Soldiers of Allah in Canada

Martin Mawyer looks at a video released by Sheikh Mubarak Gilani called "Soldiers of Allah", and reviews Gilani's organisation, the "Muslims of the Americas." From the article:

Copying the video is something that Sheikh Mubarak Gilani warned his fellow jihadist Muslims against, saying “you should not make copies of this film, so that it doesn’t fall into the hands of the enemies of Islam.”
...
He said jihadist friends from all over the world can receive, “highly specialized training in guerilla warfare,” in his words, at camps in the United Sates and Canada.

Gates of Vienna has a made a number of articles about Sheikh Gilani and his organization. And you can find the story behind the "Sheikh Gilani Lane" there as well.

Two MECA Members Released in Egypt

Two members of the Canadian group MECA, the Middle East Christian Association, have been released from police custody in Egypt without punishment. They were arrested in August on the charge of making "anti-Islam" statements, which is apparently punishable under the Egyptian interpretation of Sharia.

Hey, wasn't Free Dominion under investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for making "anti-Islam" statements too? Yes, they were. Canada: one step behind Egypt in Sharia-compliance.

Big Change in Saskatchewan

For the first time in 16 years, Saskatchewan won't be governed by a Socialist International party, but rather has started down a right-wing route with Saskatchewan Party leader Brad Wall (pictured).

I take this as a testament to the fact that Canadians are not so much concerned with ideology as they are with pragmatic concerns.

CAIR on Robertson's Endorsement of Giuliani

CAIR, in what appears to be a paid press release [can anyone confirm this?] says that Rudy Giuliani should reject the recent endorsement he received from Pat Robertson. In part because in 2002 he implied that Muslims were "worse than the Nazis." What they refuse to mention is that Robertson clarified his remarks, saying:

"There is no doubt that the religion of Muhammad and those who adhere to it firmly ... is extreme and violent," Robertson said on the show aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "However, we must distinguish between the origin of the religion and the adherents to it in the United States who indeed are peaceful people. So to say `the religion is peaceful' I don't think is accurate. To say that most of the adherents in America to the Islamic faith are peaceful is absolutely correct."

They are "peaceful people" -- that doesn't sound like hate speech to me. Every other comment CAIR criticises Robertson for are within what people coming from Christian assumptions would conclude about Islam, such as it being "satanic" -- that is, not Christian! So what would you want a Christian leader to say? That Islam is just fine and dandy? That it is just as good as Christianity? Better? Well, actually that probably is what CAIR wants Christians to say, and then eventually convert.

And if Pat Robertson can't endorse Giuliani, who can he endorse? CAIR seems to say he can endorse no one. So the millions of Pat Robertson supporters, who vastly outnumber CAIR supporters, are simply not fit to have a political voice according to CAIR. How does placing a large segment of America's population beyond the pale promote "American-Islamic relations," the supposed goal of CAIR?

Drop it Like a Trig Class, I Say

Multiculturalism loosing(sic) ground in Canada. Nice knowing you (Just kidding! I hate you! Tee-hee!). From the article:

"The poll conducted by SES Research showed as many as 53 percent Canadians believed immigrants should "adapt fully" to Canadian culture. Just 18 percent agreed with the statement "it is reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities."

Of course, we should be, and perhaps are now, learning from the problems multi-culturalism has brought to similar countries[pdf]. From that pdf: "Germany’s new Chancellor Angela Merkel has pronounced that ‘multicultural society cannot succeed’."

A counterpoint from the article:

"We welcome immigrants. ... And we need those immigrants, which is why we should be able to celebrate our diversity."

No, we don't need them. We don't need anybody -- we can do anything we want on our own if we so choose, and while not having to worry about the concomitant social problems all this never-before-tested mass immigration brings. Only national sell-outs who care only for money want more immigration. Their arguments for multiculturalism always come from a greed. A very shortsighted one at that, I would say.

