and needy’. This is not so good.
• “Those whose hearts are to be reconciled”. Good points. It means to use the Zakat money as a tool for creating loyalty, for those who have recently converted to Islam or those who might be about to do so. Giving gifts to purchase loyalty may seem strange to a Western mind, but was a perfectly fine tradition in the time of Muhammad, whose biography includes a chapter on the issue. Calling it ‘corruption’ certainly would not be very friendly.
• Freeing slaves or freeing captives is hardly relevant at this point in time. While slavery has been practiced well into the 20th century in Islamic countries, it is largely abolished by now. Demanding ransom for prisoners of war was common practice among the early Muslims, but is abandoned by modern conventions and is generally considered a criminal act, not a justified act of war.
• “For the cause of Allah”, however, is a minefield. Fighting in the cause of Allah is the main activity of Muhammad and the Muslims in the later Medina days, and permitting the use of Zakat money for this can be interpreted as a justification of financing war by means of charitable resources. In practice Zakat also goes to non-violent ways of education in Islam, and in several cases Islamic organizations, not the poor directly, benefit most from Zakat.
• Finally, helping wayfarers. This might seem odd (why not ‘help orphans’ or something?), but just might stem from the original pilgrimage tax related to Hajj and Umra in pagan times, and forms a kind of ‘travel insurance’ to make it clear that travelers getting in trouble while doing pilgrimage would be given a hand to get back home. This item is not of practical consequence today.

Reality check

The real world results of Zakat can be hard to assess. Timur Kuran in his book Islam and Mammon quotes an embarrassing array of faults and misuses of the Zakat system, with focus on the mandatory systems in Pakistan and Malaysia. The list of faults and misgivings about the system is much too long to repeat here; suffice it to state that the creativity in misusing the Zakat system is amazing, and adapts easily to many different aspects of life and business.

One persistent problem, though, is enforcement. Rich landowners are much more likely to have either creative means, well paid connections or simply enough brute force to avoid paying any significant amount to the Zakat collectors. The poorer landowners are less efficient avoiders, and this seriously damages the stated intent of distributing wealth from the rich to the poor.

For an example of how Zakat is distributed, Kuran goes back to 1970 and quotes one Malaysian state capital, Alor Setar, for the following breakdown:

• 53% went towards teaching Islam.
• 22% went to the Zakat collectors.
• 15% was spent to the benefit of the poor.
• 6% went towards pilgrimage support
• 2% went to converts

Other figures quoted by Kuran estimates the share of Zakat going to the poor marginally lower than this, with the same overall tendency:

• The lion’s share of Zakat goes towards teaching of Islam.
• Collectors are second on the list, significantly over:
• The poor, who receive only 10-15% of the Zakat collected, and
• Other religious purposes.

The conclusion of Timur Kuran is clear:

… Zakat has not made a major dent in Muslim poverty and inequality. While it has obviously redistributed some income and wealth, it has not conferred substantial benefits on the poor as a group.

A related conclusion is tempting: Zakat is, in practice, used much more for the benefit of Islam than for the benefit of the poor. Even the administrators of the system have greater benefit than the poor, who then become little but an excuse for exploiting productive people for the benefit of the non-productive.

Purchasing loyalty

The use of Zakat towards those ‘whose hearts are to be reconciled’ points to an interesting feature, that of purchasing loyalty by means of charity, implicitly or outspokenly. The receiver of charity will feel gratitude towards the giver, and this has consequences.

Imagine that charity, rather than being institutionalized, by way of tradition was done by those who had collected personal wealth. One might have a rich uncle helping in an hour of need, and this creates a thankfulness and an openness towards the giver. Who in turn may take the opportunity to teach a lesson:

“You ask, dear nephew, how I became rich? Well, while luck is good, there is nothing like working well and fulfilling the needs of your customers. I had notice that the businessmen of my town had trouble getting mail and errands across town quickly and reliably, and offered them my services. The complaints were both of slowness, but in particular of too many broken goods on the way, so I took extra care to look after the goods as if they were my own. That earned me a reputation for doing a good job and making their lives easier, so I was able to charge higher prices than my competitors, and after a while I was able to buy more cars and hire good people to help me expand my business. This is how I came to run not exactly the biggest but at least the best shipping company in town. Yes, it took a lot of work. Finding reliable drivers is hard, and bad ones can easily spoil my reputation.”

“Wow. And now you are so rich that you can give money away to your family. That is really nice. But I cannot depend on your kindness without giving you anything back. Is there something I might be able to help you with?”

“Well, actually there might be. We have a problem in our quality department, where we just cannot find people reliable enough for the job. Since you are my family, I trust you not to let me down like strangers do. But you would have to do half of year of driving first to get a feel for the business.”

Generosity is good, for it build relations, confidence and openness on the side of the receiving part. And listening in on some well-intentioned advice on how to become self-reliant and diminish the risk of having to ask for help in the future.

Now, building similar relations to religious institutions in turn increases the confidence in these institutions, and openness to the ideas they stand for. However, these ideas tend to focus on worship, not on earning money and becoming self-supporting. Even the question “Can you drive a truck?” might have unusual implications if asked by an Islamist organization.

Which in turns points to a different problem of Zakat. While bringing immediate relief for the needy, it does not by itself eradicate poverty, for the mere giving of alms does not teach how to become economically self-reliant. On the contrary, unconditional giving to the poor can be seen as a kind of reward for poverty more than a tool for getting out of the situation. Giving alms, while charitable, in most cases apart from emergencies, is the wrong cure for the problem of poverty. If Zakat really was a workable remedy against poverty, the Islamic countries should have less poverty than others. The opposite is very obviously the case.

Charity in Palestine

While not directly related to Zakat as such, the case of Hamas as a charity is instructive:

Hamas was for a long time the primary distributor of Western aid in the Palestinian areas, as the PA was considered too corrupt and inefficient to be entrusted the task. While this got the aid out to the needy, it also created a loyalty to Hamas which helped them significantly in the 2006 general elections. The elections, which were widely seen as a protest vote against corruption rather than an endorsement of terrorism, gave Hamas a democratic legitimacy it had not enjoyed before, which in turn helped them seize power in the Gaza strip and abolish democracy there. Unfortunately, the tables have now turned, and Hamas is now actively sabotaging deliveries to the civilian population or simply stealing their supplies. The population of Gaza, in particular, has effectively ended up as hostages to the situation. Their dependency on aid seems endless, but Hamas seems willing to even deepen the crisis of it serves their purposes.

