Carving Multicultural Niches

Image of the subway Allahu Akbar "yeller"
that Right Girl posted at her blog

Conservative blogger Right Girl recently had a frightening experience in the subway. She writes:

I am totally shaken. On the subway on my way over to feed Kathy’s cat while they’re away at a funeral, it finally happened. Some deranged 6th Century Mohammedan lost it and began screaming ALLAHU ACKBAR, calling everyone racists, and talking about Bin Laden and rising up.

Read the full entry over at her blog, including how no-one did anything about it, security wasn't called, and the "deranged 6th Century Mohammedan" was left pounding on the subway doors.

Equally important is her comments section.

Yousaf on March 24 @ 10:12pm introduces himself as: "a former Muslim (now converted Christian)" and then goes on to berate Right Girl for "spinning more than a little yarn here; perhaps a little bit of propaganda mixed with a little hate."

I do agree that our conservative bloggers tend to up the ante when it comes to Muslims, and in this case Yousaf doesn't like Right Girl's:

[C]omments like "Some deranged 6th Century Mohammedan…." and "Mohammed continued to rage about Allah…" you really take away from your own credibility.

But, he doesn't stop there. He goes on to say:

But based on what you wrote alone though, all he really did was make some noise. I question how different that is from the occasional whino who graces his/her presence as they preach about how society wronged them and how the world is coming to an end.

Yes, a man who repeatedly shouts "ALLAHU ACKBAR" can be compared with "the occasional whino".

Yousaf continues:

Based on what you wrote, to accuse the person in this photo of being a terrorist is downright preposterous.

Well, Right Girl never said this man was a terrorist. She was explicit in her "accusation". She writes:

I would like to know if this is part of the city of Toronto’s protocol to deal with a terrorist threat on the underground. This guy was a lunatic who was unarmed - what if the next one is packing? Will the same level of incoherence apply to TTC staff?

Men who yell "Allahu Akbar" are known to blow off bombs attached to their chests, all in the name of Mohammed. In fact, Right Girl was quite generous to dismiss this guy as a lunatic. Anyone, deranged or not, who yells in this manner, should be treated like a potential suicide bomber/terrorist, based on innumerable pieces of evidence.

But, this account is about Yousaf, the Muslim who is a converted Christian. I find it strange that he goes on for four or five posts berating Right Girl's commenters. They are going on stereotype, sure. But it is stereotype founded on facts. People who yell "Allahu Akbar" in public places have a tendency to also detonate bombs. People who shout out "Jesus loves you" never have.

Writes Yousaf:

If someone screams out “Allah Akbar”, to me it’s no different if somebody screams out “Jesus loves you”.

Yousaf, the Christian convert from Islam, equates the Allah yeller with the Jesus lover. There is the final crunch.

Yousaf comments further on stereotypes:

Brown people are terrorists, the blacks are criminals, the hispanics are border jumpers...

Yousaf is most probably brown-skinned himself and feels that he will always be the target of this stereotype. Rather than deal with this minor problem in his life, he would rather that Canadians treat "Jesus loves you" with equal weight as "Allahu Akbar" despite our ample knowledge and proof that the latter could have us killed.

So, ultimately, like I said here with my discussion with Jeff (England) on "diluted" Muslims, even this "converted" (probably "diluted" in Jeff's terms) Muslim will be more loyal to his former Muslim brown-skinned group, and that his purpose "will not be to participate in the Western culture, and to save it at a crucial moment, but to carve [his] own multicultural niche".

His anger and fear at being unfairly stereotyped will be greater than his grasp of reality, part of which is to deal with the discomforts of looking like the group which terrorists come from. In order to squash this "racism", he is willing to say that "Allahu Akbar" is as benign as "Jesus loves you". That Islam and Christianity are the same. This, from someone who calls himself a Christian convert, and from Islam, no less.

Little Mosque in the Basement

No more basement mosque at Regent Park

The Globe and Mail has a timely article on a makeshift mosque in a Toronto neighborhood. The article talks about a basement mosque in a building in Regent Park, a social housing conglomerate. Regent Park is now being revitalized, with old buildings being torn down, and new ones (mostly high rises) coming up. This mosque will have to go with the building.

The mosque members are at a loss. Their basement place of worship was free of charge. They didn't have to pay any rent. With the new buildings coming up, they will have to either pay rent for any new space, or outright buy the property to house their mosque.

But, they are already coming up with excuses. "People living in this [area] are low-income and can't afford to buy space," says [mosque] member Shahan Ahia.

