« May 2005 | Main | July 2005 »

7th Century Jewish Comedians

James Arlandson's article Muhammad and the Jews appeared today in The American Thinker. It is a very well written and detailed (all sources are listed) article concerning Muhammad's dealings with the Jewish residents in Yathrib (now Medina) in the 7th century.

After reading Mr. Arlandson's article, I couldn't help but remember a quote from the Ayatollah Assahola Ruhollah Khomeini - namely, that humor isn't allowed in Islam.

And from the article, it looks like it wasn't allowed in 7th century Arabia, either:

In April 624 (or a month or two later) after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March, a battle which made his position in Medina more secure, Muhammad expelled the one clan that dominated the trades in Medina: Qaynuqa. One day a Muslim woman was conducting business in this Jewish section, and some Jews (or one Jew) fastened her skirt to a nail. When she stood up, she was exposed. A Muslim happened to be present and witnessed the practical joke and the ridicule, and killed one of the pranksters, who avenged their friend’s death in turn.

How many times have the Three Stooges - Moses "Moe Howard" Horwitz, Lawrence "Larry Fine" Feinberg, and Jerome "Curly Howard" Horwitz - pulled this prank? Geez, can't anybody take a joke?

Looks like the slapstick comedian of the 7th century also had some a co-humorist:

For example, shortly before Muhammad’s surprise victory at Badr, Abu Bakr, one of [Mohammed's] chief companions, barged into a Jewish school, led by two rabbis. Abu Bakr called one of the rabbis “to fear God and become a Muslim because he knew that Muhammad was the apostle of God who had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in the Torah and the Gospel.” One of the rabbis sassed him, saying that Allah must be poor, if Muhammad has to borrow money from the Jews. Enraged, Abu Bakr struck him hard on the face, telling him: “Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head, you enemy of Allah!”

Personally, I can easily see Jacob "Rodney Dangerfield" Cohen making this joke. He could've added his signature "I don't get no respect!" line after the slap and the threatened beheading. Jacob "Jackie Mason" Maza and Melvin "Mel Brooks" Kaminsky would've been strong seconds. Maybe if Jerry Seinfeld had been the rabbi, none of this would've happened, because I'm sure Jerry would've had a subtle rebuke that Abu Bakr would've missed.

Knowing that women always claim "sense of humor" is so important, it's easy to see why Mohammed Atta and his buddies had to go to strip clubs to get girls to talk to them. It probably also explains why the Iranian nutjobs want to keep pretty Persian girls like Dineh Mohajer and Catherine Bell covered up all the time.

Oh, and by the way, I can take a joke, and will glad tell/hear any about my ethnicity.

June 30, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tariq Ramadan Unveiled by Lionel Favrot

Isabelle Tahar Miller reviewed Lionel Favrot's new book, Tariq Ramadan Unveiled (Lyon Mag Hors Serie, 2004, 297 pp.) in the Summer, 2005 issue of the Middle East Quarterly, a publication of the Middle East Forum.

Ms. Miller's review includes the following:

Favrot presents many examples of Ramadan’s contradictory pronouncements to disparate audiences, describing how he adroitly expands his influence among the intellectual Left and the Islamist Right. In public literature, Ramadan writes “A Muslim resident or citizen of a country must observe the laws of the country where he is established.” However, in audio tapes he distributes within the Muslim community, he declares that a Muslim can only observe the laws of the country if they are not in principal in opposition to Islam. And when asked whether the stoning of women shall be banned, Tamadan uses a subterfuge, calling for a moratorium.

Tracing Ramadan’s ascension to prominence, Favrot observes how he manipulated his European cultural milieu to achieve Islamist goals – for example, his appropriation of the French ban on the wearing of the hijabs (headscarves) by female students in public schools. He also notes how, to non-Muslims who criticize his Islamist goals, Ramadan responds with accusations of “Islamophobia,” often successfully thwarting critics. And to moderate Muslims who criticize his agenda, Ramadan replies that they have sold their souls to the West.

Favrot’s investigation confirms many of the suspicions of Ramadan’s troubling personality and ulterior motives. By exploiting the rights of free expression that prevail in the West, he urges legions of young Muslims to reject the very model presented by European society.

(note the appearance of the ubiquitous "Islamophobia" allegation)

Add Favrot to the list of European journalists who are finally exposing Brother Tariq for who he really is.