Zakat and funding of terrorism

A compounding problem is that Zakat is administered by religious organizations, where the ‘holy’ status of these frequently frees them of suspicion and scrutiny. Devout Muslims, in particular, may tend to reject any suggested scrutiny of their charitable foundations. This has led these organizations to be important money-laundering channels for terrorists, as has been documented quite extensively, and even led several donors to attempt to force the books in question off the market, such as Alms for Jihad by Burr and Collins.

The relevant response to this challenge, of course, is to double the scrutiny of ‘holy’ charities, not least those of an Islamic leaning. While it may cause some dissatisfaction with Islamic leaders, the results so far have exposed a sufficient number of ‘rotten apples’ to justify a heightened level of suspicion against Islamic relief organizations. We all wish to stop the terrorists, and one of the best way to do so is to cut their sources of funding and resources.

Suggestions

Now, for all its risks and flaws, Zakat isn’t going to just disappear. Paying Zakat is one of the most important elements of a major world religion, and one doesn’t just ‘change’ this. But there are ways to ensure that the system does not breed corruption and terrorism, and first among those is transparency. It should be open to anyone, not just the donors, where the money ends up, how much is used for administration, and what part is spent on religious instruction instead of helping the poor. It is natural to have compassion for those in difficult circumstances, and likewise natural to trust organizations with charitable purposes. On the other hand, abuse of charitable resources for selfish or even criminal purposes is a betrayal of trust at both the donor and the poor, and needs to be exposed and punished, or charity itself may suffer a bad reputation.

Related, protection for those who expose misuse of the resources is important, or wealthy donors may be able to intimidate journalists and authors into silence. A recent case is that of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose book Funding Evil caused a certain amount of offense among rich donors, and a court case in Great Britain against the author. Since she is American, one should consider that to be immaterial, but it turned out that a legal adjustment was needed to ensure her protection. The “Libel Tourism Protection Act” (also known as “Rachel’s law”) renders non-US libel verdicts unenforceable in the US and protects authors and publishers alike.

Being unforgiving is relevant. Religion is supposed to be an uplifting force for humanity, and use of religion for criminal purposes, not least terrorism, gives the religion in question, as well as all religion, a bad name. Abetting, endorsing or tacitly approving terrorism should be immediate and irrecoverable ground for revoking any religious status and privileges awarded to an organization.

Islamic leaders consider Zakat to be religious. The rest of us don’t. Freedom of religion lets Islamic societies use Zakat for strengthening their communities, inefficiencies and pitfalls being irrelevant to the religious status of the system. But the actual use of Zakat deserves no protection on ground of it being considered religious by some.

I reported yesterday on the Islamic school that had been proposed for the town of Camden in New South Wales. Tonight (it’s already past midnight in Australia) the Camden town council met and unanimously rejected the planned school.

Here’s the report from the Camden Advertiser :

Camden’s proposed Islamic School has been unanimously rejected by Camden Council at its meeting tonight.

A subdued crowd of about 200 people were at the Camden Civic Centre for what turned out to be a muted debate on planning grounds rather than raw emotion.

Residents clapped when the vote was taken to oppose the school.

“We are the champions,” one man said as he left the civic centre.

But the Quranic Society has already told the Advertiser that it will fight the rejection in the Land and Environment Court.

When I wrote about the issue yesterday, I had no significant information about the Sydney-based Quranic Society (a.k.a. Dar Tahfez El-Quran), the sponsor of the proposed school. Since then I have received several emails from Australian readers with more background on the group:
– – – – – – – – –

The Quranic Society became a society in 1986. They’ve done just enough to stay legal and to stay under the radar of Tax and Business departments.

They are funded entirely by Saudi money.

They had the Architects of the school submit the development application. The question here is, why didn’t they submit it under their own name?

One of the prerequisites of permitting a development such as this school is, can they pay for it?

According to the submission, the school will cost 19 million dollars to build [Note: Zenster predicted the cost very accurately in yesterday’s comments. — BB]. However, the Quranic society has only 345,000 dollars in cash in their bank account and no record of any assets.

They have not submitted who will be the actual owner of the school.

One of the main things we have to fight against is their lack of transparency. All of the above points mentioned have not been detailed with any degree of honesty. If everything is above board and they have nothing to hide, why do they do everything by stealth and deceit?

The main hurdle for us, and indeed anyone else who has to go through this fight, and it’s happening more and more, is, even if the development applications a rejected by the Council, it is then taken to the Land and Environment Court where, because of the unlimited Saudi funds available to them, they simply hire the best whoring solicitors they can and keep bombarding the court until the Councils realise they can no longer afford to fight them.

They also have become adept at switching who the owner will be of a property right at the time of signing and exchange of contracts. That was what they did at Bass Hill. All along it was believed that a developer was buying the land to build medium-density dwellings. When everyone was seated for the signing of contracts, the solicitors informed the Education Department that the land was actually being sold to another party.

If people in the US are having a similar problem, make sure that they go for the transparency issues. Who is the actual owner? Where is the money coming from? Pay particular attention to the planning details. Unfortunately, the planning details are getting harder to circumvent, as they have realised that they have to get the best money can buy to cover themselves in that area. Since money is no object, planning is no longer a problem.

Despite the bottomless pockets of its Saudi sponsors, the proposed Camden Islamic school was defeated, and overwhelming local public opposition played a large part in that defeat:

During the eight months since the Quranic Society lodged its application, the council has received 3083 submissions, which included 3042 objections.

However, in order to defeat the project, opponents had to avoid introducing religion — the dreaded I-word — into their objections. Other criteria had to be used, such as environmental concerns, the need to preserve the character of the neighborhood, traffic congestion, etc.

Camden/Macarthur Residents’ Group president Emil Sremchevich spoke only about rejecting the proposal on planning grounds and did not speak on religious or racial concerns.

[…]

Seven of the councillors spoke, but all stuck to the script of speaking on the planning-based objections rather than wider community concerns.

Councillor Peter Johnson moved the motion that the council staff recommendation to reject the proposal be accepted and praised the report’s depth.

[…]

Cr Johnson said he would welcome an Islamic school closer to his home in Catherine Field, possibly near the planned Leppington train station.

[…]

Mayor Chris Patterson said the decision was made purely on planning grounds, not on ‘‘religion or multiculturalism’’.