So how did these Muslims manage to have the space rent-free in the first place?

Here is part of the answer. According to The Globe and Mail article;

Members of the Khadem centre [KPA: Notice that the space is called both a mosque and a centre] remain skeptical that they will get help from TCHC [Toronto Community Housing Corp.]. For them, the five-year-old centre is not simply a place to pray. On weekends, more than 60 children come to the centre to learn English, Arabic, math and computer skills or to be mentored by university-aged Muslims about being a good Muslim and getting a good education.

This "centre", which functions as an all-purpose Islamic centre, most likely gets its funding from various levels of the government. It likely gets it rent money as well as funding for the several activities described above. To get its government funding, its sales pitch is probably:

- It teaches ESL [English as a Second Language] (good for assimilation)
- It teaches special skills like computers (good for assimilation via getting youth career and job ready)
- It maintains a heritage language component by teaching Arabic to children (good for multiculturalism)
- It keeps the young well-monitored by having adults supervise ethnic-centered activities (good for multiculturalism)

All these are 100% guarantees that it will get government funding. That is how many other cultural centers acquire their monies. Scroll down at Canadian Immigration Reform Blog's list of agencies which receive money from the government. For example in 2008, the Muslim Community Services received $4,115,064.00, and the Afghan Women’s Counselling and Integration Community Support got $512,006.00 (Canadian dollars).

With the right project and the right proposal (easy to do with many helping hands out there), there is no reason for the Khadm Mosque/Centre to worry about closing down.

But, of course the problem is bigger than receiving government money. The problem is that this center has already declared, openly in this Globe and Mail article, that it is a Islam-centric center. So, the government is funding young Muslims to get a Muslim education, through language and religious training.

I wonder how many more "basement" mosques there are, how many of them are fully funded by government monies? And how many such stories it will take before Canadians realize who and what they are funding?

"Diluted" Muslims

An email interaction with a correspondent who signs off as Jeff (England) introduced me to the term "diluted" Muslim. Jeff further explains this phrase thus:

I have called for encouragement of the creation of 'diluted' Muslims. A small minority young 2nd generation UK Muslims are already what I might call 'diluted'. I know a few. The likes of Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji are examples of 'diluted' Muslims...Some are atheists, others barely are religious, some even practice other religions. By a diluted Muslim I mean a Muslim who was a practicing Muslim but no longer does in any significant way. I know a few personally so I can state for a fact they exist.

Jeff then equates "diluted" Muslims with "diluted" Christians and Jews. I think he's trying to call them cultural Muslims, since I believe we do have cultural Christians, those who don't necessarily practice the religion, but are content to live in and follow the mandates of a Christian society.

Still, I put Jeff to task by saying:

KPA: There is no telling that these so-called atheist Muslims/diluted Muslims (or cultural Muslims) will not at some point pick up the Koran at a moment of cultural alienation.

Jeff: ABSURD!

Well, if Jeff is going to lump the Irshad Manjis onto his list, as well as the plethora of "Westernized" Muslims who, according to Jeff are "Muslims who [were] practicing Muslims but no longer [do] in any significant way" [my emphasis] I think we have to think about his coining yet another term that ill-defines Muslims (moderate, radical, Islamofascists being the few that have stuck so far), which will not get us any closer to dismantling this huge problem.

Jeff's premise really is that we cannot get rid of the Muslim or Islam problem, and we should find allies amidst these diluted groups.

Here is another point I made to Jeff regarding the "diluted" ones:

KPA: Their agendas, like I pointed out above, will not be to participate in the Western culture, and to save it at a crucial moment, but to carve their own multicultural niche in the society they're living in.

Jeff: If anything, these ex-Muslims (a minority I acknowledge) are bigger supporters of the West than you or me. Ali Sina and Hirsi Ali, Wofa Sultan and others are risking their lives daily and have expressed their love for western culture time and time again. As has Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian immigrant to the West who also opposes Islam. C'mon man, give these people some credit and respect even if you oppose Islam and Muslims coming to the West.

Besides erroneously calling the Arab Christian Brigitte Gabriel an ex-Muslim, and now confusing "ex" with "diluted", Jeff says:

Saving 'White Christian Civilization' is no longer a realistic option. America, the UK and the West are going to be multi-racial and multi-religious forever.

I put this scenario to Jeff, about his compromising position:

KPA: By the way, your set-in-stone assertion that we are now a full blown multicultural society with no going back can be disputed. Many Indians and Chinese, disappointed with life in Canada and the US, are going back. People travel back and forth much more now, and are beginning to see what they're missing living in alienated cultures. Many other factors, including native (not native Indian) Americans and Canadians beginning to see the light, especially in these difficult economic times, are turning things back - look at the H-1B visa debacle in the States.