June 25, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1)

One last note

And one last note - Tariq Ramadan is not coming to the USA, so this site should probably be retitled at some point.

June 14, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1)

What a brilliant (ahem) retort

Looks like "Bob Pitt" from Islamophobia watch just earned an "A" in his formal logic class . "Bob Pitt" posted a reply to the response to his "Islamophobia" allegation below.

Instead of replying to the main point of the reply - that exposing one person as an extremist is not tantamount to "fear" or "hatred" of an entire group of people, we have this:

And this from a blogger whose response to Tariq Ramadan's observation that Muslims have an increasing presence in Europe was: "I'm sure Theo van Gogh is happy about that. So are the victims of the gang-rapes in Sweden."

The killer of van Gogh and the rapists in Sweden are exactly the type of extremists that buy Ramadan's taped lectures. If the "increasing presence" of Muslims in Europe consisted solely of moderates (like those moderate European Muslims described below who fear Ramadan's influence) I doubt van Gogh would have been assassinated. The problem is not Muslim immigration to Europe but is instead the influence of radicals and their sympathizers such as Ramadan. A moderate such as Bassam Tibi (living in Germany) saying "moderate Muslims have an increasing presence in Europe" is a far different statement.

Pitt continues:

Bizarrely we are told that the Islamophobia Watch collective "must be Islamophobes themselves, considering they probably have a low opinion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali".

Well, speaking personally, I have an extremely low opinion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. However, given that she has publicly renounced Islam and spends her time attacking her former co-religionists, it's difficult to see how contempt for this appalling right-winger, who plays a major role in stoking up anti-Muslim racism in the Netherlands, amounts to Islamophobia.

Wow, a black woman "stoking up" anti-Muslim racism. Last I checked, "racism" was directed at those of a different race, not religion. Furthermore, using "Pitt's" logic, "he" must be a racist because he has an "extremely low opinion" of one black woman.

Ali attacks extremists and radicals, which is why she has earned their ire. She was chosen as an example because she is well-known. This example does not change the statement that those who cry "Islamophobia" are generally the first to attack moderate Muslims or Muslims calling for a reinterpretation of their religion.

Take out "Ayann Hirsi Ali" and put in "Fouad Ajami" or "Stephen Schwartz" and the statement still rings true.

As pointed out in the first reply, this site has numerous links to moderate Muslims and moderate organizations. One cannot be an "Islamophobe" while at the same time supporting these people and organizations. Using Pitt's logic, one must conclude that Martin Luther King was a racist because he opposed the more radical elements of the civil rights movement such as the Black Panthers or Nation of Islam (I suppose that would make King an "Islamophobe" as well).

Of course, this brilliance should be expected from a website that thinks Qaradawi is some sort of victim of the Neocons and the Jooooos instead of a radical.

June 14, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)

New music video - hurry!

The new Jessica Simpson video may be viewed here. Brother Tariq and his Islamist ilk would ban this for multiple reasons under a sharia state (no burkhas on the women, music is haram, alcohol is haram, red-staters not good dhimmis, etc.) so be sure to watch it now.

June 11, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Steve Emerson on Brother Tariq

Investigative reporter Steve Emerson, the author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, has investigated radical Islamists in the U.S. for over 10 years. In 1994 he produced a documentary report detailing the seditious calls for the downfall of the U.S. made by such jihadists. Emerson has been threated with death numerous times by these creeps because of his efforts. He is an unsung hero in the war on Islamist radicalism "terror."

Mr. Emerson has a great article on the Brother Tariq Affair: Tariq Ramadan: The Case of the Grand Deception (How easily an Islamic militant fooled the U.S. media). Here are some excerpts:
First, Mr. Ramadan is not any more a moderate than David Duke would be considered a moderate on race relations. The only difference is that David Duke is not smart enough to speak in two languages, cloak his racism under the mantle of pluralism or enjoy the witting collaboration of the media. In several interviews given to various European publications over the last few years, Mr. Ramadan has repeatedly provided a justification for terrorist acts against U.S. allies such as Israel and Russia and, more recently, against the U.S. itself. Asked by the Italian magazine Panorama if the killing of civilians is right, Mr. Ramadan unambiguously responded that "In Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, there is a situation of oppression, repression and dictatorship. It is legitimate for Muslims to resist fascism that kills the innocent." When asked if car bombings against U.S. forces in Iraq were legitimate, Professor Ramadan responded that "Iraq was colonized by the Americans. The resistance against the army is just."
Somebody should mention this to The Fighting Irish Battalion. I'm sure those students would be happy to hear that a hire for the Kroc Center felt that Islamonazis shooting at them was "just."

