The Whited Sepulchre, Part 2

This is the second in an occasional series of essays. Part 1 is here.

The Duty to Know

The first post in this series examined the way in which the West repeatedly attempts to obscure uncomfortable facts about Islamic violence by avoiding the use of Islamic names in media accounts and official references that deal with converts to Islam. This is just one way that non-Muslims delude themselves about the nature of Islam. Their efforts are deliberate — that is, for reasons that are difficult to understand, Westerners prefer to construct an edifice of comforting falsehoods about Islam rather than face up to the ghastly truth.

On Friday November 14, an “ecumenical” Islamic prayer service was held at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. under the auspices of the Episcopal Church of the United States. Anyone who wants to understand the ongoing aggressive Islamization of the West should be interested in what was really going on in the cathedral. To the Episcopalian hierarchy and other Modern Multicultural Christians, the event was an opportunity for interfaith outreach, cultural understanding, the building of bridges, the elimination of stereotypes, etc. blah yak — yes, I know; we’ve heard it all before.

That’s how the infidels understood it. The parts they could understand, that is — much of the service was chanted in Arabic, and even the English-language parts were somewhat obscure, as verses translated from the Koran tend to be. The occasion was a sort of Rorschach test for post-modern progressives, allowing them to hear what they wanted to hear.

But what significance did those prayers have for Muslims?

Some eighty percent of the world’s Muslims do not understand Arabic, so many participants may have had to rely on the English portions of the service, just as we did. But all of those who had been trained in Islamic law — and there was at least one Al-Azhar scholar in the congregation, based on his headgear — would have understood the Koranic background to the chosen prayers, because those verses have been the subject of extensive commentary (tafsir) for more than a thousand years.

For example, one of the chanted verses was Koran 1:7: “The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.”

As Dr. Andrew Bostom pointed out, “those who have gone astray” are Christians, and “those who have evoked [Allah’s] anger” are the Jews. Such is the universally recognized meaning of the passage, as glossed by a consensus of Islamic scholars.

That is: prominent imams came to the National Cathedral and chanted a prayer that specifically anathematized their Christian hosts.

That’s some ecumenism, that Islamic ecumenism.

If Christian luminaries were faithful shepherds of their flocks, they would make it their business to be aware of such basic facts about Islam. They have a duty to know, but they have failed to perform that duty.

The same may be said of our political and military leaders: they have a duty to know, but they have not been dutiful.

The abandonment of professional standards

In the following summary I have once again drawn extensively on the invaluable research and analysis performed by Major (retd.) Stephen Coughlin, one of the foremost American experts on Islamic law.

Concerning Islamic terrorism, decision-makers at the highest levels of the American government have outsourced the definition of the enemy to agents or affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood. This was true before 9-11, and the process has only accelerated in the years since. This negligence by our public officials constitutes one of the greatest betrayals in American history.

Civilian leaders, defense analysts, and military commanders have been explicitly enjoined from describing the ideological inspiration for jihad fighters in any terms except those approved by Muslim advisers who have been strategically placed in influential positions at the highest levels of the government and the Pentagon and among top legislative aides on Capitol Hill.

More than five years ago the words “Islam”, “Muslim”, and “jihad” were removed from all training materials used by federal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military when describing the perpetrators of terrorist acts. The word “terrorism” itself was eventually excised, leaving us with “violent extremism” as the only acceptable phrase to identify what used to be called terror attacks. “Extreme” is obviously only a modifier, and requires some sort substantive to modify, but asking “extreme what?” has never elicited a coherent response.

These restrictions have left government employees and serving members of the military with no way to describe or analyze the ideology that motivates our “extremist” enemies. Any analyst who wants to gain an understanding of what drives an “extremist” to commit “workplace violence” is unable to acquire the tools to do so. He may conduct extramural research in order to delve into jihadist ideology and Islamic law, but his “racist” activities, if discovered, may put an end to his career.

Muslim Brotherhood operatives have racked up an impressive series of successes over the past twenty-five years of their infiltration. The Ikhwan, as most readers will recall, described their mission in the United States as a “civilization-jihadist process”[1]:

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

How could our leaders willingly outsource their knowledge of an enemy to agents of that same enemy? Theirs is a non-outsourceable assignment. They have taken a specific oath that requires them to know such information.