If you give up, you cannot take advantage of moments like these. I think we are in the right, and "they" are in the wrong. That is surely a strong enough impetus to go on!

Jeff: Stop the 'giving up' bullshit label, it won't wash with me. Ditto the 'defeatist' label. I am a realist and am trying to deal with a complex 'battlefield' situation while too many of you 'traditionalist conservatives' want to live in fantasy land blogging away with your fantasy suggestions about what needs to be done....

Why is it that in the blogosphere, people you have never met, and never even corresponded with, take the liberty to use epithets at whim and will?

By the way, Jeff initiated the email, and I didn't buy his "diluted" Muslims, and I still call his attitude defeatist (dhimmi!) for giving up before even trying.

A correspondent who calls sings himself off as Jeff (England) sent me an email slightly berating my positions on what to do about Muslims.

Here are some of his pertinent points, over several email exchanges:

1) REMOVAL of legal Muslim immigrants is not an option and never will be.
2)Reducing LEGAL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION. Like Larry Auster and some others, I have called for a policy ZERO Muslim immigration to the West/UK/USA to be enacted by governments. But realistically a zero option is not going to happen.

3)Reducing ILLEGAL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION. Most illegal immigrants in both the U.S. and the UK are not Muslims. So though there is some will to reduce ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION in general, even if it happens it won't impact greatly on the amount of Muslims in the West.

Saying that he doesn't think moderate Muslims will help any time soon in the fight against Islam since they also believe the Koran is literally true and unchangeable (he is essentially saying that there is no moderate Muslim), he then goes on to suggest an interesting and new, to me, option:

I have called for encouragement of the creation of 'diluted' Muslims...A small minority young 2nd generation UK Muslims are already what I might call 'diluted'. I know a few. The likes of Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji are examples of 'diluted' Muslims. We must encourage this 'dilution' it to happen even if it incorporates a degree of secularism.

His rather apocalyptic view point also includes these thoughts:

Saving 'White Christian Civilisation' is no longer a realistic option. American, the UK and the West are going to be multi-racial and multi-religious forever.

As thought the two situations are intertwined. A multi-racial and mutli-religious America (or Canada) can exist with a majority of White Christian Civilization.

But, that's not the point of this discussion. It is this new term "diluted" that has caught my attention.

Here is Jeff (England's) explanation for a diluted Muslim:

Diluted Muslims exist but there are not enough of them. Some are atheists, others barely are religious, some even practice other religions. By a diluted Muslim I mean a Muslim who was a practicing Muslim but no longer does in any significant way. I know a few personally so I can state for a fact they exist. The key is to increase their numbers.

This is an interesting characterization of a non-Islam practicing cultural Muslim only. Hirsi Ali has used this term often. Jeff is equating his "diluted" Muslim with diluted Christians as he says:

Many if not most Christians in the West are what I would call 'diluted' Christians. People with a level of nominal belief in their religion but basically leaning towards a secular mindset. Many Jews are also 'diluted' Jews.

What I think Jeff is trying to say is there are cultural Christians, cultural Jews, so why not cultural Muslims? Muslims who don't believe in the Koran wholeheartedly, who will pick and choose what suits them, and who are easier to deal with. Some examples he gives of diluted Muslims are Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji. Ali has called herself an outright atheist, although she talks about her Muslim "sensibilities", and Manji, the lesbian Muslim, prays daily, follows Ramadan, and is trying to change Islamic views towards homosexuals, amongst other things.

I responded to Jeff by saying:

KPA: There is no telling that these so-called Atheist Muslims/diluted Muslims (or cultural Muslims) will not at some point pick up the Koran at a moment of cultural alienation.

Jeff (England): ABSURD!

He then goes on to confuse "dilute" Muslim with ex-Muslims, and lumping Brigitte Gabriel, who is Arab, but certainly never was or is any kind of Muslim to make his point.

So, just as Hirsi Ali conflates her atheism and her "cultural" Muslim

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Knopf Canada

Hirsi Ali speaking at a private club in
Montreal on February 25, 2009.

