Canadian "Moderate" Muslim's Loyalty Does Not Lie with Canada

I am always wary of ex-Muslims or "moderate" Muslims, or even non-Western critiques of Islam, who write about the dangers of Islam.

Salim Mansur, who is a Ismaili Muslim, has written an article on the Wilders trial in the Toronto Sun (not to be confused with the ultra-liberal Toronto Star).

I have written about Mansur previously to discuss his recent book: Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim. He got rave reviews from all the "right" bloggers and columnists in Canada, but I found some serious flaws in it. One of the biggest is where he writes that the "true" Islam was sabotaged by a violent and murdering sect hence sealing its violent nature from then on. I write that it is not a branch of Mohammedans that sealed the fate of Islam, but the Koran itself.

In his Sun article, he correctly identifies part of the problem as:

the Amsterdam Court of Appeal conceded[ing] space to the Islamists by accommodating, in practical terms, their demand for acceptance of Shariah (Islamic law) within secular society.

But he goes on to say write a new paragraph headlined as "Abandonment."

This can only mean abandoning those Muslims, especially women, who escaped from Islamic countries seeking freedom. They will become vulnerable once again to Islamists enforcing Shariah rule inside enclaves where Muslims reside within Europe.

And a Europe that appeases official Islam, while punishing its critics, will also be uncaring about the struggle for reform inside the Arab-Muslim world as in Iran. Such a Europe, as Fallaci so passionately raged against, will be then sliding into a new dark age.

He focuses the important conclusion of his article on Muslims and Arab-Muslim countries, and not on the West itself.

I don't think Mansur can ever say: "Stop Muslim immigration to Canada, including those women living under sharia in Muslim countries."

He will also probably be less accepting of true military actions (as in using firearms rather than "country-building" missions) to confront virulent Muslim countries like Iran.

In his own way, Mansur is a Muslim appeaser. He is saying that since the majority of Muslims in Canada and around the world are non-violent, then the world should focus on them and try and liberate these Muslims from the violent Muslims who are "inseparable from the power and sweep of the sword."

No, the West's role is to save its own societies, not to act as freedom fighter and social worker for the world's non-violent Muslims. Furthermore, these apparently passive Muslims never denounce the sword-bearing jihadists, since they are clearly following the mandates of the Koran. And the Koran is what the majority of people who call themselves Muslims (unlike Mansur) believe in and follow.

A Matter of Existence

I have added Lawrence Auster's new contribution to the Islam question, which deals with telling the truth about Islam in order for our societies to continue to exist, on the side panel under "Recent Events."

Wilders's Trial and Its Meaning for Us: Part II

Lawrence Auster writes, on the real question of the Wilders trial:

It is not, Did Wilders incite to hatred and discrimination against Muslims? And it is not, Is the government infringing on Wilders's right of free speech? It is, Shall the Netherlands exist?

You can read the whole article here.

And Ezra Levant Thought His Troubles Were Over

As promised, Ezra Levant's nemesis, Khurrum Awan, is suing him. This time in a real court.

Levant has posted this latest development on his website. He heaps scorn on Awan, saying, "Awan isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer." But, as I've said before, Awan is sharp and relentlessly. And this is why.

Levant's battle with the Muslims who filed his expensive and time-consuming Human Rights Commission complaint was essentially an individual one - him against these "crazy" Muslims. And they're back again, this time with a potential cost of $50,000 for Levant.

Levant admits that Awan's strategy is to "abuse our courts to bully his opponents." So Awan is not losing anything in all this. He is continuing with the tradition of Muslims in Canada, albeit in a more public and aggressive manner. He might even garner some support (and sympathy) from the very tolerant, non-discriminatory Canadian public after the lawsuit is done with.

Awan is simply using the established system and structure to further his Islamic agenda. What he does in this aggressive and public manner is what Muslims in general are doing throughout Canada.

- They are quietly nudging communities to accept their mosques and religious buildings in the name of religious freedom.

- They are insisting that Muslim clothing, such full-face coverage of females, is within their rights.

- Restaurants and fast-food chains are now being coerced to include halal food into their menus

- Television programs are being funded by public monies to include some, if not full, Muslim content (think of the famous Little Mosque on the Prairie).

- Employees are insisting that their daily prayers be respected during work hours.

- Calendars are including Muslim-focused holidays, and some offices are even accepting days off for Muslims celebrating these holidays.

In short, Muslims are pushing at the limits of what they can get away with, with the ultimate aim of converting Canada into a sharia-based Islamic land. Awan may look foolish and incompetent but he is simply part of this larger, broader strategy to ultimately weaken his opponents into conceding small incremental steps into this larger picture.