The failure to know constitutes a breach of their oath of office. Consider this excerpt from tort law as it applies to a standard of conduct that produces negligence:[2]

Knowledge has been defined as belief in the existence of a fact, which coincides with the truth. It rests upon perception of the actor’s surroundings, memory of what has gone before, and a power to correlate the two with previous experience.

He may, furthermore, be engaged in activity, or stand in a relation to others, which imposes upon him an obligation [duty] to investigate and find out, so that the person becomes liable not so much for being ignorant as for remaining ignorant; and this obligation [duty] may require a person to know at least enough to conduct an intelligent inquiry as to what he does not know.

An official cannot know everything. That is where the concept of due diligence applies: he has a constitutional duty to know or undertake a reasonable inquiry into who the enemy is. It is not through being ignorant, but through remaining ignorant, that negligence arises.

This is the minimum standard for all public officials. Does it seem like an excessive requirement? Is the bar set too high for our most senior leaders to jump?

1:   If our enemy — the “violent extremist” — tells the world that he wages jihad to attain Islamic ends, including the imposition of sharia law and the re-establishment of the Caliphate, and
2:   Authentic texts on Islamic law on jihad exist and are available in English, then
3:   Professionals charged with for defending our nation against “man-caused disasters” have an affirmative, personal, professional duty to know the enemy. Their mandated expertise includes all the knowable facts associated with the law of jihad. This is the Professional Standard.

Ignorance of these matters is evidence of organizational incompetence. The shutting down from on high of inquiry into the facts about jihad is evidence of the top-down subversion of the chain of command. It goes beyond mere negligence. To put it bluntly, our own leaders have betrayed us. In their incompetence they have willfully violated their oath of office.

Unfortunately, there is no longer any institution that is capable of holding these oath-breakers to account. All of them — the Pentagon, the Justice Department, Congress, the courts, the state legislatures — have been compromised. Meaningful enforcement has ceased to be a realistic option. The caretakers of these institutions may continue their treason indefinitely, without hindrance.

Thus the system will likely continue on its self-destructive course until complete Islamization causes it to collapse of its own weight. In the meantime, ordinary citizens must exercise their own duty to know. They must educate themselves about Islam, jihad, and sharia.

The information is available. None of it is hidden. All that is lacking is a widespread urge to understand it.


1.   “Explanatory Memorandum”, Holy Land Foundation trial, 2008
2.   Chapter 5: Negligence: Standard of Conduct, Section 32: The Reasonable Person, Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts, 5th Ed., (West Publishing: St. Paul, 1984), 182, 185.

23 thoughts on “The Whited Sepulchre, Part 2

  1. “You cannot joke about muslims, because they will kill you.” John Cleese.
    Aptly said, even though they are the nose of the proverbial camel that managed to get its entire head into the tent.

  2. Even Lord Pearson UKIP has now been censured for blasphemy in the House of Lords. It seems his words concerning the killers of lee Rigby are not allowed even under Parliamentary Privilege. So sharia now dominates the ancient UK Parliament.

    • I have googled and can find no news of censure.

      Sure others have said they will have make formal complaints to the Lords’ speaker, and so when that happens, then there will be a case to be answered if he is to be censured.

      I just can not wait for Lord Pearson’s defense of what he said and just what and how he will use the koran, particularly if he can educate about the principles of “abrogation”,and elucidate about the chronological order and then there are so many verses able to be used. A skilled man like him should be able to give great educational context and all we need are the videos and transcripts. Would be great to be through out the media too, and all the blogs should be ready to go.

      The only thing I fear is if every thing is done in-camera so the discussion does not come out and relate to the motion of censure.

      Lets keep an eye out for when this motion of censure will be put, that is if a formal complaint is made, so it can all be discussed. He needs all the support that can be given, to raise publicity so all the media will have report it.

      I hope he is swatting up mainly on the koran and then some of the hadiths and sira.

      Another point is for Lord Pearson to demand an apology for one of the Lords saying that is was a lie about the koran, so obviously a lie, so again he can quote koranic verses to his heart’s content, educating every one and of course can “table” the koran as proof of what he says.

      I just hope that there is a good groundswell of support for Lord Pearson with attendant publicity,,, so go for it Lord Pearson ! ! !
      Unfortunately I do not know all the English politics and already they are trying to defect and shut down the publicity.