There’s much more information about the council’s decision, including video clips, at the Camden Advertiser site.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

This is an important victory for anti-jihad forces in Australia, and we all have reason to celebrate.

However, it’s important to remember that this success is contingent. It depended on several key factors:

• Heavy local opposition. This is not always guaranteed; in areas with a larger Muslim minority, vocal and vigorous local supporters are likely to appear, and non-Muslim residents may be intimidated by the implicit threat of violence that always accompanies dense concentrations of Muslims in any urban area.
• Plenty of the right kind of publicity. Any slight missteps by the opposition could have led them into a media fever swamp of “racism and xenophobia”, from which they would have found it hard to extricate themselves. The organizers are to be commended for handling the issue in an intelligent and effective manner.
• Finding the right mix of criteria to use in opposition. Success depended on being able to use zoning and land-use regulations to deep-six the school. It won’t always be this easy. What if the school’s planned location had been different, a place where the objections used against the proposal would have been unable to gain traction?

The Camden Islamic school was voted down because the Quranic Society failed to game the system to its advantage. But, generally speaking, Muslims in the West are adept at gaming our systems. They learn a lot from setbacks like this one, and next time they will make a proposal that will be harder to defeat on technical grounds.

That’s why it’s important for opponents eventually to be willing to name the real problem: Islam.

It’s not the endangered species, or the air quality, or the traffic congestion, or the effect on the scenic landscape of Camden. The problem is Islam. Everyone involved, whether for or against the school, knows this.

But the suicidal rules of Politically Correct Multiculturalism forbid any public discussion of the issue in these terms. Political and business leaders risk their careers if they broach the problem frankly. A media firestorm engulfs anyone who dares transgress the defined boundaries of discourse, and ordinary people can even be arrested for speaking their minds.

But long-term success will depend on our courage to reframe the debate.

We need to be willing to stand up and say that it’s not just a school, but an Islamic school that we object to.

We need to prepare detailed, sober, thoughtful, and reasonable data to support our views. There’s no need for hysteria: a simple presentation of the history and current actions of the Great Jihad is all that’s required. The complete facts about Islam are arguments that speak for themselves.

If we don’t do this, then make no mistake: the forces of Islamic infiltration will successfully game the system, over and over again, and gradually erode our culture and our civilization from within.

Hat tip: Nilk.

This is yet another example of the insane topsy-turvy world of Political Correctness. In PC Land a person from protected minority has an absolute right not to be offended, and that right trumps any rights that people from the oppressive majority might have.

According to Al Arabiya:

A prison officer in the United Kingdom was transferred after he caused a stir amongst inmates by calling his sniffer dog ‘Allah’, press reports said Monday.

Although officer Chris Langridge, 28, insisted the Labrador’s name was in fact ‘Ali’ not ‘Allah’, a Muslim inmate filed an official complaint with Britain’s top Belmarsh high-security jail, The Sun newspaper reported.

“This is political correctness gone mad,” a Belmarsh officer was quoted by The Sun as saying.

According to a prison source there is no suggestion that he did call the dog Allah but it was thought it would be better to transfer him, the paper said.

– – – – – – – – –

Belmarsh contains the highest number of Muslim inmates of any UK prison, including some notorious extremists such as hook-handed Abu Hamza.

What’s notable is that Mr. Langridge didn’t actually call his dog “Allah”. The perception that he called his dog by the name of the Mesopotamian moon-god was enough to bring official sanctions down upon his hapless head.

God help Britain.

Hat tip: Steen.

Consider this IMAGINARY quote from an IMAGINARY news article:

A nationalist parliamentarian in Belgium has called for the expulsion of Moroccan immigrant workers after one of them was accused of a gruesome killing.

“We need to expel all the Moroccan workers that are in our country,” said Bart Debie of the hardline Vlaams Belang, according to a report in the local newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws.

“We cannot tolerate the way in which these people continue to repeat crimes,” he said.

Can you picture the uproar that would greet such a story in Belgium? The accusations of neo-fascism, racism, xenophobia, etc., etc.?

In order to construct the above quote I changed a handful of proper nouns and phrases from the article below. Now read the original from AKI:

Islamic MP calls for expulsion of Bangladeshis

Manama, 26 May (AKI) — An Islamic parliamentarian in Bahrain has called for the expulsion of Bangladeshi immigrant workers after one of them was accused of a gruesome killing.

“We need to expel all the Bangladeshi workers that are in our country,” said Abdel Halim Murad of the hardline Salafi bloc according to a report in the local newspaper Akhbar al-Khalji.

“We cannot tolerate the way in which these people continue to repeat crimes,” he said.

Murad said this during a political debate on Sunday after a Bahraini citizen was allegedly killed by a foreign worker from Bangladesh who worked as a mechanic.

The victim was said to have fought with his killer because they could not decide on the price to pay to repair a car.

“The society in Bahrain has been hit by this barbaric incident and now we have to rise above every limit. It is necessary to have zero tolerance with regards to them,” said Murad.

– – – – – – – – –

Murad also said that an example should be made of the punishment handed out to the Bangladeshi who has been accused of murder.

“He should be immediately sentenced to death and the punishment should be carried out in a short time in order to make an example to everyone,” he added

“It is also necessary to have a plan which will foresee the gradual expulsion of all these people from our country,” he said.

There are an estimated 106,000 Bangladeshis living in the small Arab country.

[…]

Bahrain is not the only country in the Emirates which has had to deal with problems associated with Asian immigration.

An MP in Kuwait had on 28 April called for the expulsion of all foreign workers.

“All the Bangladeshi immigrants who have committed crimes in our country have to be immediately deported,” said Muhammad Hayf al-Mutairi.

This was also suggested by an Islamic politician, who has gained a lot support because of these types of proposals with regards to foreigners.

“Their presence here represents a major danger for our national security because of them, there has been a rise in the number of crimes committed and for this reason the interior ministry must immediately expel them from the country,” said al-Mutairi in an interview on the Arabic satellite television network, Al-Arabiya.

Those Arabs really sound like all those racist xenophobic right-wing extremists in Europe, don’t they?

What makes this story even more interesting is that these dangerous foreigners are not even infidels: both Bangladesh and the Bahrain are Muslim countries.

“Zero tolerance”, indeed.

Hat tip: insubria.