Takfir

A kafir is someone who rejects Islam. This we should all know by now. The labelling of someone as a kafir, is called takfir. It's actually not wholly clear what it is that makes one a kafir, even though Muslims seem pretty settled on what it is. I'll tender this as a definition: "Someone who doesn't believe in Islam after some number of Muslims has grown frustrated with trying to convert her. " This is not an exactly serious definition but rather it points to the root of the problem with delineating the concept. Muslims don't say every non-Muslim is a kafir, only those who are "clearly aware of [Islam] and what it entails" and yet still remain non-Muslim. On this they're settled. But then what is the method to determine who is "clearly aware"? On this they offer nothing. Essentially what happens is that Muslims will just assume the group of kafirs are clearly aware based on what these kafirs have been told already, and from that I get my definition. What underlines all this is the Muslim assumption of indubitable knowledge on the subject. Here's some quotes:

"...don't give up on a non-muslim because most people are good people who simply need a break from the anti-Islamic propaganda around them."

"Guiding a Non-Muslim to Islam only possible by the Grace of God. Our job is to help others understand Islam - that is our basic duty. And only then inshallah, will non-muslims move in the direction of becoming one of us." (From here.)

"In my view, most people in today’s world did not reject the message because simply they are not aware of what Islam is. This is largely due to the biased international media" (From here.)

And that seems to be the fundamental position of the Muslims. That they do not enter into dialogue when they discuss religion -- they only lecture their position, because they already assume that they are right (before they have even heard your position!) -- you, the kafir, is the one who is wrong and merely needs to see the truth. I've never once seen anything like a Socratic discussion between a kafir and a Muslim on the issue of religion. Have you?

We always hear about how there should be more dialogue and less outright criticism which is just really "speaking past" one another. But what would this dialogue look like? One must be willing to change his beliefs in a dialogue, not just be professorial. But are Muslims willing to change their beliefs? I have yet to see any evidence of this. So I'll stick with doing that evil of "speaking past" and just continue to criticise them, and I suggest this approach to everyone else who is still willing to defend a non-Islamic position. What's the point of dialogue if it can't get anywhere? Might as well take up defensive positions and hunker down in "Fortress West" behind our walls of syllogisms and scientific method. But hey, prove me wrong.

Abdul Qayyum Jamal and Friends

As you may have heard, Abdul Qayyum Jamal, one of the members of the 17 people arrested in the 2006 terrorist plot in Ontario, was released on $100,000 bail yesterday.

At least one article mentioned his wife, Cheryfa Macaulay Jamal, running a blog about her husband and the case in general. Some people were asking as to where the blog is found, they not being able to find it themselves. It's right here.

The most exciting thing on there I found was just one conspiracy theory. "I’m beginning to see a bigger picture here" she says there.

And I'll answer this question Mrs. Jamal makes in that article: "And why is the CIA and the FBI in the middle of both cases, even though these cases are alleged to have taken place and alleged to have targeted only Canada and Britian?"

Perhaps this is because US intelligence agencies had information on the people involved? They monitor telecommunications to a far greater extent than Canadian or British intelligence agencies do, which explains why they would have the information at all. And they have no problem sharing that information with their allies.

This page quotes Mrs. Jamal saying:

It is your duty to defend your (community), jihad is the order of your creator to bring about peace, by the sword, not by using misplaced (verses found in the Qur�an) like �There is no compulsion in religion.� There is compulsion in stopping oppression. Allah has given you numerous examples and signs and commands to use violence to protect the oppressed.

Special People

At No Dhimmitude, an example of dhimmitude. I have no idea what this preacher actually said, so I don't want to defend the program. But why was the program canceled? Not because of low quality, factual inaccuracies...only because there were "a lot of people who contacted us who were upset." A similar thing happened before with the same preacher:

A program in which Hagee played video of Muslim imams in both the United States and overseas preaching hatred and violence against Jews and Israel upset Muslims and resulted in complaints filed with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.

That action forced Hagee Ministries to pull the rest of the programs in that series. On another occasion, programs about Iraq also were pulled.