Awan may lose (in fact, he probably will lose) this lawsuit, but he and his community will simply find other ways to rattle the bones of the likes of Levant. And keep the Ummah rolling.

I've always said that Levant should concentrate on the fundamental culprit that is causing him his troubles. This is Islam itself. Then he can start to address the root of this problem.

It is not simple, but it is better than his solution of fighting endless mini-battles for probably the rest of his professional life.

Postcript:

Levant's post is also posted in its entirety at the International Free Press Society website. I'm sorry to say that one of the astute members of the International Free Press Society, Diana West, who has also posted this in her website, has not mentioned this angle to the story.

Here was a chance to show the link between Islam and free speech, and to show ordinary people (Canadians, Americans, Europeans) that there is some other strategy besides individual skirmishes to deal with this gargantuan problem.

How about mentioning closing the doors of immigration to Muslims and the repatriation of Muslims already here, as a strategy? This seems a better solution to the endless sword fights that people like Levant get pulled into, often winning the short-term battle (lawsuits) but losing the long term ones (society).

Wilders's Trial and Its Meaning for Us

My blog is dedicated to the message and methods that Geert Wilders advocates. It was clear from when I started to follow his political position against the Muslim incursion in his country, the Netherlands, that he had specific and practical goals in mind. In fact, that is why my graphics include the words:

Putting a stop to the Islamization of the West.

Wilders proclaimed this reaction to Islam more than most writers in Canada and the U.S. dare to. His strategy is clear: identify and reveal what Islam, Jihad and Sharia is all about; find ways to stop this Islamization of his country through a clear immigration policy of stopping Muslims from entering his country; to find ways to remove the more dangerous individuals and groups from within the Islamic community out of the Netherlands so they will not propagate the faith in that Western country rendering it essentially an Islamic one; and to prevent Muslims from practicing Islam in a way that would harm the Western culture in which they live.

As Wilders well knew and said:

The Islamization of our Western culture is a real threat to everything we stand for.

Here is an email I wrote to Bjorn Larsen, who is now the President of the Canadian chapter of the International Free Press Society, reminding him that Wilders's heroism would be in vain if we didn't also follow his examples here.

Hello Bjorn,

I understand there is a rally for Geert Wilders tonight. I believe you will be speaking.

I would have loved to attend, but have a previous engagement.

I am sure there will be more Canadian-related events in the near future.

One of my main points has always been:

Yes, we have terrible events like Wilders's sham trial, the Nigerian Christmas Day bomber, and Westergaard's encounter with a Somali axe-bearer, but:

What are we doing about it?

How are we influencing our various political and media elites?

Of course, the answer is to provide them with clear and succinct plans for:

REMOVING THE OVERWHELMING MUSLIM INFLUENCE IN OUR SOCIETY BY:

- Stopping all immigration of Muslims (from Muslims countries and from the West).

- Repatriating Muslims back to their countries.

Of course, Lawrence Auster has already spelled this out clearly and
fully in various articles.

You can read them all here.

And I have linked to them at my blog Our Changing Landscape.

Thanks again,

Kidist

This is the same message I relayed to Kathy Shaidle a few weeks ago. I understand she will also be speaking in this rally.

My blog quotes Geert Wilders and respects his postions on how to reduce, and remove, the Muslim threat to the Western world.

Clever Calgary Imams Playing it Safe

Some clever imams have signed a petition for Canadian and American Muslims (and imams) to denounce terrorism.

Of course this is a ploy to get Canadians to exclaim: even imams don't like terrorists!

Firstly, the petition never explains who these extremists are. They could be Tamil Tiger terrorists, for all they care, or abortion clinic bombers.

Second, and related to the first, they don't denounce jihad, which is what Muslim "terrorism" is all about. They of course do not see jihad as terrorism, as this frank (for a change) Muslim announced here. So jihad can continue, but terrorism is out.

Third, they are simply lying. Taqqiya is a common strategy by Muslims in times of jihad and war with infidels and infidel countries to gain the upper hand.

Finally, they make very clear that Canada and the U.S. have already accepted Muslims, who entered these countries and are infiltrating them through the original strategy of Hirja or immigration - which is how Mohammed entered and converted Medina into a Muslim city. As the petition says, Muslims can observe every aspect of their religion, from Ramadan to building mosques, in absolute freedom.

All this petition is doing is to try and avoid angry retaliation by Canadians and Americans after the recent bombing attempt on Christmas day by the Nigerian Muslim.