Camden is a town of about 50,000 people in New South Wales that has recently stumbled into a spot of bother about Muslims and their planned Islamic school. Feelings about the school among local residents are running high: last fall two pigs’ heads with an Australian flag draped between them were left at the site of the proposed school.

According to the BBC:

Town moves against Islamic school

With its lace curtain bungalows and steepled Anglican church, the once tranquil town of Camden in New South Wales seems the most improbable of settings for a row that combines race and religion.

Proud of its rich history, the town promotes itself as “the birthplace of the nation’s wealth”, for it was here, in the early 19th Century, that the sheep and dairy industries first began to flourish.

Now the town, which lies on south-west fringes of Sydney, is confronting a very 21st Century issue: the proposal to construct an Islamic school for some 1,200 Muslim pupils.

Behind the proposal is the Sydney-based Quranic Society, which has purchased 15 acres of land on the fringes of town, and produced detailed plans and designs.

The Quranic Society (which, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, is also known as Dar Tahfez El-Quran) has left only a small footprint on the Internet. By trying various internet searches, the only mentions I can find — besides news stories and blog entries about the proposed school — are bare-bones directory listings like this one :
– – – – – – – – –
Name: Quranic Society
Category: Islamic Organisation
Phone: 97591616
Address: 42 Haldon Street, Lakemba, NSW 2195

In the USA, tracing the pedigree of an organization like this one usually reveals it to be a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate backed by Saudi money. Presumably the same holds true for many of the seemingly innocuous Muslim “charitable” organizations in Australia.

The residents of Camden are not giving in without a fight:

Camden council is currently deciding whether to grant planning permission and allow the controversial development to go ahead.

[…]

Back in November, more than 1,000 local people took part in a public meeting. Many participants expressed themselves with little regard for political correctness.

“This has to be one of the nicest places in New South Wales,” said one woman, who has lived in Camden for the past nine years.

“Everywhere is being destroyed. Why don’t we tell the truth. They’re wrecking Australia. They’re taking us over,” she said.

“Why hasn’t anyone got any guts? They’ve got terrorists amongst ‘em… They want to be here so they can go and hide in all the farm houses… This town has every nationality… but Muslims do not fit in this town. We are Aussies, OK.”

Some of the loudest cheers of the night greeted a speech from a local man in his late 70s.

“Can I just say this without being racist or political?” he said. “In 1983, in the streets of London a parade by Muslims chanted incessantly ‘If we can take London, we can take the world’. Don’t let them take Camden.”

And this is significant:

When the chair of the meeting invited anyone in favour of the development to speak up, no one stepped forward.

No local resident was willing to speak up in favor of the school. So where are its proponents? Evidently most of them are not residents of Camden:

Camden does not harbour a large Muslim community — census figures suggest about 150 families.

Most of the pupils at the proposed school would therefore be bussed in from Sydney, a journey that takes about an hour each way.

So one would expect there to be about 300 or so school-age Muslim children in Camden, yet the school’s pupils will number four times that many. Perhaps the strategy of shipping them from Sydney to a relative backwater is to draw less attention to what is going on.

The BBC is careful to note that the issue risks being co-opted by dangerous right-wing extremists:

Many locals fear that the campaign is being hijacked by right-wing, nationalist groups with their own agendas.

The Australia First organisation has been advertising for members in Camden, and says it plans to field a candidate in September’s local elections.

And, needless to say, Australia has its share of dhimmi multiculturalists ready to weigh in with the usual formulations:

One speaker implored the crowd to stick to planning issues, and not let the campaign be contaminated by racism or xenophobia.

For the time being, the racists and xenophobes in Camden seem to be winning. The Council will rule on the issue tomorrow.

Hat tips: Lugundum and Steen.

Until the Six-Day War in 1967, the Golan Heights were a strategic bastion for Syria. At their highest point, the Heights elevated Syrian artillery 3,000 feet above the Sea of Galilee, and for several years before 1967 the Syrians used their commanding position to shell towns and kibbutzim in the lowlands just across the border in Israel.

There was a United Nations buffer zone between Syria and Israel, but it was a joke. When Israel protested to the UN about Syrian shelling, the UN did nothing. That and other evidence of the impotence of the UN convinced Israel’s Arab neighbors that the Jewish State could be attacked with impunity.

And so it could, but only if the aggressors failed to reckon on the punitive power of the Israeli military.

Israel was vastly outnumbered and outgunned on all fronts, and yet managed to repel its enemies and occupy extensive portions of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, in just six days.

Once in possession of such an important strategic position, Israel was adamant that it would not give it up. The Israelis have occupied the Golan Heights for more than forty years to make sure that Syria can no longer threaten the heart of the Jewish State.

At various times since 1967, Israel has engaged in tentative discussions with Syria about the status of the Golan Heights. However, until recently there was never any serious indication that the Israelis might actually return the territory to Syria.

The situation has changed in the last few months. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a weak and vacillating leader, has given unmistakable signals that he is willing to exchange the Golan Heights for peace — or rather “peace”, that familiar and ongoing process in which Israel makes major strategic concessions in return for empty Arab promises and cosmetic gestures.

Considering the advances in military technology that have taken place during the past forty years, turning the Heights over to the enemy would seem the height of strategic folly. With Iranian and North Korean assistance, Syria would soon be in a position to threaten virtually the entirety of Israel. Included in the threat would be the frightening possibility of nuclear weapons — which Syria is known to covet — aimed from the mountaintops above Galilee towards the cities of Israel.

Obviously, the IDF could never allow things to go that far. One assumes, however, that Boy Assad — or whatever thug succeeds him — would be unable to resist making the attempt. Hence the return of the Golan Heights all but guarantees that there will be war.

So why would Mr. Olmert even consider it?

Israel Matzav has been considering the issue of the Golan Heights in a recent series of posts. On Thursday he examined the possible reasons why Prime Minister Olmert would do such a self-evidently foolish thing:
– – – – – – – – –

…most Israelis see Olmert’s [problems with criminal investigations into his alleged corruption] as the driving force behind the negotiations on the Israeli side. Here are some reasons why most Israelis don’t believe there could be much else behind our government entering into these talks.

1. Leaving the Golan is immensely unpopular among the general public. While talking about leaving may keep Labor in the government — which is its main goal — actually doing a deal with the Syrians seems most unlikely. Overnight polls indicate that the vast majority of Israelis are unwilling to come down from the Golan, even if it would bring peace with Syria.