Could the current event be anything like this last one? A program pulled because Muslims don't like kafirs reporting what imams are actually saying?

This sort of special treatment has many other examples in Canada. For one, look at the foiled terrorist attack last year. When the 17 Southern Ontario men were arrested for plotting the terrorist attack, the Toronto Star, in what I take as an outright insult to the intelligences of Canadians, said that "it is difficult to find a common denominator" among the men, and the RCMP said that they "represent the broad strata of our community." Even though, every single one of them was a Muslim, who represent only a fraction of Canada's population. A very "broad strata" indeed.

Afterwards, the police reported taking "sensitivity training" before arresting the terrorists, and they learned about Islamic traditions. What special training do police receive when arresting followers of other traditions? As far as I know, none. To the police too then, Muslims are a special people.

But why do they receive this special treatment? Is it because they are respected so? Or because they are feared?

“The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” - Machiavelli

We Are Less Than Human

From Jihadwatch, a look into what some Florida Muslims are saying about their kafir neighbours:

The kaffir (kuffur) are the enemies of islam. They are less than human unless they revert to the one true way. It is acceptable to be rude to them - regardless of where you live, for they are less than us.

Less than human....it's no wonder that some seem to have no problem killing us. But where could they possibly get such sentiments from? What do the Islamic texts say about kafirs? "They are the worst of creatures" (Quran 98:6).

One Big Inferiority Complex

Islamic History Month passed with October. I didn't actually see anything, did you? But, anyway, I want to look at this phenomenon which Islamic History Month is largely part of: the exaltation of contributions to the arts and sciences as if they were part of this ideology named Islam. You see this quite a bit.

A called this "one big inferiority complex", but that's just a good headline, and it may not exactly be the case. It may be partly the cause of this phenomenon, but another part is probably dawa -- the advancement of Islam by propaganda. (Or, perhaps, the relationship between these two causes may be more complex than simple separateness.) But first, a little discussion.

We could call Islam, or Christianity, or Platonism, or whatever, we could call these "topics." There's two senses in which something (in our case we're looking at contributions) may rightly be said to be of a topic (e.g. an Islamic contribution). These two senses are really quite different. 1) The thing is about the topic. For example, a history of the WWI may be rightly called a piece of "World War I writing" because it's about the war. And, 2) The thing is actually a working part of the topic itself. For example, the Balfour Declaration may be rightly called a piece of "World War I writing" because it was actually part of the goings-on of the war. In both these cases you could describe the pieces of writings with the same term, though, in each case, the terms would be giving very different descriptions.

But there is this third sense which creeps in which is quite wrong. A sense that something is of a topic if the person who who actuated that something also happened to be involved in the topic. The use of this sense is in saying that a contribution is Islamic, merely if a Muslim made it. This is wrong because the topic doesn't in anyway lend itself to the making of the contribution -- someone who had nothing to do with the topic could also have made the contribution. For example, Beethoven was a Christian, but who ever described Moonlight Sonata as a "Christian piece"? No one rightly, because the piece had nothing to do with Christianity -- it could have been composed just as easily by Beethoven if he was a non-Christian.

But this doesn't stop those behind the phenomena being talked about here from describing, for example, the Sears tower as "Islamic architecture", just because a Muslim was one of the people on the design team. (Hmm, most Muslims in Canada live in kafir-designed houses, do they all live in "kafir houses"?) And that's what this phenomenon is: the use of the third sense in order to dishonestly conflate Islam with the real causes of the contributions.

Here's a look at "Islam's forgotten contributions to medical science" that has found its way into Canada's main medical journal. It's linked from the Islamic History Month's website. None of these contributions have anything to do with Islam, except that the people who did it were Muslim. The contributions don't come from the Islamic texts, don't find their influence from the Islamic texts, and weren't made by Mohammed or his companions. And they certainly aren't, in the first sense mentioned, about Islam. In what way are the contributions part of Islam? Well, they're not. Yet the authors say they are "Islam's contributions", wanting you to think: "Islam brings plenty of good!" Just empty propaganda.