Emerson continues:
Still, the Ramadan fan club in the U.S. continued to portray the exclusion of Mr. Ramadan as part of an anti-Muslim campaign; the charge of anti-Muslim racism, part of the larger orchestration by radical Muslims to portray themselves as the victims of hate, has been mastered perfectly, requiring only the collaboration of the American media. At the height of the controversy last year, The New York Times opined that "American Muslim groups questioned the government's ability or willingness to distinguish between what they see as Muslim moderates like Mr. Ramadan and extremists." But who were these American Muslim groups, portrayed by the Times as intellectually honest arbiters of who really is a moderate? None other than off-shoots and branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic radical movement that gave birth to al Qaeda and Hamas, and whose founder was none other than Hassan Al-Banna, the grandfather of Mr. Ramadan.
Oh that charge of Islamophobia again!!! Let's continue:
Title 8 U.S. Code Section 1182 requires the exclusion from the U.S. of any alien who has "used his position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization." The provision seems written to fit Ramadan's case. The entry into the United States of any foreign national is, by law, a privilege and not a right. It is preposterous to ask the U.S. government to disregard its own laws and to grant this privilege to a person who openly condones attacks against U.S. forces and interests.

Aside from the legal justification for barring Mr. Ramadan, the moral reason for keeping Mr. Ramadan out is the same reason why the U.S. has for years denied visas to neo-Nazi proponents from Western Europe. It is not only the access to the United States that both neo-Nazis and Mr. Ramadan have sought. Rather it is the official imprimatur of the U.S. government, an effective declaration of political legitimacy attending to the granting of the visa. And that is precisely same legitimacy that allowed militant Islamic groups to operate for so long in the United States.

June 8, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Linked from Islamophobia Watch

Well well well. An article painting Brother Tariq as a victim of Islamophobia linked to this blog. The article appeared at Islamophobia Watch and was written by [a likely dhimmi named] "Bob Pitt." This website states that its mission is "to document material in the public domain which advoces a fear and hatred of the Muslim peoples of the world and Islam as a religion."

Anyone with more than two brain cells and who can read can see the links on this blog to the websites of a number of moderate Muslims and Islamic organizations. This blog contains statements by American and European Muslims who view Tariq Ramadan as an apologist for radical Islamists, making him a threat to moderate Muslims, Western Europe, and the USA. If this blog is allegedly promoting "Islamophobia," it must be doing a very poor job by including these links and this information.

Extrapolating a "hatred" of an entire group of people from the dislike of one individual is an insidious logical step. Using this standard, I suppose we all engage in Russophobia for disapproving of Stalin and Sinophobia for disapproving of Mao Zedong. Oh, and using this extrapolation, I assume that "Bob Pitt" and his ilk at Islamophobia Watch must be Islamophobes themselves, considering they probably have a low opinion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Islamophobia Watch lists eight elements of "Islamophobia." Let's address them, shall we?
1. Unresponsive to change? Ever hear of Ataturk?
2. Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Khaldun all had a notable and important contribution to Western Civilization.
3. The Islamonazi barbarians killing innocents are the ones "barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist," not the millions of moderates who disapprove of them.
4. See #3.
5. Islamism is a radical political ideology bent on destroying the liberal order and imposing a utopian vision of the 7th century. This differs from the religion of Islam.
6. Then why do so many Americans sympathisize with the Palestinian issue and want to see a two-state solution?
7. Muslims in the USA are hardly excluded from mainstream society and discriminated against. They have far more freedoms, including the freedom to practice religion, in the USA than in any country in the Middle East.
8. Hostility towards Muslims is not "normal," but hostility towards Islamists bent on destroying the USA and imposing a shari'a state is completely rational.
Now, will Brother Tariq take a "are you an anti-Semite?" quiz?

Allegations of "Islamophobia" made by goose-stepping Islamist sympathizers to equate any critique of radical Islamists with hatred of an entire group of people. This borders on calumny.

June 3, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)