65 percent of Israelis are against a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights, even if this would bring true peace with Syria, a poll published by the Geo-Cartographic Institute revealed Thursday.

64% of respondents were also against partial withdrawal from the Heights and a similar percentage said it was inappropriate that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was holding negotiations with Syria at a time when his political future was uncertain.

Geo-Cartographic Institute president, professor Avi Dgani, told Army Radio on Thursday that “the people are with the Golan and not with Olmert. A big part of the public is against withdrawing from even a part of the Golan Heights.” Dgani was paraphrasing a bumper sticker with the text “The people are with the Golan,” distributed during Israeli-Syrian talks in the 1990s…

2. The Israeli public has been conditioned to the Golan being part of Israel. Unlike much of Judea and Samaria, which is of little interest to those who are not on the right side of the political map, the Golan is part of Israel’s national consensus. It has a very different image than Judea and Samaria.

[…]

3. Topography. Anyone who hasn’t been to the Golan would find it hard to picture. The Golan sits on the eastern side of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) and rises like a steep cliff all along it (go look at the picture from across the Sea of Galilee in the post I just linked). Roads seem to go straight up or straight down until you hit the plateau. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to feel how Syrian troops could have sat on those heights until 1967 and shot down at the Israeli fields below. The older generation still remembers that shooting. Many people in their 50’s and 60’s grew up sleeping in bunkers every night because of it. The vast majority of Israelis don’t trust the Syrians enough to concede the entire game before the negotiations even open, as the Syrians have always demanded. The topography continues to reinforce that lack of trust and the memories of the shooting.

4. Water. A year ago, I wrote a lengthy post about Israel’s coming water crisis. This came from YNet .

The Israeli public should be aware that today whoever controls the areas of Samaria, Judea (which overlie vital ground water supplies) and the Golan (which is a crucial part of the Sea of Galilee’s drainage basin,) also controls of the flow of water to the taps in the nation’s homes and industries.

In order to contend with Israel’s hydrological deficit, estimated at 300-500 million cubic meters per annum, the government has decided, a decade later than it should have, to embark on an ambitious desalination initiative. The objective of this enterprise is to free the country from the fickle whims of the weather in an arid area of the world located on the fringes of a desert, by the large scale artificial generation of water.

The first such plant, sited near Ashkelon, recently began operating, more than five years after the government approved its construction. The plant, which is the biggest and one of the most advanced facilities of its kind in the world, produces 100 million cubic meters annually — i.e. between one fifth and one third of the current hydrological deficit.

This means that even without yielding a single liter of water to any Arab entity, Israel still requires the construction of an additional three to five similar plants — the biggest in the world — to achieve “sustainable management” of the existing hydro-resources i.e. to prevent their over-exploitation and accelerated salting and pollution due to excess extraction.

[…]

If Syria had the Golan, it would be even worse.

See Carl’s post for more details.

Seen from this point of view, the Golan Heights negotiations are an elaborate kabuki dance, and are never intended to result in actual withdrawal. Mr. Olmert is dancing on a precipice, but he is evidently confident that he can avoid actually pitching headlong over the edge.

Dore Gold, in an article written for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has another perspective on the issue. He goes into some detail on the history of the Golan Heights and the role it has played in the defense of Israel since June 1967.

His important point is this:

If Israel were to agree to the June 4, 1967, line, as Syria demands, it would be rewarding Syrian aggression. Moreover, it could compromise Israel’s control of its largest fresh water reservoir. Israel should not have to be arguing with the Syrians over the question of whether a future Israeli-Syrian boundary should correspond to the June 4, 1967, line or to the older international border, for neither of these lines is defensible.

[…]

It would be a cardinal error for Israel to put into jeopardy its own security by agreeing to come down from the Golan Heights. [emphasis added]

He goes on to say:

Just prior to the outbreak of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Syria deployed 1,400 tanks in this area against a total Israeli force of 177 tanks (a force ratio of 8 to 1 in favor of Syria). In the early 1990s, it was estimated that Syria generally deployed a standing force of five to six divisions in this area against an Israeli force of one division.1

It is incorrectly assumed that with the proliferation of ballistic missiles, the initial terrain conditions of conventional warfare are less important. In fact, should Syria’s considerable rocket and missile forces be used to delay Israel’s reserve mobilization, then the importance of the Golan terrain will increase as Israel’s small standing army will have to fight for more extended periods of time without reserve reinforcement.

Mr. Gold points out the strategic differences between the Sinai and the Golan Heights. The Sinai analogy is inappropriate when applied to the very different situation on the Syrian border:

The fundamental security problems between Israel and Syria — the asymmetry of their standing conventional armies — has been a problem Israel once faced with Egypt. But when Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, it compensated for its loss of control of the Sinai with “security arrangements” that fundamentally restricted Egyptian forces through demilitarized areas and limited forces zones that were a part of their Treaty of Peace.

But while these “security arrangements” were instituted in the area of Sinai, which is roughly 220 kilometers wide, the territory of the Golan Heights is largely only 25 kilometers wide and is just 12 kilometers wide at its narrowest point. In order to create sufficient security for Israel, it is necessary to institute force limitations on the Syrian Army beyond the Golan Heights, well into southern Syria.5 Given the proximity of Damascus to the Golan Heights, it is likely that Israel’s security needs for demilitarized zones will require Syria to pull back its armored forces behind its own capital.

This problem is exacerbated by Syria’s massive acquisition of ballistic missiles and rockets, especially after the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

There are further difficulties for Israel — the Syrian entanglement with Lebanon and Iran — in any potential deal with Syria. To expect the Assad regime to negotiate in good faith with the Israelis is the height of wishful thinking, given Syria’s track record of aggressive duplicity.

Mr. Gold’s conclusions:

Entering a negotiation when such broad differences of substance exist is highly problematic. Given the continuing strategic importance of the Golan Heights, it would be a cardinal error for Israel to put into jeopardy its own security by agreeing to come down from this dominant terrain. Finally, such an initiative could also jeopardize Israel’s ties with its most important ally, the United States.

All of this is absolutely true. And so we return to the central question: what is Ehud Olmert really doing?

Is he serious? If not, what does he intend to do if the United States holds his feet to the fire and attempts to make him cut a deal with Bashar al-Assad?

The Carter administration began a tradition among American presidents: before leaving office, they attempt to construct for themselves a “legacy” by brokering that most elusive of conditions, peace in the Middle East.