      The sad part is, I doubt there will be a formal complaint,, but bring it on make my day ! ! ! expose that koran.

    • The reason is that it’s not about Islam; it’s about Muslims. The dominant PC MC mainstream is concerned about protecting Muslims qua Muslims, with a semi-conscious awareness tendency to fear that too much informed concern about Islam will lead to unethical policies against vast swaths of innocent Muslims.

      Add to this the fact that the PC MC mainstream regards Muslims as an ethnic people (or as a wonderful diversity of ethnic peoples), which triggers the hot button of White Guilt — then stir in the uniquely violent behavior of Muslims, unlike any other group, ethnic or not, on the planet — and we have a recipe for the protracted train wreck of policy the West has been pursuing.

      An integration of the role & effects of this PC MC paradigm (as per above, and that’s only the barest minimum of a rough sketch), which explains its disastrous logic, is what’s missing from Baron Bodissey’s otherwise fine analysis. Without it, such an analysis tends to operate in an explanatory vacuum, into which conspiracy theory too easily rushes in.

    • Not even “conservative Islamic tradition,” but “their view” of what that tradition was! And “their view” must be wrong, right?

  3. Your leaders have abandoned you, I am not sure what their payoff is – or if their betrayal is just simple ignorance – but you must rely on yourself only, when planning how you will personally deal with the islamization of your country. I will not allow myself, or my family, to suffer the injustice of the mohammadans. If you are a christian, your church leaders have abandoned you as well, as evidenced by the Presbyterian and catholic churches rushing to show how tolerant they are to islam. Where are the Pope’s armies? Why hasn’t the christian church vowed war against these brutalizers? Because western man has become pussified – in the words of George Carlin – and they would rather suffer evils than fight for their very lives and the lives of their children. It is all quite sad.

    • The pope is busy telling us that “it’s wrong to associate Islam with violence” and that poverty is the problem — while he grovels in self-righteous faux humility.

  4. A wonderful vignette of powerful truth:

    ” … for reasons that are difficult to understand, Westerners prefer to construct an edifice of comforting falsehoods about Islam rather than face up to the ghastly truth”

    The reasons, however, are relatively easy to grasp. Just substitute “Communism” for “Islam” in that part of the above extract after the comma and there one finds a statement that would have been true anytime between 1920-1990. It is no accident that embarking on a study of Islam and the Western unwillingness to confront its reality honestly, Diana West stumbled into writing American Betrayal on the WW2 era infiltration of Communism into the West’s hyperpower.

    First, there is a near universal pathetic soft-headed desire to see the world as a nicer kinder place than it is, especially the world beyond the West by Westerners. This is by far the biggest factor. Second, there are those with a personal agenda to advance by appealing to Factor One. That agenda differs depending on the proponent: Medhi Hassan and Tariq Ramadan have the same one, whilst Karen Armstrong and Paul Vallely pose as renegade Christians enlightening us Westerners on the wonders and marvels of Islam and make a handsome living and gain social prominence doing it. But for her public apologia for Islam, Karen Armstrong would be just another mad, old, defrocked nun with an axe to grind about the Christian religion.

    For those of you who don’t know of Paul Vallely’s work:

    and be sure to read the highly informative and thoroughly persuasive point by point refutation of Vallely’s silly claims found on WikiIslam. Next time somebody makes some bald assertion about the huge scientific and technological contribution of Islam you will be armed.

    Sample: it is widely believed that the “Arabic numerals” , ie 0-9, now used in the West instead of Roman numerals were invented by Arab-Muslims. Wrong. They were appropriated by the Arab-Muslim world from India and are referred to in the Arab-Muslim world as “Hindu numerals”. Almost all of the innovations claimed by Islam as its own merely geographically passed through the Arab-Muslim world from China or India to Europe. And those that didn’t were, overwhelmingly, winvented in the pre-Islamic age in the regions where Islam now holds sway.

  5. That “appropriation” extends farther. Biblical Jewish and the original Christian religions were appropriated by the Muslims — or rather, by the 1st Muslim– from which, leavened by a very large dose of desert tribesmens’ wiles and innate desert savagery, and the rather peculiar personal traits of Muhammad the new religion of Islam was cobbled. Entire passages of the Koran have been lifted verbatim from early Christian texts in the Syriac (Aramaic) language. The European academic who made that discovery is so deep undercover that no one knows his name, only the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg.