Don't rock the boat, for now, is the message. But, tomorrow, or the next day, or at any other unpredictable moment, Muslim jihadists can (and will) resume their violent incursion into these countries. It is written in the Koran, after all. And it is not terrorism.

Muslim Threat Needs to Be Viewed Holistically

The Jewish Defence League of Canada is planning a "solidarity rally for Dutch fighter Geert Wilders" on January 20th, since on that day, Wilders will be on trial in Amsterdam for "hate speech" against Muslims.

The event will be at the Toronto Zionist Centre, and will include various speakers, as well as a screening of Fitna.

I think it is great that the JDL is taking up this cause and sponsoring the event. I have noticed a trend though, that the Muslim issue is being taken up primarily as an anti-Semite one by important voices.

Ezra Levant, who has been fighting the Human Rights Commissions for publishing the Mohammed Cartoons, seems to have directed his attention to the anti-Semitic nature of Islam and Muslims. This is of course important and a reality, but not the only one.

Perhaps that is why Levant wasn't able to go a much further with his fight. He started off with denouncing Muslims for curtailing free speech and freedom of expression, but that became insufficient to address all the issues around Muslims and Islam. So I think he's redirecting his focus on the anti-Semitic nature of Islam.

The fight against the Muslims isn't simply one of removing their anti-Semitic actions, nor is it simply an issue of liberties. Culture, religion, society, land, tradition, communities, families, are all affected by this. If Levant had this holistic view of the Muslim problem from the start, then he might have been in line as an effective leader against this threat to society.

We Will Pay Dearly for Having Left Our Spiritual Foundations

This is paraphrasing the Archbishop of Prague, Cardinal Miloslav Vlk. He goes on to say:

Europe has denied its Christian roots from which it has risen and which could give it the strength to fend off the danger that it will be conquered by Muslims, which is actually happening gradually.

At the end of the Middle Ages and in the early modern age, Islam failed to conquer Europe with arms. The Christians beat them then. Today, when the fighting is done with spiritual weapons, which Europe lacks while Muslims are perfectly armed, the fall of Europe is looming.

This is what I've been saying, and the reason for which I put the cross at the top of this blog, to indicate that this not only a military war, but also a spiritual one.

The fundamental strength of the previous generations who fought off Islam has always been spiritual. Without that, I think it is impossible to defeat Islam. These generations defeated the Muslims precisely because of their spiritual, Christian, confidence. Arms and religion do go together.

This Is Exactly Right!

Via the ever-diligent blogger at Creeping Sharia:

Virginia Muslims: "We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism"

The First Canadian Case of Dhimmitude

On December 6, 1989 Mark Lepine/Gamil Gharbi entered the École Polytechnique in Montreal and shot dead fourteen women, and injured ten other women and four men. He later killed himself with a bullet through the head. The Canadian media, and especially feminists, commemorate December 6 as a day to bring awareness to violence against women. It is quite a sacrilegious day.

Barabara Kay, in her December 30th National Post article, writes that this day has finally lost its lustre of "blame the men day," and cultural trends are indicating the demise of feminism - at least the "hate men" variety.

Here is a take on the incident by Mark Steyn:

M. Lepine was born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, whose brutalized spouse told the court at their divorce hearing that her husband 'had a total disdain for women and believed they were intended only to serve men.' At 18, young Gamil took his mother’s maiden name. The Gazette in Montreal mentioned this in its immediate reports of the massacre. The name 'Gamil Gharbi' has not sullied its pages in the 12 years since.

The Canadian media, which still insists on calling Gharbi by his French name Lepine, missed the point, as does the usually insightful Barbara Kay. I've always associated Gharbi's killing spree with Muslim/Arab misogyny, something he learned from his father. What gives it away, in my opinion, is the chilling way in which he separated the men from the women - a practice common in Arab/Muslim culture in all aspects of society from mosque attendance to private parties - before shooting them.

Here’s where the dhimmis come in. He ordered fifty men in one class to leave, and shot dead the remaining nine women (and later on five more in his rampage around the building). Fifty men meekly left the room as a single man with a single gun ordered them to do so. Not one man risked his life for his fellow countrywomen, not one had it in him to disarm this murderer.

This is the story that Barabara Kay should be writing about, linking it with the Arab/Muslim story that it surely belongs to, and how it is symbolic of Canada’s first (at least, first public) dhimmitude. Yes, feminism may be on the wane (although I doubt it), but dhimmitude is on the rise, with its accompanying increase in Muslim boldness.