George W. Bush is no exception. Like his predecessor, he has instructed his Secretary of State to engineer a deal that will bring peace — or whatever passes for it in the region — between Israel and “Palestine”.

And, also like his predecessor, the intransigence of the Arabs requires twisting the screws on the Jews. Israel, after all, has proved almost infinitely flexible in the past — why not try one more time?

So the big question still remains: what will happen when the United States calls Mr. Olmert’s bluff and makes him an offer that he can’t refuse?

Will he come down from the Heights?

A report on the latest multicultural follies from the Netherlands by our expatriate Dutch correspondent H. Numan.

A busy week, last week. Our halal f(r)iends have been very active. In the village of Huizen a one or two Muslims complained about a nude painting. The dhimmi-in-chief hastened to remove the offensive painting from sight. We really can’t have offended people in the village, can we?

This is the offensive painting. Personally, I don’t like modern art, but it wouldn’t bother me a lot if I saw it hanging in a kindergarten.

Our (former) national carrier KLM also acted very quickly to behave as proper dhimmis have to. A Muslim woman, traveling alone complained to a stewardess she was seated next to a man. This was offensive to her. Kindly remove the infidel. She didn’t utter a word to the man, and rightly so. A woman talking to a strange man! The very idea…

However, I do wonder how on earth it is possible for a (Muslim) woman to travel unsupervised. Surely this must be a harlot! Righteous women would never do such a vile act.

The gentleman in question, Mr. Lex van Drooge, is a CDA city counselor of Amsterdam. You know, the city that never stops. Drinking tea, that is. Nice to see he experienced what it is to be a dhimmi. He was, however, upgraded to business class.

[Nothing follows]

Below is the latest guest-essay by our Russian correspondent Dimitri K.

The Right of Reproduction
by Dimitri K.

It is widely accepted that, in the relationship between a citizen and the state, the right of violence has been delegated from the citizen to the state. The state protects its citizens, solves their disputes, and uses violence if necessary.

There are disputes about to what extent that right should be delegated, but almost everybody agrees that to some extent such a delegation is necessary. The result is a more or less peaceful and civilized society.

With the advance of socialism, other responsibilities were also delegated to the state: health, education, food, and much more. That may have created some problems through inefficient management by bureaucrats, but it was still not a complete failure. In most cases states could manage those needs so that society could survive and develop.
– – – – – – – – –
In this reliance on the state, there is one function which nobody usually mentions, but it is one of the most important functions of the society: reproduction. In their reliance on the state, many people decided that the populating of the country can also be delegated to the state. They tacitly assumed that if they pay taxes, they can rely on the state in this delicate issue, too.

The state tried hard, but without citizens’ participation it was almost impossible to achieve. Finally, the state found the only available solution — immigration. Immigration is the bureaucratic mechanism used to populate the country.

Now, the question is: what rights do we need to start having children? Do we need any violence, at least imaginary, in order to reproduce? Do we need any other rights for this, except the right to have sex? What are we missing, people?

Sweden in the 21st century seems to outsiders to be a huge insane asylum. The Swedes that I know — both personally and via email — are well aware of the official lunacy that reigns in their country.

Our Swedish correspondent LN emailed us this morning with a couple of items from the New Multicultural Sweden. First, the latest from Law Enforcement:

This is the new Swedish police car.

Are they perhaps expecting something?

And then he talked about Sweden’s extensive efforts to combat “discrimination”:

This is the logo of DO, Ombudsmannen mot etnisk diskriminering, the Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination (or perhaps the Dhimmification Ombudsman).

The left hand is holding a sphere, and the same left hand is pressing away an identical sphere. Use it as a projective test of your frontal lobes!

I suppose the message is that the two spheres are not treated equally. A genius must have been at work. Skaal!

DO has got an office of almost sixty administrators and lawyers. The latest case resulted in a municipal office having to pay damages of SEK 160,000 ($27,175) to a Bosnian Muslim who did not behave in a normal Swedish way by saying hello and shaking hands with a woman, and thus did not get the job. He was “religiously discriminated against”.

In Rome you do not do as the Romans do any longer.

I did a little research on the Discrimination Ombudsman, and found the website for Ombudsmannen mot etnisk diskriminering. There is an English language version of the instructional page on how to file a complaint about discrimination. When you open the drop-down list to choose your language, this is what you see:
– – – – – – – – –

• ¿Discriminado/a? (sp.)
• Arabiska – هل تعرضت للتمييز العنصري؟
• Cudahî dîtin? (nordkurd.)
• Discriminado/a? (portug.)
• Discriminated? (eng.)
• Diskriminatsia? (kelderari)
• Diskrimineerattu? (meänkeli)
• Diskriminiert? (tyska)
• Diskriminirani? (bosn/serb/kro)
• Diskriminirim/o/i? (rom.arli)
• I diskriminuar? (albanska)
• Jesteś dyskryminowany? (pol.)
• Jiddisch
• Laejhteme (sydsam.)
• Persiska – آيا مورد تبعيض واقع شده ايد؟
• Ressentez une discrimination? (fr.)
• Ryska – Вы подвергаетесь
• Somaliska – Fal takoorid ah
• Sydkurdiska – ههڵاوێردراویت؟
• Syrjitty? (fi.)
• Thailändska – ถูกกีดกัน?
• Türkçe (Turkiska)
• Vealahuvvon? (lulesam.)
• 你是否被歧视？(mandarin)

Do you notice anything about that list?

Swedish — svensk — isn’t on it.

The list includes North Kurdish and South Kurdish, but not Swedish.

In other words, it’s impossible to discriminate against a “person of Swedish background”.

The page offers the following enticement to a discriminated-against person of non-Swedish background:

Discriminated? (eng.)

Were you bypassed for the job you sought and believe it’s because you wore a veil or head cloth? Were you denied an apartment and believe it’s because you have a foreign name? Do your classmates say insulting things about your skin color, your ethnic group or your religion?

If the answer is yes, then you could have been the victim of ethnic or religious discrimination. There are laws that prohibit discrimination in different areas of society.

What DO can do for you

If you have been the victim of ethnic or religious discrimination you can file a complaint with the Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination (DO). You can call our advice line, phone: 08-508 887 00. You can receive legal support free at this number. You do not need to tell us your name when you call for advice.