    • There is a tendency to look at the infiltration of islam into the West as a modern political phenomenon, tend to think that the intent of “appropriation” as infiltration and the wilful courting of islam into the West had start points much further back in history.

  6. “Thus the system will likely continue on its self-destructive course until complete Islamization causes it to collapse of its own weight.”

    I disagree. Due to the Muslim’s inbred sense of (unwarranted) superiority and their (entirely warranted) stupidity they will once again overreach and conduct and succeed in another 9/11- style attack in the U.S. or in the U.K.  

    The result will bring swift retribution both domestically (proper and increased levels of discrimination towards Muslims), a probable swift attack on the nuclear weapons capabilities of Iran by Israel before our Dear Leader has a chance to short-circuit it and a massive bombing (and a strong but limited ground) campaign to rout ISIS from Iraq and immediate and proper support of the Peshmergas.

    Wistful thinking? Perhaps. But with the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of Brits and/or Americans Cameron and our little Pustule of Arrogance will really have no choice. To do otherwise would be political suicide for both the Tories and the Democrats and would seamlessly usher in UKIP and the GOP for the foreseeable future. Cameron and the Great 0 cannot be saddled with that sort of legacy and will therefore act. 

  7. In this same context there was quite an interesting article in ‘Canada Free Press’ recently about a survey where the question was asked how important multiculturalism is to Canadians ( The results clearly showed that 2/3 of Canadians want most and foremost that newcomers respect and abide by Canadian laws and that multiculturalism ranks at the bottom of priorities for the vast majority of Canadians and yet the official spin was the exact opposite saying that multiculturalism is of great value to our society. It boggles one’s mind how the media, academia and politicians dare to promote these outright lies.

    • Indeed it does boggle the mind! Test the survey audience on the hobbyhorse policy and if they don’t deliver the “correct” results just pretend they did anyway.

      I can recall the exact circumstance when the word “Multiculturalism” first reared its head and came onto my radar. Speaking with a Slovakian colleague in 1987, I happened to mention the word “assimilation”. She responded “Oh no, assimilation is discredited … its all about multiculturalism now” in a kindly tone as if I had confessed to an embarrassing personal habit which was once deemed okay but is now frowned upon. My response after a moment was “Multiculturalism? I never voted for that. Was it put to a vote?”Again with kindly eyes she looked at me and her expression said: such things aren’t a matter for people to vote upon: they’re just simply right. Having been raised in a Soviet Bloc country, the idea that major public policy just gets forced upon the masses from on high never troubled her in the least.

      Canada is held up as the champion Western nation of multiculturalism. Yet did the Canadian people ever get a say in the adoption and imposition of the policy? I recall meeting two young Canadian diplomats – so leftish public employee types – in 1992 who were both vehemently opposed to new Canadian citizens retaining citizenship in their original country. They propounded the view that acceptance of Canadian citizenship should forfeit any other. I expect that a majority of Canadians felt as they did.

  8. Dear Baron Bodissey,

    Might it be possible to set your series, The Whited Sepulchre, in the sidebar for quick reference?

    Great articles and interesting comments.

    Thank you.

    • That’s a good idea. I may have time to do it after the third installment is posted.

  9. Part of the reason for the removal of terms like “terrorism” was because it was building the fear factor around the citizens. But yes, other terms might been removed for the specific reason you talk about.
    Anyway painting Islam like it really is, is not enough or it is more like wasting your energy in one direction when you should use it for other purposes. I mean that the population of a specific country have the right to take proper measures to defend itself from a foreign entity even if the foreign entity is entirely peaceful, if it is a proven fact that the foreign entity is slowly pushing the host population to extinction. For instance the demographic prognosis of the US population for the next 40 years is well known, those numbers are clearly showing that 40 years from now whites won’t be the majority. What the study did not bother to show us is what will be the percent in 80 or 150 years, because it would clearly show us how “diversity” would transform into 99% Arab-African majority, at which point “diversity” would cease to exist. This is why as long as there are no demographic laws into place “diversity” remains just an image of a certain time during a massive demographic change. “Diversity” as it is now, in times equaling to demographic anarchy, is just a temporary conclusion, or if it being put into law it is a reactionary resistance against natural law, against natural things which make any group of people, race or specie to fight for its genetic gift -the very basic goal of the human existence, the reproduction.

Comments are closed.