Knopf Canada recently announced that it has signed a new book with Ayaan Hirsi Ali due out in Spring 2010, although it doesn't have a title yet. Its executive publisher says that the book:

will be a blend of personal narrative and reportage, weaving together Ayaan Hirsi Ali's ongoing story, including her reconciliation with her father who disowned her, addressing the situation of girls and women in the world today, and speaking openly about her own efforts to reconcile Islamic and Western values. She explores why Muslim women agree to submit to a world ruled by men, and Islam's obsession with virginity, excision, and the honor code, as well as her own relationship with sex and 'dishonor'.

Hirsi Ali has previously published two books, Infidel and The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam. The first is an autobiography, and the second, as the title describes it, is a critique of Islam's treatment of women.

Her third book seems like a combination of the two - a critique of Islam, its place in the West, and how Muslim women in the West can be protected from, as she describes it, militant Islam.

There was news for a while that she was in the middle of writing a more philosophical book, Short Cuts to Enlightenment, where Mohamed is interrogated by several Enlightenment-era thinkers. But there is no information about the progress of the book. I encountered a similar dead-end when researching her proposed sequel to Submissions. It seems that autobiographical, feminist books are more her line, and perhaps it is an expedient way for her to acquire the funds she obviously still needs for her upkeep and tight security.

It is not clear where she is living now, but it looks like she's temporarily back in the Netherlands while still working for the American Enterprise Institute.

She has spear-headed a foundation whose aim is to "to help protect and defend the rights of women in the West against militant Islam" called the AHA Foundation.

A security trust was initiated by Sam Harris (and supported by the other infamous atheist Richard Dawkins) to help her meet her large costs for maintaining her safety.

I had predicted a while ago that her leftist, feminist stance, coupled with her atheism, would diminish her importance in the public debate against Islam. In fact, unless one makes an effort to find her, she is keeping a very low profile and seems to have left the world of politics. Perhaps her role now will be a restricted one as a representative of Muslim women in the West who are suffering under Islam.

Her ambitious goals to reform Islam, or to reconcile Islam with Western values and philosophies, have been curtailed, if not abandoned.

Arabic Text on Newsweek

Arabic text on Newsweek, with fine print in English.
Also, notice the Islamic green as a background

Creeping Sharia has a post on how mainstream print magazines such as TIME and Newsweek, as well as newspapers such as the New York Times introduced Islam-friendly stories almost at the same time this month. He calls these simultaneous publications an orchestration, but I would say they were more of a coincidence. Still, the more Muslim-friendly publications there are, the more these coincidences will occur, perhaps turning innocent simultaneity into the planned orchestration CS talks about.

What was unique about CS's post was how these publications also used images to support their stories. One of my points in this blog is that images are subtly being changed or added to create a Muslim-friendly world. People don't have time (or often the desire) to read long articles about Jihad, Islam, the Koran or Mohamed. They are far more likely to respond quickly and viscerally to images. That is after all one of the ways propaganda (and advertisements) work.

As I've shown throughout this blog, Muslims are becoming quite adept at changing the imagery in our landscape - from TV shows to magazines, and even in clever ways to accepting Arabic script (as in the Arabic script for halal which we can - or will - slowly recognize without reading Arabic.)

Now Newsweek has on its front page the Islamic green as the background to Arabic text (with a finer print, supposedly its translation in English.) Like the halal script, we are cleverly being introduced to Arabic, and eventually, we will surely begin to visually recognize (without actually reading them) prominent words like Jihad, Allah, Islam and Mohamed.

I wonder when "green" will no longer mean Irish, but Islam instead?

How to Run for Office

Ryerson University's The Eye advertisement for Student Union officers

[Pay attention to the group highlighted in green]

Muslims rally together to have an airtight, all-Muslim executive team to run for the 2009 Ryerson University Student Union.

Now, this is clearly a perfect model for the real world of politics. Surely, with a little more time, such boldness will not be noticed, or be considered out of the norm. After all, we will have had ample practice at our universities and high schools.

This is how it's done. When running for office, make sure that your team is composed 100%, and 100% unequivocally, of people like you. Then call it "change" or some such thing to convince your voting block that you're serious about changing things - i.e. making things look more like them. Then, just keep on going. Of course, make sure that you're elected. This may cost you a bit of leg work and rallying of forces, but you might well do it.

This is Ryerson University's Student Union elections for 2009. I go to the library (less regularly now because it gets too crowded and noisy) and at times pick up the school papers to skim through what's going on. In this same issue, there is news that the university could snag $70 million of federal and provincial funds towards "sprucing up the campus". This validates my posts on the university's plans for expansion, which I say are dictated by immigration numbers.

Now, the student union is preparing for elections. The Muslim contingency is well-organized, keeping itself airtight to prevent anyone else from getting in.