DO can even represent you in Court. Send your complaint by e-mail or regular post to DO. You can obtain the form for filing a complaint by downloading it from our website or by calling and ordering it.

This is DO

DO is a government agency with nearly 50 employees. The ombudsman is Katri Linna, who has been appointed by the Swedish government. DO works to prevent and stop all forms of ethnic and religious discrimination in society.

This is how to contact DO
The Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination (DO)
Visiting address: Drottninggatan 89
Postal address: Box 3045
103 64 Stockholm

Phone: 08-508 887 00
Fax: 08-508 887 50
Website: www.do.se
E-mail: do@do.se

If I were a person of Swedish background residing in the nation formerly known as Sverige, I know what I’d do.

I’d deluge the offices of the Ombudsman against ethnic discrimination with phone calls, faxes, emails, and postal letters. Every day I’d write a message in Turkish, Somali, or Yiddish (since Swedish isn’t permitted). In it I’d detail the horrendous discrimination that I, as a helpless person of Swedish background, experience at the hands of Swedish officialdom.

Every day. Repeat as often as necessary. Keep those cards and letters coming, folks!

I’d make those fifty-odd employees of DO earn their generous salaries. I’d keep them hopping. They’d be so busy filing memos — and writing me back to tell me that my case had no merit — that they wouldn’t have time for coffee or falafel breaks.

That’s what I’d do if I were Swedish.

Manda Zand-Ervin and her daughter Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi are Iranian-American human rights activists and co-founders of the Alliance of Iranian Women. Earlier today they posted the following open letter to Barack Obama at Pajamas Media.

May 24, 2008

Dear Senator Barack Obama:

After the recent days of highly charged commentary about “appeasement,” we thought that as Iranian-Americans, we would convey to you the feelings of most people in Iran and the Iranian diaspora at large. It is important that a decision to dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran not be made in haste, for the purpose of winning the election. Instead, you now have a unique opportunity to make good on your message of change.

On September 24, 2004, while a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, you suggested that “surgical missile strikes” on Iran may become necessary. “Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq, you told the Chicago Tribune. You continued: “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse”.

Your change in approach is now stunning for many Iranians. It is not that we want our country to be bombed, but the point is, why did you so suddenly and without explanation go from that extreme to the extreme of “unconditional dialogue”?

Senator, since 1979 the Mullahs of Iran have killed upwards of one million Iranians, not to mention the nearly one million sacrificed to the 8-year-long Iran/Iraq war. And what the Iranian people have withstood in terms of outrageous human rights violations is shocking; public hangings, stoning, flogging, cutting off limbs, tongues and plucking out eyeballs are an everyday occurrence across Iran. All are meant to strike fear of the ruling Mullahs into people’s hearts.

Since you began talking about unconditionally dialoguing with the Islamic regime of Iran, you too have struck absolute fear in the hearts of the Iranian people, both inside and outside Iran. The few Iranian-Americans who support you are well-intentioned individuals who have been swept up in the excitement and fervor of your campaign. But we can wholeheartedly assure you that your comments have landslide opposition within the much greater Iranian heart both inside and outside Iran.

Iranians believe that the only country who has the moral authority and is able to support them is the United States of America, a country whose foundation as a melting pot mirrors the true character of the once great Persian Empire. But the fact is, as John Bolton so aptly puts it: “Negotiation is a tactic, not policy.” Your policy of direct and unconditional negotiation will give the Mullahs of Iran the legitimacy that they need for more oppression. The real losers will be the already weary people of Iran, whose dreams of freedom and democracy will be dashed for a long time to come. If you empower that regime, the mullahs will continue to harm a country that is already totally economically devastated, as well as socially and politically oppressed.

And rest assured that they will have no qualms about exporting the kind of rule they have established inside Iran to the rest of the world; that is an undeniable fact that they themselves have openly admitted. One can see the proof in Syria and Lebanon.
– – – – – – – – –
On September 18, 2001, defying the regime’s warnings and pressure, brave Iranians were the only people in the Middle East to hold a candlelight vigil in solidarity with America. The thousands who marched peacefully down one of the main Boulevards of Tehran were brutally attacked by revolutionary guards and paramilitary forces. Many paid a high price for their bravery: they were arrested and hauled off to prison.

Iranians have struggled since the 1850’s for modernity, sovereignty and progress for our nation; Iran had a constitutional revolution in 1906 to separate the government from religion. Iranians are a progressive people and our cultural identity is very different from any of the other nations in the region.

Cyrus the Great wrote the first declaration of human rights in Iran more than 2500 years ago. The actual Cylinder upon which the declaration was carved is housed in the British Museum in London, and its replica is in the second floor lobby of the United Nations.

Senator, Europeans, through Jack Straw of the U.K., Dominique de Villepin of France and Joschka Fischer of Germany, tried negotiations for five years with the so-called moderate reformist, Mullah President Khatami. That effort ended in disaster, with the European Union admitting its failure. President Reagan tried also. He sent a cake and a Qur’an to Khomeini, but Khomeini fed the cake to dogs and willfully ignored president Reagan’s proposal of friendship. President Clinton worked diligently on negotiations for eight years. Two secretaries of State, Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright, both failed — during the regime of the same Mullah President, Khatami. In fact, it was Warren Christopher who called the regime of Iran evil after over three years of unsuccessful negotiations. Mrs. Albright even publicly apologized to the Mullahs of Iran for America’s sins. She eliminated trade sanctions on three items as a goodwill gesture and offered incentives on Iranian frozen assets, but at every point the Mullahs ungraciously found excuses not to hail the repeated gestures of good will, and refused to take one step forward.

The most important fact to remember is that while the negotiations were going on between the Clinton Administration and the Mullahs of Iran, they were continuing the development of their hidden nuclear program. Do you really think you can trust these people?

We appreciate the fact that you believe this administration has not done a good job in negotiations, but they have tried. They tried directly and indirectly, behind closed doors and in public. If the Mullahs of Iran wanted to negotiate, there was the April 2006 package approved by the European Allies and Russia and offered by the U.S. with good will and many incentives. Yet typically and inexplicably, Iran remained recalcitrant and rejected it.

Now here is a proposal for you:

America led the world in supporting the Eastern European Solidarity Movement, by which ultimately the Eastern bloc was able to free itself from communist domination and dictatorships. The international community weakened the South African regime by supporting and empowering Mr. Mandela against South Africa’s racial apartheid regime, which was eventually forced to step aside peacefully and allow change for the better to begin.