Similarly, where do they talk about algebra in the Islamic texts? Nowhere; yet algebra is called a contribution of Islam. Where do they talk about the architecture of domes in the Islamic texts? Nowhere; yet this too is called a contribution of Islam. And so are all the things brought up by these apologists -- not contributions of Islam, but contributions of people who also dealt with Islam.

And who is doubting that people who believe in Islam can make useful contributions? Silence. But who is doubting that Islam itself can make important contributions? 120dB. There's people other than Muslims who can make contributions to the arts and sciences, and they don't come with an incompatible ideology: let's stick with these people in Canada and forget about the Incompatibles.

(For a related discussion regarding ancient Greek heritage and Islam read Fjordman's post.)

Canadian Resident charged in Iran

Mernoushe Solouki, living in Canada since 2003, and having been under arrest in Iran since February, has been charged by the Iranian government with "intending to spread propaganda."

Now that she is going to be given a trial, maybe she won't end up like like Zahra Kazemi.

Islamic Saudi Academy and the ISNA Schools

A Saudi-funded school in Washington, D.C. is on the rocks for promoting hatred. From that article:

The 11th-grade textbook, for example, says one sign of the Day of Judgment will be that Muslims will fight and kill Jews, who will hide behind trees that say: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of God, here is a Jew hiding behind me. Come here and kill him,' " the article said.

It goes on to quote several students of the school who say they are taught in Islamic studies that "it is better to shun and even to dislike Christians, Jews and Shiite Muslims."

One teen, who recited by memory parts of the Quran, told the Post he's taught by academy teachers that it's OK for Muslims to hurt or steal from such "kaffirs."
And Canada?

Saudi-funded as well, the ISNA runs both an elementary school and a high school in Toronto. Is that same grade 11 curriculum taught here, as in DC? Is there anyone here who reviews these things, as they apparently do in the States? Or do we just take the ISNA on their word that they're clean and "progressive"? (The actual word for themselves, "progressive" -- though, I could have sworn adhering to a literal interpretation of a medieval text wasn't the most progressive thing in the world). Regarding the Arabic texts, the school in DC, no doubt thinking that no one would check, said they were "clean":

What about the Arabic texts? He doesn't read Arabic. But the Saudi Embassy, which controls the school, assures him they're clean.

The nonprofit Freedom House recently translated a sample of those cleaned-up official Saudi texts and found they're still indoctrinating students to wage jihad against the infidel to "spread the faith."

When the advocates for Islamic schools in Ontario say that worry of them is "unfounded," are they speaking the same way the Saudi embassy was? As I said in my last post, watch out for taqiyya.

*UPDATE*

Similar phenomenon in Britain, from Gates of Vienna: "a new survey conducted by think tank Policy Exchange that reveals a message of hatred for non-Muslims found in within a significant number of Britain’s mosques."

On the Quran, Canadian Prof. Speaks

Heinz Klatt, a professor at King's College in London, Ontario, writes on a new English translation of the Quran which has been called "woman-friendly." He says, "It is obvious that Islam needs other reforms than feminist translations of the Quran."

When considering translations of works of Islamic ideology, readers should wary themselves about the Islamic concept of taqiyya. In the spirit of taqiyya, Mohammed said, "War is deceit" (Bukhari hadith 4:269).

Dr. Klatt has written scholarly work on political correctness, and you can download his speech, "Political Correctness: Its Reign of Terror on University Campuses", from this page. As a case in point, in this situation with the Quran, Dr. Klatt has been called an "Islamophobe" for making purely factual statements about an historical work -- some people demand that their views go without any criticism whatsoever. Just think about the unlimited amount of criticism, textual and otherwise, that professors have done on the Bible and Christian ideology -- such a level would perhaps never be reached for Islam, at the rate things are going now. Islam is perhaps the only ideology that gets an essentially free pass from academia in Canada. One professor makes a most timid attempt at correcting this contradiction, and he gets smeared in an attempt to extinguish critical thought.