The Iranian government is, by all definitions and international laws and United Nation’s resolutions, a gender apartheid regime. What would happen if you declare Iran a Gender Apartheid country and not the representative of the oppressed women of Iran? Support the millions of laid-off and destitute Iranian workers, students, and teachers, as well as the estimated 23,000 innocent political prisoners who are being tortured in prisons for speaking out against these tyrants. Support the average Iranian and not the Islamic regime. Put America’s power behind what is right — and watch the people of Iran usher out the Mullahs and democratically elect a government that truly represents the people of Iran.

This will be a bold and thoughtful way of managing the foreign policy of America. It is the picture of your message of change, at work not only for America, but the world at large, Senator. Appeasement of dictators and oppressors is just as unwise as war. A nation is made up of people, not its leaders. The only people in this case who are worth negotiating with are the people of Iran, who are the only friends America should want in Iran — not the tyrants who have hijacked that great nation.

America is in no position to lose more friends.

In closing, Senator, even if you manage to dialogue with the ruling clergy in Iran, they will never keep their word. They are masters of deception, manipulation, rhetoric and spin. They are incapable of even honoring their own signatures, and refuse to abide by the terms and conditions of treaties that they themselves have agreed upon time and time again, as we have witnessed in their reactions to U.N. resolutions.

We were born and raised in Iran, and we do know Iran’s Mullahs.

Respectfully,
Manda Zand-Ervin and Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

The latest news on Nicky Reilly, the alleged Exeter nail-bomber, describes him as an autistic young man who was brainwashed into Islamic radicalism.

If you read the details in today’s Telegraph, you’ll notice that he’s more accurately described as having Asperger’s Syndrome, which is slightly different from autism.

[Update: A correction, via Zonka in the comments:

“Asperger’s Syndrome is a form of high-functioning autism, not ‘slightly different from autism’. Autism is a general diagnosis and people with autism are generally as different from each other as normal people are, and the term autism is as meaningful as ‘dental problems’, which also covers a lot of more precise diagnoses.

“Sorry to nitpick here, but having autistic kids, I am tired of the general ignorance of the autism issue.”]

You’ll also notice that Mr. Reilly himself claimed to be “brainwashed”, even as he continued under the sway of his radical indoctrinators. Somehow he retained enough sense to recognize what had happened to him and describe it to his neighbors.

According to the article:

The man detained over a suspected suicide bomb attack in Exeter was an autistic 22-year-old allegedly radicalised by a gang of suspected Muslim radicals who were being monitored by police and MI5, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Investigating officers said that Nicky Reilly received a text message of “encouragement” hours before the nailbomb attack in a family restaurant.

Police have made the first arrests as the net closed in on the suspected radicals alleged to have groomed the bomber.

Sources close to the investigation said that the alleged corruption of a vulnerable young man — who suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome, had a history of self harm and had attempted suicide several times — was a “new horrific low” for Muslim extremism in Britain.

This may be a “new horrific low” for Muslims in the UK — I’ll let our British readers make the case for or against this assertion — but it’s certainly not a new low for Islam in general. The use of children and the mentally retarded, of the weak, the vulnerable, and the helpless, is now standard operating procedure throughout the bloody margins of the Ummah. A brain-damaged youth is simply a human remote-control explosive device for the psychopaths who direct his actions.
– – – – – – – – –

Detectives believe Mr Reilly planned to commit suicide and allegedly had help in constructing three “rudimentary but viable” bombs that had never been seen in Britain before. They were constructed from sodium hydroxide, aluminium foil strips and an essential oil, combined with kerosene.

It was confirmed that there were three devices in a bag packed with nails. One was partially detonated in the toilets of a restaurant in the Princesshay centre. The other two failed to go off.

“It could be set off by shaking the mixture but we are still not sure if the device was being primed or it was actually planned to be set it off in the toilets, in the belief it would blow out the whole restaurant” the source added.

“If it had gone up it would certainly have caused a huge fireball and the idea that this was happening in a family restaurant packed with children is awful.”

So this is what almost happened in Exeter. How aware were the authorities of what was going on?

Special Branch officers were monitoring a group of alleged radicals in Plymouth, where Mr Reilly lives with his mother. Early investigations suggest comparisons with an al-Qaeda “inspired” attack but not one necessarily directed by a senior figure.

The source said: “We were aware of this group and of Mr Reilly himself but he was right on the fringes of a group that did not appear to be planning any attacks.

Now we know that Special Branch were watching the Plymouth Group, yet they had no inkling of what was being planned. If Mr. Reilly had been luckier or more competent… What then?

“At the moment we are looking at 200 separate groups and this was just one of those. We were observing them at a local level but had no detailed surveillance.”

Two hundred separate groups! How many of them are busy training their own versions of Nicky Reilly? And how may of those human auto-destruct devices will be smarter and more skilled than the would-be nail-bomber of Exeter?

A friend of Mr Reilly said he suffered from Asperger’s — a form of autism — and tried to commit suicide after problems with his girlfriend in his late teens. He was sectioned, and after being released from a mental hospital he was allegedly groomed by a group of radicals.

Locals said Mr Reilly changed his name to Mohammed Rasheed last year and claimed he was “brainwashed” by men, who he would meet at a local internet cafe, kebab shop and outside a fish and chip shop.

This is the strangest part of the story: Mr. Reilly knew he had been brainwashed. Was he unable to stop himself from continuing in his deadly mission? Had he become an automaton, without the agency or volition to change the course of his own behavior?

And what about the “locals” who knew about the brainwashing? What did they think was going on?

Plymouth has a 3,500 strong Muslim community but [Omar Siddiqui, president of the Islamic Society at the university] said he could not believe the possibility that Mr Reilly had been radicalised in the city.

Mr Siddiqui said: “The Islamic community in Plymouth is very peaceful and we have never had any problems her at the mosque or the university.”

He said of Mr Reilly: “He always struck me as being not quite well in the head but he seemed a nice guy. He was always polite and greeted me nicely. He did seem to be extremely religious after his conversion.”

So here’s the story: a nice guy, not quite well in the head, falls in with a new set of companions who introduce him to the joys of Islam. Somehow, despite his mental disability, he learns how to build explosive devices and then tries to blow himself up in a toilet stall.

And yet the local Islamic community is “very peaceful”.

Who are you going to believe, Omar Siddiqui or your lying eyes?